Talk:Operation Storm/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Should we remove these tags on the top of the article

about 75% of the article is sourced properly.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No. I am still waiting for an answer from you on how to get the UN back into the article (see my last post under "role of the UN" above) and a few other things. You have removed all mention of the UN. Secondly, some sources are still questionable. Some are strange. For example, what, pray tell, does the "census" of former Sector East per the ICTY Milosevic indictment have to do with Op Storm? I am hoping more editors will take an interest here, perhaps after another article has progressed further and sources have been decided upon. Civilaffairs (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

This is 1 interesting source [1]--Rjecina (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Another source [2] and another [3] --Rjecina (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am having problem with tag "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed". Can somebody explain me what is needed so that this tag is deleted ?--Rjecina (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply. It's tornado season in the US and I've been without electricity and then also internet service for some days. I am working on correcting the inaccuracies as I have time. They range from some of the problems I have already corrected in the timeline (see below) to the place of surrender (the surrender was outside Glina in the direction of Topusko, not in Vojnic). New problems with accuracy have recently cropped up, as well. Civilaffairs (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Removal of POV on operating "forcing" Serbs to leave

This sentence needs revision: "However the operation forced approximately 200,000 to 250,000 [7] Serbs to flee to Serb-held parts of Bosnia and Serbia." Although it is sourced, the source documents the number of displaced people, not the reason why they left. Saying that Operation Storm "forced" those people to leave is the same as calling the entire thing deliberate ethnic cleansing. However, as other parts of wikipedia make clear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Martic-order1995.jpg), the local populace was evacuated at the behest of the SPK, before Croat forces reached the area. --Pisciotta11 (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

An additional edit: I assume the inclusion of Carl Bildt's statement here is to showcase international reaction to Operation Storm. I've added some sourced statements from other credible international actors, including the German and U.S. governments. Also included is official Croatian reaction to Bildt's statement. --Pisciotta11 (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

According to your POV, that sentence is POV. According to those of another POV, the way you have "corrected" the sentence is POV. What we should be striving for here is NPOV. Until there is a decision in the ongoing Hague trial of Gotovina, Čermak and Markač, perhaps the best solution is to simply say the refugees fled and let the two POVs be made known through the conflicting views of the Europeans and some of the US and UK media on one side, and the leaders of Croatia, the USA and Germany on the other side.

Actually the Carl Bildt quote was added by me. The original was "The operation has been called ethnic cleansing." As a new editor, I naively was trying to follow WP:Avoid Weasel Terms and used Bildt as the source. GriffinSB retaliated with a string of quotes from American officials (who assisted Croatia with Op Storm) originally sourced to the defense attourney of the Croatian generals, but now better sourced. Now you have added more quotes from German officials (who also assisted Croatia) plus protestations from Croatian officials. Furthermore, you have not provided urls for your sources. I really don't think a long-winded argument like this should take up the bulk of the intro to an article about a military operation.

Perhaps we can find a way to shorten it here and make a new secton to cover this controversy. The Dutch source given by Rjecina above puts it rather succinctly: the EU called it ethnic cleansing while Croatia and the US denied this. It would be nice if we could agree on a short summary like this for the intro, and expand explanation of this controversy in a separate section if needed. The intro needs more simple and important facts about the actual military operation itself. As it is, it is nearly completely taken up with all these quotes.

You have used the ICTY indictment of Gotovina, Čermak and Markač as a source to reduce the number of refugees but ignored the charges themselves (that the refugees were indeed forced out, according to the indictment). You also ignore the the charges referencing the fake evacuation orders dropped from Croatian aircraft and alarmist messages broadcast by the Croats using RSK civilian radio frequencies.

News accounts generally give 200,000 or 250,000. The correct number is probably around 230,000 (UNHCR figure no longer available online). ICTY uses conservative numbers of course. Perhaps the best thing to do is give either 200,000 (number most often cited in various reports) or else the range of 150,000 to 250,000 in the intro, then explain the wide discrepancy in the figures in the "refugees" section?

The caption on the "Martic order" was quite misleading and I have now corrected it. If you read the text of the order, you will find it did not apply to "the main areas of RSK" as stated in the caption, but rather:

1. To start evacuating population unfit to military service from the municipalities of Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, Drniš and Gračac. 2. Evacuation to be carried out according to the plan towards direction of Knin and furthermore via Otrić, and towards Srb and Lapac.

How this order recorded as given at 16:45 on 4 August was supposed to have been made known to the populace is beyond me (Serb comms were jammed compliments of the USA and the Croats were broadcasting their own messages on the RSK civilian radio frequencies). How this order was supposed the effect the flight of close to a quarter million people from an area of over 10,000 square kilometres within the space of hours is also beyond me.

No, all had not left before Croat forces reached the area, not by a long shot. You can learn more by reading Rjecina's Dutch source and the report of the Secretary-General on Croatia to the Security Council of 23 August. You may also want to have a look at our discussion about NPOV sources over on the talk page of Serbs of Croatia, as well as some discussion of Operation Storm there. Included is a rather tiresome discussion of the "Martic order" for good measure.

The sourced HRW report which states there was not a single Croat left in the UNPAs after January 1993 is flat wrong and contradicted by other reports. True, Croats remaining in the UNPAs were treated most horribly and most were expelled. There were very few Croats left in the UNPAs, but there were those very few. At last (by January of 1994, possibly earlier, not sure of date), UNPROFOR (and later UNCRO) co-located UN battalions in areas where there were remaining Croats to protect them and also permanently deployed professional civilian humanitarian teams in the Sectors to assist and monitor the welfare of the remaining minority populations. The US State Department human rights report of January 1994 states "UNPROFOR estimates that fewer than 400 Croats remain in Sector South." This is a pitifully small number, but remain they did. A small number of Croats also remained in Sector North up until the very end, but I have not found an online report of the exact number so far.

If you insist on having the Marcus Tanner quote in the intro, we will have to add how the Croatian Serbs were in fact prevented from returning (burning of houses, harrassment, killings, various laws erected as obstacles to return, etc.)Civilaffairs (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Okay, done. The number of ethnic Croats remaining in Sectors North and South has been added. The HRW report states around 1,100 remained in Sector South and the Pink Zones, while the US State Department report says fewer than 400 remained in Sector South. Assuming that the majority were in the Pink Zones, I used the US report for Sector South and the HRW report for Sector North. Civilaffairs (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Hello, there's a lot of material to tackle here, I probably will require some time to address it all.

First something easy:

Now you have added more quotes from German officials (who also assisted Croatia) plus protestations from Croatian officials. Furthermore, you have not provided urls for your sources.

Point taken; URL of quote article now in the reference. However, not every credible source necessarily has an URL.

Moving on...

News accounts generally give 200,000 or 250,000. The correct number is probably around 230,000 (UNHCR figure no longer available online). ICTY uses conservative numbers of course. Perhaps the best thing to do is give either 200,000 (number most often cited in various reports) or else the range of 150,000 to 250,000 in the intro, then explain the wide discrepancy in the figures in the "refugees" section?

I disagree with the statement that "news accounts generall give 200,000 or 250,000." For example, "Aid agencies said the Serb exodus from Croatia could total 150,000-200,000 people," which comes from an Aug. 7, 1995 Associated Press story "Croatia Announces End to Military Operation," by George Jahn. (No URL, unfortunately.) There's this from an Aug. 5, 1995 New York Times article: "Thus today's action will bolster those who believe, as do some diplomats here, that what really lies behind the offensive is the determination of the Croats simply to expel the 150,000 Serbs in Krajina." (URL = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEED8133EF936A3575BC0A963958260). BTW, I don't agree with every assertion contained with this article, but for the most part it is credible. This Oct. 16, 1997 article in the San Francisco Chronicle actually pegs the number of refugees at 135,000. (a copy of the article pasted into a forum can be found at http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TWATCH-L;ajqZIA;19971022111820-0400) An April 14, 2002 Los Angeles Times article about U.S. companies hired to train foreign armies pegs the number at "more than" 150,000. (Again this article has been copied and pasted at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/training/pmc.htm)

And so on, and so on. I would suggest staying with the ICTY indictment numbers because that simply is the most official number possible. However, keep in mind that usage of the indictment as a source of figures doesn't necessarily equate endorsement of the thinking contained therein.

--Pisciotta11 (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina has provided a great article about the Serb population in Krajina during the war.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7DC133EF937A25753C1A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

btw. former "Krajina president" Goran Hadzic is the third fugitive on the ICTY list amd is acused of crimes against humanity,deportations,murders etc.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Corrections made to timeline

I removed the following sentence from August 5: Serb forces launched artillery attacks on Croatian civilians in Dubrovnik in the far south and Vinkovci in the far east of Croatia, without any specific military purpose. Reason: The cited source did not mention Vinkovci at all. The shelling of the Dubrovnik area by VRS (Bosnian Serb Army) occurred on or about August 17, according to the source and had to do with the assault on Trebinje, not Op Storm. In addition, the shelling apparently had to do with the massing of troops for the assault on Trebinje. I also reinstated the original "captured" rather than "liberated". We really should avoid such POV terms. "Liberated" is not used in articles about civil wars. We don't, for example, say Sherman "liberated" Atlanta (American Civil War).

I also removed the following sentence from August 5 sourced to state-controlled HRT (and in "local language"): Large refugee columns formed in many parts of Croatian Serb territory, so virtually the entire Serb population fled into Bosnia along the evacuation corridors established by the Croatian military on UN demand. The UN demanded no such thing. The UN demanded that HV stop strafing and shooting at the refugee columns. This sentence substantially conflicts with official UN reports, including reports of the Secretary-General. Let us try to stick to NPOV sources in this article.

From Operations in July-August 1995 I removed this sentence: The Croatian Serbs recognised the weakness which has created massive panic in Krajina population. Reason: the cited source did not support this sentence nor even touch upon this subject.

There are a number of other problems with the timeline. I will try to work on them as I have time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilaffairs (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice. If there is problem with section please put tag in that section of article. I will now again delete tag. Writing tag "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed" is putting under factual accuracy question all article, but factual accuracy of all article is not in question.--Rjecina (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources

If we look HHO report definition of Operation Storm and Serbs in Krajina is:"Croatian Army launched Operation Storm, an offensive to retake the Krajina region, which had been controlled by separatist ethnic Serbs since early 1991"

If we look NYT times definition is: "Croatian Army Begins Attack on Rebel Serbs" [4].

If we will look wikipedia rules my thinking is not important, your thinking is not important. Only important things are reliable sources and New York Times is wikipedia reliable sources and similar to that HHO is reliable source because of sources consensus about Yugoslav Wars.--Rjecina (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

August 14, 2008 dispute: Serb inhabited vs Serb occupied

This variation in content has led to a dispute throughout the day; and it is better to resolve the issue here than to continue to reverts in which you all make vicious remarks. In my honest opinion, both of these comments are inappropriate for differing reasons. The fact that the region was Serb-inhabited is not really important: Eastern Slavonia was held by a Serbian faction and that was the concern for Croatian authorities, not whether it had a Serbian population living there. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that the region was ever 100% Serbian, because there was no census information for those years. It is believed however, that there were members of other nationalities living there, who remained totally unaffected; though it is not important for this paragraph. To say that the region was "Serb occupied" is equally erroneous, and somewhat misleading. I associate occupations as self-invitation programmes such as the Israeli presence on the occupied territories, rather like its 2006 invasion of Lebanon. There was no Israeli population in the region, neither was it unredeemed territory, but there was an excuse that being there helped protect its citizens from cross-border attacks. Ofcourse, I know of no shelling raging between Vojvodina and Slavonia for one country to go into the other. In reality, the presence of external forces in Eastern Slavonia acted as a surge in security numbers, appointed to uphold the Serbian authority within Eastern Slavonia. It doesn't quite add up to an "occupation", maybe a semi-occupation if such a term can be coined. But then I am not a part of the revert war. If ultimately, more should decide that the Eastern Slavonian authorities and security forces were wholly external, originating from Serbia-proper, and against the wishes of the Eastern Slavonian Serb population, who am I to argue? I havn't been looking for sources to prove or disprove anything: but if "occupation" is deemed appropriate, then it must be stated that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was the occupier, not Serbia. To take a fictional example: if Salzburg (Austria) finds itself besieged by soldiers and tanks from Bavaria, acting on government orders, then the occupation can only be by Germany, not Bavaria. Serbia until 2006 was a partner in a federation, so regardless of the numerical dominance, there were no separate Serb or Montenegrin military factions which existed between 1991 and 1995. Tanks sanctioned by Belgrade into Slavonia, whether to support a local authority, or to hold the territory within the Belgrade authority, only amount to an FYR occupation. Now I don't mind which of the two terms occupied vs inhabited you all insist on, something about the present form will have to change. Please discuss and don't revert yourselves. Evlekis (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I appriciate your attempt to reach neutrality as always, but sometimes you fail and this is perfect example. 1/3 of Croatia was occupied by military actions, Storm resolved a large part of it but not all. Eastern Slavonia was not involved in action. That's what sentence said. Nothing more. A Serbian user changed "occupied" to "inhabitted", which is a joke. Nothing new, Serbs deny that there was some masacre in Srebrenica, etc... Vukovar was not "inhabittted" by Serbs, it was occupied!!! With many human victims!!! Before the war Serbs were just a minority there, from the end of 91 to summer of 95 there were no non-Serbs. The other part of your comment is useless too, Serbs, Montenigrins, federal, non-federal,... All reliable sources about this war mention Serbs, during that war Serbs also were using Serbs and Croatian publics also used Serbs. Change that User:PrimEviL tried to introduce was nothing but denial of some facts which are not disputed: Crotian territory was occupied! His change automatically gives distorted picture: Eastern Slavonia inhabitted by Serbs! There is nothing to discuss, except honesty of involved users. End of discussion. Zenanarh (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

3rd proposition: Serb controled !?--Rjecina (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, we are not talking about no man's land or some neutral territory controlled by one or another side. This is territory of the Republic of Croatia we're talking about, internationally recognised within its "Avnoj" borders in 91,92. And Op. Storm was in 1995. Vukovar was sieged for months by huge millitary forces coming from Serbia, heavily demolished, ethnic-cleansed of non-Serb population after its fault and controlled by an army and internationally unrecognised Serb para-state. "Controlled" is just a part of "occupied" in this context. Why to introduce half-true instead of true. Just because some Serb feels uncomfortable about it? Isn't it much appropriate for him/her to feel uncomfortable concerning what his/her compatriots were doing in Croatia 15 years ago??? This is not a game. Zenanarh (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pro that one... the "3rd one"... not completely, tho. inhabited is more proper.

@User:Zenanarh 1. no, i do NOT deny the massacre in srebrenica. 2. no, i do NOT deny the bombing of vukovar. 3. no, i'm not denying all the idiots that went in croatia to fight for "serbian lands" from serbia. but are you honest when it comes to "U" marked caps on Ban Jelac's square? 4. serbs may have been a minority in (eastern) slavonia before the war, but they were considerable one. 5. before the war serbs represented 12% of population in SR Croatia, after the war only 4.5% - a slight change in numbers, right? 6. i am a serb (and i'm not "some serb", show some respect for your conversaries), but not all serbs are supporters of sheshelj "greater serbia" project, you need to sort those thoughts. i am aware of many travesties serbs have been doing in croatia, but you're trying to say that croats had more right to seccede than serbs?

i may be wrong about some details, but you are trying to completely deny that there was ever presense of the serbs in any part of croatia. (eastern) slavonia (probably not whole) was inhabited by the serbs, and if there came any outer warlord(shesheljs troops, arkan, whoever), you can't say that it was occupied on the count of vukovar. let it be changed to "inhabited" or, as rjecina proposed "controled". have a nice day. --PrimEviL 15:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "U" supporter and I don't have to be honest or dishonest about it. A bunch of idiots if you ask me. You obviously have problem about "secession" thing. According to the constitution of SFRJ any Republic had right to secede but only within its "Avnoj" territory. "Srpska Krajina" was not political unit, it was not Autonomous Province either (like Kosovo & Metohija and Vojvodina - Autonomous Provinces of SR Serbia). Before '91 in Croatia it was not even recognised as a geographical province in common usage, except in historical context (Ottoman wars). Also historical name was not "Srpska Krajina", it was "Vojna Krajina" or just "Krajina"! Geographical provinces which parts were involved were Dalmatia, Lika, Banija, Kordun,... Croatian secession was legal and recognised by internetional community. Secession of Serbian minority in Croatia was not. I didn't say that Croats had more right to secede than Serbs. It was not secession of Croats, it was secession of Croatia. So secession of Serbs in Croatia is irrelevant. Of course they didn't have that right, as well as Croatian minority in Serbia, in Belgrade for example, don't have right to secede from Serbia.

you are trying to completely deny that there was ever presense of the serbs in any part of croatia; Don't play with words. Where did I write something like that?

(eastern) slavonia (probably not whole) was inhabited by the serbs; '91 Censi for Vukovar county 58% Croats, 33% Serbs. Serbs made majority only in a few villages.

you can't say that it was occupied on the count of vukovar; Yes I can. You are playing again. Vukovar was not aside from the story that happened there. It was just the bigger city in the area so therefore the main target for the agressors. When Vukovar fell, it was not only Vukovar, it was all area with Vukovar as the main centre. Millitary actions were spread on all area, not just a city.

"inhabitted" is out of question. You cannot say that East. Slavonia was inhabitted by Serbs in period 91-95, since at least a half of these "inhabitants" of yours were fully armed soldiers. Their "inhabitting" of E. S. was result of aggressive millitarry actions with many casualties. In that period it was "inhabitted" by Serbs just because all non-Serbs were ethnically cleansed from the region. Op. Storm was concentrated on neutralizing of Serb paramilitarry forces, not inhabitants.

"controlled" is much more appropriate but still useless for the reason I've explained earlier. Zenanarh (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Zenanarh, I see these past days for the first time how much you really know. It's one error after another. Let's look at everything you say in reverse: "sources", reliable and unreliable. If we were discussing sicences, mathematics, geology; we could easily see how some sources are more proven than others, but this is politics my friend. There are no reliable sources for anything. A reliable source is one which pleases the reader, an unreliable one is one which doesn't. I have followed disputes and conflicts for years and years, not just in the Balkans, but all over the world, and have even examined historcal chapters, and all reports/commentaries are the same: they favour one side, or the other, but never have I read a report which sets out to do precisely what its purpose is to do, which is to be objective. When a report is objective, the viewer/listened will invariably be left with a picture in which he can no more blame one side than the other. But do to this, the report needs to list a move-by-move account of both opposing factions, giving an overview as to what the goals are, why, and how they are trying to achieve them. Your BBC doesn't do this, just the other week, I watched an hour long Panorama propaganda campaign against the Sudanese government, yet never did it mention the activities of the two main rival paramilitary groups, nor their provocations in the affair. The whole show might just have been scripted by SLM officials. Now I can list you thousands of internet sources from blogs, journals and magazines about the Balkan wars from over 70 countries (so far). The nature is forever the same: for Krajina, it will be pro-Serb, or pro-Croat, but never truely exposing both evils. Now this will lead me to my next point, that from 1991-1995 there were no non-Serbs. Now, for Estonia to be at war with neighbouring Latvians or Russians, and to cause a flood of victims among those populations is one thing. To state that it specifically targeted non-Estonians is altogether different. That is the one hallmark of anti-subject propaganda, when its victims are "non-members" rather than just the plain "opponent population, and not all of them" which I found to perpetually be the case in all conflicts. It may come as a shock to you, but some reporters here and there, when having written about Croatian activities in the aftermath in Gospić, Herzeg-Bosna, and in the aftermath of Storm, acuse Croats of going after the "non-Croatian population", do you like the sound of this? It is nothing more than the writer's attempt to give a "holocaust sex appeal" to the scenario, turning resders away from you. But can you find me a single source which condemns Serbs for harming non-Serbs, and Croats for harming non-Croats and all in the same sheet from the same editor? I've been searching for one such report for years and never found it. So what makes the pro-Croat one more reliable than the other? And in any case, if you did stumble across an article attacking the Serbs and Croats for their action towards their own non-members, where did that leave ethnic Hungarians? or other ethnicities? It would appear that they were at risk from both...and if the Serbs had honestly succeeded in wiping out the non-Serbs of their provinces, why does the Hague accuse Gotovina or crimes against the non-Croat population on the same land? Shouldn;t that just be "Serb population" since Serbs purportedly wiped out the non-Serbs? And another thing. Please send me your sources to show that Eastern Slavonia had no Serbs from 1991 to 1995? I've been looking for this kind of information for years and never found it. Do you know how hard it is to substantiate your claim? The only way to do this is to provide a list of all of Eastern Slavonija's inhabitants, their names and their declared nationalities by the side; and it has to be authentic, anything else is no proof of any kind. Bare in mind also, that Serbs enlisted the help and assistance of non-Serbs such as the Greeks and the Romanians. If one Greek had lived there, and who can prove he didn't, these Greeks would have helped expel him. Not likely. And finally, your "reliable" sources give that Croatian lands were occupied by "Serbia". I say to you now, show me your map of the world in 1995 and point out where a country called Serbia was, because I can't find it. I only know of an FYR, which included Montenegro, and as I said, there was no separate Serbian faction looking to break away. Either 1/3 of Croatia was occupied by the FYR, or it wasn't occupied, take your pick. 92.12.167.254 (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are showing very good what is propaganda !

My answer to your 32 lines is very short. Croatia census 1991 for territory of future Krajina: Serbs 52.15 %, Croats 35.9 %, others 11.94 %. ICTY numbers from this census are: Serbs 48.16 %, Croats 38.24 % and others 13.6 %. Krajina census from 1993: Serbs 91 %, Croats 7 % and others 2 %.--Rjecina (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And the numbers of today say... what?--PrimEviL 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Today numbers are saying that Krajina Serbs under order of government of Republic of Serbian Krajina has left Croatian territory. Croatia is not guilty for Krajina Serbs leaving, but she can "only" be guilty for destroying houses (after population has left) and similar so that they can't return. Only demographic data which can show real situation in Krajina after territory is returned to Croatian control is demographic data for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem.--Rjecina (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

92.12.167.254 is you Evlekis? Listen buddy, I didn't claim that expelling of non-Serbs automatically meant non-Serbs left there. Of course there were some non-Serbs left. We don't have to discuss about it at all. It's stupid. Actually I didn't realize that we must discuss about population shit here at all. I presume that everyone, who is writing here, knows something about it. 29 of 32 lines you wrote about non-Serbs are totally out of topic.

You're right there was no Serbia in '95 in the maps, there was FYR. But result of millitary offensives (Serbian paramillitaries and JNA) was eastablishment of so-called "Srpska Krajina", which was not a part of FYR, so nobody can say that 1/3 of Cro was occupied by FYR. Srpska Krajina had Srpska (Serbian) adjective in its name. We are using term "rebelled Serbs" here, but in the same time we are talking about the war in Croatia and not about the rebellion! We are talking about Serb rebels in Croatia but we all know that every their action was conducted by Belgrade. We all heard about Slobodan Milošević. Evlekis did you ever hear that name? We are talking about JNA (Yugoslav People's Army) but we all must be aware of the fact that after secession of Slovenia and Croatia this new JNA was not the old one JNA (property of all Republics equally). Dayton agreement meant the end of the war. Signers were Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian (FYR if you wish) president. There was no any representative of Croatian Serbs! War was in Croatia and B&H, not in Serbia. 1/3 of Croatia was occupied by Serbs of course, there were not only local Serbs. Otherwise it would mean that Cro Serbs had control over all fucking JNA arsenal. So Cro Serbs attacked Bosnia too?Operation Storm was planned to reinstall control of Cro government over a large part of occupied Cro territory. Not Serb "inhabitted" one. Serbian inhabitants of Croatia lived and live in other parts of Croatia too. Also a lot of loyal Serbs were soldiers in HV (Cro Army) in the same war. They were inhabitants of Croatia too. All this discussion is completely useless. Zenanarh (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion, yes I was the IP. I've struggled to log on properly these past days, computer problems. At last, we get somewhere Zenanarh, 90% of what you say is fine and agreeable on this occasion. I fel though, that "occupied" is a little heavy for the scenario; technical issues. In my original statement, I made no secret of the fact that I am no expert on the Croatian wars, and fair play to you, as you surely know more than I do. If you honestly believe that the Croatian lands were occupied, that is fine, I have no argument to say "no they were not". I am just concerned about the name of the occupier, believing that it needs to be a proper country, as the plain presence of foreign fighters doesn't equate to an occupation. A true occupying force works on a mandate issued by its own government, and as such, represents that government on the occupied territory at all times; independent of the fellow organisation it pubicly supports. Now to paint the full picture of the Serbian scenario in the 1990's, we can find dribs and drabs from other happenings in the world these past few years; among them all, they cover the entire Serbs in Croatia scenario. Compare the Israeli occupation of Lebabon in 2006, and Russia over Georgia today. Note also the Russian open support for the separatists in Transdniester (Moldova), donating arms, tanks, people, and capital. But it is not recorded as being a true occupation, even if the purpose for Moscow is to uphold a sphere of influence wherever possible. These chapters make interesting reading and can be of great help to us for here. Evlekis (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it was you, only your comment can look like a brick ;) You worry about the name of occupier? Well S. Milošević was f***ing clever bastard. He knew every second what he was doing. There are no documents that can connect him directly to any Karadžić or Martić concerning war actions. However he signed the peace paper finally. Not Karadžić and Martić. If you're interested in details, local Serbs in the autumn and winter 91/92 were used as a backup not as ace forces. All Serb offensives were by the weekends, caravans of Serbs were travelling in Fridays towards Croatia and returning by the end of Sundays. We called them "Weekend Chetniks". Just check dates of Serbian attacks in '91. Local Serbs (those from Krajina) were good butchers but not capable of making war plans. The most of them were poorly educated paisants. Also I don't think that anyone ever imagined that Martić was capable of making a plan about anything at all. He was a poor puppet in somebody else's hands. Constantly drunk and scared of his own shadow. If it was not occupation what other word can we use at all? With the same meaning? And occupier was a conglomeration of local Serbs, Serbs from B&H, Serbia and Montenegro and something that was used to be called JNA. S. Milošević was a pope of that religion. He was the one who fired the war atmosphere in the massive meetings in Serbia in the late 80's, he signed peace paper at the end. There was Zagreb-Belgrade telephone hotline in '91, '92 concerning firebreak conditions during the conflicts, not Zagreb-Knin. Zenanarh (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

He didn't so much "fire the war atmosphere" but his contribution worsened the matters which went back a little further than he did. Just reading your statement below about how multi-ethnic the HV was, against what you described as "Serb butcher peasants". Most people wouldn't know that the HV contained non-Croats, but you have first hand experience and you know the scenario to be different. You knew this because your compatriots became brothers during the fighting which is fair enough, these things happen. But I also know for a fact that your Serb enemies weren't all as "Serb" as you thought. Throughout the conflict, they too received volunteers from allied republics, and as for soldiers sent by Belgrade, I might remind you that Serbs only made up two thrids of the population of the former Serbia and Montenegrin entity. Vojvodina is multi-ethnic, with 20+ ethnic groups there. As conscripts, all citizens have a duty to serve; but if it were just volunteers, then maybe there would have been a heavier concentration comprising Serbs, and unless you were among them the way you mixed with your former colleagues, you wouldn't be able to appreciate that they too had a delegation of non-Serbs among the ranks. You mentioned the Serbian president of the time, it was nothing to do with him nor with Tudjman: neither of them published job descriptions which stated they only wanted pure Serbs/Croats among their ranks. Now I personally remember a report back in 2000 from a Sri Lankan source of all, about two voluntary soldiers who served in Serbian Krajina, and do you know where they were from? Ethiopia! Can you picture that! Maybe a little less suprising when you consider that these Ethiponians are Orthodox (as was Haile Selassie), so there existed a connection between them and the majority Serbs. But at times of conflict, just about any citizen of the world can check-in to a local recruiting centre and join a warring faction like booking a flight. There are occasional exceptions: obviously when an Islamist organisation deploys its memebers in a region where the locals delcared Jihad, I wouldn't like to be a Russian Orthodox priest suddenly arriving and asking for the job. But I've found, not just in the Balkans, but throughout the world that when conflicts as presented as "Ethnic Group A vs Ethnic group B", the actual division is more political than ethnic, and both groups tend to deploy external members. This Homeland War until 1995, was ultimately for a Croatian purpose, that fact that this new Republic of Croatia offered equality it to its citizens doesn't detract from the fact that it remains a Croatian symbol, and non-Croats, welcome as they are, realise that they need to serve the purposes of the republic and its existence. The current Iraqi president Jalal Talabani is Kurdish, but he is not in a position to suddenly say "ah, well, as I have the highest authority, I will make my people independent, then resign to living there!", the very post of Iraqi president was created to oversee the activities concerning Iraqi sovereignty, and to comprehend Iraqi sovereignty, you need to take an interest in Iraq and its history. For a time when Milošević was president during the Croatian wars, the head of the Secret Police in Belgrade was an ethnic Croat. Many who fought as Serbs in Bosnia had Islamic first names and surnames (but then they may still have declared themselves Serb, so that is a hard call), but the one-time leader of the SPS down in Preševo was Albanian, eventually he was murdered by Albanian separatists (in 2001 I think). On principle, there was an absolute majority of Croats among the Croatian ranks, and Serbs among the Serb ranks. I know today that in Sudan, their government - credited as Pan-Arab and targeting indigenous Africans - does have a significant number of non-Arabs including some of these Africans whom they are alleged to be harming. That's the way the world is Zenanarh. At times of conflict, each side will always paint an unreal picture of the other. Evlekis (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember that reports from massive Serbian meetings in the late 80's were received with horror and shock in Croatia. It was like big question in the air: what is this madman up to? I believe that probably up to 10% of positive votes of the huge percentage pro Cro indenpendance on referendum was direct result of it. There were no too many Serbs in my city (maybe somewhat over 5% of population). There were always some tensions between Croats and Serbs in the northern Dalmatia (especially since Serbs were treated as holy cows, by the communist authorities), but the majority never thought about politics. However after '87 some Serbs started to separate from the rest in social life. I remember verbal conflicts of that time among Serbs. There was a group which suddenly started to speak about Ustaše for no real reason, their opponents were the rest of Serbs who called them Chetniks and nationalists. We, Croats, were a little bit surprised about what's going on, in the beginning. We realized it in the hardest way in '91. Don't diminish importance of those Serbian nationalistic meetings. I don't think that in Croatia (after '91) anyone ever perceived it anyhow except as a part of the same monsterous master-plan of warlord S.M. and his machinery. Although it seemed meetings were caused by Serbian problems in Kosovo, S.M. used it as a platform to gain public support for his politics concerning much wider territory of ex-Yu than just Kosovo. Support in rhetorics and iconography in the late 80's became physical support in '91. Unfortunatelly. Zenanarh (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean that "Serb butcher peasants" were on the other side. I've meant that local Serbs didn't give a lot of "intelligence" to conflict, but did produce butchers. Individuals of course. There were certainly some similar people on Cro side too. Zenanarh (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Also a lot of loyal Serbs were soldiers in HV (Cro Army) in the same war. They were inhabitants of Croatia too." - now that's something you don't here every day... for my part, i have never, and i quote - "NEVER" heard of such thing... it's onconcievable to me, frankly... and "loyal" here is pure POV. at 95, there was no sfry, and there is no doubt about that, but at the beginning of the war separatists weren't serbs, tbh... who was loyal then?--PrimEviL 01:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong ! At the beginning Serbs are separatists because they have started action to create Serbian state from Croatian territory before Croatia has proclaimed "secession" from Yugoslavia--Rjecina (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Primevil's point was that he disputed a Serb presence in HV. There is nothing shocking about that. Serbs in small numbers live all over Croatia, and some in areas such as Istria which kept out of the wars. Wars by their nature are not as dividied-down-the-line as their exposers like to make out. In the case of the Balkan wars, all warring factions deployed some staff from the opponent ethnic groups. That's how it is all over the world, so there is nothing laughable or ridiculous about Serbs prospering in the HV. Evlekis (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How old are you PrimEviL? What do you know about that war at all? I was participant of it. There were not only Croats in HV. The majority were, but not all. Croatia mobilised its citizens, not neccesseraly Croats. In my anti-armor unit (15 of us) there were 1 American, 1 Roma. There was another unit (vanguard, sniperists) we were collaborating with, there was my friend from teenage years, a Montenigrin by ancestry but citizen of Croatia. He was badly wounded in '93. In a sister-unit to his, there was my best friend, Croatian Serb by ancestry (Krajina Serb). He was probably the most loved person in his unit and wider, because of his honesty and bravery. He made a suicide after the war (PTSP - post traumatic syndrome psychosis). Another 2 Serb friends of mine (also Krajina Serb ancestry) from 90's were not mobilised, but engaged in the civil city guards and support in our hometown under artillery attacks during all war. Both died of drug overdose, in 2002 and 2004. We were all the citizens of one Dalmatian city and friends from the same city quarter. This is only about my friends of Serb ancestry. Only one of my closer friends escaped in September '91, his parents were Serbs from Serbia and his father was JNA officer. Actually he didn't want to, it was after long argue with his father. He returned in '97 just to notice how our homecity changed (ruins) and vanished again - he was ashamed of not being there.

I know about an unit in October '91 completely consisting of non-Croats. 14 boys from B&H, Macedonia, Vojvodina and Kosovo led by a Muslim Bosniak, ex-JNA lieutenant. They all escaped together from JNA in the 1st days of war and stayed on Croatian side. They were extremely well armed and organized for that period. Actually they were lunatics - deactivating Serbian mine fields and replacing the same mines into new positions and all that on Serb controlled territory. This Bosniak leader became HV officer later. A few of his boys stayed in Croatia and got married.

It was not Croats vs Serbs baby. It was Republic of Croatia vs Serb agressors (both local rebels and imported zealots from Serbia and Bosnia). Zenanarh (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you were interested, you could've checked my age at my sr.wiki profile(linked in both my en and hr profile) ;p on the topic - you're spreading the story too wide. like you have said it yourself - the region of eastern slavonia was in fact inhabited by the serbs. i beleive that the best solution would be to remove any serb refference from that sentence what-so-ever, as it isn't related to the "storm" itself. make it "solomonic", tbh :)--PrimEviL 03:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My solution is best--Rjecina (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I missed out a good editing dispute. In my humble opinion, I believe both words can accurately describe the situation, but in political terms it might need to be defined by a more political term (e.g. "occupied" or "held" since armies controlled it). Eh, and remember guys, try to stick to the subject at hand. Peace. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen yet any reason or relevant argument presented to support any change in the text. Concerning "occupied" Evlekis was the closest when he wrote: I am just concerned about the name of the occupier, believing that it needs to be a proper country, as the plain presence of foreign fighters doesn't equate to an occupation. A true occupying force works on a mandate issued by its own government, and as such, represents that government on the occupied territory at all times; independent of the fellow organisation it pubicly supports. However in the same sentence Evlekis gives acreditation to "occupied" here, if all circumstances are bear in mind. Weapon used was one of JNA. JNA command was in Belgrade, coordinated by the Milošević's office. Zenanarh (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I fought in the Homeland War as well. There was indeed a JNA presence in the beginning, and that soon constituted an occupation once Croatia was recognized independent. But I had to put back my version because I took the trouble to explain how precarious the situation was, about Serbs coming across as rebels whilst believing themselves the legal authority. Balkantropolis (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You have deleted user Aradic text in he has explained in article Croatian War of Independence how JNA has became dominated by Serbs and now you demand that your POV explanation (like his) stay in this article. You are funny :)

Krajina has always been Croatian territory and writing that uit has been only during Yugoslav time is misleading. Even during Military Frontier period this has been Kingdom of Croatia territory borowed to Habsburg for defence against Turkish attacks.

Serbs in Krajina are rebels not because Croatia or Western media is saying that but because Wikipedia respected sources are telling that they are rebels. Word of wikipedia respected sources is stronger of me, you or anybody else (on Wikipedia).--Rjecina (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I know they were rebels but they were not in their own eyes, so I explain how it comes that we refer to them as such. When we declared our independence, we legally had Krajina, but we never had control of it. By Operation Storm we established control of it. The last time we had Krajina inside an independent country was when he had our NDH. If that is what you mean to say when you state that we "retook it into Croatia" then, when are we going to "retake" Bosnia and Herzegovina which we also had? Balkantropolis (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why weren't they rebels? Everyone knows that Krajina was legally inside Croatia, never inside Serbia, so the Serb invasion of the place ordered by that fascist Miloshevic was bang out of order. Look at the old borders of Yugoslavia and you'll see that the place of war was clearly inside Croatia, Milosechev and Serbia had no business or right to be in that place. Miloshevic destroyed Yugoslavia by invading Slovenia, Bosnia (killing 8,000 because they were Muslim and shelling Sarajevo), Kosovo and Croatia. Was the destruction of 500,000 non-Serbs not enough for him? Please, don't talk to me about Hitler. Miloshevic made Hitler look like a saint. Thank goodness he ain't there no more and Serbia can move forward. Sinbad Barron (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hitler in his own eyes is not criminal but hero. Nobods is villain in own eyes. They eyes are not important, are personal thinking is not important only important are NPOV sources. If users from Serbia like to write POV things (see article History of Serbia section Break-up of Yugoslavia) they are free to do this but in Croatia related articles answer is no. Even if I stop reverting others will revert. Your editing in this article is against wiki rules. --Rjecina (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

1) You're comparing rebels to hitler. Let me congratulate you.

2) User:Balkantropolis is not from Serbia, but from Croatia, as far as I've noticed. And, according to his own words, he was a participat in the Homeland War. I don't see the issue with his edits...

@User:Sinbad Barron - it's definetly much better without Miloshevic in Serbia, but your comparison of him with Hitler is at best just ridiculous. --PrimEviL 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been during heated debate. I do not think this but it has been nice example which everybody will understand.

I do not trust user statement about user history. In many situation it is false.

Balkantropolis edits are against Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Rjecina (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Last night was very exciting on the talk page. Two of the users were blocked; if I had it my way, I'd have blocked everyone who made a contribution last night! The initital question was, do we use the original as left last by Zenanarh (Serb-occupied) or the Balkantropolis revision with his explanatory paragraph (with Serb-inhabited). Although I personally don't like many aspects of the article, as an individual, I don't have the influence or the support from other users (not that I have ever been part of a blatant "edit war team" to save each other from the 3-revert rule) to make changes. All this "Greater Serbia" and "illegally held" has no place on the article, what's more, the editor of these statements was blocked along with his opponent Balkantropolis, and all for disruptive editing. Until anyone can produce "sources", I suggest no further edits be made for the time being. Evlekis (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Balkantropolis:

about Serbs coming across as rebels whilst believing themselves the legal authority

Nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about. There was no legacy for Croatian Serbs to secede like they tried to. SFRJ was federacy. It means union of the republics, as per AVNOJ assembly in 1943 and last Yu constitution (I think 1972). According to the last constitution any republic had right to secede from Yugoslavia, but only within its AVNOJ borders. Of course it was impossible to happen because of the political system - one party system (only Communist party), no democracy! But just a part of any republic of the federacy didn't have that right, especially not on national basis. It's completely unimportant what Serbs or anyone believed. Legacy doesn't work in accordance to someone's beliefs, it works in accordance to legal documents. Slovenia and Croatia used legacy for their secession, not beliefs of their citizens. Beliefs of their citizens motivated it. Montenegro used the same legacy recently to secede from Serbia & Montenegro and Serbs didn't attack them. How come? I'm almost disappointed (just joking).

The last time we had Krajina inside an independent country was when he had our NDH. If that is what you mean to say when you state that we "retook it into Croatia" then, when are we going to "retake" Bosnia and Herzegovina which we also had?

Nonsense again. Croatian lands under name Krajina were part of Croatia for 1,000 years. Wherever Croatia was (Croatian Medieval Kingdom, united kingdom with Hungary, Austrian monarchy or Yugoslavia) Krajina was there too as a part of Croatia.

BTW first Croatian duchy/state whatever developed in the northern Dalmatia, precisely in the southern half of what is called Krajina, first inscription Dux Croatorum (9th century) was found in Šopot, a 1/2 km to the south of Benkovac - so called "agrar megalopolis of Krajina" :) During all Medieval and Reinessance, the cities, towns and villages of "Krajina" were feudal possesions of old Croatian nobility. Even name Benkovac came from old Croatian name Benko, often recorded Medieval Croatian personal name. Knin was Croatian Royal city. Until 400 years ago there were no Serbs around there. Orthodox Vlachs and Serbs came there as refugees among others from the east.

We "retook it into Croatia" not because it was inside an independent country when we had our NDH. It's because it was inside SR Croatia (Socialist Republic of Croatia) - one of the republics that made Yugoslavian federacy - SFRJ! Money from Knin, Benkovac,... went to Zagreb, not to Belgrade. Every republic had its own "account". Money from Zagreb went to Belgrade. That's how that federacy worked.

Saying that "Krajina" was not in Croatia before the Homeland war is equally stupid as saying that Šumadija just recently became a part of Serbia, after secession of Montenegro, since this is the 1st time in the last 800 years that Serbia is Serbia and nothing else (not a part of bigger union or federation). Actually it can be concluded that "Krajina" was in Croatia all the time, while Šumadija was not in Serbia: Croatia (and "Krajina" within it) was one of the Croatian provinces (Slavonia, Croatia, Dalmatia) within Austrian Monarchy; Serbia didn't exist for 500 years under the Turks! Of course this last part of my comment is irrelevant,... just to show you picturesqually what stupidity you wrote there. Zenanarh (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If my memory serves me correctly, I think I was the one who originally took exception to the term "retook", so I'll state my reasons: firstly, we don't need to remind ourselves how Croatia existed before 1991, what its borders were, and the grounds on which it declared indepdendence and the frontiers for the new republic. It's not news for either of us so let's not insult one another's intelligence. My issue regarding "retook" is not one of disputed content, it is about presentation and delivering the correct message. Your analogy which mentions Šumadija and Serbia does not stretch, but if you'd like an example involving Serbia (for simplicity), examine the following: Serbia captured Kosovo in the days of its first empire, it then lost the region to the Ottomans who controlled it for the next five centuries; inside that time, any nationalist thinking among the Serb population will have considered the region of Kosovo to be unredeemed territory. So when in 1912, the region fell to a Serb entity a second time, Serbs were able to speak of how they "retook" the land; they had it once before, and then they had it again. To say that Croatia retook Krajina certainly implies that Krajina was of interest to the present Croatian entity, and that it had been a part of Croatia in the past, but it also implies that Croatia recognised that prior to Storm, that the region was not in Croatia. If it were, you wouldn't be retaking it, it's yours. I use the same argument against Serbs who long for Kosovo, they say "it's Serb" and I tell them "what are you worried about then? Someone else rules it, but it's yours! So why worry?" In reality, you fight your own concience when trying to convince yourself that a territory is righfully yours when it is not controlled by your government. Now I'm not about to discuss the NDH, but with regards to Krajina forming a part of pre-1991 Croatia, it was rather like its association with Croatia during the last 1,000 years you once mentioned. I notice from my Times Compact History of the World (published in 2002) that your holy grounds weren't as painted in red and white squares as you originally thought. There were in fact many barron periods when no Croatian entity existed: for instance, as recently as the early 20th century, none of today's entities formally existed between 1929 and in Croatia's case, 1939 when the Banate was reintroduced. Whilst it had fallen to the Ottoman Empire, it didn't exist according to the book; and when it did break loose and reunite with Hungary, its territory didn't seem to incorporate todays's Krajina. Next time, I might download the map and show you (before it get's deleted). I noticed for some of the time between 1250 and 1500 (as stated on the page I am looking at now) that Bosnia existed, and had most of your Adriatic, Venice surrounded the coastal areas, and the rest of your land was locked inside an entity called Hungary, a large block in central Europe which opened its jaws on the west to include some of the coast. Yet there was indeed a Serbian entity here, called "Serbian Princes", and it appears to include Montenegro and Ragusa! No point arguing, that's what this map shows, I'll gladly download it. I won't dwell on it. I know that Croatia first appeared as an entity well over a millennium ago, and its existence today reflects how it never dissappeared. It came, it went, it returned, its borders expanded and decreased, as did its status. In the beginning, it was independent, just as it is now. There were times in the meantime that it yielded power, and there were times that its existence was largely ceremonial. The last time that the frontier was controlled by Croatia before Operation Storm, the Croatian authorities were not the ultimate authority. Zagreb was not in a position to tell its citizens in Knin "from today, you will use the Kuna - it is your sole legal currency", neither could it revoke the old red passports and replace them with blue books displaying the word "Putovnica", and even if they tried to, those citizens would not have been able to enter the first country over the border with those documents. So to summarise, if Krajina was Croatian, then what Zagreb did not retake it, but it established control of it by ousting the separatists who controlled it, unless ofcourse Zagreb recognised its detachment from the rest of Croatia. To use "retake" on the grounds that Krajina's lands had been a part of a Croatian entity for much of the past millennium suggest a notion of irredentism. On principle, I believe that it is worth mentioning that there are many territories currently outside of the Republic of Croatia which nationalists consider to be unredeemed Croatian territory. On the last note, there is nothing wrong with saying "retook", but to use a nationalist approach as a platform also implies that you consider other territories to be rightfully Croatian and currently occupied. Looking at it the other way, the Republic of Croatia, established 1991 had never previously controlled the whole of Krajina. Evlekis (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In a side note, google "Croatia retook." It comes up with a lot of results because it is a common phrase used to establish the fact that Croatia took back control. Whether it 'controlled' Krajina areas or not doesn't seem to be relevant; after all, it was a part of SFRJ Croatia in the time of Yugoslavia. I don't want to get into a debate over this, and to me, occupied/held is pretty much the same thing, so knock yourselves out arguing over that. Maybe we should all just drop the subject, or at least take a break to watch the Olympics and cheer your country on. Cheers and good night.--Jesuislafete (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

New proposition:"Akashi talked to Tudjman and Martic with the aim of averting a Croatian offensive but no results achieved. Tudjman warns Serbs to negotiate or be reincorporated into Croatia by force" This is from source in section:"Should we remove these tags on the top of the article" on this talk page.--Rjecina (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I still think that this whole article was far too pro-Serb given what those sick idiots did that the world knows little about in the early 90's, the ethnic genocide of non-Serbs, the plan to create Greater Serbia, the dealings with that no-good fascist dictator Slobodan Milosevic. I am a firm believer that sources speak the facts, and relaible sources outwit the unreliable sources, for instance, the so-called "Serb" story only appears in Serb media (state controlled) and in the media of its Communist allies like Russia and Greece. The Croatian stories (the truth) are told by all the worlds dissinterested media and press, like BBC, ABC, CNN. SKY, Australian news, etc etc. Sinbad —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to the silence of "dissinterested" (yeah, sure) media and press, "like BBC, ABC, CNN. SKY, Australian news, etc etc" world knows even less about ethnic genocide of Serbs by no saner other balkan "idiots", including that no-better-than-Slobo dictator Tudjman, NATO bombing refugees and other hidden facts. And skipping post-communist Russia (with its openly anti-communist TV and most of printed press at the time), i must say that "communist Greece" is something new to me, LOL 195.218.211.6 (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing part of article

I have removed part of article which is speaking about situation in Obrovac and Knin. Reasons:

• About Obrovac we are having 6 month old source question.
• About Knin everything is writen in section "5 August" with OK source.--Rjecina (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah OK. Little XQ (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

There are some disagreements concerning how the infobox is supposed to look, especially concerning the strength and casualties section. I dont agree with Kebatas version for a number of reasons

1. "relieved 10500 km2 of territory" - Does not belong in infobox, belong further down in the article.
2. Strength numbers - We need sources for these numbers, it's not out place to guess how many men ABiH had or how many tanks the Croats had, if there is no source they shouldn't be in the infobox. It would be misleading.
3. Croatian casualties numbers - To quote the article, it says "Croatian military lost 174 soldiers, while 1 430 were wounded." They nowhere in the article mentions or hints at 196 killed or 1,100 wounded. Give an source to these numbers unless you just made them up.
4. "(500-700) soldiers and (500-677) civilians killed?" - I dont get why use parentheses and question marks everywhere in the infobox.

Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nirvana,

1. "relieved 10500 km2 of territory" was mission of Operation Storm carried by Croatian army. So, if mission was completed successfuly, then result is the same. Operation Storm goal was to liberate occupied areas (territory of R.Croatia), although I don't think they wept because of Serb leaving the Croatia.

For your points 2, 3, and 4 you have numerous different references, for example:

1. [[5]] - Serbian source: Operation Storm, considered by the Croatian side to be the largest military operation of the war, involved more than 200 000 troops on both sides, and according to official Croatian data, took only 84 hours. Croatian military lost 174 soldiers, while 1 430 were wounded.
2. [[6]] - Human Rights Watch: One year ago, on August 4, 1995, the Croatian Army launched "Operation Storm," an offensive to retake the Krajina region, which had been controlled by separatist ethnic Serbs since early 1991. The offensive, which lasted a mere thirty-six hours, resulted in the death of an estimated 526 Serbs, 116 of whom were reportedly civilians, and in the displacement of an estimated 200,000 who fled in the immediate aftermath.....At dawn on August 4, 1995, Croatian Army units and special units of the police force often used in military operations launched an attack on Knin and other areas in Serbian-controlled parts of Croatia. Approximately 100,000 Croatian government troops were involved in the operation, labeled "Operation Storm"(Oluja). Without the assistance of forces from Bosnia or Serbia, the outgunned and under-manned Krajina Serbs provided little resistance and quickly withdrew, allowing Croatian government forces to re-capture the region by August 7. On August 30, 1995, Croatian authorities indicated that 211 Croatian soldiers and police officers and forty-two Croatian civilians had been killed during "Operation Storm."11 According to Croatian authorities, 526 Serbs reportedly were killed, 116of whom were civilians.12 Human Rights Watch/Helsinki is not aware of any Serbian source that gave figures for Serbian casualties.
3. [[7]] - Carla Del Ponte - Prosecutor against Ante Gotovina: 42. On 4 August 1995, the Croatian forces launched the military offensive codenamed "Oluja" or Storm to retake the Krajina region, which had been held by Krajina Serbs since 1991. The "Oluja" offensive resulted in the displacement of an estimated 150,000 - 200,000 Krajina Serbs, who fled or were forced to flee, during, and in the aftermath, of the said offensive. 43. The "Oluja" offensive launched by Croatian forces numbering about 150,000 troops was conducted in the area of the former UN Sectors North and South, covering an area approximately 10,500 square kilometers. In this offensive, Serb populated towns and villages in the Krajina region were subjected to heavy artillery shelling by the HV supported by aircraft belonging to the Croatian air force (Hrvatsko Ratno Zrakoplovstvo, also referred to as HRZ).
4. [[8]] - TIME U.S.: In the Balkans, there is now a whole new war to die in. Four years after a humiliating defeat, the Croats are on the move with a well-trained, well-equipped force of more than 100,000. That is the largest army to fight in Europe in 50 years. Gotovina:
5. [[9]] - DOMOVINSKI RAT ON LINE: OSLOBOĐEN TERITORIJ: Cijelokupni okupirani teritorij pod nadzorom UNPA Sektor sjever i jug od Banovina, Kordun, Lika i Dalmacija oko 10 500 četvornih kilometara teritorije, što je 18 posto hrvatskog područja. Pod okupacijom je još ostalo Podunavlje i Baranja - oko 2 500 četvornih kilometara teritorije ili oko 5 posto teritorija.

POSTROJBE: Hrvatska vojska: Ukupno 130 000 u napadnim operacijama u ZP Zagreb (zapoviednik general bojnik Ivan Basarac), ZP Bjelovar (zapoviednik general bojnik Luka Džanko), ZP Karlovac (zapovjednik general pukovnik Miljenko Crnjac), ZP Gospic (zapoviednik general bojnik Mirko Norac), ZP Split (zapovjednik general pukovnik Ante Gotovina) i 60 000 u obrambenim operacijama ZP Osijek (zapovjednik general pukovnik Đuro Dečak) i Južnog bojišta (zapovjednik general bojnik Živko Budimir). Hrvatska vojska raspolagala je u napadnim operacijama 350 tenkova, 18 zrakoplova te 38 zrakoplova. Agresorska vojska: Neprijatelj je raspolagao u 4 korpusa sa oko 40 tisuća vojnika, 400 tenkova, 200 oklopnih transportera, 550 topova, 25 zrakoplova, 13 helikoptera, 320 protuzračnih topova.

GUBICI: Hrvatska strana: Poginulo je 196 pripadnika; ranjeno 1100 od toga 572 ranjena s težim ozlijedama i 528 s lakšim ozlijedama; zarobljena 3 pripadnika i 15 nestalih pripadnika. Ukupni gubici bili su 0,12 posto, a odnos snaga hevatske i srpske strane bio je 1:3 u korist HV-a. Analitičari su gubitke u operaciji proglasili minimalnim, uglavnom zbog slabog otpora Srba. Agresorska strana: Srpski gubici nisu poznati, ali se procjenjuje da premašuju 500 poginulih i 2 500 ranjenih ili 6,25 posto angažiranih snaga. Hrvatska je zaplijenila naoružanja i vojne opreme u vrijednosti od 400 milijuna USD.

There are much more references. So, if one reference claims that there were 174 Croatian soldiers killed and other claims 211, I suppose it is best to write (174-211) soldiers killed, don't you agree. Same goes for tanks, refugees, etc. How you can decide who is better source: Carla Del Ponte, Human Rights Watch, TIME U.S., or somebody else? Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

1. "relieved 10500 km2 of territory" - I'm not sure what you are getting at to be honest. I don't refute that 10500 km2 of territory was liberated, it should'nt stand in the infobox and should be put into the aftermath section of the article itself.
2. Strength numbers - Concerning strength numbers, the numbers i'm getting from your sources is that the numbers of Croatian soldiers in the offensive varies from 100,000 - 200,000 and Serbian soldiers from 40,000 - 50,000. You should add reference note as you add numbers to avoid edit wars and such. Since i don't understand Croatian the last source is difficult to understand, but i can see the numbers you are referring to. 350 tanks, i assume zrakoplova stands for aircrafts. Where are the numbers for 25,000 men from ABiH, 15 tanks from AbiH, 500 artillery pieces, 50 rocket launchers, 18-36 helicopters? And where are the numbers for 10,000 West Bosnian soldiers? Can you please point them out for me, i maybe just missed them. What kind of website is domovinskirat.hr? A news website? I know it stands for "Homeland War" so i guess not.
3. Croatian casualties numbers - Yes, but how valid is the 211 number? The article seems to indicate that the numbers from the Croatian military itself when the official numbers is 174 killed and 1,430 wounded if I'm not mistaken. I can find a number of sources to those figures, including some of your sources ([[10]], [[11]], [[12]]), can you locate more on the 211 KIA number? That would make it more viable. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nirvana,

1. "relieved 10500 km2 of territory" - Croatia before Operation Storm was split up in two unconnected parts (north and south). If "relieved 10500 km2 of territory" which connected Croatia isn't result of Operation Storm, I don't know what is.
2. Strength numbers - All references that I presented above for you are already part of article, I didn't look for new ones. If I/You/somebody put reference on every single number it would be a mess. Maybe you can put reference for one or two disputed number. ABiH and West Bosnian soldiers are part of Operation Tiger, whish is a part of Operation Storm, or better military action carried out simultaneously with Operation Storm. Operation Storm was in Croatia between Croats and Serbs, and Operation Tiger was mixed and took part in Bosnia. The numbers of their (ABiH & WB) soldiers is an estimate.
3. Croatian casualties numbers - You are not mistaken, Croatian military said: 174 killed and 1,430 wounded. But that was immediately after operation, and many of them where "missing in action", and many of them were badly injured and died later. Most common "official" numbers except (174 killed and 1,430 wounded) are 196 killed, 1100 wounded (heavy 572 i lihgt 528), 3 POW, 15 missing([[13]]. Actually, there are references with numbers of Croatian casualties more than 211 dead. Croatian and Serbian sourcs of Serbs casualties are even more confusing and in wider range.

• Serbian Krajina army before the storm had about 62,000 people, of which the 11th Slavonia-Baranja Corps had about 19,300 people. This means that in the western part of Krajina, there were about 42,000 people. There were also some volunteeres that were not under command of VSK. (estimate based on different references)
• Croatian army for the operation collected 127,000 people (including 2500 police officers). Half of them were offensive (regular army with experience), and half of them were defensive (volunteeres and drafted ones - they held control in areas liberated by offensive forces). There were about 50,000-60,000 forces in other parts of Croatia (around Slavonija and Dubrovnik in case of large scale Serbia invasion). So, when you combine 130,000+50,000=180,000 (which is a number of 150,000-200,000 Croatian soldiers that you can find in some references. (estimate based on different references)
• It is very hard to find relevant english references about details such as number of tanks, rocket launchers, aircrafts, helicopters, etc.
• I hope this helped. Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. As long as i know where you are getting the numbers from and they are valid i have no issues with your edits. My opinion is still that the "relieved 10500 km2 of territory" should be in the aftermath section of the article. It's a result from the battle of course but you usually only write the immediate effect of the offensive in the infobox, as "Croatian victory" etc. If we applied this to all articles it would be an mess. A source on ABiH and WB forces would be good to see. I also don't understand the frequent use parentheses. But otherwise it's fine, some smaller changes perhaps, but no major. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You/We can remove everything except "Total Croatian victory" from Result section in Infobox (relieved 10500 km2 of territory (18% of Croatia), Decisive Bosnian victory, End of Republic of Serbian Krajina, End of AP of Western Bosnia, End of Croatian War of Independence), but first you have to make consensus for that, or it will be lots of war edits. For ABiH and WB forces it is a same thing. We can remove them as well, because they didn't fight in Croatia, and they took part in Operation Tiger, but still you need consensus because these two operations are connected. You can make suggestion on this talk page, and wait for people to vote on issues. Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Participants, MPRI

I included MPRI instructors on the Croatian side of conflict 99.226.136.72 (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're misrepresenting the source. MPRI didn't actually fight on the Croatian side - they were instructors, not combatants. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Serbian Ministry of the Interior

Before anyone says anything, I am not trying to "hide" the involvement of the Serbian gov. in the Krajina. That said, the units of the Republic of Serbia are not combatant authorities like Croatia, RSK, etc. They are units fighting for the RSK, i.e. units of the RSK. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of 500,000 Bosniaks and 150,000 Croats

Ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Krajina "was not" the largest instance of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. Nobody has mentioned in this article that the Serbs committed ethnic cleansing of at least half a million Bosniaks and at least 150,000 Bosnian Croats in 1992. As usual, wiki editors are avoiding to mention uncomfortable facts. Bosniak (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps what was meant was that it was the largest single act of ethnic cleansing? Even so, it certainly was not... How do you cleanse people you never even saw :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Old myths

Serbs lost. To their arch-opponent. So, there must be some devilish plot that helped Croats to defeat them (better- humiliate them). Three prominent leitmotifs are:

a) MPRI and Vuono b) the so-called betrayal of Milošević c) imaginary massive Croatia's rearmamemt

All, and other points, have been seriously discussed by Croatian military historians like Davor Marijan in his books on war in Croatia, [14], [15]

As for a):

a) MPRI provided great assistance re efficiency of military bureaucracy, getting rid of soviet-style commanding habits of ex-JNA officers who joined the Croatian Army, establishing communication lines with US military intelligence and political establishment. They did not play any significant role in training combat forces (as did the Franch Foreigh Legion in their 3 weeks stay in Šepurine near Zadar), no in planning military operations to follow. Generally, they were an extremely valuable asset, but mainly in enabling Croatia to proceed with her operation.[16]

b) Milošević didn't betray anyone. Faced with ca. 160.000 Croatian Army members around "Krajina" and 55.000 Croatian Army fighters dug in in Eastern Slavonina (all in all, 210.000 people had been mobilized)- he wisely backed up.

c)Croatia had purchased mainly functional, but hardly modern weaponry from Eastern Europe. No tanks, no air-planes, no land-to-land missiles,... She bought an escadrille of Mi-24 Hind choppers, a dysfunctional S-300 anti-aircraft weapon, plus a few anti-tank OSA weapons.

Generally, the Serbian insistence on huge MPRI influence is psychologically understandable: they got beaten, in this version of events, by the sole remaining military superpower- which is emotionally soothing. Just, it isn't truth, and this cannot be proven by some dubious Internet gossip. I'll paste a few chunks in Croatian- who understands, it will suffice- from contemporary Croatian history book (The making of modern Croatian state and the Homeland war) addressing tangentially these issues. He who has ears...[17]

U ožujku Holbrooke je doputovao u Zagreb s namjerom da izvrši pritisak na Tuđmana vezano za produženje mandata UNPROFOR-a, a nakon sastanka potpredsjednika Gorea i Tuđmana u Kopenhagenu Gore je upozorio kako se „Sjedinjene Države odlučno protive upotrebi sile za rješavanje problema u Krajini", a Tuđman je „dao riječ da neće napasti - uz uslov da mu se region mirno vrati". Na kraju „hrvatski juriš u Krajini bio je samo odgođen, a ne spriječen, a ocjena američke obavještajne službe o tome šta će se desiti ako Hrvati napadnu pokazala se - srećom - potpuno pogrešna".415 Tri dana uoči Oluje, na tiskovnoj konferenciji organiziranoj 1. kolovoza u Zagrebu povodom priopćenja posebnog pomagača za ljudska prava državnog tajnika Johna Shattucka o rezultatima njegova istraživanja zbivanja u Srebrenici, na situaciju u Hrvatskoj osvrnuo se američki veleposlanik Galbraith; na upit novinara o mobilizaciji hrvatskih postrojbi Galbraith je priznao „kako je situacija veoma napeta" te da „postoji mogućnost izbijanja konflikta". Nakon nabrajanja svih mirovnih inicijativa koje je do tada poduzela vlada SAD-a te uzastopnog ponavljanja da se SAD protivi vojnoj opciji, Galbraith je upozorio da je „sadašnja kriza" isprovocirana „odlukom srpskih krajiških vlasti da pređu međunarodnu granicu i angažiraju se u napadu na teritorij druge države, Bosne i Hercegovine, i zaštićene zone UN-a". Također je naznačio kako se zrakoplovima koji polijeću s hrvatskog teritorija, iz Udbine, provode napadi na Bihać. Dva dana poslije - 3. kolovoza, Galbraith je nakon što je u Beogradu uspio privoliti premijera RSK Milana Babića na prihvaćanje plana Z-4 („pa i više od toga"), pokušao odgovoriti Tuđmana od intervencije, ali bez uspjeha.416 Odluku o vojnoj akciji Tuđman je vjerojatno donio još sredinom srpnja, nakon što mu je general Ante Gotovina 17. srpnja 1995. predočio plan akcije na Brijunima, gdje se okupio časnički zbor povodom odluke o umirovljenju čelnika stožera generala Janka Bobetka. O vojnoj akciji bile su izviještene pojedine prijateljske zemlje koje su sugerirale što kraće trajanje vojne operacije, pa je ona svedena s deset na pet dana.417 Akcija Oluja otpočela je 4. kolovoza u 5 h ujutro - dan nakon Galbraithova pokušaja da u zadnji trenutak spriječi hrvatsku vojnu intervenciju. Hrvatske postrojbe ušle su u zapadni dio RSK (UNPA sektore Sjever duž bojišnice od 630 kilometara u sjevernoj Dalmaciji, Lici, na Kordunu i Banovini. U svjetskim stručnim krugovima HV je ocijenjen kao „'uzorna vojska' . središnja snaga u balkanskom sukobu', a ministar obrane SAD izjavio je da su ga se 'izvježbanost i profesionalnost te vojske snažno dojmili'".418 Međutim, nakon dovršetka ratnih operacija došlo je do paljenja srpskih kuća, pljačke i ubojstava civila, što hrvatska vlast nije spriječila, pa „tijekom i u razdoblju od 100 dana nakon vojne akcije, najmanje 150 srpskih civila je pogubljeno, a više stotina je nestalo".419 Prilikom bijega srpske populacije jednoj koloni izbjeglica priključio se Galbraith, zbog čega ga je ljutiti Tuđman posprdno prozvao „traktorskim diplomatom". Posljedica ovakvih propusta bila je lavina medijskih napada na Hrvatsku te poslije podizanje optužnica u Haagu koje su pokrenule niz kontroverznih događaja u Hrvatskoj i postale jednom od najvažnijih unutrašnjopolitičkih i vanjskopolitičkih tema.420 Dio optužbi za ponašanje Hrvata nakon Oluje (ekscesi za vrijeme same operacije bili su marginalni - srpska populacija je pobjegla pa nije ni moglo biti većih povreda ljudskih prava) dotaknuli su i pitanje američke suodgovornosti.421 O optužbama za etničko čišćenje Srba u Hrvatskoj Galbraith - tada već bivši američki veleposlanik u Hrvatskoj -kao svjedok na suđenju Miloševiću u Haagu izjavio je da hrvatsko preuzimanje Krajine „nije bilo etničko čišćenje, jer kad je (hrvatska) vojska ušla u gradove, stanovništva više nije bilo".422 O odgovornosti za zločine Galbraith je rekao i ovo: „Ne znam ništa o istragama u Haagu. Istodobno, ne osuđujem predsjednika Tuđmana za etničko čišćenje Srba u Hrvatskoj, jer su Srbi evakuirani po naredbi njihovih vođa. Mislim da je Tuđman ipak odgovoran za ono što se dogodilo nakon napada na Krajinu: sustavno spaljivanje srpskih kuća i za to što nije spriječeno ubijanje stotina uglavnom starijih osoba koje su ostale živjeti u svom kraju. Za to su odgovorni hrvatska vlada i predsjednik Tuđman, jer se to dogodilo dok su oni bili na vlasti."423 Galbraithovo tumačenje operacije Oluja moglo se povezati s pitanjem uloge Amerikanaca u vojnim operacijama. Na prvi dan Oluje u samo svitanje četiri zrakoplova Ratne mornarice SAD-a, u sklopu NATO-ovih formacija, napala su radarska postrojenja Srpske vojske Krajine kod Udbine i Knina. Taj događaj mogao je kod krajiških Srba stvoriti dojam o združenoj akciji hrvatskih snaga i NATO-a. Nekoliko dana prije - na dan kada je general Ante Gotovina ušao u BiH 28. i 29. srpnja i zauzeo Bosansko Grahovo i Glamoč - u Šepurinama kod Zadra uspostavljena je baza američkih obavještajaca. Prema diplomatu Milesu Ragužu njezin zadatak bio je povezivanje, a vjerojatno i koordinacija, Pentagona i Gotovinina štaba; Raguž navodi „kako se čini da su SAD također omogućile izravnu vojnu asistenciju Hrvatskoj vojsci prvoga dana operacije Oluja uništivši komunikacijsku mrežu u Hrvatskoj i Bosanskoj krajini".424

Prema dobro upućenoj novinarki Višnji Starešini (koja se poziva na svoje izvore, djelo Cees Wiebs: Intelligence and the War in Bosnia 1992-1995 te istraživanja Roya Gutmana i drugih) CIA već od „druge polovice 1993. potpuno preuzima obavještajni primat u Hrvatskoj i BiH. Uz znanje CIA-e i američkoga veleposlanika u Zagrebu Petera Galbraitha te suglasnost Franje Tuđmana i Gojka Šuška, u ljeto 1994. proradio je 'hrvatski naftovod', obavještajni naziv za transport iranskog oružja za Armiju BiH preko Zagreba, čiju je dostavu u BiH osiguravao SAD preko tuzlanskog aerodroma". Važnu ulogu imala je američka agencija MPRI (Military Professional Resources Incorporated) u kojoj su djelovali umirovljeni američki generali i obavještajci, uključujući i bivšeg direktora DIA-e (Defense Intelligence Agencv) generala Haryja Soystera; prema Starešini, sastavnica Oluje bila je i „američka obavještajna, trenerska i savjetodavna podrška". Raguž pak navodi „kako mu je više hrvatskih časnika koji su koordinirali aktivnosti MPRI-ja izjavilo kako MPRI nije pribavio ništa izvan javno dostupnih informacija i treninga iz priručnika koje bi svaki malo bolji istraživač bez teškoća pronašao u SAD-u. Baza na otoku Braču zatvorena je na proljeće 1995. nakon njezina otkrića i pritužbi Europljana".425

Dakako, Amerikanci nisu bili osobito raspoloženi izlaganju svih varijanti svojih planova u BiH u javnosti. Tako je u jednom intervjuu iz 2002. Clintonov savjetnik za nacionalnu sigurnost Anthony Lake potvrdio kako unutar NATO-a uoči oslobodilačkih akcija 1995. nije bilo konsenzusa već - štoviše - sukoba oko koraka koje je trebalo poduzeti. Lake navodi kako su on i Madeleine Albright početkom 1995. „pripremili novu strategiju američkog djelovanja u Bosni, koja je predviđala 'kombinaciju diplomacije i sile.'"426

Mir Harven (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll add a few minor info:

a) info on the massive (or significant) MPRI involvement in Croatian Army training came primarily from PR

agencies: they present just a self-advertisement material with no tangible evidence added

b) all the Cro Army Highest level generals (Domazet, Gotovina, Stipetić, Štefanek, Agotić, Vrbanac,

Červenko, Miljavac, ...) deny that MPRI has had any significant role in training, let alone planning

of the major Croatian Army operations (Zima 94, Ljeto, Maestral, Oluja,..). They (MPRI) officials have been led

on a tour to view, to their surprise and astonishment, the city of Knin encircled and Cro Army poised to strike.

c) a rather bizarre is a statement that there had been a spectacular change in Cro Army tactics

that was "too modern" and evidently not from Yu Army schools. Actually, there was nothing crucially new

in Cro Army tactics & strategy. First- the Serbs' resistance had been corroded by step-by-step

breaking of enemy's positions and morale (just like Field Marshall Borojević piecemeal conquest

of Italian Alps during WW1; the Storm itself was a kind of Blitzkrieg from WW2 (like Germany in Denmark

and Norway, minus air force). Essentially, Storm was brilliantly planned and executed military operation,

but a bit dated re weaponry and electronics warfare (as, say, compared to Israeli-Arab war of 1967). It was

more advanced, as analysts has shown, in the field of psychological warfare & coordination of all

combat forces.

No need for MPRI, let alone imagined massive Croatia's armament by supermodern nonexistent weapons.Mir Harven (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing of Croats in 1991/92

The article fails to mention that just 4 years earlier (in 1991/2), Serbs expelled 150,000 to 200,000 Croats from Serb-controlled areas of the so called Republika Srpska Krajina. Bosniak (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That was inculuded into the article,but serbian nationalist editors keep deliberatly ereasing that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.138.91 (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Paramilitary forces from Serbia

I cannot understand this DIREKTOR's edit [18]. Paramilitary forces from Serbia were present, especially in occupied Eastern Croatia. Do you remember who was "milking" the oilfield of Đeletovci?
Nobody knew (except Croatian general staff) which areas and when Croatian Army and police'd go into action. So it was the case with occupied Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia. Croatian forces were accumulated there. Nobody knew (except Croatian HQ) were they there for advancing or defensive reasons. Kubura (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Indictments and citations from ICTY

I've removed these lines:

According to the indictment of the ICTY-Prosecutors in the case against Gotovina, Cermak and Markac (Gotovina et al.), Croatian forces conducted widespread actions against Serb civilians and property. The ICTY Chief Prosecutor alleges that the Croatian forces operated in "'arson squads' using inflammable fuels, incendiary bullets and explosives... [leaving] some towns and numerous villages completely destroyed". The intention of this campaign, according to the Prosecutor, was to make it impossible for the Krajina Serb population to return.

Whereas the initial indictment charges that hundreds of Krajina Serbs were murdered or disappeared in the wake of Operation Storm, the amended indictment in the case Gotovina et al. reduced the total number of murdered civilians to 37.

By November 1995 the UN peacekeeping force in Croatia, UNCRO, published its estimates of 128 confirmed civilians killed in the operation and destruction of over 73% of all objects in Knin's region.

Trial is not over yet. Many of prosecutor's arguments were beaten by the defense of Croatian generals. Therefore we cannot cite something that was beaten. Some of prosecutor's whitnesses were "caught in the lie". Kubura (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Because of cases like this one [19] [20]. Kubura (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've also removed this line. There was no inline citations.
{{quote|President Tudjman reminded his subordinates of the Croat towns that had been destroyed and that there was now an opportunity to hit Knin with artillery. He also pointed out that this was not simply an opportunity to have things under control but to give Serbs a taste of what they had given Croats and to pay them back. Furthermore, he claimed that it was important that the civilians flee.<ref name="icty.org"/>|}} I've taken a better look at the cited page, the reference, http://www.icty.org/x/cases/gotovina/trans/en/090323ME.htm.
Then I've seen Page 17382. There it says "to get them to flee".
These are the words of mr. Tieger. "And I direct the Court to P926 ....". Mr. Tieger's speech began at Page 17378, line 16.
Page 17384, lines 2-4: "You will hear more about the meeting in Brioni from Mr. Russo hortly, but I'll simply refer to a few key elements that were not mentioned.".
Lines 8-11. "Two, President Tudjman pointed out that this was not simply an opportunity to have things under control but to give Serbs a taste of what they had given Croats and to pay them back. And, three, it was important that the civilians flee. The army will follow and each will have a psychological effect on the other.". These are all the words of mr. Tieger, not the words from the transcripts.
Let's not forget that prosecution used a video as a proof of shelling, and defense proved that that "proof" is a forgery of Serbian military. Kubura (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the need to remove the references to the position of either of the parties. It is a legitimate fact (Prosecution claimed X) and it doesnt in any way indicate that what the Prosecution or defence claimed was the truth. Whether something was "beaten" by the defence is not for a lay peson like you to judge, leave that to the professional judges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.58.34 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, after some time the trial has been concluded and so I think we can add that back and expand on the systematic destruction and ethnic cleansing of the croatian serbs. (LAz17 (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)).

Missing?

How many people went missing in the Operation Storm? The article doesn't say. GregorB (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Time For New Interpretation

How about slightly changing the interpretation of the event, now that the Croatian generals Gotovina and Markač are officially convicted of joint criminal enterprise? The number of around 2.000 Serbian military and civilian casualties and around 200.000 expelled seems to me not drastically different from Srebrenica casualties. The (yet unproven) number there is 8.000, with a substantial part of that number being Muslim combatants that threw away their weapons and took civilian clothes prior to Serbian takeover. How about retitling the Srebrenica massacre article into "Operation Srebrenica" and begin it with: "It began shortly before dawn on 6 July 1995 and ended with a complete victory for the Serbian forces five days later." You may take it as sarcasm. For me though, the article titled "Operation Storm" is equally sarcastic and reveals the proportion of bias inspired by several western governments that took side with Serbian enemies during the war. Also, it is worth stressing that regular Croatian army invaded the territory of the sovereign state of Bosnia for the purpose of this criminal enterprise and that on that occasion these units terrorized and expelled the civilian population of the predominantly Serbian populated Bosnian towns of Glamoč and Drvar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agorapromo (talk • contribs) 23:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no logic to even mention in same line Operation Srebrenica or massacre and Operation Storm since Operation Srebrenica is conquer action with intention/plan to massacre Bosniaks while Operation Storm is liberation action with intention to return control over area occupied by JNA, chetniks and rebelled serbs. About invasion of Croatian army in part of sovereign state Bosnia and Herzegovina (no such sovereign state name Bosnia), read more about Split agreement, no one expelled or terrorized anyone, everyone who left did it by their own decision, same is for SAO Krajina Serbs. In this time delay we can state that (any) exodus was predictive, but in time of war, nothing could be predicted in such devastating numbers. --Domjanovich (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

War crimes were perpetrated in the operation and that is a sad thing, the loss of human life is always a tragedy. However, when all is said and done, if it were not for this operation, the loss of human life in Bihać would have been even far more severe and catastrophic.

Likewise, the ICTY managed to confirm 324 people killed during Operation Storm and 20,000 as deportated, so the 2.000 Serb dead and 200,000 deported is contested. Comparing it to Srebrenica is downright uninformed and naive. You just have to do the math: the ICTY confirmed 324 killed in Storm as compared to 7,000-8,000 confirmed killed in Srebrenica (see Radislav Krstic verdict), i.e. a 1:21 ratio of killed. When one has in mind that Srebrenica enclave had an 150 km² area, this makes it 70 times smaller than the area Storm re-took. When we add up the size and number of people killed, we see that 70*21=1.470 >>> i.e. Srebrenica was 1.470 time worse than Storm.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Proper Title For the Article

The proper title for the article should be "Operation Storm Massacre". The way the perpetrators initially tried to present the operation to the public is of no importance, whether they designate it "liberation", "regain of control" or whatever. It is their true intentions and consequences that matter. Facts confirmed by the verdicts of the Hague International War Tribunal are that Croatian military leaders engaged in joint criminal enterprise that resulted in summary killings of civilians by the hundreds. Also, the tacit support of the US agencies and a public support of the US government for the action (or the support of any government for any action for that matter) are no reason to put the euphemism Operation instead of the accurate title Massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agorapromo (talk • contribs) 09:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

List of military operations is what you should look on this wikipedia, and realize that military operations get their names from original planers/creators or historians and in their names there is no mention of war crimes or something like that, even if it really happened during time of operation, planed or not. So your proposal in my opinion is wrong from the start. --Domjanovich (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

Given the tag has been on the page since August 2010, the introduction edits were far overdue. It was rather too long and full of material and quotes that were better suited for other sections. As you can see, I simply moved a majority of the cuts to other sections. While quotes by Clinton and Holbrooke are acceptable, they really have a place in the article, and the intro is not one of them. I only permanently cut out things that were already mentioned, and adding them somewhere else in the article would have just been redundant. If anyone has any questions, comments, or concerns about the introduction, please discuss here. --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem in the introduction section. This quote. "In January 1992, a ceasefire agreement was signed by Presidents Franjo Tuđman of Croatia and Slobodan Milošević of Serbia to suspend fighting between the two sides. During the next three years, Croatian military operations in the Krajina were mostly limited to small attacks while Serbs military operations concentrated on shelling nearby Croatian towns[14] of which the most internationally notable was the Zagreb rocket attack during May, 1995.[15][16]" is not neutral. The attack on Zagreb was in retaliation to Operation Flash. So it's clear that the text is not neutral. Further, the source for rocket attacks does not indicate that they happened beyond 1993. (LAz17 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)).

Fixed.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)