Jump to content

Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Outsider's opinion

I've marked the facts that need to be referenced by the {{fact}} tags. Currently the article seems to be a bit one-sided. Alaexis 09:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of "Creation" section

This section has a complete absence of context, it seems to imply that Krajina Serbs motivated only by "nationalism" decided apropos of nothing to massacre Croats, when in fact there was a progressive breakdown in events to the point where Serbs of the Krajina expected a Croatian genocide to begin imminently if they did not act first. Several months before the section says Serbs started killing, a videotape of Croatian Defence and Interior ministers discussing a planned genocide was aired on Yugoslav television ("We are going to slaughter everyone," "Serbs in Croatia will never be there again for as long as we are there").

Surely the deplorable violence against Croatians should be discussed, but as it stands we have the standard NATO-approved whitewash of demonic Serbs versus angelic Croats.

209.146.241.93 15:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unviability

Here is the citation from the source provided by Jesuislafete:


While this proves Serbia's help to RSK beyond a reasonable doubt nothing is written about the viability of RSK with(out) Serbia's support. Could you point out where is it written about this? Alæxis¿question? 07:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Read from the begining of the article:
"Neither wartime Republika Srpska (RS) nor the self-declared Republic of the Serbian Krajina (RSK) had the resources to finance a war.37 In his testimony, the former Krajina president, Milan Babic, explained that the RSK municipalities were in an underdeveloped part of Croatia. When Croatia stopped providing financial support to them, they had to turn to Serbia for assistance.38 Babic testified that “under no circumstances could [the RSK] exist” without support from Serbia or Yugoslavia.39 Former U.S. Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith described Krajina as “a completely impoverished region that could not exist even at the very low level that it existed without financial support from Serbia.”40 Milan Martic, at the time the RSK minister of the interior, acknowledged to Milosevic in a letter admitted as an exhibit at the Milosevic trial, “the [RSK] has no real sources from which to fill its budget, as you certainly know.”41 Belgrade, through the federal government, financed more than 90 percent of the RSK 1993 budget.42"
I meant to put the entire link as a source, not the one starting from that certain point, I'll fix it. --Jesuislafete 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Alæxis¿question? 06:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ICTY

Could you please give more specific refs rather than just <ref name=ICTY>ICTY http://www.un.org/icty/</ref>? Alæxis¿question? 07:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried, but each time I did, large red letters saying "Error, link cannot be shown blahblah" in huge red letters where the reference link should have been. I was too tired to try to figure out why on earth it was doing that, so I just put the ICTY website with the intent of putting the specific links another day. They are not hard to find, why couldn't you do it? --Jesuislafete 00:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Figured out the problem, it's fixed for your viewing pleasure. --Jesuislafete 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Fraudulent Map

The map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Krajina_ethnic_map.jpg is a fraud. I have proof. It is a simple edit of the original map. The original map was made by the University of Belgrade's geography department. This is the real map - http://www.rastko.org.yu/istorija/srbi-balkan/img/fry4b.jpg . The frauduelent full map can be found here, http://www.kosovo.net/ethnmap_yu.jpg.

Some typical frauds are done by spreading the blue color to where serbs were not the majority, and in some places did not reside in. We can see that this was done for Kosovo, Bosnia and Croatia. Some particular parts in croatia that are frauds are municipalities in baranja.

I am a Serb and do not mean to be a traitor, but the map is wrong.

http://www.rastko.org.yu/istorija/srbi-balkan/img/croatia5b.jpg is a good one.

-LAz17

Yes, there are some differences in these maps... The Hungarians, for example, aren't present in Baranja in the map that is now in the article. Do you have a bigger version of the "real map"? And what's the copyright status of the last map, can it be used here? Alæxis¿question? 17:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what copyright status it has. It is probably free for use, but I don't know. -LAz17, July 6th - central time zone US, 11:13

Could you find out its copyright status (write them a letter, for example)? Alternatively, one could make a new map based on that one. Alæxis¿question? 07:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would but I do not know how to get in contact with them. The map is part of a book that was put online. It is here, http://www.rastko.org.yu/istorija/srbi-balkan/index.html under the 15th chapter. Since the entire book is online, I don't see why it would be a problem to use the map as long as we site who made it. We can find a similar map here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Srbi_u_Jugoslaviji.jpg and the same one here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CroatianSerbs.jpg . So I think there should be no copyright worries. I hope that helps. Pozdrav, Lazar / LAz17 - July 10 2007, 12:14 am, US central time zone

well, if it's already uploaded to Wikipedia let's just use it. Alæxis¿question? 05:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


RSK Towns Category

There are major pressures to delete our category, the former towns in RSK. The link is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_Towns_of_RSK_1991-95 The discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_29#Category:Former_Towns_of_RSK_1991-95 I'm posting this here so that you folks would know that there are some developments going on, and if you have some input on the matter, it would be appreciated. (LAz17 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).

Tree log-revolution.

About my change: tree-log revolution was the event that preceded all other events.
It was the first major terrorist activity by rebelled Croatian Serbs.
All other declarations, referendums, proclamations came later. Kubura (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's your responsibility to find reliable sources backing information you add. In this case you have to prove that 'tree-log revolution' is significant enough to be mentioned in the infobox and (more importantly) to find neutral reference proving that the Ukrainian plane incident indeed took place and is notable enough. Finally, 'Terrorist activities' is certainly not an NPOV section name. Alæxis¿question? 16:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that statement of Krajina president Milan Babić is enough to confirm this:
"Babić also attempted to absolve his role in the conflict once again by claiming that in
August 1991, Martić’s men had tricked him into announcing a state of war in Krajina by
falsely stating that Croatian special forces were advancing on Knin.
When he realised that this was not the case, he apparently tried to revoke the announcement but
it was too late. Babic testified that by the time he knew the truth, the so-called “log
revolution” in Krajina had already begun.
The witness said that as the revolution got underway, Martic had established immediate control of
barricades used to block off tourist routes to Dalmatia on major Croatian roads. Babić described
how Martić had implemented a policy of persecuting Croats, first by searching their houses and
arresting them" [1] --Rjecina 16:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

About the importance of "tree log-revolution" (balvan-revolucija):
the term in not "original work", it came in use (it was coined) very quickly, possibly in a week. The expression is known in Croatian and in Serb sources, and it's not questioned neither by Croats, neither by Serbs.
Second, Alexis, how do you think that you know things better, than us, that lived here at that time?
"Tree log-revolution" was very important event. Because, since then, no person with Croatian registration plates (unless they were Serbs) could pass through or go into that area. If one somehow succeeded in that, that was a big pushing of luck, that was a severe daredevil action.
The proclamations that came later, were just administrative action, action made in the offices, not on the battlefield.
The "balvan-revolucija" was an act of terrorising of citizens and tourists, purposedly organized action of disturbing of Croatian economy and traffic.
Third, you cannot come to the article and delete the section just like that. Especially, when that section was referenced. That was linked to article of the daily newspaper, that is under government control. That's not some "yellow press", nor tabloid, nor short-living "mud throwing" magazine or longer living sensationalistic magazine. That was the article in Vjesnik, long time existing Croatian newspaper (since 1940).
That means, if you cannot beat the referenced text, don't mess with it (explanation given in the comment, especially ones like ...of questionable notability and reliability is not an argument).
Otherwise, your action is ordinary defending of your POV and trolling (especially since you deleted that section twice on 5 Dec 16:30 [2] and on 6 Dec 20:26 [3]).
Untill you give some counterarguments, I'll restore that section. Kubura (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, you should've noted that I didn't remove 'tree-log revolution' the last time I edited the article.
Secondly, I seriously advise you not to blindly revert others' edits. I've changed 'show in red' to 'shown in red' two times already and now you've restored the wrong version again.
Finally, I still belive the source you've provided cannot be consiedered a reliable one in this case. It's a Croatian newspaper, so we can't just take as facts what is written there (of course, it would be equally unacceptable to back some info in the article only with an article in some Serbian newspaper). We should use not partisan but neutral sources. If it's impossible for some reason we may write 'according to Croatian/Serbian sources there was something and something'. Please see WP:V and WP:NPOV. So, before any further discussion about the notability of the info you've added, you have to provide neutral sources confirming it. Alæxis¿question? 17:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
First off, I think everyone here is doing a good job, so I hate to see scuffles over something trivial. The log revolution is actually an important event in the history of the war, it was the beginning of Croatia being cut in half. Mostly, I have heard it as simply the "log revolution" such as:
From Harper's magazine 4 January: The prosecutors contend that the so-called Log Revolution--the harbinger of the rapid fragmentation of Yugoslavia into increasingly polarized, antagonistic ethnic groups and a decade of savage conflict--was not a spontaneous grass-roots movement but a carefully planned set of events, fueled by propaganda and orchestrated on Milosevic's orders--or, at the least, carried on with his knowledge, approval, and help. Milosevic's control of Serbia's media, and his use of it as an instrument of state for demoralizing his enemies while bolstering the morale of combatants, as well as a means of persuading his constituency, is an important part of the prosecutors' case. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, after running a quick google test I agree that 'Log revolution' is the name used in English to describe these events. Alæxis¿question? 09:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it is the most common in English; I think the previous version was a direct Croatian translation, which as we all know, doesn't always work out in English.--Jesuislafete (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

deletion

Rhun, as you can see the info you've added is contested. Therefore it's your responsibility to find references backing it. Please don't revert back to your version without doing it. Alæxis¿question? 10:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I was trying to modify the sentence which states a new Croatian constitution was passed in December 1990 which removed the constitutional protections of minority peoples, which isnt referenced either, and I have not been able to find what minority rights were "removed" by this constitution change. As of my knowledge, the croatian serbs waged a rebellion _because_ they got the status of a minority, not because, as a minority, some of their former rights were removed. So I ask the other editors to reference this sentence I tried to explain, or remove it.
That the croatian Serbs as a people got removed from the definition of the croatian state is a fact, which you can check by comparing the croatian constitutions from 1974 and 1991. I do not exactly know what rights people lose by such a removal from the state definition, but in practice, the official RSK Serbian position was, as you can read in the defence papers from the ICTY trial of milan martic, that the Serbs, through this explicit mentioning in the definition, were a "constitutive people" and thus somehow had the right to veto the croatian referendum, veto the subsequent parliament decision to separate from jugoslawia, and third, had the right to decide themselves, without any agreement from the croatian side, what the borders of the new RSK will be.
Citation: "And, as we had obtained the status of a constituent nation - previously, earlier, it was not given to us, but it was by our sacrifices that we earned that - we thought that we could never be divested of the status of a constituent people. But this was violence against law, because Croatia could not unilaterally divest us of that status. We were supposed to be asked. And secondly, it is true that -- the second factor is that the Croatians announced that they would secede from Yugoslavia, and we thought that we had the -- the preemptive right of remaining in the country of our birth, and that that right preempted the right of secession from that country. We had no claims to Croatian towns in which many Serbs lived, but we did have a compact territory which could have been completely separated from Croatia in the way that Croatia was separated from Yugoslavia." Source: Lazar Macura, a defence witness for Milan Martic, the President, Defence and Interior Minister of the RSK, in the icty martic war crime trial Does this suffice as a reference on the official position of the croatian Serbs on vetoing official decisions of the croatian parialement regarding the separation from Jugoslavia and setting unilaterally the new RSK borders? Greetings, --Rhun (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Rhun, I would appreciate it very much if you didn't add things in articles that are not true and cannot be referenced. I know a lot about the history of the beginnings of the war, but the statement, "...removed the explicit reference to the Serbian people from the definition of the Croatian state, making them, with 12% of the Croatian population, a national minority. The Serbs believed the explicit mentioning in the definition of the state would make them a "constitutive people" and thus qualified to veto the decisions of the Croatian goverment, parlament and the independance referendum, and thus able to hinder Croatia from leaving Yugoslavia, or in case of a Croatian independance, to redefine croatian borders unilaterally as they see fit.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]" is just incredible.
Not to mention your terrible spelling and grammar errors, your wording is clearly ambiguous, and concerning a very specific legal and constitutional issue which meanings cannot be guessed. You are trying to say what "Serbs believed", yet how do you know that is what they believed? And you are bringing up serious allegations, "qualified to veto government, parliament, independence," etc. The last part "to redefine Croatian borders unilaterally as they see fit" almost made me spit my coffee onto my computer screen, I was laughing so hard. You should really try fiction. --Jesuislafete (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
English is not my mother language, as you can imagine. You are always invited to correct my grammar and/or my spelling errors. I do not know exactly what "Serbs believed", so its ok to reword that part, no problem. The current text says the new croatian constitution removed the constitutional protections of minority peoples. This fact isnt referenced. So I tried to reword it to make it clearer what changes happened to the status of the serbs as of my knowledge. And that means that the term "Serbian people" got removed from the definition of the croatian state and thus the Serbs became a national minority. But what minority rights were removed from the constitution exactly? As to the sentence about redefining borders, I think we can let this stay, because the borders of the RSK were defined unilaterally, or did the croatian side ever agreed to them? Greetings, --Rhun (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you have a point. The passage about the removal of the protection of minorities should be referenced and expanded. Alæxis¿question? 12:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I never noticed that the text wasn't referenced, I'm glad you brought it up. If someone has time, please research whether the constitutional protection of minority people was removed, I have never heard of it being removed, so I am surprised. If no one is able to find anything in a few days, I'll take it out and reword it differently when I find the answer. But I happen to disagree about the last sentence about redefining borders, because there was no legal way for group to redefine the borders of a state/country that was set during AVNOJ. "Redefining borders" was never an issue to be discussed legally, as I am sure everyone knows already. --Jesuislafete (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Serbs weren't the constitutional nation in Croatia, no national minority in Croatia lost its status.
Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I (Basic principles of Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia, section I):
"...utvrđeno je da JE hrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj.......izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku."
(...it was confirmed that Croat people HAS established (in the common fight in national-liberation war and socialist revolution, together with Serb people and other nations and nationalities in Croatia) HIS OWN state, SR Croatia. As you see, only singular form is used.
Ustav SRH, čl. 1. (Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia):
"SR Hrvatska je: (SR Croatia is)
 - nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda (national state of Croat people)
- država srpskog naroda i (state of Serb people)
- država narodnosti koje u njoj žive." (state of other nationalities that live in Croatia)
Serbs weren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they were mentioned specifically, but nothing more. Croatia is national state solely to Croats. Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država".
Source: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004..
There you have it, please don't spread that POV about Serbs as "constitutive people" anymore. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Required sources

Rebelled Serbs

The term "rebellion" is mentioned by Serb leaders themselves. On the meeting of Serbs in Srb, Jovan Rašković exclaimed: "Ovo je pobuna srpskog naroda!" (this is the rebellion of Serb people). Also, the term "rebelled Croatian Serbs" or just "rebelled Serbs" is official term in Croatia.
Using the term "Krajina Serbs" is not OK, because there's lot of parts of Croatia (and also in Slavic world), where Krajinas exist. And many of those Serbs were not the rebelled ones. So, using the term "Krajina Serbs" in this context is not fair, because it puts them in the level of those that dirtened their hands. Kubura (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Organised evacuation

  • Barić, Nikica: Srpska pobuna u Hrvatskoj 1990.-1995., Golden marketing. Tehnička knjiga, Zagreb, 2005. (the links under are from his book)
  • RSK, Vrhovni savjet odbrane, Knin, 4. avgust 1995., 16.45 časova, Broj 2-3113-1/95. Faksimil ovog dokumenta objavljen je u/The faximile of this document was published in: Rade Bulat "Srbi nepoželjni u Hrvatskoj", Naš glas (Zagreb), br. 8.-9., septembar 1995., p. 90.-96. (faksimil je objavljen na stranici 93./the faximile is on the page 93.).

Vrhovni savjet odbrane RSK (The Supreme Council of Defense of Republic of Serb Krajina) brought a decision 4. August 1995 in 16.45. This decision was signed by Milan Martić and later verified in Glavni štab SVK (Headquarters of Republic of Serb Krajina Army) in 17.20.

  • RSK, Republički štab Civilne zaštite, Broj: Pov. 01-82/95., Knin, 02.08.1995., HDA, Dokumentacija RSK, kut. 265
  • RSK, Republički štab Civilne zaštite, Broj: Pov. 01-83/95., Knin, 02.08.1995., Pripreme za evakuaciju materijalnih, kulturnih i drugih dobara (The preparations for the evacuation of material, cultural and other goods), HDA, Dokumentacija RSK, kut. 265
  • Drago Kovačević, "Kavez - Krajina u dogovorenom ratu", Beograd 2003., p. 93.-94.

(Note: Drago Kovačević was during the existence of so-called RSK the minister of informing and the mayor of Knin, the capitol of self-proclaimed state)

  • Milisav Sekulić, "Knin je pao u Beogradu", Bad Vilbel 2001., p. 171.-246., p. 179.

(Note: Milisav Sekulić was a high military officer of "Srpska vojska Krajine" (Republic of Serb Krajina Army). Here's a book review.

  • Marko Vrcelj, "Rat za Srpsku Krajinu 1991-95", Beograd 2002., p. 212.-222.

This one's not from Barić's book. Martić's order.
This one also. Youtube.com RSK Evacuation Practise one month before Operation Storm
I hope this helps. Kubura (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist activities

See those massacres of civilians and POV's on that list. Add the shelling of Croatian cities, ethnic cleansing (mentioned in the unbeatened parts of indictments of Milan Martić and Goran Babić).
If you don't find that as terrorism, I don't know. Opened threats and intimidations, that were done. What was said in a threat, it was perpetrated later. Kubura (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You are not allowed to remove these kinds of references [4].
The reference you've removed, [5] is the article (an interview) from the Croatian daily newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija. If you've read the subtitle, it said, Ivica Kostović was (at the time of interview) the subpresident of Deputy Dome in Croatian Parliament (potpredsjednik Zastupničkog doma hrvatskog Sabora).
He was at that time the government official, and their words are credible source.
Removing of such references is considered as vandalism. You're warned for the first time. Kubura (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagging of this article

Please, don't use Wikipedia as a place for fullfilling of unfullfilled expansionist wishes.
So don't tag this article into "wikiproject Serbia". The territory under occupation and control of rebelled Serbs, JNA and Serb volunteers is not a territory of Serbia, so this article doesn't belong there.
Don't abuse Wikipedia. Kubura (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Croatian sources and WP:NPOV

The argument is whether Croatian sources alone are reliable enough to be used when describing Serbo-Croatian conflict in Krajina. See this for specific cases. A similar problem exists at the article about Siroka Kula massacre (see its talk)

If this is typical, I would answer

Aatomic1 (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


I don't understand your question.
"The argument is whether Croatian sources alone are reliable enough to be used when describing Serbo-Croatian conflict in Krajina".
First, Krajina is name for a bunch of areas in Croatia, so you have to be specific, use the full name of rebel's self-proclaimed state, or its abbreviation.
Further, you've asked: "Are Cro sources reliable enough for its territory???"
What, are you suggesting that Soviet sources aren't reliable for Germany's conquering campaign and their rule over occupied territory?
Are you suggesting that Polish sources aren't reliable for the same thing?
Are you suggesting that French sources aren't reliable for the times of Italian occupated/annected area of SE France?
Aatomic1, I see that you have a history of trolling behaviour on en.wiki. Don't protract things here.
Court decisions are serious thing, real persons from real life have been sentenced to prison (in absentia) for this case. In some cases, Interpol was alerted. Don't belittle or neglect the decisions of Croatian courts. I gave you above the link to the office of Državno odvjetništvo, Croatian legal office (State attorney). Is that enough? What do you want more?
It seems that you find Croatia as some small barbaric tribe whose uncivilised chieftains-witchdoctors' courts should be ignored.
Respect international legal system. Kubura (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Atmosphere of fear

This is my contribution from the talk:Široka Kula massacre:
I'll speak about references in English.
http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/bab-ii031117e.htm is initial indictment (6th of November 2003) of Milan Babić (later convicted). The header of the document is "The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY - the prosecutor of the tribunal against Milan Baić - indictment.
Milan Babić was charged with crimes against humanity and violations of laws or customs of war. Kubura 06:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll provide ICTY transcripts of sentencing judgments for Milan Babić and Milan Martić. Kubura 06:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Saborsko is explicitly mentioned in the sentence judgement in the ICTY site, on the www.un.org (UN's site).
A shorter version, [6] is titled "Milan Martić sentenced to 35 years for crimes against humanity and war crimes", on the same site.
This should be the "third party". Kubura 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On ICTY's sentence judgement page (the case of Milan Martić), says:
"The Trial Chamber has taken particular note of the fact that the attacks on predominantly Croat areas during the autumn of 1991 and early 1992 followed a generally similar pattern, that is: the area or village in question was shelled, after which armed ground units entered. After the fighting had subsided, acts of killing and violence were committed against the non-Serb civilian population who had not managed to flee. Houses, churches and property were destroyed, and widespread looting was carried out as part of the forcible removal. On several occasions, the SAO Krajina police and TO organised transport for the non-Serb population in order to remove it from SAO Krajina territory altogether to locations under Croatian control. Members of the non-Serb population would also be rounded up and taken away to detention facilities, including in central Knin, and eventually exchanged and transported to areas under Croatian control.
Thus, the threat clearly expressed in Milan Martić's ultimatum in Kijevo was carried out in the territory of the SAO Krajina through the commission of widespread, grave crimes. This created an atmosphere of fear in which the further presence of Croats and other non-Serbs in the SAO Krajina was made impossible. The Trial Chamber has therefore concluded that the displacement of the Croat and other non-Serb population which followed these attacks was not merely the consequence of military action, but in fact its primary objective. "
This should be helpful. Kubura 07:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On that same page Martić's sentence, says:
"The attack on Kijevo marked a turning point in the JNA's role in the conflict in Croatia , and from that point, the JNA participated in attacks on majority-Croat areas and villages together with SAO Krajina MUP and TO forces. From August 1991 and into early 1992, these combined forces attacked several Croat-majority villages and areas, including Hrvatska Kostajnica, Cerovljani, Hrvatska Dubica, Baćin, Saborsko, Poljanak, Lipovača, Škabrnja and Nadin. The evidence shows that the attacks were carried out in order to connect Serb villages and areas across non-Serb areas. During these attacks, the crimes of murder, destruction, plunder, detention, torture, and cruel treatment were committed against the non-Serb population. ". Kubura 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Siroka Kula incident mentioned somehow in the sentence judgement? Alæxis¿question? 11:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Is the incident with Ukrainian plane mentioned somehow in the sentence judgement? Alæxis¿question? 11:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you fighting Paulcicero's battles, Alaexis?
Do you read the referenced material or you play like you cannot comprehend or do I have to draw you things? Read the Babić's initial indictment.
Milan Babić and Milan Martić were highly-positioned persons, that could have stopped some things, that had to stop those things, but they didn't.
Milan Babić was "President of the Municipal Assembly in Knin. From 31 July 1990 onwards, he was the President of the Serbian National Council ("SNC"). On 30 April 1991, Milan BABIC was elected President of the Executive Council of the so-called "Serbian Autonomous District/Sprska autonomna oblast/ ("SAO") Krajina." Subsequently, on 29 May 1991, he became the Prime Minister/President of the government of the self-declared SAO Krajina...Milan Babić: He participated in and contributed to the creation, organisation, recruitment, and direction of the Territorial Defence forces (TO) of the SAO Krajina... Milan Babić was the de jure commander of the TO forces. On 8 August 1991 he appointed Milan Martić Deputy TO Commander. ... Martic’s Police," "Marticevci," "SAO Krajina Police" or "SAO Krajina Milicija" (hereinafter "Martic’s Police")".
"Under Milan BABIC’s tenure as President/Prime Minister, Milan MARTIC was appointed to the following positions within the SAO Krajina: On 04 January 1991 he was appointed Secretary of the Interior; On 29 May 1991 he was appointed Minister of Defence; On 27 June 1991 he was re-appointed Minister of Interior. Milan BABIC co-operated with Milan MARTIC, which led to MARTIC’s command and control over “Marti}’s Police” involved in the commission of crimes".
"He participated in the provision of financial, material, logistical and political support necessary for the military take-over of territories in the SAO Krajina, and the subsequent forcible removal of the Croat and other non-Serb population by the TO forces, who acted in co-operation with the JNA and “Martic’s Police."
"Thus, the threat clearly expressed in Milan Martić's ultimatum in Kijevo was carried out in the territory of the SAO Krajina through the commission of widespread, grave crimes. This created an atmosphere of fear in which the further presence of Croats and other non-Serbs in the SAO Krajina was made impossible".
Enough? Kubura (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's written that the atmosphere of fear was created and that grave crimes were committed it doesn't mean that you can create the 'terrorism' section and put the info about the incident with Ukrainian plane there. Alæxis¿question? 14:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Then, do you have any idea how shall we call the shelling of Croatian cities of Gospić, Županja, Osijek, Sisak, Karlovac, Vinkovci, Šibenik, Zadar, Zagreb...?
How shall we call the use of forbidden weapons ("zvončići"), used by rebel Serb forces in shelling of Croatian cities?
Civilian targets were being shelled there (intentionally or randomly, both is a crime), I'm not speaking about attacks on military camps.
Maybe you'll find the info in newspapers about the recent repairs on the cathedral of sv. Jakov in Šibenik (a grenade fired by Serbs, hit the roof of that cathedral).
Unfortunately, world TV-stations have been reporting mostly (and I believe, only) the shellings of Zagreb and Dubrovnik. Smaller cities weren't so interesting for them.
Second, I haven't made up the info about Ukrainian plane, I've cited the newspapers, so that section can stay, you cannot remove it just because you don't like it. If you have any other info about that plane, give the link, otherwise, stay away from that. Kubura (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


Don't be absurd. The regions in question were majority Serb and were not parts of independent Croatia just because of an illegal act by the leadership of Croatia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It was very legal act, dear child. Minorities cannot give orders to constitutional nation.
Serb majority? Oh, yes, especially after colonization of Serbs in those areas after WW1, 1918-1941, ("Serb volunteers"'s families that were colonized in Croatia, mostly in fertile valleys of Slavonia) and after Serb chetniks and converted chetniks (as well as big portion of those Serbs who hid behind partisanhood (but remained anti-Croats inside), in order to kill Croats) have ethnically cleansed those areas in WW2 (Udbina, Srb, Boričevac, Španovica...). Or the areas that were ethnically cleansed by rebel Serbs, Serb-led JNA and Serb volunteers from Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro?
"...were not parts of independent Croatia...".
Are you playing dumb or what? Have you read any article regarding Croatian medieval history (and those are undisputed parts!)? Please, don't play dumb. If you know the truth, but you hide it and twist it according to your wishes, you're serious POV-izer. If you don't know the facts, please, read some books and historical maps, many of them are available for free on the internet. Wikipedia is not a place to learn things "in walk", especially not a place for causing fruitless infinite discussions and infinitely protracted reaching of agreement of parties in dispute, just because some user has no knowledge (or is POV-izing) in the topic, where he/she has involved, behaving as big authority in that area.
Or simply: Man, what are you doing here? Procrustes, what are you doing on Wikipedia at all? Have you read the wiki-rules? Which troll and POV-izer is hiding behind this SPA account? Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fear, terror, terrorism

As you see above, ICTY has used the term "fear" in the indictment (those parts weren't beaten).
If you don't understand English, here's the meaning of terror:
From Dictionary.com - Terror.
intense, sharp, overmastering fear: to be frantic with terror.
2. an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causing terror: to be a terror to evildoers.
3. any period of frightful violence or bloodshed likened to the Reign of Terror in France.
4. violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism.
Terror, horror, panic, fright all imply extreme fear in the presence of danger or evil. Terror implies an intense fear that is somewhat prolonged and may refer to imagined or future dangers: frozen with terror.
And here's the meaning of terrorism.
From Dictionary.com - Terrorism.
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
(same site, citing American Heritage Dictionary) - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Was this helpful? Kubura (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Organized evacuation

Rebel Croatian Serb authorities were preparing the evacuation of Serbs, in early years of war.

  • Barić, Nikica: Srpska pobuna u Hrvatskoj 1990.-1995., Golden marketing. Tehnička knjiga, Zagreb, 2005. (the references under are from this book; he cited Serb sources)
    • RSK, Vrhovni savjet odbrane, Knin, 4. avgust 1995., 16.45 časova, Broj 2-3113-1/95. Faksimil ovog dokumenta objavljen je u/The faximile of this document was published in: Rade Bulat "Srbi nepoželjni u Hrvatskoj", Naš glas (Zagreb), br. 8.-9., septembar 1995., p. 90.-96. (faksimil je objavljen na stranici 93./the faximile is on the page 93.).

Vrhovni savjet odbrane RSK (The Supreme Council of Defense of Republic of Serb Krajina) brought a decision 4. August 1995 in 16.45. This decision was signed by Milan Martić and later verified in Glavni štab SVK (Headquarters of Republic of Serb Krajina Army) in 17.20.

    • RSK, Republički štab Civilne zaštite, Broj: Pov. 01-82/95., Knin, 02.08.1995., HDA, Dokumentacija RSK, kut. 265
    • RSK, Republički štab Civilne zaštite, Broj: Pov. 01-83/95., Knin, 02.08.1995., Pripreme za evakuaciju materijalnih, kulturnih i drugih dobara (The preparations for the evacuation of material, cultural and other goods), HDA, Dokumentacija RSK, kut. 265
    • Drago Kovačević, "Kavez - Krajina u dogovorenom ratu", Beograd 2003., p. 93.-94.

(Note: Drago Kovačević was during the existence of so-called RSK the minister of informing and the mayor of Knin, the capitol of self-proclaimed state)

    • Milisav Sekulić, "Knin je pao u Beogradu", Bad Vilbel 2001., p. 171.-246., p. 179.

(Note: Milisav Sekulić was a high military officer of "Srpska vojska Krajine" (Republic of Serb Krajina Army). Book review

    • Marko Vrcelj, "Rat za Srpsku Krajinu 1991-95", Beograd 2002., p. 212.-222.

There you have the sources. Kubura (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, let's leave this for a time being. Alæxis¿question? 11:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that we are having saying how picture is worth 100 (or 1000) words. Serbian name of this youtube movie is:"Training of civilian evacuation from village Tržić in Kordun region (july 1995) . Croatian Operation Storm has started on 4 August 1995. In movie oni govorit srpskij no kak ti znaet ruskij ja verit da ti pomnjit potomu cto horvaskij/srpski i ruskij bit srodnij jazik .. Poka.--Rjecina (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it's interesting. Yes, I can understand something (thanks to captions:)). Alæxis¿question? 14:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. The regions in question were majority Serb and were not parts of independent Croatia just because of an illegal act by the leadership of Croatia. I doubt that these same people would trust only Serbian sources for information on the integral part of Serbia known as Kosovo-Metohija... even the sacred Badinter Commission ruled it was so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 05:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Badinter Arbitration Committee

Here is the excerpt from the pdf file (lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/80-1/Hasani PDF3.pdf), which shows the stance the Committee adopted:

Among its major decisions, the Commission concluded:

1. that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“SFRY”) no longer met the definition of a state;
2. that the Serbian minority within Bosnia was entitled to have its nationality respected, but was not entitled to alter the boundaries of Bosnia;
3.that the former internal boundaries that defined republics within Yugoslavia had become external boundaries of new states, and that these :boundaries could not be altered without the consent of the new states;
and
4.that Slovenia, Macedonia, Croatia, and the Federal Re public of Yugoslavia (“FRY”) (comprising Serbia and Montenegro)—but not Bosnia—were entitled to recognition as states.

Hope this clears up any misconceptions. --Jesuislafete (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

From where did the Badinter Commission get its legal authority? It came from nowhere. Its decisions moreover violated completely the Helsinki treaty and international law in general. So it was outlaw. Moreover, its own rulings are not even respected by those who were behind it, as the movement to recognise a so-called independent Kosovo proves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 03:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Yugoslavian constitution however did state that Serbs in Croatia had a veto on Croatian secession as did Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina had a veto on that republic's secession. Thus, independence could only be achieved with agreement with the Serbs; though it was under duress, they were able to get such an agreement in Bosnia only to have it disavowed by the so-called victim side, I'm sure people remember that one. In short, the so-called international community promoted lawlessness and disregard for the constitution, and then they make ruling that they have no business making. As for this "expansionist state", this is a joke. Serbs were in one state in 1990, they were well within their rights to not be broken up against their will. To impute an evil criminal motive, a "joint criminal enterprise" on the mere exercise of rights is just ridiculous and should not be accepted by any serious person. The only reason it was "evil" and "criminal" was because the major Western powers ruled on this matter against the Serbs and they demand that their orders be obeyed without question, and failure of certain people to do so can only mean criminal penalties because in the end, might makes right. It's in truth the law of the jungle when it comes to these things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 04:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Could you please show some sources proving this? Alæxis¿question? 09:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This is new SPA account. They are not having evidence or it is writen in obscure books. During war Serbian position has been Serbs of Croatia and Bosnia are having right of self determination. On other side Albanians, Croatians and Hungarians of Serbia (Kosovo and Vojvodina) are not having right for self determination. You will agree that this is POV position ? --Rjecina (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know (Joze Pirievec "le guerre jugoslave", Einaudi 2001 - croatian author) the Badinter Committee answered in early '92 that Slavonia and Macedonia only met the requirements for being independent states. Croatia did not meet the requirements for respect and protection of minorities. Serbia and Montenegro (then Jugoslavia) did not ask the judgement for themeselves, of course. Croatia has been internationally recognised against the Badinter Comm. judgment. Concerning the Badinter Comm. in general: I agree it is made of people and people are involved in politics: the Badinter Comm. it is not the "Good" or the "Truth". At first i found reasonable that if Croatia was declaring its independance based on a geografically limited referendum, then Krajina could do the same. But this is a never ending process, as then every village could do the same and finally every single person, which is a bit difficult to manage administratively :) So, it would have been better to accept the decision of highly recognised international body and to struggle to have them completely adopted (minorities respect and protection) and improved (not ethnic states, not ethnic minorities but all constituent citizens). Thank you all for this very interesting "forum". --Butalso (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What "Slavonia"? And he thinks about himself as an authority to speak about that? Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the pdf with the comission's conclusions (the address is at the very top of this section). It's written rather clearly there that Croatia also was entitled to recognition. How would you explain this? Alæxis¿question? 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The PDF you quoted on Badinter Commission Opinions is not the document written by the Commission itself but an essay on it. Looking in more details at it you can see that about Croatia it says "Recognition to be conditioned on certain amendements to Croatian constitution". So it seems our sources are in agreement. (see also the Badinter Commissions Opinions 1991 at: http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol3/No1/art13.html)
Unfortunately Croatia did not comply with these conditions for long after its international recognition.
About Badinter Commission I have to partially correct my previous statement: it was an highly recognised international body but not a legally binding one nor authoritative: it has been set up as a consultant body for EU to take decisions about Yuogoslavia, but, as I said, Europe itself did not take much into account its opinions (see the interesting "The Break-Up of Yugoslavia and International Law" by Peter Radan) --Butalso (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the Badinter Commission had no authority except perhaps for the power that comes from the barrels of western guns. The Yugoslav constitution was clear that Croatia could only secede with the agreement of its Serb population. The same thing existed in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where it could only secede with Serb and Croat agreement. The attempts to gain Serb agreement to BiH secession through the Culteiro plan in 1992 could be said to be the proper way to prepare for a separate state, though in that case, the Serbs were forced more or less to accept secession because that's what western powers wanted.

The definition of constituent people means that all important decisions must be done with Serbian consultation. That includes changing the constitution to downgrade them to a "national minority", by the way, thus this decision was illegal. This formula by the way is taken very seriously in the BiH of today, where International Community representatives are using this to claim that Republika Srpska is a state of Serb,Croat and Muslim because BiH is, and that Croats and Muslims should have veto power on decisions in RS and that Serbian symbols and names should be abolished as "racist", or so says the International Community-controlled supreme court over there (yes, it's true, the supreme courts's swing votes, that always make a bloc with the Muslims for centralising Bosnia, are held by foreigners) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 04:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbs weren't the constitutional nation in Croatia.
Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I (Basic principles of Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia, section I):
"...utvrđeno je da JE hrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj.......izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku."
(...it was confirmed that Croat people HAS established (in the common fight in national-liberation war and socialist revolution, together with Serb people and other nations and nationalities in Croatia) HIS OWN state, SR Croatia. As you see, only singular form is used.
Ustav SRH, čl. 1. (Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia):
"SR Hrvatska je: (SR Croatia is)
 - nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda (national state of Croat people)
- država srpskog naroda i (state of Serb people)
- država narodnosti koje u njoj žive." (state of other nationalities that live in Croatia)
Serbs weren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they were mentioned specifically, but nothing more. Croatia is national state solely to Croats. Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država".
Source: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004..
There you have it, please don't spread that POV about Serbs as "constitutive people" anymore. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've made it clear enough now )) Still I think it would've been enough to write it one time :) Alæxis¿question? 18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that, Alexey, but all readers don't read whole talkpage (especially when it becomes larger), and the problem was here that the POV claim was on several places on this page, so I had to repeat the referenced counterargument on those several places. Kubura (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone mentioned that Serbs supposedly have this evil double-standard saying that Serbs have powers in Croatia and Bosnia yet Albanians don't in Kosovo, this is a double standard, etc. This line of questioning was used by the Prosecutor in the Martic trial and in my opinion was an extremely insulting and perhaps even racist line of questioning that incapsulates what is wrong and was wrong here. The Yugoslav constitution under which the administrative borders of the republics were created, stated that Serbs, Croats, Muslims and Slovenians, Montenegrins and Macedonians were constituent peoples. Pursuant to that, Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia had status as constituent people there, and Croats in Bosnia also had a status as constituent people there... (I suppose that they could have made Muslims a constituent people in Serbia too but they were recognised after the agreement was hammered out at Jajce in 1943.

At any rate, the Albanians and Hungarians were considered to be nationalities without a status as constituent people. This was part of the deal that was signed, part of the package that put the borders as they were of the republics.

Now outsiders come in and move the goalposts, change the rules. They say that part of the package is sacred, whilst the part that favours the Serbs is to be junked because the West believes that a referendum of 50% plus one voting yes in a territory entitles it to independence. The fact is is that the borders were drawn to disfavour the Serbs and these other stipulations were compensation for that. Taking away that was an injustice. Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia didn't want to sign away their rights especially when considering what they went through in 1941-45 under the NDH.

I mean why not force Belgium to get rid of the rule that says that Flemings and Walloons need to be in government? For that matter, why not allow RS to secede on the 50% plus 1 principle? Western powers go into these places and make these arbitrary rules mostly for geopolitical ends. Now they lecture about how they want to create democratic institutions there. They do the opposite of course, like when they claimed the RS presidency had all the power when Plavsic was president and Klickovic the prime minister, then did a complete 180 degrees when Poplasen was president and Dodik was premier. How can institutions develop and customs develop when they are jerked around in this way according to geopolitical expediency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 05:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is wikipedia. Your or my personal thinking is not important. --Rjecina (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


True, but the law is the law. The law was written a certain way. Now, you had outsiders making new law, and enforcing it with brute force, in effect. That's also a fact, and is not something that can be denied. I mean, can anyone tell me the real legal source of Badinter's authority?

Remember also that this timeline coincided with that when Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia had declared independence. The breakup of the USSR was a possibility, with Gorbachev trying to cobble together a new Union Treaty to decentralise the USSR, and there was talk of adopting a similar approach in Yugoslavia. As soon as the breakup became inevitable, all of a sudden Badinter turns up and demands the breakup of Yugoslavia. Can people understand why? There was great fear in those days of Russia trying to grab pieces of Kazakhstan, Ukraine, of Crimea separating, etc. They spoke of "Yugoslavia with nukes". I guess they still regret that Milosevic was not a Serbian Boris Yeltsin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, as said before the Badinter Commission has been set up as a consultant body for EU to take decisions about Yuogoslavia but its opinions are not legally binding nor authoritative (see "The Break-Up of Yugoslavia and International Law" by Peter Radan).--Butalso (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear child, the conclusions of that Committee have been considered when EEC and other countries recognised former YU republics as new independent countries. That's why those committees are for. What do you want to say, Butalso? Maybe you want to turn back the time? And forcefully keep the countries in the union, in which they don't want to be? Don't use Wikipedia as your virtual playground for winning of your lost battles. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but it is hard for me and many others to take seriously SPA account which is writing how has been OK to kill Serbian primeminister Zoran Đinđić [7] , how all world has made conspiracy against Yugoslavia in which Slobodan Milošević has become victim [8] and how suspected war criminal Dragan Vasiljković is good person [9] --Rjecina (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
On talk pages us SPA accounts Butalso , Procrustes the clown and Mike Babic I have writen puppet warning--Rjecina (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-Serbs as victims

Here's the case Dalj.
Državno odvjetništvo RH Sud proglasio krivim V. D. zbog ratnog zločina protiv civilnog stanovništva, dok je Z. K. oslobodio optužbe za istovrsno kazneno djelo.
"V. D. (1961.) proglasio krivim zbog počinjenja kaznenog djela ratnog zločina protiv civilnog stanovništva ...".
" ...jer je 18. travnja 1992. u Dalju, tijekom oružane pobune dijela lokalnog srpskog stanovništva protiv ustavnopravnog poretka RH; protivno odredbama međ. humanitarnog i ratnog prava, a u namjeri protjerivanja nesrpskog stanovništva s tog područja; zajedno s drugim pripadnicima paravojnih postrojbi, prema popisu sastavljenom u tzv. "Štabu TO", nasilno istjerao iz njihovih kuća 90 građana hrvatske narodnosti, 11 građana mađarske narodnosti, dvoje građana muslimanske narodnosti i jednog građanina slovačke narodnosti, te ih protjerao na tada slobodno područje RH ne dopuštajući im da ponesu niti najnužnije osobne stvari....".
I gave this link, because from time to time, always appear some smart*ss who says that only the Croats were the target, and not the others. Kubura (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Serb Krajina (RSK) dates (December 19th, 1991 - January 15th, 1998)

It seems to me that there is some confusion about the exact dates concerning RSK's chronological beginning and ending. RSK was created as a self-proclaimed entity on December 19th, 1991 - this date is correctly quoted in the article. However, RSK continued to exist until January 15th, 1998, confined to Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (covered by the Erdut agreement and UNTAES administration). Borislav Drzajic was RSK's Prime Minister from 1995 to 1996, and Vojislav Stanimirovic was RSK's last Prime Minister from 1996 to January 15th, 1998 (their governments were situated in Vukovar). --FreedonNadd (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that this part of "Krajina" continued to exist, the basis of the article is on the areas of Northern Dalmatia, Eastern Lika, etc. The government basically collapsed after the military defeat in 1995. Remember, the eastern regions were never truly organized together with the south, although they claimed solidarity. When the quasi government in Knin fell, that is when RSK fell. --Jesuislafete (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


Input needed

I have added the following "Although it remained unrecognized by the international community, Republica Srpska Krajina implemented its own currency, police force, army regiments, schooling systems, hospitals, vehicle licensing plates and other basic tasks usually performed by the state."

in my knowledge the facts are real, and using logic we can even prove them. Krajina had an police force since Milan Babic was a police chief. They had a functioning hospital in Knin. They had school since i went to one of them. They had licence plates since i have one in my garage that i can take a picture of. They had currency since its on the page..

I feel like the sentence describes Krajina's rather well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument that you went to to school and therefore they existed isn't acceptable in Wikipedia :(. try to find something about in in the Internet or in other sources. Alæxis¿question? 06:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I understand that it is not acceptable on wikipedia. Howevere it proves its validity and most of the things on the articles are not cited well. Should we do a total redo of the article where only acceptable sources are accepted? is there a way for us to do a poll? Mike Babic (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you understand that it is not acceptable on wikipedia then you know that it will be reverted. Everybody knows that all states (recognized or not) are having hospitals, police, courts but if you insist on writing about Krajina police (example) then somebody other will write how police has not protected citizens from massacres, ethnic cleansins and similar stuff.--Rjecina (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


I feel like that is acceptable since it is the truth. let the truth be known i dont care. I have removed the facts that are not backed up in the articles already, facts like that RSK had schools. other facts are well known and are written in the article. Mike Babic (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Some things are obvious, there is no encyclopedic need for them. I moved your original statement to the the section of the creation of rsk, but took out a couple of obvious mentions. This should be agreeable to all. Remember, don't clutter up articles with additives, though I'm not saying that is a problem here. Good job to you all. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


The part on the founding of RSK is very messy and badly done and has some words that create a Croatian POV; words like "rebel Serbs", etc. During these moments of time, RSK and Croatia were recognised as part of the sovereign state of Yugoslavia, and this context is required so people can understand. Moreover, it seems that people don't want any mention of the NDH context, in that symbols were used associated with NDH; this is not a judgment about whether it's a wrong or right association, it's just that this was what happened. At any rate, my changes are a great improvement and provided order and context, and yet it's always being rolled back. If someone has a problem with the tone and content that I produce, why not simply edit that more ordered text instead of obliterating it? I saved what I did and I would alter it before saving it here, hoping in vain that it would be deemed acceptable but someone is determined to keep that honestly messy text there. Procrustes the clown (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want the creation of Krajina in a nutshell, this question by Seselj to a prosecution witness about the 25 July 1990 Srb declaration would be very useful : "Is it the case that Serb political leaders offered to the gathered Serbian people for acclamation three basic positions. One, if Croatia remains within Federal Yugoslavia, Serbs require only cultural autonomy. Two, if Yugoslavia is to turn into a confederation, Serbs then insist on territorial autonomy. Three, if Croatia is seceding from Yugoslavia, Serbs are seceding from Croatia and remain with Yugoslavia." The prosecution witness agreed with this and then agreed that this was the policy of the Serbian Democratic Party that governed the future RSK. This is from the 13 February 2008 Seselj trial transcript at http://www.un.org/icty/transe67/080213ED.htm Procrustes the clown (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


I suggest that the language of who is a rebel and who is not should be based on UN recognition; that is the best measure. In the old days, it used to be that treaties between the great powers settled the borders; the Treaty of San Stefano was deemed unacceptable by many great powers and so the Treaty of Berlin changed the outcomes of the previous treaty. The UN and its Security Council is the best measure of great power redrawing of borders. In the case of Yugoslavia, the UN recognised the breakaway republics in April 1992. It was unfair and violated the Helsinki Final Act, but nonetheless Great Powers are not necessarily fair so this would make a good standard. Thus, from the time before that, the Croats were the rebels and the Krajina Serbs were loyal to the legitimate sovereign authority. Any articles here should reflect that. Unfortunately, there's a tendancy to claim that Croatia was independent far before that date, even claiming it to be so during the time of the Brioni Moratorium when Croatia suspended its independence and had its presidency member in Belgrade serve as President of Yugoslavia(!)... talk about having it both ways!... the ICTY indictment of Stanisic and Simatovic, for instance, claims that crimes were committed by them "in the countries" of Croatia and Bosnia in 1991, which of course is nonsense as the UN did not recognise them as countries. I think people should make sure that the definitions and point of view OF THE TIME is considered and that the standards of how things are today are not used... remember that breaking up Yugoslavia and the USSR for that matter was considered to be radical, almost beyond the realm of possibility. It was certainly illegal to change Yugoslavia's borders without its consent as the Helsinki act guaranteed that fact. That's why Slovenia chose to sabotage the functioning of Yugoslavia because there was no guarantee that the UN and powers would accept its secession from a functioning Yugoslavia. So it picked a fight over Kosovo and tried to impose an unworkable confederation on the rest of Yugoslavia and just caused trouble to try to break it apart... in the case of the USSR, it was Yeltsin in the central Russian republic who usurped Soviet functions and invited the other republics to do the same; that's why it broke apart. Milosevic in Serbia did not do this and wanted to preserve Yugoslavia so in the name of "managing the Soviet breakup", and preventing a "Yugoslavia with nukes", Yugoslavia was declared to be dissolved as the USSR was dissolving; this really was not a credible threat as Yeltsin made it clear that he was not claiming parts of other republics and accepted the principle of having the republics secede with existing Soviet-era borders, decapitating the central government.

Procrustes the clown (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Great information. I think the UN is biased since they are funded by 1 or 2 countries. BUT, i agree. We should base our termanology on the UN standard. Secondly, could you share the links that give you this information. I would love to learn more.

Mike Babic (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a case of one person talking to himself on talkpage (but two accounts)?.
What Helsinki act? Who changed Yugoslav borders? Has any country expanded itself at the expense of Yugoslavia? Man, you don't know what are you talking about. Further, stop spreading your POV about "secession". Respect some things. YU republics were supposed to be equal members of YU federation, and no member of that federation had rights to impose its wish to another. When Serbia's leadership began to do that, Yugoslavia's collapse began. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Serbian POV

I am tired of SPA account bandit clown and even more tired for need to explain reason for deleting his fantasy. In my thinking for editor which is writing using misleading words how it has been OK to kill Serbian primeminister is not having right to edit wikipedia but .... To make long story short I will give 3 example why his nationalistic edits are deleted:

  • He is using like sources defense witness statement during ICTY trials. This is not accepted on wiki because we need to have neutral sources of statements.
  • Writing false statements:"Serbs in Croatia enjoyed the status of a constituent people, with the right to veto secession"
  • Writing misleading statements:"Croatian Ministry of the Interior Police were sent to the Knin area, triggering the Log Revolution..." Statement is misleading because police has been send only after police in Knin is rebelled....
  • Second misleading statement:"The new government also claimed Serb domination of the republic and overrepresentation of Serbs in the public service, police and the professions in general" Ulmost nobody from ex Yugoslavia or historians from Europe is questioning fact that there has been overrepresentation of Serbs in Police and Army. This has not been evil Serbian plan but Croats and Slovenes for example has rarely been interested in Army of Police career.

All in all ulmost all his statements from 27 March are full of misleading words, false statements or trial witness like source. --Rjecina (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

This page is not for categorization WikiProject Serbia. These were occupied areas of Croatia (so-called RSK was sockpuppet of Serbia) by greaterserbianist forces. Placing this article under that category is just another attempt of presenting of Croatian territory as Serbian. Don't play with that, that's open expansionism. I ask involved users to not to play dumb.
Also, this also doesn't belong to project "former countries". As an it was previously said in comment there, so-called RSK is not a "former country". So-called RSK was an unrecognised country. So-called RSK was never recognised, and as such, it never existed. Otherwise, you're putting this area in the level of Yugoslavia and USSR, internationally recognised countries, that exist no more. Kubura (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. First, this article is not placed in any category. This article is rather within the scope of WikiProject Serbia. It means (as far as I understand) that many (or some) members of that project find this article interesting and can potentially contribute to it. I hope you'll agree that there's nothing wrong with it (exactly the opposite, actually). I'm also rather sure that it is up to the members of WP Serbia to add or remove articles from within its scope. Alæxis¿question? 11:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh is a region of Republic of Azerbaijan. Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh lists the article as within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia. Armenia and Azerbaijan fought over this region in the Nagorno-Karabakh War after the majority Armenian population of this region declared independence from Azerbaijan. As a political entity, it is not internationally recognized but that does nothing to subtract from the historical and political implications that are of encyclopedic notability. This is no different. RSK is, justifiably so, a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia. SWik78 (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's surely within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan as well. Alæxis¿question? 20:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course! That's implied. I was just trying to illustrate why Armenia is not excluded and why Serbia shouldn't be. SWik78 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because mistakes were made on some other Wikiprojects, we have to repeat that here again?
I disagree with solutions above. In those cases, Wikiprojects should refer to nationality, not country. Otherwise, it sounds very, very bad.
In this case, tagging this talkpage as "Serbia" is continuation of Serbian aggression on Croatia, but with other means (information war, intelligence war). The area concerned (occupied areas of Croatia) was never part of Serbia. Wikipedia is supposed to give correct information. Kubura (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are not mistakes, the tags simply indicate an area of interest that can be based on several things. Everyone agrees that this was never a part of Serbia but this is not a continuation of Serbian aggression on Croatia. SWik78 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Z4

Following the rejection by both sides of the Z-4 plan for reintegration

This is false.Serbian side rejeced it for months,only to sign it one day before the Operation Storm.Then the Croatian Government refused it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GriffinSB (talk • contribs) 08:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it say that line in the article? I can't find it, it should be fixed if it's there. For the record, the "Z-4" was a peace plan which was presented several months before Operation Storm to both sides: the government of Croatia and the leaders of the RSK. It was supposed to be a working tool where both sides can negotiate the issues (i.e. it was not supposed to be a "final solution." It was a blueprint of a peace plan which had room to be changed and fixed during negotiations). True, RSK rejected it immediately (Martic didn't even want to touch it) because they did not want to be a part of Croatia in any way, and they did not want to negotiate. And Babic only signed it under the knowledge that Croatia was preparing to launch an offensive, and Croatia was not given any room to negotiate the terms of the plan. Moreover, they did not trust him, and knew Babic was only one of the small pawns in the game, and anything he signed would also have to be approved by Martic, Mladic, and of most importantly, Milosevic. --Jesuislafete (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right, Jesuislafete. Z-4 was a framework for taking steps toward reintegration.
Z-4 was presented to both sides (Croat and Serb) by the CG (ICFY + ambassadors of USA and Russia) in January 1995. The Croats received it, but did not agree to it. The Serbs refused to even receive it. You can read more about it here in the ICFY Official Papers, starting on page 1097.
The plans (there were two, actually) presented by Mr. Stoltenberg on 3 August in Geneva were not identical to the original Z-4, but were based upon it. You can read all about it in the Secretary General's Report of 7 August 1995 S/1995/666. Be sure to scroll all the way to page 9 to see the complete Annex II (Tudjman's terms).

Civilaffairs (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Missing images

I deleted File:8002oo7.jpg from the Gallery section because it has been deleted on March 13 by (you can confirm by clicking the redlink). Images File:Croatian refugees.jpg, and File:Vukovar refugees.jpg are still listed in the Gallery section but are not being displayed. Can anyone check to see that these are the right image names or confirm that these images have been deleted?
Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Why is the WW2 era connected to this fascist entity

that was made in 1991 trough ethnic cleansing and massmurder???--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Difference

The only difference I see between this and this maps is the spelling of Pristina. So why is one of them 'completely wrong'? Alæxis¿question? 16:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC) On the first map look at the western Slavonia front lines. And the lines in bosnia. Lines in Bosnia are those from 1993, and lines in western Slavonia from 1991. Ceha (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger

For the Merger discussion with RSK Towns, please go here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Towns_in_the_Former_RSK#merger_suggestion.3F (LAz17 (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina/Archive_2&oldid=402138677"