Talk:Yugoslav Wars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Macedonia as Serbian Ally?????

OK, seeing the campaign box now, Serbia/Yugoslavia and Macedonia are on the same side, which would mean they would be allies, like say Austria and Russia in the Napoleonic Wars or Germany and Hungary in WWII. To anyone who knows remotely about Macedonia or Yugoslavia/Serbia, that would be rediculous. The only way ANYONE could remotely see how Yugoslavia/Serbia and Macedonia would be on the same side is that they both fought Albanian sepratists. Never mind that they did it FOR DIFFERENT REASONS IN DIFFERENT PLACES WITH LITTLE TO NO CONTACT BETWEEN THEM! Indeed, Macedonia had been described by Tito as "The insatiable thorn persistantly stabbing me in the back and in the ass." The Western Allies, Greece in particulaar, and later NATO were uncomfortable with a subdued Macedonia, and had inspired revots and indeed had to a small extent directly aided the Macedonians, and similar activites were conducted by the Italians in Dalmatria, though with significantly less success. The Macedonians were more than a little bit edgy about the Yugoslav/Serb army, but they did not directly fight them save for some relativly isolated instances. The main Yugoslavian/Serbian army was directed first against the Croatian sepratists and than against the Bosnians and Croats in Bosnia.

Clearly the battlebox needs to be altered to show that the situation in the Balkans was complex and not really capable of being divided into traditions 1vs.1 sides that we are so familiar with, and that actual alliances were rare. ELV

Greater X

Darkelf, note how the actual events happened regarding the Greater X stuff. The Serbian political elite started their agitation for /whatever/ years before there was even an independent Croatia, let alone a Greater one, and even then this plot has too many holes to hold water -- a Greater Croatia would be restoration of the NDH borders, which spanned areas almost twice the size of what Tudjman ever had a hold on. Also, the propaganda about how Albianians are killing innocent Serbs in Kosovo started years before there was a war in Slovenia, and over a decade before the Albanians got any sort of autonomy. Therefore I don't see how these other alleged expansionist tendencies can be the cause of the Yugoslav wars (as a whole, which is the topic here), and so rather that NPOV'ing that paragraph, you've only made it Serbian POV because of the dilution of the issue with irrelevant data points. I think they should be removed. --Shallot 15:21, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Greater Croatia included the ethnic cleansing of the Krajina and other Serbian enclaves in Croata, as well as the Croat expansion in Bosnia and Hercagovina against the muslems before Croats and muslems combined forces against the Republic Srpksa.

Yes, I guess you could call that expansionism, but how is any of that the _cause_ of the Yugoslav Wars? And besides, calling it expansionism is very moot, because occupying Krajina in Storm was first and foremost returning to internationally recognized borders

Those borders were agreed to be recognized by the Badinter Commission only should the Croats reach a serious deal with the Serbs concerning minority rights. Somehow I doubt that genocide was considered a vadil solution for the Serbian question by Badinter although I see that in Zagreb it's not even an issue of debate. -- User:Igor 0:00, 3 Feb 2003 (UTC)

The borders were indisputably widely recognized back in early 1992 and were never contested since, not because the Croatian government had a great record as far as respecting minority rights, but because the purportedly endangered minority was in hegemonic control of a sizeable chunk of territory with the support of the JNA, an entity that was supposed to take both the majority and the minority into consideration. It became clear very soon that even if we assumed that both sides were entirely democratically elected by their respective constituency, one of those democratically elected groups was trying to strongarm the other one -- the Serbs were taking more and more territory, causing refugee floods, destructive sieges of villages and cities etc.

That isn't to say that the Serbs somehow waived their human rights, far from it. However, it was the Serbs under their leadership at the time who persisted in their campaign of violence, and it would have been foolish to believe that Croatia would not attempt to restore its territory, or that some Croats (in every population, a certain percentage is able to commit criminal acts, and another smaller percentage is just plain vile scum) would not resort to violence in an attempt to retaliate their losses. This is pretty much common sense, and the Serbs of Krajina knew it as well, which is why most of them were so well organized to pack their bags and go when the invasion happened.

Finally, saying that Croats committed genocide over the Serbs is so far from the truth I'm not sure why I'm even commenting on it. The only ciminal definition that could apply to the situation is ethnic cleansing and even that is limited to several incidents each of which, no matter how hideous, was evidently much lower on the scale comparing it with the definition of both these terms.

--Shallot 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(most of the Serbs left because of reasons explained at length at Demographics of Croatia and its talk page)

Yes that very page that we had an edit war before I left, now I am back and am eager to see what you have been up to while I was gone. Been your devilish little self. The Serbs evaporated into thin air before the Croats even got there, right? -- User:Igor 0:00, 3 Feb 2003 (UTC)

We had an edit war because you insisted on your usual fodder on how the whole point of Croatia is to get rid of all the Serbs or something. Even here it's obvious how you don't find it at all inappropriate to try to demonize your adversary. It doesn't really take a wizard to see through that, you know. --Shallot 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

and I am not aware of any notable territorial changes done in the war between Croats and Muslims in Bosnia -- the HVO took the areas near Stolac and Prozor in Herzegovina, while the ABiH took the areas near Travnik in Bosnia, there didn't seem to be any real expansion on either side.

OK, fair enough, Croats cleansed Mostar (29% of Croats before the war) and took over the right bank of the Drina

Neretva. (Somehow I'm not surprised that you've got the banks of Drina on your mind...) --Shallot 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(basically 5/6 of the town) taking over Serb and Muslim houses and appartments left and right not to mention whatever little niceties they found inside. Furthermore, Croats blew the hell out of the west bank (Old Mostar city) making out of Mostar the most devastated of all Bosnian towns. As well, both allies, Croats and Muslims had their own little war in Central Bosnia engaged in atrocities tit for tat, burning, killing, pillaging, raping, destroying. Croats took over Serbian counties of Bosansko Grahovo, Glamoc, Kupres and Drvar which were cleansed of Serbs. Despite Croats settling refugees, Drvar (95% Serbian in 1991) thanks in part to its returnees is now in Serbian hands (although the education/schooling is still dominated by Croats and most of the town's industry was pillaged and still is in the hands of the last few remaining Croats). Ditto for Grahovo whereas in Glamoc (77% before war) the Serbs are returning ever-so-slowly and Kupres (49-50% Serb before war) the situation is even worse. -- User:Igor 0:00, 3 Feb 2003 (UTC)

And your point with this little rant is... what, exactly? That Croats started the whole war in Yugoslavia because they're all criminals who only want to pillage? This hateful propaganda is just preposterous. --Shallot 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And note that they had combined forces against the Bosnian Serbs before their internal conflict, and after it. --Shallot 16:04, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Greater Albania was the policy of the Albanian terrorists in Kosovo, as well as the reason behind the Macedonian War.

What exactly did those Albanian terrorists in Kosovo accomplish (funny you should use the loaded term terrorist

Yes, even funnier when US ambassador to Zagreb Gelbard used the same term in early 1998. -- User:Igor 0:00, 3 Feb 2003 (UTC)

That reference is not particularly likely to impress anyone. --Shallot 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

when referring to them) in terms of starting the war in Kosovo, that wasn't already accomplished by Serbian politics? They certainly stirred up the strife in the Presevo valley and throughout northwestern Macedonia, but still, what expansion was there? Kosovo's autonomous status is restored and probably expanded from how it was before Milosevic, but it's pretty much cemented outside Albania, and so is the status of the Albanian-inhabited areas in Serbia proper and Macedonia. --Shallot 16:04, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, Greater Albania perhaps? Chasing out 200-300 thousand non-Albanians from Kosovo including the small Janjevo community quickly used by Zagreb to populate areas it cleansed of Serbs in the Krajina (in Dalmatia and Slavonia)? The breaking up of Macedonia, Serbia? -- User:Igor 0:00, 3 Feb 2003 (UTC)

Again, what the hell are you talking about? Where is this greater Albania that you speak of? Where is the breakup of Macedonia and of Serbia? The Serbian exodus is still a fact, but one that is likely to revert, if the leadership of Kosovo doesn't want their province to remain in limbo forever. Note that it will never be wholly reverted because some may never return -- just like some Croats will never return to Vukovar. And funny you should mention the breaking up of Serbia, as if Kosovo wasn't already autonomous in Yugoslavia before Milosevic, as if they were an integral part of the country. Maybe integral in history, but history doesn't override certain present rights (much the same rights as you purportedly try to say that the Serbs in Croatia don't have). --Shallot 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Including just the Greater Serbia info is not NPOV, but Anti-Serbian 'propaganda' to use your terms. Jor 15:37, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Get used to it, that's Shallot for you.-- User:Igor 0:00, 3 Feb 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, evil shallot, evil! --Shallot 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think you need to read much more about this region's recent history before coming to such a conclusion. Finally, the use of Greater >everyone else's state< to try to dodge the issue of Greater Serbia is a red herring argument often practiced by pan-Serbian propagandists, and it's sad that you are falling for it. --Shallot 16:04, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

O, yeah ? Let's hear from Serbs themselves & some bystanders: http://www.hic.hr/books/greatserbia/ (in their own words), http://www.hic.hr/books/seeurope/019e-dedijer.htm (repentant progeny),

Books from the Croat Information Center, how pathetic. -- User:Igor 0:00, 3 Feb 2003 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3341231.stm (a sort of deja vu),

Must have mixed up your links, all I see is a story about elections in Serbia? -- User:Igor 0:00, 3 Feb 2003 (UTC)

http://mondediplo.com/1997/11/serbia (French connexion-not exactly). Doesnt look like Greater Serbia was just an anti-Serb fabrication, eh ?Mir Harven 15:45, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

All people are entitled to their opinions, including second-grade journalists who make a meager living from writing articles for PR firm's employed by Zagreb. This is not an editorial line. -- User:Igor 0:00, 3 Feb 2003 (UTC)

You misread or misinterpreted. Greater Serbia was actively aspired for by some Serbs, but so was Greater Albania by the Albanian terrorists, and Croatia did certainly 'clean' parts of Croatia and Bosnia of non-Croat (Catholic) elements. Jor 15:53, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Serbs from Croatia "cleansed" themselves in the Operation Storm 1995, which is proven beyond reasonable doubt by orders from their commander (now an ICTY inmate) Milan Martic. And, this situation had been "rehearsed" several times from 1992 to 1995, as the repentant Milan Babic (another ex-rebel boss and ICTY indictee) has confessed.

Yes, how convenient for the Croats, I suppose that the Serbs, Jews and Roma also committed mass suicides during the Ustashi Holocaust as well? And it is fortunate as well that those Serbs not only left their own homes and prized possessions but no longer want to return to them, instead leaving them off to the Croats. -- User:Igor 0:00, 3 Feb 2003 (UTC)

Aww, you're making this too easy, now everyone can see in plain sight that you don't really have anything to say, you're just spouting bile about something that happened sixty years ago. While I'm sure most Wikipedians, including myself, can sympathise with victims of crimes, that doesn't mean that you get a free ticket to demonize a whole group of people and ideas vaguely related to whoever caused those crimes. --Shallot 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nobody "drove them out". That's the fate they themselves had chosen. The central difference lies in the fact that no Croatian military units were involved in forced "transportation" or similar stuff.

No, just intimidation, strafing refugee columns, killing off remaining Serb civilians, enough for anyone to choose leaving instead of waiting to see whether or not the same fate would happen to them. Thus according to your reasoning, Einstein left Nazi Germany of his own accord, the Nazis did not physically force him out, he just had an urge to move accross the ocean just like some many other Jews, for no apparent reasons, right Mir? -- User:Igor 0:00, 3 Feb 2003 (UTC)

The reductio ad absurdum works, but you've taken it out of context and applied the conclusion to a different case, thereby invalidating it.

Sure, I would have run for the hills myself if I was in that situation. A friend of mine that happened to get mobilized at the time told me how his unit, which was checking out some random hill, found only a few elderly people in their homes in a small village. They asked a woman where the rest of the population is and she told them that they all evacuated and that the old folks refused to leave their homes. Fearing for what might happen to them should someone with vendetta on their mind pass the same way later, the soldiers offered them to take them down to the nearest Red Cross station, and the old folks grudgingly accepted. They drove them safely and the people stayed in organized settlement until the army had moved out, and later returned to their homes.

One might wonder, what is the point of my story, where's the big Good or Bad Thing? The point is not to accuse of the younger people of abandoning the elderly, nor is it the point to hail soldiers for being so damn noble, the point is simply that there was a brutal war going on there and that everyone had to make some choices. By insisting on how "THEY" are Evil and Wrong and how "WE" are Good and Right you're not doing anything productive, you're just making yourself look like a fool. On the other hand, there are limits to not placing blame at anyone, and Milosevic's clique is a common place of drawing the line. --Shallot 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

More: during "Lightning" and "Storm" operations, large-scale negotiations had been held with the representatives of Serbian military & civilian authorities in order to persuade them to stay. To no avail. The siren call of Greater Serbia was stronger. That's the Serb way. They either rule as a colonial minority ( parallels with the French in Algeria or the Portuguese in Mocambique are obvious ) or are out- out in Serbia.Mir Harven 18:02, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Now, if your chauvinistic tirade and generalization is over, let me just remind you of the fact that the Serbs were never a colonial minority in the Krajina but a majority that settled there in order to protect those desolate regions from the Turkish onslaught. This was the Austrian military border, the Krajina and these Serbs lived there for centuries and defended it so you might have a very hard time trying to explain why they would just, all of a sudden, decide to leave it other than the mere fact that their lives were in danger? What happened to the Zagreb, Split, Osijek Serb communities, did they grow or drop tenfold? Why was that Mir? -- User:Igor 0:00, 3 Feb 2003 (UTC)

Again anachronisms, fallacies... it's also funny how you accuse Mir Harven of generalizing when he makes a satirical remark, and then do that yourself seemingly completely serious. --Shallot 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Except that none of those ideologies actually /caused/ any wars. Also, again, it was not /Croatia/ that committed ethnic cleansing in parts of the country (at least not until the ICTY prosecution proves such a far-reaching accusation in the Ante Gotovina case), whereas analogous accusations against Milosevic &co. have indeed been made and are being successfully proven at the ICTY. --Shallot 16:15, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes and here comes the echo, Shallot, Croats are innocent until proven guilty and Serbs are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before even being proven as such. Nice, very nice, just the kind of idiocies that one has to face every time a page is edited on Wikipedia, those know-it-alls who follow the rule "my people always right, yours not". -- User:Igor 0:00, 3 Feb 2003 (UTC)

Your lack of reason isn't even amusing any more... others who are reading can clearly see how I've listed crimes committed by my people on numerous occasions, in fact I've fixed many of your ill-intentioned stubs to include much more precise and detailed information about people and reported crimes in cases where there's only only been indictments, no convictions. --Shallot 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You'd think from all of the above that the wars were still going on... (perhaps they are, in a metaphysical sense?). -- ChrisO 00:00, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

UCK(mk) and UCPMB conflicts

Hmm. I'm thinking that the reason for the initial list is that the conflict caused by the UCPMB never really escalated into a "big" war, it was in a DMZ, whereas the conflict caused by the Macedonian NLA actually involved weeks of more serious gunfight in rebellious areas. ChrisO?

Anyway, they were both resolved by a peaceful surrender of the rebels, and they both happened a fair bit after NATO occupied Kosovo (in the next decade in fact), so regardless of the extent of the conflicts, couldn't they both be classified as subsequent conflicts of the Yugoslav wars rather than one of the wars themselves? --Shallot 16:28, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

initial impetus

The wars in Slovenia and Croatia were initially fought in the name of forcibly keeping Yugoslavia united. They soon became overtly nationalist in character, with a clash between the Serbian and Croatian nationalist ideologies

Hmm. Thinking about this now, I can't see how these two are separate, i.e. how this forcible keeping of a united Yugoslavia wasn't just one of the manifestations of Serbian nationalism. The local Serb secessionism in Croatia grew well before the war in 1991 (the first Croatian casualty was the March 31, 1991 death of a policeman at Plitvice, and that was an incident back then, serious fighting began some time later; the Krajina log revolution, the road blocks, started in summer 1990, the local referendum on self-rule took place in September 1990), and had they been truly Yugoslav in nature, they wouldn't have been called SAOs, they wouldn't declare intent to merge with Serbia, nor would they have comprised only patches of Yugoslav territory. In other words, the separation began before the outright wars even started, and the phrase "keeping Yugoslavia united" has little or no meaning because it wouldn't have been the same united Yugoslavia if only one part of Croatia (Krajina areas) was left in it. --Joy [shallot] 08:53, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

links

There's no point in actually linking non-existent or redirected pages named "$Fooish War", the links to sections of history pages are quite suitable and sufficient. --Joy [shallot] 23:48, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)