Talk:Ante Gotovina/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

A simple request

Please refrain from posting news about the Gotovina case if you're unfamiliar with proper English grammar and spelling, as it looks very unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.161.225 (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Innocent hero

let me tell yu another thing... In "democracy" yu have term... "Innocent until proven gulty"... What yu mean about that... He definetly is a hero becouse he defended our homeland from invasion. And definetly he has not been proven guilty. Why is more then 4/5 of bio about war crimes and his deportation. He has done much more than that.

An innocent hero? Huh? Explain to me then, how a former General runs from the law as a fugitive for 4 years under a different alias instead of being a real man and standing before the World Court to defend himself. Is running away from responsibility the act of a hero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.253.144.65 (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hague court is political court with only one objective - to equalize guilt between Croats and Serbs. Gotovina offered several times to surender to some other independent court. And now if you follow the trail it is obvious that it is not Gotovina on court but Croatia and Croatian policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.3.238 (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

There are several items on the page which are really comments to other editors, and should be moved off of the article and onto the discussion page. I'm sure if its looked at closely, other similar issues will become apparent. Furthermore, I think this article really should include more detail on the assertions of the war crime tribunal. It is not really clear what he is accused of besides relocating some old people (which hardly seems like a war crime, depending on how it was done). I think most people who come here would probably be looking for information on that part of his life.

Comment

As the stub covers an individual and events that are constantly evolving, I feel the article fails to adequately capture the following points that not only give context regarding the political debate in Croatia but go to the heart of some of the issues associated with the Ante Gotovina case.

The reference to crimes committed by Gotovina in France does not adequately explain the relationship between alleged crimes, the nature of the French political system and Gotovina's role in the 'political' commando squads used by French presidents against there political opponents - refer following article for more information - [1]. This is different from what happens in the Anglo-Saxon economies where the left & right parties will not persecute each other once out of office but if in power all is fair.

Please note that the Gotovina indictment by the ICTY is nominally based on the notion of 'command responsibility', that is, in the absence of subsequent prosecution, a commander is responsible for war crimes committed by his troops even if he has not given the command, nor approves or is even aware of such acts at the time.

The application of command responsibility is certainly rare in the context of the ICTY and more generally in the history of conflicts. For this reason, many Croats feel a sense of persecution and political bias on the part of the Western body politic (albeit they are not the only South Slav peoples to feel a sense of bias) & that this bias is reflected in how the ICTY operates. However, the feeling of the Croats is not without cause. To begin with, their generals seem to be indicted on the vague legal construct of command responsibility whereas of the high ranking JNA Generals (Adzic, Kardijevic, Panic) without which former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic (on trial at the Hague for genocide & crimes against humanity) could not have prosecuted his war & political agenda, have not been indicted.

The other matter that promotes the impression of political persecution is the equating of Croatian General Ante Gotovina with Serbian General Mladic & Politician Karadzic. This certainly is disproportionate as the case against Gotovina (at least from what can be construed from the public debate & the indictment themselves) is weak & without being flippant the alleged crimes are not as significant in comparison. Yet the case against Mladic & Karadzic is for genocide & the case is strong.

It is my opinion and it is a view among many in the Croatian & Bosnian populace that there is a campaign to equate victim & aggressor in the wars between Croatia/Serbia & Bosnia & Herzegovina/Serbia by the same Western body politic that callously presided over the wars without intervention & followed a policy of appeasement. The best example of this equivalence is demonstrated by UK foreign minister Jack Straw's call on the anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre (year 2005), that all sides apologise to each other in a move for reconciliation. This caused much outrage among the communities impacted by the atrocities as it was almost tantamount to asking the victims of the holocaust and the camp commanders to apologise to each other in the spirit of reconciliation.

In addition to the policy of equivalence between victim & aggressor in the wars of succession in the former Yugoslavia, there is a trend of discouraging political dissent through derogatory/flippant political name tagging - for example: in the case of Croatia, anyone pointing out failings in international / European institutions may be labeled far right in an attempt to dismiss political facts not pertinent to the cause of a centralist Europe or supra-national organisations.

Also unusual is the ICTY indictment of Croatian journalists who denied a gag order regarding the revealing a protected witness (who is a high ranking politician in Croatia) in the Tihomir Blaškić trial. Note that most of the charges against Tihomir Blaskic were dismissed on appeal. The indictments were troubling in light of the fact that:

1) The journalists were critics of the ICTY and the protected witness who is a high ranking Croatian politician;

2) The identity of the protected witness has been & still is revealed by the ICTY website;

3) ICTY resources were being devoted to prosecuting reporters in what appears to be judicial overreach (i.e. prosecuting the messenger pursuing the public interest instead of the leakers) rather than pursuing war criminals. This strategy opens the ICTY to the accusation of political bias thus undermining the legitimacy of the work of the ICTY which would be political baggage for any future such tribunals.

There may be a number of reasons for such a policy of equivalence including:

1) The desire to deflate nationalistic tendencies in Southern Europe/ Balkans by delegitimising & attacking national identities and icons for the cause of stability in the region. Note that national identity may be seen as a hindrance by EU technocrats & politicians that favour a centralist European state;

2) To absolve European (read here EU) responsibility for the tragedy of the war in Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina by muddying the moral dimension through the portrayal of the conflict as a civil war (as opposed to the international conflict that it was), and the equivalence of all sides in the war (most effectively captured by the chauvinistic attitude "...they are all the same - if they want to kill each other, they can..."). This is especially true for the British foreign office (who were the main apologists for the Greater Serbia ideology by virtue of their historical links with Serbia) and the Dutch government, whose peacekeepers failed to protect the population of Srebrenica (albeit they were denied air support by the UN & were undermanned but arguably complicit in the crimes committed in Srebrenica by helping to separate the men and the women & children).

3) Part of the political overhang from 70 years of Yugoslav propaganda. During both Yugoslavias, the cause of Croatian statehood was viewed as the biggest threat to this artificial state & Serbian hegemony within the state. Thus we have 70 years of propaganda aimed at trying to delegitimise the cause of Croatian statehood by equating the nationality of Croat & the Croatian state as a fascist creation (despite the 1000+ year history of the Croatian state & institutions). Part of the overhang includes the sympathetic view of the Greater Serbia project by the British foreign office, the then French foreign ministry & different iterations of the US state department.

All these factors help explain why Gotovina is on the run - it would not be unreasonable to assume that he believes that despite what appears to date the weak case against him, he will not get a fair trial & such a trial will be exploited by political opportunists in Croatia for example, the ruling president. It also explains why Gotovina is still very popular in Croatia - people are cognitive of the politics behind the indictment. They also understand that he is a general that defended Croatia whilst many European institutions were impotent & devoid of moral fortitude during events such as the destruction of Vukovar & the bombing by the JNA of UNESCO recognised city of Dubrovnik.

--Marinko.7 05:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment 2

ma koji general i domoljub ... obicni mali narednik i kukavica koja se skriva od svega ... koji ne zasluzuje ispred svog imena rijec ... casnik ... Kako se ponasa pravi casnik pokazao je general Ademi ... svaka cast ... to je pravi vojnik ... kad su ga pozvali u Hagg ... obukao je uniformu ... i otisao reci istinu ... pa sto bude. A ovaj mali narednik za tako nesto nema hrabrosti, fali mu sve ... sto cini pravog covjeka .... covjekom. No, mozda i nije sam kriv za sve ... njega je na taj polozaj postavio pokojni Tudman ... njega i jos neke ... konobare, harmonikase ... lopine i palikuce ... pa nije ni cudo sto se bas ne snalaze u casnickim duznostima izvan ratnog vihora gdje se nikog nist ne pita ... a takvi inace moralni jadnici, bili su uvjerenja da ih se nikad nista i nece pitati ... ???? To je zato, sto vjerovatno nisu imali vremena ici u skolu i bar malo uciti povijest ...

Ma ko ga jebe u pičku mater..

As I see you are publishing some highly "educated" authors: "...ma tko ga jebe u picku materinu...". Theese words in croatian are more than unpolite. You should ask about that and remove above published text. Generaly spoken, respected internet pages does not publish offensive or undecent materials! Regarding the other aspects of above text I must say that it does not represent the public oppinion of Croatians, which by 75% (according to all inquieries) support gen. Gotovina for not going to Haag Court (ICTY), as allegatins are false and reminds us to political trials that we had a lot in communism. We are expert in that, we were experiencing such things for period wilst free countries lived far away form such things. So, we can detect political trials as easy as kids game. So, if allegations against gen. Gotovina are true we must ask ourselves:For what reasons nobody was trialed for killed Vietnamese civilians (estimated from 500.000 to 1 milion), or 300.000 Japanese civilians in Nagasaki or Hiroshima? Why communist leaders including Yugoslav)were not trialed for war crimes and crimes against humans rights, but they were respected and dealed with. What about Algier? What about Iraq?

I mean - if law is to be aplied only to smaller countries and not to all countries, including big ones, what is it but a politicaly inspired violenece?

Sorry...

Sorry, but we're not here to ask questions like: For what reasons nobody was trialed for killed Vietnamese civilians (estimated from 500.000 to 1 milion), or 300.000 Japanese civilians in Nagasaki or Hiroshima? Why communist leaders including Yugoslav)were not trialed for war crimes and crimes against humans rights, but they were respected and dealed with. What about Algier? What about Iraq?

First of all, Ante Gotovina has not been convicted for war crimes, therefore, he is innocent until proved guilty. That's a fact. You're stating that the accusations are false, how the hell do you know that, boy? Are you the main prosecuter at ICTY? I don't think so. If ICTY is a political court, that all of your arguments dont hold water, as most of thosos freed of any wrongdoing by the ICTY have been Croats, and Croats account for the least amount of endietments.

We are here to objectivley articles that are supported by facts, not by speculation and personal oppinions. The fact is that no criminal act is justifyable by international law, and american actions abroad such as vieatnam are no excuse to conduct ethnic cleansing. Sorry, but i find arguments like: "If they did it, we can do it" severley infantile and childish. Once again, your accusations toward "communist"leaders are not bact up by facts. Wikipedia is trustworthy just because of it's objectivity and it's clear to me, my son, that you are clearly biast. therefore, I have changed the article.

You say that 75% of the populace support Gotovina. what surveys? Those conducted by Hrvatsko slovo? Puhleezee.... h3llbent

Extreme right?

I find this ridiculous: "This is because the extreme right in Croatia has established a cult of personality dedicated to the general". I find it quite normal, that Croatians regard Gotovina as a national hero: he is a soldier who reinstated the territorial integrity of their land. The forced and artificial PC-ness of Western countries is a joke. Serbia was the aggressor, and Gotovina is a hero. I wish we Hungarians had similar generals in the last 100 years.

Actually, cult of personality as a concept is not quite a normal thing. Are you arguing against that, or saying that those people haven't established it? --Joy [shallot]

What I wanted to say that this cannot qualify as cult of personality, since it is not a cult of a "living leader" (Gotovina is not a leader anymore). Otherwise all statues of national heroes, streets named after them, etc would be "cult of personality", which is not the case. 195.56.8.179

You have a point, although our article mentions a small modern meaning that is more generic. I'll further amend this article. --Joy [shallot] 14:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Fleeing from "court of justice"

Gotovina stated through his attorneys that the reason for fleeing is his distrust in Carla del Ponte and her motives for the indictment. He offered multiple times to surrender to a Croatian war tribunal, which was refused by the ICTY. It is obvious that Gotovina has little to no chance to be aquitted. Del Ponte stated in interviews many times, that a general is always ultimately responsible for the doings of his soldiers. Of course there were war crimes during operation storm, mostly out of revenge, no one denies this. But does the criminal intent of a few sole individuals make the general a war criminal? I do not think so. But is he guilty in front of the court? Yes, as he is ultimately responsible for his soldiers. It would be suicidal to surrender under such circumstances as there is no general with Gotovina`s rank in the world who would not be called a war criminal after a trial like this.

The court is composed of the prosecution and of the judges. The prosecution thinks he is guilty, but they did not persuade the judges of that. Hence, it is incorrect to state that he is "guilty in front of the court" because no trial has taken place.

The institution of trial exists for the purpose of determining whether someone is guilty or whether they are innocent - if he or his attorneys can't agree to that axiom, well, they better take it up with the United Nations or something. --Joy [shallot] 14:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

What I wanted to say is, that the standards in Den Haag are so high, that Gotovina can expect nothing else but a conviction. Many convicted "war criminals" were not convicted because they actually commited or ordered war crimes, but just because some soldiers that were officially under their command commited crimes. Unlike any other normal court, it is not up to the prosecution to prove that the generals knew about crimes, but the generals have to prove that they did not know about it and this of course is extremely difficult. Like Carla Del Ponte said generals are always responsible for the actions of their soldiers, so wether the generals ordered war crimes or not they would be guilty. Take Abu Ghraib for instance. All the generals were aquitted because according to the US military investigators the generals did not know about the abuse of prisoners. In Den Haag however there would be no chance for the generals to talk their way out of a situation like that, as they were in the position to know about this. Again, I am not saying, that there should not be a trial, but the standards in Den Haag should also be addopted to a normal level, otherwise they should not be surprised when people are fleeing or generally neglecting the court.

That might be a valid concern. You could add this issue at the ICTY page in the controversy section, perhaps cite some example cases where this happened. --Joy [shallot] 11:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Idiots

Bloody hell how many times do I have to say this as It's obvious that our anonimous user is daft: YOU CAN NOT SAY THAT THE COURT IS POLITICALLY BIAST AGAINST CROATIANS AS THEY ACCOUNT FOR THE FEWEST NUMBER OF CASES AND THE HIGHEST RATE OF NON GUILTY VERDICTS!!!!!

Instead of insulting other people let us just refer to the facts. Could you please tell me what verdicts you are referring to? I can only remeber two cases against Croats in Bosnia, where the ICTY prosecution withdrew from their indictment. Other than that there have been around 600 court prozesses in Croatia regarding the war crimes during operation storm. The ones that were responsible for war crimes have already been punished.

I cannot listen about bloody Abu Ghraib here: This is a talk page about Ante Gotovina. Like I said before, I crime is a crime, no metter where it takes place and it's silly, childish and just plain hypocritical to say: "they did it so we can do it too." We are not here to judge, you plonker!

Could you please tell me where I mentioned that Abu Ghraib would allow other countries to commit crimes? I wanted explain how different war tribunals deal with a similiar situation. The USA war tribunal punished the soldiers that where misstreating prisoners, the generals where aquitted as there was no evidence for their involvement. The ICTY however is specifically indicting military leaders, not because they have evidence for their involvement in war crimes, but because of command responsibility.

Now I'm hating myself for ven arguing with you when you can write a sentance like this: "Many convicted "war criminals" were not convicted because they actually commited or ordered war crimes, but just because some soldiers that were officially under their command commited crimes", yes, my friend, thats exactly why they were convicted! Everybody knew what was going on.

So according to you it is okay to convict people, because "everyone" (?) seemed to be suspicious that something happened, although it could not be proven? If this is your opinion thats fine with me, but then you should probably emigrate to China or North Korea as these countries can offer you the juridical system you are looking for. In a normal democratic country every suspect is considered innocent unless it is otherwise proven. The ICTY simply goes around this by indicting and convicting military leaders because of command responsibility. General Blaskic, for instance was convicted for 45 years not because he ordered any war crimes but because of the responsibility he had as a leader for the soldiers under his command. It was never proven that he ordered or knew of the war crimes going on, and according to military historian Charles R. Shrader even if he knew that there were war crimes he would not have been able to punish the ones responsible for them because of the military situation in Bosnia at that time. Just to show you how absurd this conviction was let me remind you that Mario Cerkez, who actually was on location during the Ahmici massacres was only sentenced to 15 years in prison. Blaskic's 45 years were later reduced to 9 years only because of a document that showed that Blaskic actually was not in command of the soldiers that commited those war crimes. Nevertheless the remaining 9 years he again was convicted because of command responsibility. And just in case you now might think that I am biased in favor of Croatia this type of indictments are also happening with serbs and muslims.

Havent you read Tuđman's transcripts in which he divides Bosnia as if it were a cake. Let's not forget that those transcripts are official documents. Signed, sealed and delivered for the purpose of being and authentic historical record.

I am now going to tell you the shocking truth about this documents: THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS WHERE TUDMAN DECIDES TO DIVIDE BOSNIA. To answer your question of course I have not read them. Did you read them ;-) ? There are however probably hundreds of myths, rumours and stories about Tudmans plans to divide Bosnia. The ICTY now desperatly tries to prove that Tudman was somehow involved in the war in Bosnia in almost every indictment against Croats in Bosnia. The "evidence" delivered by Den Hague however is either weak or sometimes even absolutely laughable. Some of their evidence even excludes other evidences. Dr. Allkock's map for instance is completely different to Paddy Ashdown's map of a divided Bosnia. Nontheless they are both used as proof for Tudman's supposed plans.

One more thing: How the hell do you know he refused to surrender? Are you Ante Gotovina or just another bloody right-wing telepath that can read everbody's mind from Bankok to the Hague?

First of all I am really happy you made this comment as it perfectly represents the current situation in Croatia. It is absolutely impossible to discuss this toppic without being insulted, accused or called a right wing extremist. Nevertheless I will give you an answer. I was referring to an interview given by one of Gotovina's attorneys the day the EU refused to start accession talks with Croatia. According to his attorneys Gotovina would surrender to an Croatian court anytime but refuses to surrender to Den Hague. I am sorry that I can not show you my source as I could not find this interview in the internet anymore. But even so you do not need to be a "bloody right wing telepath" to realize this. Gotovina is not in the Hague right now although the prosecution wants him to be there, right? So he is refusing to surrender. Its that easy.

I have just found the interview I was referring to. It was done by the German newspage "Die Welt" with Gotovina´s attorney Luka S. Misetic. Misetic criticizes that the EU refuses to accept a trial against Gotovina in Croatia although it could start the same day [2].

By the way, sorry most of my referrences are either in German or Croatian language.

He is running from the law, my son, the law. And leave Carla Del Ponte alone, she's only doing her job. What kond of prosecuter would she be if she believed in the innocence of every war crimes suspect she had to investigate. Dont be so ignorant. h3llbent

Again I was not attacking del Ponte, I was only citing her. However it is absolutely necessary to discuss the power that the ICTY prosecution has. Whoever the prosecution with their chief Carla del Ponte decides to indict, is potentially a war criminal. If the prosecution refuses to indict someone, he will not be considered a war criminal. Del Ponte for instance refused to indict any of the NATO members although many victims of NATO bombings demand this indictment. Her reason, that the NATO did not intentionally kill civilians is just plain stupid [3]. Isnt there a court with judges to find out if civilians were killed intentionally? The same thing with Srebrenica. People like Janvier or Akashi could have easily been indicted for command responsibility and then let the judges decide wether they are guilty or not, however none of this happened. How can it be that not a single high ranking JNA leader (Adzic, Kardijevic, Panic)was indicted although the JNA is supposedly responsible for numerous war crimes. Also the political leadership of Serbia was not indicted although one of these politicians, Borisav Jovic admitted in his published diaries that he together with Milosevic and other politicians was involved in the planning of the war in Bosnia. According to dr. Marko Attila Hoare, who worked for the ICTY in 2001 del Ponte personally insisted that Milosevic should be made the only responsible person for planning the wars in Bosnia [4]. Another weird indictment is the recent one against 4 journalist from the Hrvatski List for publishing classified ICTY info, although this info has been published in many domestic and international newspapers (like the Washington Times) before the Hrvatski List did so [5]. In the end, one might really ask, whether there is a political reason for all this irregularities or not? The answer to this question is that most likely we will never know for sure, but its facts like these that make it easy for the ICTY critics to raise peoples suspicion. In the end let us not forget that the whole world seems to understand the USA when they express their concerns and fear from political prosecution by the International Court.

Neutrality

The allegations made in this article are largely unproven and should therefore be removed for the time being, regardless of what the author's opinions on Ante Gotovina's guilt/innocence/refusal to appear before the ICTY are.

What allegations? Please specify before thowing aroung words like Neutrality. I agree if you're reffering to the passages that refer to criminal escapades as they cannot be proven. h3llbent

As far as legal justice goes, his innocence has also not been proven, which is also one of the duties of any war trial. Until this happens, the Neutrality warning should remain placed on the page. Wikipedia is not about personal feelings, political orientation or symapthetizing of its users, it's about facts and statements, and until this case has been concluded it is imperative that the article remains marked as a potential minefield for anyone trying to reach a conclusion. Bear in mind that this is an international page.

Edit: Also added a Controversial boilerplate on the talk page for the same reason. Stealth 22:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Unknown User

1. I dont have time to list all the verdicts we're talking about, because I do have a life, you know. A complete list is contained in a back issue of Feral Tribune, you might want to look at that. BTW: 600 trials in Croatia? You seem to have an overactive imagination, my son.

But you have time to write this comment? Just tell me a few people that where in the Hague and have been aquitted. I only know of Ivan Santic, Pero Skopljak, Stipo Alilovic, Marinko Katava and Zoran Marinic, however none of them has been aquitted, instead the indictments against them have been withdrawn. 600 is the number Mesic keeps telling everytime he gives an interview to a foreign newspaper, so if you think it is too high send him your complaints.

2. You mentioned Abu Ghraib here: "Take Abu Ghraib for instance. All the generals were aquitted because according to the US military investigators the generals did not know about the abuse of prisoners." My son, there were also accused on the premise of command responsibility. You might want to look at the accusation. So, let me get this straight, so you're saying this: If American generals were aquitted in Abu Graib scenario, then there must be no evidence in the case against Ante Gotovina!

You, my son, are either a telepath or Ante Gotovina himself as you seem to know whether or not he knew about major breaches of the conventions of war being comitted by his troops!

I seems to me that you are taking this discussion rather personally.

You just do not seem to get it. The generals in Abu Ghraib were accused because of command responsibility but have been aquitted because their involvement in war crimes could not be proven by the prosecution. In the Hague the indicted persons have to prove that they did not know about war crimes, as the ICTY puts much more emphasis on command responsibility. This is a fact. Which method you like better you can decide yourself, but it has to be mentioned that the ICTY is different to other courts regarding some toppics.

Regarding Gotovina, of course I do not know how much he knew about war crimes. But lets just imagine for one moment that he did not know about war crimes, chances are very high that he would still be convicted because of command responsibility. He was leading operation storm and therefore he had reason to know about this war crimes. You just have to read the indictment.

3. No evidence? My son, the ICTY is not a backwater court in the middle of nowhere where noone can oversee it's work, it's a court established by the Security Council of the UN. By saying that the Court is biast (which you are impling by saying that Ante Gotovina has been accused without evidence), you are also impling that the UN Security Council, which I might add appointed Carla Del Ponte as Cheif Prosecutor of the ICTY, is also biast against the Croatian People. You are doing this without any basis in fact, of course.

I did not say that the court is biast, neither did I say that there is no evidence against Gotovina, although up to now almost no evidence has been shown. What I did say or imply is that I am not happy with the ICTY the way it works at the moment and I clearly stated the reasons why. If you think that the ICTY works well, thats absolutely fine with me but than I do not share your opinion.

Regarding the evidence, the ICTY almost always could prove that war crimes happened. However in many cases against indicted commanders, I will again state Blaskic, undenieable proof for the commander's individual guilt has not been shown. However if you think that command responsibility is most important of all, than of course most indicted persons are guilty.

By the way, let me tell you again that commanders from other factions face the same problem, for instance ABiH general Halilovic who is also indicted for command responsibility.

Carla Del Ponte most probably does have some kind of evidance, whether it is enough to prove that Ante Gotovina indeed is guilty, that's another story.

4. I agree that every suspet is considered innocent until proven guilty, but here you're missing something. When a case comes to court the prosecutions job is to convince a Judge or Jury that the defendant is guilty. On that the empassis is placed. If a court case was down to just the defendant proving his or her innocence, every suspect would be aquitted. My goodness, General Blaskic was spared of his 45 year sentance because of new evidance that was revealed after Pres. Stjepan Mesic opened the Croatian Presidential Archives in 2000. If you want the to direct your anger to someone, direct it to whoever hid the evidence of Blaskic's innocence. I won't even argue with you about the later portion of your fourth comment as Charles Shrader is not God, and for a fact to be valid, it must be accepted widely, not only by one historian.

The new found evidence only showed that Blaskic was not in command in Ahmici, therefore regarding Ahmici he could not be convicted for command responsibility. He was however still convicted because of command responsibility on other matters. To make things even more complicated del Ponte now claims that she has new documents that show that Blaskic was in command in Ahmici. So to sum up the facts we have one war crime and 2 documents, one suggesting that Blaskic is guilty the other suggesting that he is not guilty. One of these 2 documents surely is falsified as they are both excluding each other. However the sole fact that documents used as evidence might be falsified without being unmasked as falsifications should make people suspicious.

Shrader is not God but he is a well respected military historian who, unlike many other authors is not concerned with individual tragedys but is just presenting numbers, maps and facts from a military standpoint. If you do not like what he is telling, thats your problem. Your argument that his works are not valid because more authors think different is just laughable.

5. There are no documents proving the plans for a division of bosnia? "Stenogrami o Podjeli Bosne" - Biblioteka Dan. Take a look. Oh, and it's all verified as an official historical record aand a part of the Croatian Presidential Archives. So there.

I admit I have not read them explicitly, but from what I have seen so far most of this is just talking and not official orders or documents. You have to bear in mind that Tudman never hid his dislikes for multi ethnic states like Yugoslavia and Bosnia. You also have to bear in mind that Tudman did follow the demands that were made by the UN and USA that are contrary to his comments made in the stenogramms (for instance recognizing Bosnia, allowing humanitarian aid for Bosnia to be delivered through Croatia, stopping the attack on Republika Srbska, removing Croatian troops out of Bosnia after the war, transferring ICTY suspects to the Hague and others). The actions that Tudman did should in my opinion be considered more important than his negative opinion about Bosnia. It is however not my job to decide the true value of such comments, although I totally agree that Tudman's comments harm his image.

6. You are, my friend, a right wing extremist. I understand valid critisicm, actually, I love it as that is what makes wikipedia great, but I think you arguments are just plain stupid.

Well if that is what you think thats ok with me. I however think that insulting people that try to have a discussion with you does not increase your credibility. BTW comparing people to God isnt exactly what I would call a good argument.

7. On your last comment I can say only this: Carla del Ponte is not God. She can't say "Marko Marković is a war criminal" and suddenly, Marko Marković is a war criminal. But, she can, backed up by facts and evidence, accuse people of being war criminals, issue them sub poenas and order them to appear in court. I repeat, Carla del Ponte is the cheif prosecutor at the ICTY which is, because you obviosly are blind : THE INTERNATIONAL COURT FOR WAR CRIMES IN THE FORMAR YUGOSLAVIA. SHE CANNOT INDICT SOMEONE FOR COMMITING WAR CRIMES IN RWANDA.

Del Ponte does not decide who is a war criminal, thats right, but she decides who gets a trial. If she does not indict someone this means: no trial, no war criminal. I hope you finally understand what I wanted to tell you over the last few posts.

The ICTY is for war crimes in the formar Yugoslavia, NOT for war crimes committed by Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians. NATO and the UN were involved in the war in Yugoslavia. Del Ponte absolutely has the power to indict any NATO member involved in the Yugoslav wars but she refuses to do so.

One more thing, you mentiond several JNA generals - How can you prove that they in some way were involved in breaching the conventions of war? How do you plan to prove this? By shouting at the top of your voice that they were part of the JNA? How does that make them war criminals?

These were not some JNA generals, these were the JNA leaders. One might think that they should have the same command responsibility for the crimes commited by their soldiers as Bobetko had in Croatia and Delic or Halilovic had in Bosnia but obviously the prosecution does not share this opinion.

I am citing former ICTY employee Dr Marko Attila Hoare. According to him the prosecution planned to indict these JNA generals, del Ponte however, after becoming chief prosecutor decided to withdraw from the indictment, although according to Hoare there was evidence for their guilt.[6]

Here I found a similiar text written in English. [7]

Thats about it. h3llbent

Neutrality Issues

"Alterning between France and South America, in October 30, 1999, he takes as hostage Gérald Tourmetz, who pays 350,000 francs as ransom." - This is highly speculative, and cannot be proved

"Meanwhile, Gotovina is still a member of the Paris-based Assistance Sécurité Protection, and may have been in Paraguay and Argentina in 1990 and 1991." - See above.

"The next month (March 2005), Britain led a successful campaign to halt the planned opening of talks with Croatia on joining the European Union, which were to start on March 17, 2005." -I'm sorry, but calling Britians negative opinion on opening negotiation talks with Croatia for EU membership a "campaign" is pretty relative. It sounds, and is too agressive. Croatia and Britan did not wage war.

"Among the Croat population, Gotovina is seen in many circles as a war hero and adore him, similar to a cult of personality." - Adore him? Please... Just because people don't want him to surrender, that doesn't mean they adore him. That's reserved for the occasional extreme right wing politician.

"On April 11, 2001, six weeks before his indictment by the International Penal Tribunal for War Crimes, he received a French passport from the French Embassy in Zagreb. Of course, at this time, all concerned were aware of his upcoming official indictment." - This cannot be proved. We know he posseses a Croatian passport, but this noone can confirm. This very far fethced.

That's about it. Other than these passages, the article needs some serious cleanup, as it contains too mush irrelavant information. In fact, it sounda like a James Bond novel. h3llbent

Wrong facts

I personaly have met and have a picture of me standing next to Ante Gotovina's wife and SON (the article mentions he had a daughter). I doubt they could have possibly met in Columbia considering his wife is Croatian. Also, the CIA has proof that Gotovina did NOT expell those Serbian civilians who fled the Krajina regiond. CIA Predator spy droves helped support the operation and clearly show the civilians fleeing en massé before his forces came within range to do any type of damage. The Serbians were leaving because of Slobodan Milosovic telling them to leave and come back to the homeland. This artice is crearly biased against Gotovina and paints him as a criminal. I want newspaper articles with proof of his being sentenced to 5 years of prison in France or holding someone hostage.

Gutman, Roy. "What Did the CIA Know?" Newsweek, 27 Aug. 2001. [8]

Croatian General Ante Gotovina, accused at the Hague Tribunal of war crimes in Krajina in 1995, is arguing that reconnaissance photography taken by CIA-operated GNAT-750 drones "is relevant to establishing [his] innocence."

I suggest changing up to 200,000 to over 300,000. I mean, the number of Serbs in Croatia over-all decreased by up to half a million citizens. Some returned, but the current number is still some 400,000-450,000 citizens short. If you do not believe me, see the Republic of Serb Frontier and Serbs OK? HolyRomanEmperor 19:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyone can write on Wikipedia, sources can be from Serbian nationalist sites, how can that be of any good to us who want to know the truth? The Serbs were the ocupants and there is a document in which people of Serbian nationality ARE ORDERED to leave as soon as possible, the document is held in Belgrade and is a proof of Gotovina's innocence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.117.196 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Of indicement and hero/criminal dispute

I would just like to point out that nowhere in the general's indictment [9] is there any mention of the command responsibility. In fact, he is being tried for INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. This includes the murder of a number of people listed in the indictment as well as destroying of vast property, which, if true, is most certainly his responsibility. He, being the genereal, could not have been unaware of his soldiers murdering destroying civillian property. He cannot claim that the thousands of homes destroyed was just an accident he could not stop. And that is the basis of his trial.

I would like to add that the above remark is disingenuous - the indictment does say individual criminal responsibility but the basis of that is command responsibility - note the following line, different iterations of which appear in the indictment:

"Alternatively, the accused Ante GOTOVINA knew or had reason to know that forces under his effective control were committing the acts described in paragraphs 21 through 26 above, or had done so, including as a result of having been so informed by representatives of the international community. The accused Ante GOTOVINA failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the commission of such acts or punish the perpetrators thereof." ([10]). Once you take out the legal jargon that gives the indictment an air of credibility, my reading is that he knew what was going to happen & didn't do anything to stop it or punish those that committed crimes therefore he is just as guilty. It seems to be a very bottom up approach - crimes were committed, he was the general, therefore it must have been planned, therefore joint criminal enterprise & so on. -- Marinko

While I also find strange that other people, like Bush (I wonder why he wasn't mentioned before), who have done similar things, don't get punished, I still cannot agree that Gotovina is a hero. I guess I'm just different. Also, there is a majority of croatians who think the same way. You cannot write that the majority adores Gotovina. That is just not true. The majority of croats actually preferres to stay quiet. And while it may feel unfair to you that he is being punished for what he did (unlike the guy mentioned before), you have to live with it. Gotovina is not Bush and Croatia is not USA. And wikipedia is not a forum. It is here to show FACTS.

I think the argument that one country's general should not be punished because Bush is not being punished is a red herring. The issue is the denial of Gotovina's presumption of innocence & whether he will be able to receive a fair trial considering that he has already been tried by the media, & by EU politicians despite their conflict of interest; the EU politics involved (equivalence of victim & aggressor so as to rehabilitate the aggressor state & break the cycle of blame & counter-blame); domestic politics involved (Croatia). --Marinko

One final thing I don't understand is the people defending him. The war is long over (at least it feels like that) and Gotovina is a nobody. It surprises me that noone in his vicinity didn't think of just cashing his head for that $2 million. Think about it. If I where him, I'd cash myself in instead of living as a fugitive... (unsigned entry, anonymous)

Well, the problem is that even I, one of quiet Croats who don't think Gotovina is a hero, are not quite sure if he is a war criminal. My personal oppinion is that he is a criminal for simple reason he decided to flee when ICTY asked for him. Croatia has laws, and those laws say he has to obey and go to Hague. He disobeyed laws, ergo he is a criminal and he should spend a time in jail for that reason.

Question if he is a war criminal is... well, open. It might be he himself contributed to 200000 Serbs being expelled from Krajina... but it as well might not be true. It has to be proven before a court and that's why he has to go to Hague. The Serb were expelled by somebody, that's a fact, but it wouldn't be the first time ICTY attorneys were wrong when picking who's to blame (see Blaškić's case). Oluja didn't have only one chain of command, that's general knowledge. Therefore, as well as Gotovina is a proven criminal because he disobeyed the law which said he had to go to Hague, but he is still not proven to be a war criminal. If ICTY proves it, good, then well call him a war criminal.

As for people defending him (nota bene: I'm not defending him. To be frank, I'd turn this guy in the moment I spot him), there's nothing much to understand. Those people are just chauvinists which think Serbs got what they asked for. They are remnants of Ustaša movement, right radicals who would go to war with Serbia this moment just because they think Serbs are to be exterminated. --Dijxtra 11:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting that anybody that considers himself a patriot or nationalistic is tarred with the Ustasha brush by User:Dijxtra & in doing so betrays his/her own ethnicity?/political colours? There has often been a polarised atmosphere in the Croatian body politic where the left call the right Ustasha (WW2 Croatian Fascist regime) & the right call the left communists. Back to Gotovina; I can only surmise from contact with people in Croatia & general media, but I suspect the reasons why people defend him include:

1) They think he is innocent; 2) They view the indictment as disproportionate & inconsistent with evidence in other trials (e.g. former US ambassador to Croatia 'Galbraith' testified in the Milosevic trial that the Serb population had already left Croatia by the time the Croatian army got there – “…its hard to expel a population that is not there...”). As an aside, with regard to the so-called ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Krajina; an interesting view is presented by Ivo Goldstein (a Croatian Jew) in his book on the History of Croatia - he puts forward that the Serb mindset was ultimately responsible for their departure from Krajina - after having cleansed the region of Croats & other non-Serbs, it was inconceivable to them that they would be allowed to live in an Croatian state after what they had done to their neighbours – so they left. I see parallels between propaganda that all Croats were Ustasha (therefore it is ok to kill Croats), all Bosnian Muslims are Islamic fundamentalists (therefore it is ok to kill Bosnian Muslims) & with the eerie radio propaganda that was used in the Rwandan genocide to view all Tutsi’s as cockroaches. 3) He is a general that defended the country & liberated Serb occupied territory allowing Croatian refuges to return & for the country to begin healing & move on; 4) Croatians are cognitive of the EU politics [1] - the very same foreign offices of countries that most project propaganda against Gotovina (by grouping him in the same company as Karadzic & Mladic etc) are the same countries that appeared to be most hostile to Croatian independence or were too quick to appease Serb aggression. 5) Croatians are cognitive of the EU politics [2] - Gotovina defended his country from a genocidal project that was "the Greater Serbia project". The EU body politic was impotent in the face of crimes such as the bombing of Dubrovnik - this is the same body politic that seeks to make Gotovina a fall guy.

The bulk of people that support Gotovina are not a fringe element, but ordinary people that know their identity and increasingly disillusioned by both sides of politics in their pursuit of elitist objective disregarding the common man.

It is interesting however to note the use of Ustasha symbols by some of the young - I believe it is a reflection of the loss of faith in the major parties in their lack of defence of the institutions of the Croatian state - what was the point of independence if you replace Belgrade with Brussels. As such, I would not see the youth as Ustasha, but merely projecting symbolic gesture to show disaffection at the elitism of the main political parties & effectively saying "hey defend Croatia & Croatian's from injustice b/c if you don't the Ustasha will". --Marinko

Nikola, not a good idea to talk about turning him in. 5 milijuna nasih nije mala svota. :D --VKokielov 18:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Why, any non-radical person in Croatia would turn him in... --Dijxtra 01:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

OK... I don't know where you live buddy, but in Croatia there the majority does support General Ante Gotovina. Some of the minority that does not support Gen. Gotovina are the politicians, such as Mesic.

I think the fact that Mesić was elected Croatian president by 65% percent of the popular vote, speaks for itself. --Dijxtra 01:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This year was the 10 year anniversery of Oluja and I was there to celebrate the Croatian victory. At Mali Karin, which is also an area won by the Croats, all the proprety damage has been basically fixed. And there still are Serbian people in Croatia, my neighbour was an old Serbian woman and a funny story is that she's being deported to Serbia because she's a spy... just rumors. Back to topic: I would find Ante Gotovina a HERO, that's cuz he took back the land that was taken away from Croats by Serbs. Si vous vous pensez que Ante Gotovina n'est pas un héros, et êtes croate, vous êtes un déshonneur. I jedna zadnja stvari: ako mislis da naj vise Hrvata nisu za Gotovinu, kao sto su jedne novine napisale da samo 47% od Hrvata su za Gotovinu, u Dalmaciji ovo ljeto vidjeo sam naj manje jedu plakaru na kojom pise: "Ante je heroj, jesil ti?"

btw: Kad je Mesic prico narodu od Oluje, ljudi su pjevali "Ante, Ante. Svi smo za te!" while booing Mesic. - Ustasa4eva

Ustaša forever? :-) --Dijxtra 01:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In every true Croat's heart there is a piece of Ustasa.

Recent Vandalism

Let's keep a closer eye on it guys, it's on the front page now. I'd suggest that locking it be a consideration. --Mavzor 18:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If George W. Bush can remain unlocked, I think we can keep this article unlocked as well! -- ChrisO 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Radical Nationalist

I usually stay away from editing these issues because I know I'm bias as a Croat. But regarding the picture I can't see how one can tell they are radical nationalists. Is it in their hair color? Clothes? What I see in the picture is a young man kissing the image of an General who fought for them. So all the people in cities around Croatia showing their support are all radical nationalists? Please clarify. I promise I won't make any changes for now. Sporki 13:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I too know I'm biased as a Croat. That's why I'm open for discussion, and assure you I'll conform if you prove me wrong, don't worry :-) Now, about the picture. The thing is that I don't know those guys and if they are radical nationalists, but it is pretty much obvious if you monitor and understand the situaion in Croatia. My aim was to find a foto of radical nationalists showing their support for Gotovina, and I found this photo and considered my search over. Now, I don't know in which city in Croatia you live, but I'm from Zagreb and there are 4 groups of people regarding Gotovina support: a) those demonstrating their support for Gotovina on the streets, fighting with police, breaking windows and exclaiming slogans from times of NDH (they are 80% young people below 25 years of age); b) those supporting Gotovina by peaceful means - in everyday conversations, in newspapers, on TV; c) those not supporting Gotovina openly (because they are just quiet people); d) those not supporting Gotovina (because they don't like Gotovina). I find it rather obvious that guys from the picture are from the first group. The fact they confront with organs of law and order of their own country makes them radical, and the fact that they support ethnical clensing makes them radical nationalists.

Now, important thing to note is that I didn't say all people supporting Gotovina are radical nationalists or supporting ethnical clensing (I think this is the real reason you are complaining about, right?). For, Gotovina has not been proven with ethical clensing (and I personaly don't thing he was the person who ordered it, my oppinion is he was just a general doing his job as good as he can and artrocities were ordered by some other people. After all Gotovina is a profesional French Foreign League soldier, I don't think he would engage in such a barbaric thing as ethincal clensing). I wan't to say that Gotovina is, among others, supported by radical nationalist yourt who thinks it's OK to kill people because they are of wrong ethnicity. And the picture is there to ilustrate my point. --Dijxtra 14:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is either disingenuous or dishonest or displays a poor grasp of the English language - you don't have to use the word all; by merely focusing on Gotovina & linking it to so-called hardline supporters - it is implied that all supporters must be hardline. What other point can you construe from the article? The fact remains, even if a small portion of supporters are hardline, that leaves the majority (overwhelming at that) of Gotovina supporters who are ordinary folks. The focus should be on what they think & not a minority. Again, another demonstration of the disingenuousness of the article - "....For, Gotovina has not been proven with ethical clensing (and I personaly don't thing he was the person who ordered it, my oppinion is he was just a general doing his job as good as he can and artrocities were ordered by some other people....." - It implies that there was ethnic cleansing (contradicts the testimony of former US ambassador to Croatia Galbraith in the Milosevic trial) & that there were orders for atrocities to be committed, just not by Gotovina - how does the writer know this - were they there? Is this an attempt to (through insinuation & propaganda) criminalise the homeland war & thus the existence of the Croatian state? I really question the writer’s agenda here.--Marinko 05:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Tell me, where do you get all this info from? Have you even ever been to Lika after it was liberated? Did you see 200.000 Serbs there? Saying there was no ethnical clensing is just pure provocation. Or you lack connection with reality. This is not ad hominem attack, this is a fact, 200.000 Serbs left their homes during Oluja. Their houses were burned, we saw that on Croatian national television. Ignoring these facts is just... well, ignorant. --Dijxtra 12:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think you are right. The thing that made me react was the fact that all people supporting Gotovina, when looking at the picture, could be seen as radical nationalists. I really don't support violent protests, it's not good for anyone especially for Gotovina. How can we write it so it doesn't give the wrong impression regarding Croatian support for him?

Text left from the picture says "Hardline nationalist elements in Croatia...". We could settle for "Croatian hardline nationalist youth expressing their support for Gotovina"?

Change the text back for now if you like. Sporki 14:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't, not for 12 more hours. See WP:3RR. --Dijxtra 15:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing in the photo to suggest that the youth are hardline nationalists (nationalist maybe but hardline?).

That's right. That's why you have people like User:Sporki and me, people who live in Croatia, to tell you this people are hardline nationalist. Man, get out in the street, show people this photo and ask them a question: "Jesu li ovi decki na ovoj fotki ekstremisti?" In which town do you live if you don't recognise this people as hardline nationalists? --Dijxtra 12:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Further, to make assumptions about how these people feel about "killing someone b/c they are the wrong ethnicity" - what complete garbage. How the hell does User:Dijxtra know what the people in the photo think??

Because he lives with them, he went to school with them, he goes to university with them, discusses politics with them? --Dijxtra 12:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the remarks is that it propagates the notion that Ante Gotovina is guilty before his trial i.e. the logic flow is these demonstrators support Gotovina → Ante Gotovina killed Serbs → therefore they support killing Serbs - this logic assumes Gotovina is guilty & one assumes is intended to propagate that notion. Effectively trial by media.

"these demonstrators support Gotovina → Ante Gotovina killed Serbs" ??? Man, the person which deduces like that wouldn't understand this article correctly no matter how you put it. The fact that I like icecream and that I like David Bowie does not prove David Bowie likes icecream. I'm more and more convinced you are not trying to help but provoke. --Dijxtra 12:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Another problem with the article, it projects the Croatian national ethos as somehow intrinsically rascist - a new angle on the “all Croat nationalists are Ustasha” myth.

That's why I put "radical" below that picture. Croatian radical nationalist -> Ustasha. Croatian nationalist -> ... well, Croatian nationalist. --Dijxtra 12:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Again the logic that it propagates (intended or otherwise) is that all Gotovina supporters must be hardline nationalists - again opinion projected as fact. Whether this is what the writer/s intended or not, it is how the article can be interpreted and should really be rewritten. See also my interpretation of the use of Ustasha symbology by some youths in the above commentary.

You have some serious problems with logic, I'd say. If we proceede in your sophistic manner, this article can be interpreted any way the interpreter wishes to interpret it. The question is: does this article displays any wrong facts? The answer is: it doesn't. --Dijxtra 12:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to comment on the role of violence as a means of public dissent. I think arguing about the illegitimacy of violence as a means of civil dissent is a Clayton’s debate. It is as in the French riots, misses the point - rather than racing for the highest moral ground and pontificating about the 'bad people', the focus should be on the cause & preventing instances where such civil disorder can occur. If both sides of politics alienate the population, then violence is merely one form of expressing dissatisfaction - the unfortunate reality is that governments tend to respond to violence whether explicit or implied because it threatens their grip on power - peaceful protest generally doesn't unless there is an election around the corner. More on the why & how rather than the intellectual onanism on why it shouldn't be. --Marinko 05:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how this paragraph has anything to do with content of this article, so I won't comment it. --Dijxtra 12:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

reverting to last version by Red Winged Duck

User:193.198.128.118 did some serious vandalism and added some serious nonsence, terribly degrading quality of this article and deserving this article a {{TotallyDisputed}} tag. I reverted to last version before his edits because following edits were minor. After reverting, I think this article is no longer factually disputed. -- Dijxtra

You did the right thing - those were some pretty awful edits. -- ChrisO 23:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfree images

Could everyone please note that we should not be using unfree images in this or other articles - fair use isn't enough, unfortunately. (See WP:ICT for more.) I've taken out the images for now; if anyone has any images which we can use (personal photos would be best) then please add them to the article. -- ChrisO 17:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

On WP:ICT:

• "Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use material (see Commons:Licensing#Fair Use issue) but such images can still be used here (see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Fair use materials and special requirements)."
• "It is preferred that these be obtained under the most free (libre) license (such as the GFDL or public domain) practical. In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available)."

Can you return the images now please? I mean, if you can obtain more free images than those I supplied, I'd be thrilled to replace them :-) --Dijxtra 18:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've identified one already and am trawling for some others at the moment.

Great! I always prefer Wikimedia Commons to fairuse...

In the meantime, could you possibly supply a fair use rationale for the images that you uploaded earlier? I won't delete them just yet! -- ChrisO 18:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What do I need to state? I thought {{fairuse|Ante Gotovina}} is enough... is it? --Dijxtra 18:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering you did not explain how images you removed oppose to WP:ICT, and you did not supply free replacements for these unfree images, I'm returning them for now, until we find suitable replacement. --Dijxtra 14:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The date of Gotovina's capture/arrest

Well, I am curious; was the date of Ante Gotovina's capture on the 7th or on the 8th December ?? I am asking this because both dates were used in an article ...

regards Wayfarer-Talk

on December 13, 2005 at 0:49 GMT

It's December 7. The news was made public on December 8. --Dijxtra 09:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ipernar's edits

User:Ipernar constantly diminishes number of expelled Serbs. The real numbers can be viewed here: Operation_Storm#August_8.2C_1995_onwards. If needed, outside sources can be quoted, but I don't think that's necessary since only User:Ipernar supports the 150 thousand thesis. I stopped reverting him because this makes no sence anymore and I'd probably break WP:3RR if I haven't already. I call for discusion what is to be done about this user's actions. I propose blocking since I warned him already. --Dijxtra 13:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear brother... ante gotovina didnt expell anybodey.... and from article... it seems that he did... but let me tell yu. He will be set free, and will be innocent on alll charges. Time will tell...

Suggesting One Correction

This is basically a good article on a difficult subject. But explaining the war as an uprising of local Serbs is and letting Milošević off the hook is simply not accurate. This was an military invasion with some local support. Extremists from Serbia took part in the rebellion and they had weapons supplied by the Yugoslav National Army. The Army's immediate exploitation of these conflicts shows they were largely coordinated with the Army. Being there at the time and being an anti-fascist gives me some objectivity on this issue. I suggest the authors change that one sentence.

I was back in Croatia this summer when there was a lot of news about Gotovina, and I found an interesting dynamic from friends I talked to. Most of them could not care less about Gotovina since it is common knowledge that there were crimes committed. But many people are very reticent about joining the EU (the reason Croatia is cooperating on war crimes trials) due to the bad effect the EU has had on the economies of member countries. This is a change in public in opinion from the 1990s. When I was in a doctor's waiting room in Zagreb, a very angry discussion about EU membership broke out. And this in a country of extremely polite and reserved people. I never heard any remark about Gotovina showing a strong opinion.

Kristijan Horvat

Can we deduce some symbolism from the name Kristijan Horvat (= "Christian Croat") or was it chosen just as a plain name?

celebrating outlaws

In some parts of Croatia, the local culture has a tradition of celebrating outlaws or hajduks who defy distant authorities; this is reflected in the name of the football team Hajduk Split (literally "Split Outlaw(s)"), and it is is probably not coincidental that pro-Gotovina support is particularly strong in the Split region. Gotovina also cultivated a larger-than-life image that played up to the macho stereotypes that are very popular in parts of his native Dalmatia. This has to be the silliest thing I´ve ever heard. The link to the football team is soo far fetched. I't is insulting all dalmatian people. Does anyone have anything that verifies these allegations? Sporki 15:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)(Dalmatian)

Peer review of an article with similar topic

Article Mirko Norac is being peer reviewed here. Feel free to join the review. --Dijxtra 16:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

the "Trivia" section

Ahem, has anybody read the section before, the last paragraph? It talks about relationship of Milošević and Gotovina nad has some sources cited. The trivia section has no sources and repeates the same info. I will now remove the trivia section. If you wish to add some more info about relationship of Gotovina na Milošević, please edit already existing data which is sourced, do not add new data which has no source cited. Thanks, Dijxtra 16:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

pictures

The reason why I removed the picture of Gotovina with a moustache is because it contains no relevance to anything. All the picture alleges to is a poster of Gotovina in Zagreb, which is supposed to serve what purpose? I don't see why some scribbling of Hitler's moustache on an aged poster (which by the way, is done almost everywhere for no reason in Zagreb; I was there this summer) shows any "public attitude towards Gotovina". As a matter of fact, most of the country supports him: I saw 5 pro-Gotovina billboards in Dalmacija alone, pro-Gotovina graffiti on walls, and a large picture of Gotovina on a bus from Sibenik to Knin on the driver's window.

And if anyone tries to put it back on, I suggest you go to Slobodan Milosevic's page and add some anti-slobo pictures, since you like to show "diversity" so much. From what I heard, from several Serbs too, they were everywhere in Serbia, and fewer people there support him than people in Croatia don't support Gotovina. Plus, there are very few pictures on that page, while Gotovina has very many, maybe we should take some more down. --128.195.70.96 05:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, you don't like seeing Gotovina presented in that way. Fact is, many people in Croatia view him like that, and it's an interesting photo. To not put it in would be POV by omission. Also, if you have some pictures of Slobo, feel free to insert them into the relevant article. --estavisti 06:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And basically, you love seeing him presented in that way, otherwise, you wouldn't be crazily editing all the Croatian pages with things you like seeing on there, and adding Serbian references like I see you do. I don't really care to go to Serb pages, I don't know too much about them or care much about them, to edit their pages. I am just trying to protect Croatian pages from Serbs that want to add their propaganda or what they feel like to Croatian pages. BTW, what do you mean by, "many people in Croatia view him like that?" Where is your proof? Give me some numbers. Last time I heard, there were tens of thousands of people rallying in support of Gotovina all over Croatia. Dinamo Zagreb donated money from a game for his defense. Goran Ivanisevic, Davor Suker, Zvonimir Boban and Alen Boksic all signed a letter to the government in support of Gotovina. Look at poll numbers. The majority support him.

So my conclusion, it seems like you dislike Croats so much, you will go to any length to vilify them or try to rewrite their history or inject some sort of Serb presence in Croatian pages. This is very sad. I lived in Croatia for some time, I was there right after the war and still have family there, I still visit; I know what the situation is like, and Croatian attitude. --128.195.70.96 07:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I support Estavisti here. I do believe that he has strong anti-croatian feelings but to remove the picture of Gotovina with mustages on that basis is pure ad hominem attack.

We have so many pro-Gotovina pictures that lonely joke by someone who doesn't support him is certainly a step towards NPOV. You can't expect to find 10 people that will agree on everything, let alone to have country on 5 million people where everyone will agree on one of the hotest topics in last 10 years. So, I stay - leave the mustage picture. Unless, of course, you are trying to portrait Croatia like country where everyone thinks the same way. Like, for example, in North Korea :-/.

P.S. - The answer to tens of thousands of people rallying in support of Gotovina all over Croatia. You didn't really expect that people who don't support him will go on the streets and also make protests? That would be nice way to piss of war veterans. Some people don't see it as a good idea. Finally, just to note that this doesn't portrait my view on Gotovina case - I just tried to see this issue from the non-balkan perspective, like a bystander. --Ante Perkovic 07:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for responding in such a clear matter. It will make responding easier. I wouldn't mind removing the other 2 pictures too. Ok, maybe one can stand, but I do not believe that we need all those pictures up there, maybe just the main one, what do you think? Plus, like I said earlier, Slobo's page has only one picture, as do many other bio pages, so maybe we should just stick to one. If he cared so much about representing public opinion, he would go to slobo's page and add anti-slobo picture there; from what a serbian friend told me, (and public opinion polls), he is much more hated in serbia than gotovina is in croatia. but he doesn't because his main intent i think is to undermine croatia. i don't want to go now to serbian pages and edit them, i just want to protect croatian pages from being misleading. and i stand by what i said earlier, he cannot be objective to most croatian pages because of other things i heard him say about croatia on other pages. but i hope he will be a good editor and be fair to both sides when he writes on different country's pages.--128.195.70.96 04:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any pictures of Slobo. If you do, I'm more than happy for you to insert them. I wish you'd stop making ad hominem attacks and actually explain why having the picture in the article is inappropriate. There are two pro-Gotovina pictures, so for balance there should be at least one against. --estavisti 13:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I already said, I have no objections to taking down the other two pictures, I think that is too much, but the reason why the Hitleresque picture should not be there is because it has no relevence to the article.... the article talks about the countries attitude towards him, which explains the positive pictures, but where is the text about the negative attitude? it is not explained anywhere, someone probably put it up just for a laugh. --128.195.70.96 01:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, them just add some texst about negative perceptions of him in public instead of removing the picture. Not that I care (unlike 40-50% people here), but Croatia's EU entry talks was delayed for years partly because of this guy. But, there are some people here that do find it quite important. Propably someone from those 2 million people that support joining EU draw the mustages? As i said, leave it! I don't want my country to look like North Korea.

As for Estavisti, I believe I do now his motives, as he is not the isolated case here. I don't know if there are any Croats here that go to Serbia-related pages and try to spread their ideas. But, this place is full of frustrated Serbs who can't come to terms with the fact that they lost some wars recently. I can only feal pitty for them. Luckily, only facts counts here, not national miths. --Ante Perkovic 08:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And a lot of Croatian amateur psychologists it seems :-) --estavisti 02:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The text clairly state Within Croatia, attitudes towards Gotovina remain divided. And what we see from the pictures is only support and devotion to him. I personaly took this picture on the street of Zagreb and the poster is still there. By saying that a bunch of known Croatian personnality supported him or wrote a song for him and by having only pictures of pro-Gotovina the impression is that he has only supporter in Croatia, but the facts are different and if the polls are saying that a majority support him it also shows that not all Croatian are supporting him. This picture is an illustration of that Fact. It has to be taken into consideration. Tieum512 00:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth

When asked by the Hague judge about his place of birth, Gotovina answered Zadar.

Unsourced statement

I just reverted a content delete from an anon. While most of this deletion was sourced cold fact. I think that this specific phrase need to be sourced. So I moved it here because I consider it as harmfull for the reader.

"In 1981, with his comrade Dominique Erulin, he helped editor Jean-Pierre Mouchard, a close friend of Jean-Marie Le Pen, organizing a commando to free his press in La Seyne sur Mer, occupied by CGT trade-union strikers." -- Esurnir 22:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How Can Serbs "conquer" and "occupy" a land when they already lived there???

Why can't people simply state the truth and always must rewrite history to their own liking. This particular section is full of aggressive talk aimed at painting the Serbs even more black:

"In 1991, Croatia declared independence from Yugoslavia. The Serbian government, led by its President Slobodan Milošević then launched various paramilitary militias to take control of various parts of Croatia, eventually followed by a conventional military assault from the Yugoslav National Army which had come under the de facto control of the Serbian President. The new Croatian army, formed in haste, managed to stop the advance of Belgrade's troops, and Croatia was internationally recognised on 15 January 1992. The Belgrade army then withdrew but left the third of Croatia it had conquered under the control of local Serbs, whom they had used as proxies to wage their war of conquest. Half of the Croatian Serbs who, according to the 1991 census, represented 12.16 percent of the country's population, lived there, mostly concentrated in Northern Dalmatia, the Lika, the Banija, the Kordun along the Bosnian border, Western Slavonia around Pakrac and in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia near the border with Serbia. The rebels had first formed "Autonomous Serb Districts" (Srpske autonomne oblasti or SAOs) which merged into a self-proclaimed "Republic of the Serb Krajina" (Republika srpske Krajine or RSK) in 1991."

This is yet another example of blatant Croatian hypocracy. Why can't you admit that the Serbs had lived there for over 4 centuries? How can they conquer a territory that they already lived in? Why does this still go on? Croatia got what it wanted - their own state. They got another goal accomplished - a Serb free Croatia. So when is enough enough? What else do you want from the Serbs? The war is over, why can't you leave it well alone? How much longer is this gonna go on for? It's over already, let it go. Christ.

I petition whomever is in charge to rewrite this part and tell the truth. A simple search of Croatian history will reveal that the Serbs did indeed live in the "Conquered" parts of Croatia for centuries, making it their HOME. Truth needs to be told here, people need to be educated with facts, not with Nationalistic lies. The war in Yugoslavia was a tragedy for all sides involved. What is so sad is that instead of building peace in the region, people like the author do all they can to stoke the flames of nationalism, thus ensuring that the Serbs and Croats will never be able to co-exist. Very very sad if you ask me. Pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milanf07 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Nobody said that Serbs didn't live their for centuries. What it says really is that the President of Serbia (Milosevic, who de facto controlled the JNA) helped to establish Serbian break-away republics within the state of Croatia. When you constitute a majority somewhere it doesn't mean that you have to establish break-away republics there. Thanks god that isn't so, everywhere in Europe there are national minorities, but most of them want only cultural autonomy and not a state of their own. If all these national minorities would declare independent Europe would have more than 100 small states, scattered all over the continent.

Nobody said that the Krajina isn't the home of many Serbs, it only said that the break-away republics were estabished within the international recognized borders of Croatia. It is the right of the Croatian state to control the territory that it has under international law (without of course discriminating national minorities living in the state). What would you say if the Hungarians in Vojvodina declared an independent break-away republic, would you just let that happen? Maarten 10:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I found wrong in this paragraph was "Croatian-Serbs" I'm guessing it means Serbs who lived in Croatia. The comment "It's over already, let it go. Christ"- What exactly is that meant to mean that there should be no history written about the war?? That the people who lost their lives should be forgotten?? Throughout history all wars have been documented, why should this one be forgotten? If people of certain backgrounds feel uncomfortable reading these pages they should simply avoid them. It's people like you getting all defensive that are the problem- as I see nothing in way of "painting Serbs more black" there is always an aggressor in war in this case it was the Serbs, how would you like the aggressor portrayed? I was not aware that there was a nice way to explain that someone has instigated a war!!! The point in this you need to "let it go"!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.66.177 (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How Can Serbs "conquer" and "occupy" a land when they already lived there??? Interesting question...

Equally interesting is the question of how Croatian soldiers could "ethnically cleanse" people from an area they never saw. Serbs left on their own volition because of requests from Milosevic to the RSK leaders so that they could boost demographics in Bosnia and Kosovo. The fact of the matter, whether or not Serb civilians were living there, is that they military of the JNA and Serb militias occupied the land that was internationally recognized as a separate country.207.236.177.82 (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating article...some minor modifications

M. Gotovina seems to have obtained fantastic rank & connections very quickly, but I still find this a fascinating story. To go from merchant sailor to Foreign Leigon Caporal-Chef to a Lieutenant General in Croatian Army is so meteoric to be almost absurd... His ability to go from Legion NCO to someone with aqquaintance with the President of France is equally absurd... I made some minor modificatiions to article, such as referering to his former Colonel as "former officer" rather than "comrade," since comrade refers to a position of equality (say if they had been Caporals together. Thanks V. Joe (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad article

Gotovina, as we see now, is a convicted war criminal with a proven record of war crimes. Writing his biography from the nationalistic point of view is a bad business. The article must be freed of most of its content describing public support to this criminal in his country.--71.178.115.169 (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fact that vast majority of Croatian population including every gouverment official find him inocccent and defacto think this aobut this sentece politicaly motivated and don't recognite it as legitimite is off fact that is just cant be avoided when somebody want to know anything about Ante Gotovina biography. So basicly you want to miss the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.150.110 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Innocency or guilt are matter of the justice, not of some opinion. If opinion disregards the facts, then the opinion is irrational and biased.--71.178.115.169 (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nicely said by 90.137.150.110. You want to miss the truth. 83.131.76.114 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I will put annalogy. It's legitimate to say that people who are sentenced to death by court during Stalin era might be innocent. Or for instance to say that this or that court is politicaly motivated and don't have anything with justice. Thing is that wast majority of people who know anything about Gotovina thing this verdict is just peace of crap is worth for mention in any article which want to be neutral. Aniway...wiki is full of such cases.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.138.12.169 (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Without arguing one way or the other, let me remind everyone that the verdict is pending appeal, and is therefore not final. GregorB (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Well aware that various anonymous IPs would descend as soon as the verdict was read, I was prepared for edit warring. So far, anonymous has not really contributed much except POV-pushing. What exactly is the issue here? Moreover, it appears that anon does not have a firm grasp of the English language, evidenced by grammar and spelling and puzzling insistence that certain words and phrases aren't right. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Which one in particular?Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not understand. Which one what?

--Jesuislafete (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the quality of this reference? EKSKLUZIVNO Samo 23% Hrvata za ulazak u EU! Čak 95% smatra presudu nepravednom

It makes a somewhat extreme claim on figures and calls upon the EU (which of course is not the court) to condemn the "unjust verdict" or be directly responsible for the rise of the radical, nationalist right. Is this a nationalist tabloid or a serious broadsheet?Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The poll was on the front page of Jutarnji List a left-leaning, popular newspaper in the country. The fact that the numbers are extreme was why I thought it would be good information to add; the public reaction was so extreme that it had resonated to low support for the once rather popular accession into the European Union. No, the E.U. is not the court, but it was they who made Croatia's cooperation with the ICTY by arresting Gotovina a priority in entering talks. If you truly believe this does not add content to the article, then I don't have any problem removing it. I wonder though, why you said "calls upon the EU (which of course is not the court) to condemn the "unjust verdict" or be directly responsible for the rise of the radical, nationalist right". Where does it say that? --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It says it in the paper article as far as I can tell. What I was wondering was whether the company who conducted the poll and the paper are sufficiently reliable to be an WP:RS. I mean - are they the kind of polling company upon whom one can rely to take a representative sample of the population and notjust ring their readers!Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The poll was done by the company Mediana Fides, which from what I know, is a notable polling market research and public opinion polling company. It has presence in Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia. According to the poll (you can see on the bottom), Mediana says they polled 700 adult citizens in the Republic of Croatia, and mention that the poll's population was representative of the country's gender, age, education, work, county, etc. The question is, is this information appropriate for the article? --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• This person Jesuislafete removed whole paragraph (Serbian attitude) and claims that Croatian = Public which, even at the level of plain English, is nonsense. Reverted this person changes as a plain vandalism. Following the Fainites' comment above, removed Jesuislafete's addition for being based on a nationalistic tabloid and for having too much text in this article echoing the same nationalistic views about this case.--71.178.115.169 (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous, because Gotovina has a tremendous impact on the Republic of Croatia's political atmosphere, and has for ten years now. Elections have been impacted by him, politicians dance carefully around the issue so as not to upset the public, vast protests have and continue to take place over his arrest and now conviction. Why would Serbian attitude matter when he does not have any impact within Serbian politics? I have looked at other Hague indictees such as Radovan Karadžić and Milan Martić--NONE of these have anything like "Croatian attitudes" in their pages. Why should they? It is fairly clear that Croatian attitudes will not be favorable, and it doesn't affect the political or social climate of the country. Even Serbian attitudes are not mentioned, because they did not affect the country in such a way that Gotovina has to Croatia. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that his impact on the politics of Croatia is important. Fainites ^barleyscribs 09:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It is fairly huge, and has been for years now. I can't think of a more world-wide known example that is akin to it. For some reason, the cult surrounding Vladimir Putin comes to mind (not much affecting politics though), in that the persona and image he directs at the Russian people (e.g. shooting a tiger with a tranquilizer gun, fishing without his shirt on) seems to personify the strength of the Russian nation with him as the head of state. That was a poor example, but maybe someone can come up with a better one. --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Jesuislafete, bear in mind that Croatia's political and nationalistic folklore is of no encyclopedic value here. Playing on the tune that Serbian attitude does not matter is equal to forgetting the fact that the Serbs were victims of this "general" which overall education is a primary school and who was a mercenary i.e. a person paid to kill. Writing an article in that (nationalistic) tone is inhumane and against the very letter of Wikipedia. As I pointed earlier, "Croatian" is not equal to "Public", nor "indictment" shall be in the paragraph title anymore for the plain fact that the Court reached and delivered the verdict. If you see something, in other articles, you do not like, please, discuss it there, not here. This is English language encyclopedia and for strictly Croatian attitude, please, use the Croatian Wikipedia.--71.178.115.169 (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous, read Wikipedia:Civility and stop with your passive-aggressive jabs. I am appalled that an anonymous user days old to Wikipedia who focuses solely on Ante Gotovina and Ante Pavelic pages has the nerve to tell me "Writing an article in that (nationalistic) tone is inhumane and against the very letter of Wikipedia". The fact that you cannot even comprehend that "indictment" refers to the outline of the indictment issued by the ICTY itself in the year 2001, as well as your own POV-pushing started 2 days ago without utilising the discussion page to discuss the matter with established users shows that there is apparently nothing I can say that will make you stop a potential edit war and discuss your editions first. Perhaps some established Wikipedia users will come and help with this, because I feel at my wit's end dealing with an unfamiliar user.

If you want the Serbian reaction in there, why not add it to the "Reactons"? If you want Tadic's statement in there, I will add it in. But tell me, why do you believe that "Bosniak" opinions deserve a header? Do you want to add Greek as well? --Jesuislafete (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Operation Storm - "War crimes indictment" section

There is a statement: "Gotovina, together with his co-accused Mladen Markač, a former commander of the special police of Croatia's interior ministry, and Ivan Čermak, assistant defense minister from 1991 to 1993, is charged with leading the three month long “Operation Storm", which resulted in the recapture of Croatia's Serb-held Krajina region in 1995 and charged the course of the war of independence."

That is incorrect translation I guess - Operation Storm took 4 days or 84 hours.

I don't want to say that source "http://www.haguejusticeportal.net" must be wrong - but this information is not correct & confusing. Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.107 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that statement is wrong. It has nothing to do with translation. I can only surmise that they added three extra months in order to tack on the crimes that took place afterward on the generals. --Jesuislafete (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really wrong - the aftermath of the Operation was taken into account. What's the legal angle when judging when it begins and when it ends, I have no clue. --SplitSpencer (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Embarrassing...

In the article Public attitude towards Gotovina there's been written couple of times that he had this "flight", but there was no flight that is worth of writing about general Gotovina. Person who was writing this probably was thinking about Zvonko Bušić. Also, Marko Perković and Miroslav Škoro didn't wrote any of their songs about general Gotovina nor Zvonko Bušić. And please remove that hajduk thing they have nothing to do with Gotovina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.227.219 (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)