Talk:Yugoslav Wars/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Oh my freakin' God

The person who wrote the timeline knows nothing about the Yugoslav wars. Lets start with the obvious, he wrote that the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo was in 1987, eve though the battle was fought in 1389. Also, he said that the battle was celebrated only by nationalists, which is not true, the battle was celebrated by all Serbs, including Serb nationalists. The article is highly POV, and needs cleaning up. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right some dates needed to be corrected, but tell me, how is "Croatia launches Operation Storm and in 3 days OCCUPIES almost 70% of the self-proclaimed Republic of Serbian Krajina, ETHNICALLY CLEANSING almost 250,000 Serbs into exile during and after the operation." NPOV???

You can't call the Operation Storm ethnic cleansing, because those people weren't killed, nobody even attempted to kill them, they were infact instructed to leave by their leaders. Operation Storm was a MILITARY OPERATION with the sole purpose of bringing rebel territories under government control. Like it or not, those Serbs in the so called Republic of Serbian Krajina were infact Croatian citizens, and have been for a hundred years. Krajina was a region of Croatia for a thousand more. How can it be occupied by Croatia then? I'll have to NPOV it. --Dr.Gonzo 01:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Operation Storm isn't ethnic cleansing??? OK, I totally disagree on this one, and so do my two best friends from Knin, who were FORCED from their homes, and lost relatives in early August 1995 in Knin. Please, if Serbs are calling Srebrenica ethnic cleansing, have the guts to admit that Storm was ethnic cleansing as well. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 02:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Look up ethnic cleansing and tell me that the definition is in accordance with what happened here? Those Serbs were exiled, yes, but apart from around 100 civilians killed in individual cases of vindictive violence, none were murdered. Now, Srebrenica, where 10,000 were systematically murdered, massacred, thier town destroyed in an attempt to erase every trace of their culture,... Yes, I would call that ethnic cleansing. Besides, it's a fact, that Krajina serbs were not running because of the Croatian army but because they were instructed so by their leaders. Did they run out of fear? Yes. Justified? Maybe. But ethnic cleansing? How is it even possible without any contact with their supposed "cleansers"? --Dr.Gonzo 02:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to the 250,000 Serbs that were expelled from their homes. Oh, and in the ethnic cleansing article it says that "The term ethnic cleansing refers to various policies of forcibly removing people of one ethnic group". Tell me, did 250,000 Serbs leave just because the Serb gov't told them to do so? Or maybe the Croatian army forcibly removing Serbs (most likely). It doesn't matter how many were killed, that's not the definition of ethnic cleansing. Your arguments on this topic are bogus, and make no reasonable sense. I'm affraid that we can't cooperate anymore, because I can't work with someone who's just that ignorant of what really happened in Storm. I advise you to talk to people who went through the cleansing, hear their side of the story, and not only what Tudjman said (who I doubt cares about the people what were kicked out of Croatia), and what Mesic is, sadly, still saying... Have a nice day. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 02:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's very nice Bormalagurski, just run when you find someone who doesn't share your POV. Let me quote another part of the article on ethnic cleansing - "At one end of the spectrum, it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange, while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide." I think you'll agree that there was no genocide in Storm, and that the deportation was not conducted by Croatian forces. If you have references that say otherwise, I'd like to see them. And none of that bullshit Serbian nationalist revisionism. Btw, you, who don't even live in Croatia, and have probably never even been here, have the nerve to tell me I don't know shit about what happened in the Storm? Where do you get off? I've experienced war first hand, lad. So fine, if you don't want to cooperate we can do it the hard way, but don't think for one minute I'll let you spread lies and propaganda. I think I've shown I am trying my best to compromise. Can you say the same for yourself? --Dr.Gonzo 02:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, here's the fun part - my father is Croatian. I lived in Croatia for 2 years (in Rijeka), while it was still livable there for someone who was half-Serbian. So much for your intuition. You can't claim to be trying your best, when I've accepted your every proposal and did everything you said. But enough is enough. Storm is ethnic cleansing, and yes, even genocide (read the article), regardless of how many people were killed. If you admit to that, you'll see how ready I am to continue cooperating, but how can we continue if you're claiming that the biggest exodus of Serbs since WWII, was just a military operation (heck, the war in Rwanda was probably a military operation to you). So, to answer your question, yes, I am ready to compromise, I've accepted your every proposal, except this one, are you willing to go against your own principles, as I have up to now, in order to preserve the cooperation? -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please, no personall attacks, don't call my opinion bullshit Serbian nationalist revisionism. Things like that can get a guy blocked... -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Exodus it may be, but genocide, ethnic cleansing it is not. I'll agree to any of these characterizations - exodus, exile, forced deportation. But I'll not sign off on ethnic cleansing because that would be equating this with all the shit that went on in Bosnia and that simply isn't true. I can quote at least a dozen reputable, neutral, verifiable sources that say that Croatian army never came in contact with Serb refugees, and that the exodus was not planned by Croatia in any way. Infact, there exists only one dubious Tudjman quote that could ever support such a view. But Serbs subscribe to it like it's the god honest truth. You need to learn to remove yourself from your POV, as I have (or have been trying). Can you honestly say I haven't been patient with the "Kristallnacht" article or the "Human rights in Croatia" article? Btw, why don't i see you defending all the articles about Serb genocide against Croats and Bosniaks as hard? Because you have vested interest in pushing your views. And I understand that. But you need to understand that this is not what Wikipedia is about. You can write your own tractates on how the demonic Croatians tortured and exiled innocent Serbs anywhere you like on this great Internet, just not here. Here you need to stick to the facts, and try to reach a consensus. And that's not what you're doing. --Dr.Gonzo 03:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. The only reason I'm excepting the terms exodus, exile, forced deportation because I know that if we don't continue cooperating, it's just going to be another edit war. Fine, I still think it's ethnic cleansing, but I won't push for that information to be in Wikipedia. In my opinion, when I said that I don't want to cooperate anymore because of conflicting opinions, you said what you really thought of me, and I expected that reaction. Well, I guess things will never be the same. Note that I never called your opinion nationalist, or perhaps bullshit. I know you'll never apologize, and I'm not asking for an apology. Most people in Croatia share your opinion, and you can't be blamed for having that opinion. Still, lets finish the job concerning Kristallnacht and human rights, and be done with it. Cheers, -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what this NPOV thing is all about. I'm sorry if I insulted you, but I really can't stay dispassionate when there issues are brought up, especially because i've witnessed it all. And there is a strong tendency in Serbian politics today to just deny the whole thing, as if anyone can forget that it was Krajina Serbs that shelled Croatian cities incessantly for 4 years, killing thousands. Vukovar, Osijek, Vinkovci, Zagreb, Karlovac, Gospić, Zadar, Šibenik, Dubrovnik... They were all systematicaly shelled with the sole intention of causing as much civilian casualties as possible. FFS, Zagreb was rocketed with fragmentation projectiles out of retaliation after Bljesak by that lunatic Martic! Result? around 20 civilians killed, 50 with light injuries, 150 with heavy. Oluja on the other hand was an operation planed and executed with the greatest effort on minimizing civilian casualties. Infact, there were no civilians killed during the operation itself. So yes, your comments on this issue are uninformed and (possibly unintentionally) malicious. But that's no reason for us to stop cooperating. It's harder to build bridges then it is to destroy them. --Dr.Gonzo 03:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 04:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Trying to Neutralize POV

OK...I see where everyone is going on this one...I've tried to neutralize as best as possible...I've dropped Chetnik back in, because while Partisans is more neutral, there were also Chetniks involved...Let's all try and get this one right. There really were no winners in this whole affair, and all that's ended up happening is we have 5 (6?) countries that now have a stronger dislike (ahem) for each other. The only thing we can hope to do is to make an accurate "dispassionate" record of what happened. And hope that we can all learn from that... -- Mkamensek ^(talk) -The LeftOverChef 03:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Gonzo reverts item by Item

I list the two versions, and then discuss each.

• Change 1:

The second in this series of conflicts, the Croatian War (1991-1995) was also nominally fought for the same reasons, but rapidly became overtly nationalist in character, with a clash between the Serbian and Croatian nationalist ideologies personified by President Slobodan Milošević in Serbia and President Franjo Tuđman in Croatia. In January 1992 Vance peace plan proclaimed UN controlled zones for Serbs and brought an end to major military operationa, though sporadic artillery attacks on Croatian cities and occasional intrusions of Croatian forces into UNPA zones continued until 1995

VS

The second in this series of conflicts, the Croatian War of Independence (1991-1995) was also nominally fought for the same reasons, but rapidly became overtly nationalist in character, with a clash between the Serbian and Croatian nationalist ideologies personified by President Slobodan Milošević in Serbia and President Franjo Tuđman in Croatia. In January 1992 Vance peace plan proclaimed UN controlled zones for Serbs and brought an end to major military operationa, though artillery attacks against croatian cities and sporadic figthing continued until 1995.

Croatian War is more neutral term than Croatian Secession War (Serbian POV) or Croatian War of Independence

the artillery attacks were not constant, but sporadic

use of words attacks against croatian (shouldn't it be Croatian in English) cities is POV and misleading

fighting consisted in croatian military intrusions into UNPA zones, like operation Medak pocket

Croatian War of Independance was agreed upon per Talk:Croatian_Homeland_War. Secondly, I don't see what is POV about saying the artillery attacks were directed against croatian cities? It was intended as means of intimidation, since those targets were not of military importance. Besides, most of croatian military intrusions into UNPA zones before 1995 were aimed at relieving heavy artillery attacks on those cities, not reclaiming territory. --Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

disucssed later on. needs to be reformulated.

• Change 2:

The conflict in Croatia did not end until August 1995, when Croatia launched a successful four-day military operation (codenamed Operation Storm) in which it entered all parts of present day Croatia except the Eastern Slavonia UNPA zone, bordering Serbia. Virtually all of Serbian population in these areas become refugees. The Eastern Slavonia was peacefully reintegrated into Croatia in 1998.

VS

The conflict in Croatia did not end until August 1995, when Croatia launched a successful four-day military operation (codenamed Operation Storm) in which it managed to reclaim over 70% of its pre-war territory, reclaiming all UNPA zones except Eastern Slavonia. Shortly thereafter, Serbian forces (both military and militia) withdrew from or ceased hostilities within the rest of Croatia. During and following the operation over 200,000 Serb civilians fled fearing retribution. The Eastern Slavonia was peacefully reintegrated into Croatia in 1998.

The exodus od Serbs was almost complete - virtually all left

The reasons for the exodus are disputed. It is simplest not to go into the details.

It is misleading to say that Serbian fources ... within the rest of Croatia, since nothing changed in Eastern Slavonia at all. It was part next to Serbia, and Croatian forces never dared to attack it like the other UNPA zones protected by poorly motivated UN troops, and also there were never any artillery attacks from Eastern Slavonia at all on cities like Osjek and Vinkovci (unlike, for instance, a couple of attacks on Zagreb mounted from other UNPA zones).

Exodus - yes. However, reasons are not secret, they well known and documented. Leaving them out is distortion of truth and extremely POV. The "part next to Serbia" was also a part of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, and infact, Croatian Army did intend to launch another large scale operation aimed at reclaiming those territories also. It was only due to American diplomatic intervention that that operation never took off, but that doesn't mean that the reintegration of those territories is somehow illegitimate. The dissolution of Republic of Serbian Krajina had as it's natural consequence reintegration of those territories into Croatia as per internationally recognized Croatian borders from 1992. --Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

what tudjman intended to do or not i do not know. what was illegitemate was not the eastern slavonia reintegration (done with mutial agreement of all sides and with no major refugee crisis or ethnic cleansing), but quite the opposite - the military takeover of unpa zones, purged of serbian population that lived there for centuries.

• Change 3: Timeline(1968) - dropping the power struggle for Tito's Yugoslavia line.

I can agree to this, since this is timeline. Contraversial claims should be avoided, as there is no space to present the arguments fairly.

No objection, it's covered elsewhere anyway. --Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Change 4:Timeline(1971)

Nationalist demonstrations in Croatia, known as Croatian spring.

VS

Nationalist demonstrations in Croatia, known as Croatian spring. A crisis of government follows, fueled by perceived Serb dominance in all government institutions.

As said, contraversial POV claims should be avoided in the timeline. All the details and controversy is to be read from the article about croatian spring. "percieved Serb dominance" is highly POV.

It's not POV since that is the main reasons why constitutional changes were initiated in the first place! It's not an opinion, it's a fact supported by official documents of the time. The crisis of government followed in the wake of Croatian spring, and reasons behind it are well known, and described in the relevant article. --Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

there is a link to the article for more details. weather the article is NPOV or not i did not look, but whatever the case, saying perceived serb dominance is hardly an undisputed fact. you can say that there was a crisis, but there is no place in the timeline to discuss the nature of the crisis, and no need to go into that in timeline.

• Change 5:Timeline(1974)

New constitution of SFRY proclaimed, granting more power to federal units, and more power to autonomus provinces Kosovo and Vojvodina within Serbia, giving them a vote in all relevant decisions in the federal government.

VS

New constitution of SFRY proclaimed, granting more power to federal units, and more power to autonomus provinces Kosovo and Vojvodina within Serbia, giving them a vote in all relevant decisions in the federal government. The changes are seen as a way of downplaying Serbia's role in the decision-making process, with the hope of bringing more stability.

As above, adding a POV sentence (accent of supposed worries against Serbs) helps here little. Stick to statement of facts - interpretations are not for timeline

Again, this is supported by official policies of the time. The 1974. constitution was introduced to address grievances of non-Serb nations within Yugoslavia, and to curb the nationalist sentiments across Yugoslavia. This is supported by numerous political texts, analysis, and books written on the subject. However, since these sources are mainly in serbo-croatian, since many of them are from pre-internet era, and since most are cited elsewhere in relevant articles, I don't think it's neccessary to cite them in this article. --Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

certainly, it was used to ease the nationalist sentiments. however, that was done at the expense of the serbs. your original edit is very biased - saying "bring more stability" - it did not bring stability, since in 81 albanians demonstrated, since serbs viewed changes as unjust (splitting serbia into 3 parts). there was a well known saying "weak serbia- strong yugoslavia" by anti-serbian nationalists; so, these things can be adressed, but in a NPOV way, and in a separate article about the 1974 constitution, not in a timeline or indeed this overview article.

• Change 6:(1986)

Memorandum of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts protests unequal position of Serbia in Yugoslavia.

VS

Memorandum of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts protests unequal position of Serbia in Yugoslavia and effectively calls for a creation of Greater Serbia on the territory of entire Yugoslavia (although, according to the census of 1991, Serbs constituted only 33% percent of the population).

the added sentence is highly POV and contraversial, and presents dubious argument as fact. It could not stand in NPOV article, let alone the timeline.

OK, but the higly controversial nature of the memorandum needs to be addressed. --Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

for the timeline, i would just add a word contraversial.

• Change 7:(1990)

Constitutional changes in Serbia decrease some of the powers of Kosovo and Vojvodina granted by the constitution of 1974.

VS

Constitutional changes in Serbia decrease most of the powers granted to Kosovo and Vojvodina by the constitution of 1974, including a vote in the federal council (and giving those votes back to Serbia).

details added are relevant, but the "giving votes BACK to Serbia" is wrong and needs a rewording

That is acceptable, as long as we clearly state that those votes DID go back to Serbia, effectively increasing it's leverage power in the federal council, the very thing the constitution of 1974. tried to avoid. --Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

i can do that, by saying that they effectively gave serbia control of 3 votes. but since there were already pro-milosevic governments in vojvodina and kosovo, they already did have in fact those 3 votes before it (since antibirocratic revolution)

• Change 8:

Constitutions changes in Croatia deny the status of a constitutive nation to Serbs in Croatia (Serbs constituted 12% of the population according to the 1991 census, and were granted a status of constitutive nation as a measure of protection against repetition of the Ustasha genocide when AVNOJ Croatia was created). Croatian Serbs start a rebellion against the newly elected government, an event frequently referred to as the "Balvan revolution" (tree-log revolution).

VS

Constitutional changes in Croatia deny the status of a constitutive nation to Serbs in Croatia (Serbs constituted 12% of the population according to the 1991 census). Croatian Serbs start a rebellion against the newly elected government, an event frequently referred to as the "Balvan revolution" (tree-log revolution).

If you want to (implicitly) argue that Serbs were a minority and therefore justify the changes, then you should be prepared to accept the arguments of the other side, which has to do with protection of Serbs. Indeed, after removing the clause protecting Serbs, thy dropped from 12% to 3% minority within only a few years (and that is essential point, since as constituent nation, they had a say in the future of Croatia within Yugoslavia, and once their vote was denied, Croatia secceded resulting in war and expulsion (arguably, part of Budak's plan, that Tudjman has endorsed) of 75% of Serbian population.

I stick to my position about timeline above, and remove both arguments instead, as timeline is not a place to present various POV, but preferably neutrally stated undisputed facts

I can agree on mentioning why they got the status of constituent nation in the first place, I just didn't know how to rephrase it, it's very convoluted as is. However, it needs to be said that they did infact constitute only 12% of the population and were, in fact, a minority, and unable to swing the referendum on independence vote either way. --Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

according to political theory in communist yugoslavia, in interpretation of serbian vitnesses at ICTY, the status of constitutive nation gave serbs veto rights in vital issues. that was the issue, and not only possible secession of croatia. but, as before, i dont think there is any need to go into details in a timeline, especially in this line.

See the section at the bottom. Serbs weren't constitutive nation in Croatia, even in socialist Yugoslavia. Kubura (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Change 9: (January 1992)

Vance peace plan, creating 4 UNPA zones for Serbs, and ending large scale military operations in Croatia. ::VS

Vance peace plan, creating a UN controlled buffer (composed of 4 UNPA zones) between the Croats and Croatian Serbs accepted, ending large scale military operations in Croatia. Artillery attacks against Croatian cities perpetrated by Krajina Serbs continue, however.

There needs to be Vance peace plan for more details.

Wasn't Serbian Krajina DIVIDED in 4 UNPA zones

Statement about artillery attacks PERPETRATED is POV, and also unnecessary. PERPETRATED is biased as sneakily implying that the Serbian actions were unjustified and illegal (a POV position), you could as well said Sucessfull artilery attacks on Croatian strongholds menaged to restrain genocidial Croatian agressors from their attempts to ethnically cleanse protected zones from the Serbs (alternative POV). It is unnecessary, as by saying large scale military operations it is understood that there were some hostilities. There is absolutely no need to go into details

Large scale military operations - siege of Vukovar, Dubrovnik, Zadar, etc. That's not "some hostilities", that's a full scale war. Your statement here betrays your POV. But i digress. Here are some synonims for "perpetrate" - act, bring about, carry out, commit, do, effect, enact, execute, inflict, perform, pull, wreak. Choose one. BTW, artillery attacks on civilian targets are always unjustified and illegal, per Geneva conventions and customs of war. Most of Krajina Serb leaders are indicted for these crimes in ICTY today, and

some, like Milan Babic, have already been found guilty. --Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

some hostilities refered not to the actions before vance peace, but after. so, to repeat what I said more clearly: by saying "large scale military operations ended" it is implicitly said that "small size military operations" (or some hostilities, as I said) were not ended, i.e. that there was some fighting AFTER main military operations. how much fighting exactly there was in 92, 93 and 94? you implicitly said yourself that such fighting did not constitute large scale military operations. as for your point about attacks on civilians, that is true, and it is also true that NATO crimes against serbian civilians in 1999 are war crimes. there is EXACTLY the same type of attack on nish that NATO carried out, as the one martic is accused of, and noone is standing trial for nato crimes. That much about ICTY, which is far from impartial, objective or non-political court. and war crimes were comitted on croatian side too. as this is a timeline, i dont see any need in going into details about what kind of hostilities ensued, but if you insist, then both artilerry attacks (which were sporadic, as far as i know) and croatian intrusions have to be mentioned.

• Change 10: (May 1995)

Croatia launches Operation Flash and in 2 days enters Western Slavonia UNPA zone. The exodus of 30,000 Serbs follows.

VS

Croatia launches Operation Flash and in 2 days reclaims Western Slavonia. The operation is seen as a precursor for a larger, more ambitious and more decisive Operation Storm that followed 3 months later. According to serbian sources around 20,000-30,000 Serb civilians and militia flee the area fearing retribution.

UNPA zone is more precise, and enters is more neutral than either "occupies" (which is a military term, but also has bias of illegitimacy) and "reclaims" (biased POV term implying that the action was justified).

the reasons for Serb exodus are disputed

word militia serves only the purpose to skew POV. It is like using construction "200 Croatian irregular combatants, war criminals and prisoners were executed at Ovcara". Not acceptable, especially in Timeline

There is no need to give an assesment and relation to Operation Storm. Using words ambitious, decisive is POV , as is whole construction (written from Croatian POV)

Decisive is not POV since this operation ended the war in Croatia. That's a pretty decisive. Ambitious can be left out. I have no objections on removing the word militia, but that aspect needs to be adressed, there weren't only civilians among those 20,000-30,000.

it is not disputed that it was decisive, but it is disputed that this should be comented there. from the croatian POV, that is what is relevant. from the serbian POV, one can say 'exodus of 30,000 paved a way for the more horrible and unjust exodus of the 250,000 serbs' and that would be POV not because it is not true, but because that is what is RELEVANT from serbian POV. relevancy is what is to be judged, since timeline is selective, and choosing what to include is a matter of NPOV.

• Change 11:(August 1995)

Croatia launches Operation Storm and in 4 days entering all but the Eastern Slavonia UNPA zone, resulting in the exodus of approximately 250,000 Serb refugees.

VS

Croatia launches Operation Storm and in 4 days reclaims almost 70% of its pre-conflict territory, resulting in approximately 250,000 Serb refugees. The results of the operation puts pressure on the Serbian side, paving the way for cease-fire negotiations.

Same problems as above. Could use some of the compromise text from the introduction. The last sentence, competelly unacceptable, Croatian POV, and also inaccurate. It is one of the worst distortions so far discussed.

Whatever, your version is also completely unacceptable, needs compromise. --Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Change 12:

NATO decides to launch a series of air strikes on Bosnian Serb artillery and other military targets on August 30th.

VS

Following the latest provocation by Bosnian Serbs, a mortar attack on Sarajevo city market (38 civilians killed, around 100 more injured), NATO launches a series of air strikes on Bosnian Serb artillery and other military targets on August 30th.

It is not an accurate description. Firstly, word provocation is POV and wrong. Serbs had no reasons to provoke anything - they had reasons to hold to their positions, which were military superior. Second, there were many attacks/incidents like this. There were other reasons behind NATO decision - publicly, Srebrenica, and essentially, the decision of US to end the war by bombing the Serbs. US has opted to unite Croats with Bosniaks, help and support Croatian actions Storm and Flash, and bomb Serbs, to weaken their position, and then force all sides to an acceptable settlement. Since reasons are complex, it is misleading and unnecessary to add the explanation in this half sentence. It is a timeline, and a statement of the fact that NATO attacked is more than enugh here.

Would you prefer "war crime" instead of provocation? Because that's what it was, a gross violation of Geneva convention. Srebrenica and the mortar attack on Sarajevo marketplace with exclusively civilian casualties convinced the international community Bosnian Serb leaders were not ready to end the fighting, or seriously negotiate unless their military capacity is seriously weakened. Infact, Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, Bosnian Serb leaders of the time are now wanted by ICTY for those very "incidents". Saying that "reasons are complex" is intentional obfuscation of the situation. Saying that "NATO attacked" without any further elaboration is unacceptable since it makes it seem like the NATO action was arbitrary and unjustified. --Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

war crime would make sense, though it was always the question who dropped the bomb. even srebrenica is portrayed by some serbian sources (milosevic at icty for instance) as a conspiracy used to justify the intervention. i dont think that there needs to be an explanation in the timeline, and thats what i meant by complex (there is more background that just half a sentence). weather nato actions were justified is a matter of POV. srebrenica was, in the long run, more suitable excuse for nato than this attack (as many of such incidents have occured during siege of sarajevo, but srebrenica occured only once), and this was mentioned as an immediate reason in the introduction. however, readers of a timeline are not to be spoon-feeded by explanations, as srebrenica was already mentioned, and they can certainly figure out the reason (which has to do with the 3 years of conflict, and if you want, war crimes, not one "provocation"). i suggest removing explanation, but perhaps adding markale incident (a much more relevant event) before that, which resulted in cease fire in fact. in such a way, you cannot object that reader will get a wron impression.

• Change 13:(November 1995)

Milosevic, Tudjman and Izetbegovic lead negotiations in Dayton, Ohio.

VS

Milosevic, Tudjman and Izetbegovic negotiatiate end to hostilities in Dayton, Ohio.

Slightly contraversial. There were NO hostilities between Serbia and Bosnia/Croatia whatsoever, according to official POV in Serbia (at the time at least, and now for the large part). They did negotiate end of hostilities in Bosnia, but not only that - they negotiated Peace agreement. Milosevic was representing Bosnian Serbs by the decision of assembly of RS, that was his mandate.

OH PLEASE! The reason why Milosevic was involved was the same reason why Tudjman was involved. Officialy neither country was involved in the war in Bosnia, but it was absolutely clear that no agreement can be reached without those two. Drawing borders on a map is one thing, political situation in the field is something entirely different. --Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

that is true, but there is no need to go into details. also, both versions can be interpreted in a noncotraversial way.

Rectified reference on factional infighting

I have replaced

in a three way conflict between Serbs, Muslims (Bosniaks) '(who even fought among themselves)' and Croats

with

factional in-fighting in all three ethnic groups at one time or another. in a three way conflict between Serbs, Muslims (Bosniaks) and Croats, 'with factional in-fighting in all three ethnic groups at one time or another'.

The previous statement creates the impression that it was only Muslims that fought among themselves when this occured among Serb (armed dispute between those that were loyal to Babic & those loyal to Hadzic in SAO Krajina) & Croat forces (HVO assasination of HOS leadership) as well. Have rectified sentence to reflect this information.

Perhaps a separate stubb linked to this page is a solution for expanding on this subject.

The Table

...is unendingly POV. It notes that there was an "Allied victory" as if there were Allies like during the World Wars. Additionally, it strangly puts the KLA, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and NATO on one side and Serbia and Montenegro on the other. But, the situation is far more intrigue and complicated - in BiH Serbs and Croats fought against the Muslims in Central Bosnia and Serbs and Muslims fought against Croats in Herzegovina - while Muslims fought amongst themselves in Western Bosnia (West Bosnia collaborating with the Serb Republic). And, there's no mention of any Yugoslavia (SFRY, FRY) amongst the combatants - nor the numerious entities that fought - RS, HB, FBiH, RSK, etc. The situation is far more complicated than this table blatantly and falsly represents. I suggest reworking the table - or totally removing it. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not using ONE table. These are the wars that have in common that they were all on the territory on the former Yugoslavia; mostly the various (loyal to Slobodan Milošević) Serbs' armies were on one side, but not in all wars - 1993 war between HVO and B&H Muslim (Bosniac Muslim) forces ("Armija BiH"), but neither they fought against each other on all the battlefields, they even fought on the same side, they cooperated. However, you can't put all those wars in one table. E.g., Croatia wasn't the combatant on the Kosovo, neither was the KLA combatant against rebel Serbs in Croatia. Kubura 13:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yougoslav War Documentary

I'd like to post a Documentary about the Yugoslav Civil War - It's watchable for free over a Link in the Internet alternatively an Online Stream - A Good Documentary about the Early History Up to the Civil War itself for everyone who is interested in this Stuff because it's very detailed .. and it is in English with Serbo-Croatian Subtitles - but i don't know where or how to post it exactly - I hope you can gimme a Hint on this, greets K-Pax

The documentary in the external links

• "Yugoslavia - The Avoidable War I (English)"
• "Yugoslavia - The Avoidable War II (English)"

This documentary in the external links has parts which are biased and not encyclopediac, so I'm removing it for the time being until someone can offer an explanation for these links are useful for the article.--Obvious 16:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Obvious

This Documentary is not biased - it's based on Historical Facts and made by Non-Yugoslav Filmmakers. And the People and Politicans Interviewed and stating their Opinion are from the States, Britain, France and so on. So how can it be biased?

Here's one example of its bias/inaccuracy, the documentary states the forensic reports done by Yugoslav and Belarusian groups as "facts"; that the people who died in the Racak incident did have some gunpowder on their hands but I'm sure you know that those reports were heavily critisized as what they called gunpowder could have easily been something else. The documentary also fails to tell the eye-witness accounts of the same incident hence the bias. This is an encyclopedia not a conpiracytheorypedia. Also that documentary as any will be able to tell is written from pro-serb POV and simply does not have a place in an encyclopedia.--Obvious 17:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The documentary does present some facts. Serbs were indeed persecuted during WW2, and under the Communist regime. However, whilst I believe that it is right to raise those sorts of viewpoints, this documentary makes no apology for what Serbia did. Just because Serbs were persecuted in the past, doesn't make it right for them to do what they did. Revenge is not a valid excuse. EasyPeasy21 14:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts mostly involving Serbs?

If we analyse the conflicts listed in the article to form bilateral conflicts, we have:

• War in Slovenia: JNA vs Slovenians
• Croatian War of Independence: JNA, Croatian Serbs, Serb paramilitary vs Croats
• Bosnian War:
  • Serb-Bosniak conflict: JNA, Bosnian Serbs, Serb paramilitary vs Bosniaks
  • Serb-Croat conflict: JNA, Bosnian Serbs, Serb paramilitary vs Bosnian Croats, Croatian army
  • Bosniak-Croat conflict: Bosniaks vs Bosnian Croats
• Kosovo War: Serbs vs Kosovo Albanians
• Southern Serbia conflict: Serbs vs Southern Serbia Albanians
• Macedonia conflict: Macedonian Albanians vs Macedonians

By "JNA" I mean JNA and JA, which was at the time of the conflicts controlled by the Serbian&Montenegrian leadership (i.e. Milošević), esp. after Slovenia. By "Serb paramilitry" I mean paramilitary troops funded, organised and originating from Serbia&Montenegro, rather than by local Serbs in Croatia or Bosnia. This does not imply that there were no paramilitary organisations fighting for other sides.

Out of this eight conflicts, only two or three (if you count Slovenia) can be classified as not involving Serbs. If you sort the list by casualties, the top four (Kosovo, Croatia, Serb-Croatian and Serb-Bosniak in Bosnia) will all include Serbs as one of the sides. All conflicts not involving Serbs resulted in union rather than separation, i.e. Federation of BiH and Republic of Macedonia. All other conflicts (except in Eastern Slavonia) ended up on bad terms (can't find better way to describe the idea, but I hope it gets through).

This is proof that this statement is true: Yugoslav Wars were characterised by bitter ethnic conflicts between the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, mostly between the Serbs or the Serb-controlled Yugoslav army and a different ethnic group: Slovenians, Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians. So it should be included in the article.

Hrvoje Šimić 06:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but write that in the article and you'll immediately be labeled a POV pusher... It's not about The Truth, it's about NPOV unfortunately. --Dr.Gonzo 22:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a fact, and therefore automatically NPOV. Right? Hrvoje Šimić 22:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A brief timeline

I have moved the timeline to a separate article: Timeline of the Yugoslav wars. The timeline had just grown too long, with lenghty prose and various interwining one-sided statements that it was not very readable. I have taken steps to achieve a higher standard. I propose to:

• keep only the most important milestones related to topic;
• keep descriptions objective and acceptable for all sides;
• keep entries short and clean.

Hrvoje Šimić 14:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's great Hrvoje, but please try not to remove all entries that you not like as your edits right now are POV pushing and I'm not sure what your criteria is for "most important milestones related to topic" but it is obviously different than others.// Laughing Man 14:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I resent being called a POV pusher and YOU have no right to say that! (Not that it has been stopping you before.) If some of my edits come out biased, it is only because I'm human and unaware of all sides of the issue. I've corrected myself in some of the cases and rely on others to point it out to me in other cases. But that's no POV-pushing. You can tell if someone is systematically forcing his own POV if ALL of his edits "benefit" only one side, if he's ignoring other people's work, sources and reasoning and cares more about shallow political impact of the texts then its encyclopedic quality. If you have some evidence to accuse me of that, please do.

As for the criteria, I'm sure that oppinions about what to include and what not will surely vary among editors, but that is hopefully something that can be worked out in a rational discussion. There are some events that may be important from anybody's point of view (perhaps Oluja, Dayton), others can be up for discussion. But if we don't apply any criteria, the list will just get inflated and contradicting, like it was when I started to edit it. And if that's okay too, we have another article to do it in. But I would rather have a short, agreed-on version. Hrvoje Šimić 15:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A note about Misha Glenny

In Croatia, the author Misha Glenny (the author of the term "Yugoslav Wars") is considered as, mildly said, "anti-Croat". Currently I don't have any links to confirm this, when I find ones (or if somebody puts something on the internet), I'll post them here. Kubura 13:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should say that, quite a few people consider him anti-Serb. --estavisti 15:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

theres a surprise. anything vaguely NPOV that gets written on wikipedia is both anti-serb and anti-croat too! Jieagles 04:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of Background and Early Conflicts

Rewrote these sections and added more background to remove the POV that existed. Also removed section in timeline referring to Serb status in Croatian constitution as a constituent nation b/c it is erroneous. croatian_quoll 06:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? --PaxEquilibrium 20:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's erroneous on two fronts:

• first and most importantly, the objection of the Serbs was primarily to a loss of privelage as opposed to status - the constitutional changes were merely a red herring. Tito's Jugoslavia was delicate patchwork of divide and rule strategies - in Croatia for example, the Serb minority dominated the security forces and alot of the beauracracy. As an example, even though Serbs constituted 11% of the population, they formed over 70% of the police force. Note that such privelage was a by-product of communist party membership. In an attempt by the newly elected HDZ to redress the imbalance and also to replace the communist party appointees with their own party apparatchicks, alot of local Serbs were made redundant from their jobs;
• second, AFAIA, whilst Serbs were mentioned in the Socialist constitution, they were never explicitly mentioned as a constituent nation. This is something that has been infered by Serbs by virtue of equal status, i.e. they are confusing civil rights with notions of constituent nation.

croatian_quoll 06:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a good way to make the article more objective. As though I may agree with you on many issues, the background section now overwhelmingly represents the Croatian POV. Also, you removed the paragraph describing the Albanian-related conflicts. The background section is now relevant only to the War in Croatia, not the Yugoslav wars in general. A better way is to include widely-accepted (undisputed) facts, to represent multiple POVs on important disputed issues and to cite relevant sources which support it, or provide basis of marking statements erroneus. If we don't do that, another edit war is imminent. Hrvoje Šimić 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Before the rewrite, the article represented (Serb) POV in the attempt to link the current conflict to the events of WW2 (seemly ignoring all events prior to WW2) and subsequent interpretations for the justification of attrocities. The article as it stands now in no-way represents Croatian POV, instead it contains elements of both Serb and Croat POV. To make it totally NPOV, we would have to delete any reference to WW2 or the first Jugoslava b/c it has not been demonstrated that these carry any significant relevance to the recent conflict. Indeed, there is very little in the article about the interplay of Jugolsvia communist party politics and factions and the rise of competing elites and their role in the dissolution of the federation, which I have attempted to partly redress. The section on the Albanian conlict was removed was clearly POV and made claims that were questionable/unsourced but I didn't know what to replace it with. croatian_quoll 13:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed The second in this series of conflicts, the Croatian War of Independence was fought by nationalist elements, funded by Ustashe ([Ustashe]) and Chetniks Chetniks in exile.

to

The second in this series of conflicts, the Croatian War of Independence was fought by competeing national elites, with significant funding by respective dijaspora communities, including in part by pro ChetniksChetniks and Ustashe ([Ustashe]) elements in exile.

in order to reflect the relative influence these exile groups had within the broader dijaspora. iruka 06:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing references to sources

I added the "This article does not cite its references or sources" warning. I think these are much needed if the article is to move forward. I haven't been doing it myself, because I "knew" what really happened. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert historian, so in the end it really doesn't matter what I think. Hrvoje Šimić 15:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

For those who are interested about…

…the article Serbophobia has been nominated for deletion for the fourth time. If you care, go there and place your vote. That’s it.--MaGioZal 11:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Cause

Ivan, it was not the nationalism that caused the war.
Romantical national feelings were not the problem.
The expansionism was the problem.
All those warmongering started in Serbia, among Serb leadership, all under "endangerdness of Serb people" (ugroženost srpskog naroda, ugroženi Srbi). At first at Kosovo, later that "endangered Serbs" story (completely unfounded and untruth) was pointed to Croatia.
Maybe Croats have started with "meetings of Serbs and Montenegrins" ("mitinzi Srba i Crnogoraca s Kosova"), with all that iconography and rhetorics, expressed there? (BTW, that topic should have an article).
SR Croatia kept its mouth shut. Have you ever heard the term "hrvatska šutnja"? That term could be often found in the media from late 1980's.
What do you think, how long could Croatia tolerate such rhetorics (full of lies, and "invented things")? From those meetings and from leaderships of Communist Party of Vojvodina, Serbia, and Montenegro?
You weren't neither born then.
For God's sake, read the newspapers from those times! Especially you'll find it interesting reading various newspapers and magazines. Completely different stories. That was called "'informativni rat".
GreaterSerbian expansionism, imperialism was the problem. Kubura 09:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that there was no nationalism in the war? Are you saying that there were no romantic renewal feelings in the war? And yes, I agree that various expansionist (albeit nationalist, too) policies caused the war.

It's not "completely unfounded and untruth". Truth is that a hundred thousand Serbs were banned from returning to Kosovo after expelled in World War II by the Axis forces. Over the ages, between two and three hundred thousand Serbs have migrated/were expelled from Kosovo across the 60s, 70s and early 80s. Truth was that the Serbian ethnic group was facing extinction in Kosovo (and it is still too), the situation which the Herzeg-Bosnian Croats were/are approaching. The people indeed was subject to discrimination and was "second-class" in Croatia, so there's a little bit truth in there too. However, no one denies that these occasions were used as an excuse to funnel Serbian nationalism and ethnic hatreds towards Croats and Albanians vigorously, particularly by the Chetnik-style Serbian Radicals.

Well, perhaps Ivan doesn't read the papers, but I do. And "GreaterSerbian expansionism" appears to be only in usage by you and the odd User:CroDome, who appears to be a troll - so simply don't use the term. And as for "Croatian silence" - well, not so black & white I must admit - heavy ultranationalist rhetoric was in usage in Croatia too, particularly in the early 1990s. --PaxEquilibrium 18:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For those who still don't get it:
The war started those who had military advantage, who controlled the heavy weaponry and had international "connections". That was Serbia. You know very well where was total mobilisation declared. You know very well where from came all military corpses which invaded Croatia.

Total mobilisation was declared across entire Yugoslavia. JNA did not invade anything but was in Croatia all along.

Maybe Croatia was in so good militar position (compared to Serbia and Montenegro), that it had interest to go into war?

It apparently had, don't you think?

Maybe Croatia had 200 military airplanes and 400 tanks, and Serbia, Montenegro and rebel Serbs none?

Which "rebel Serbs"? Serbs were loyal to Yugoslavia. Maybe you wanted to say "rebel Croats"?

Nikola, you're too young to speak about some things. Do you know what Rašković said? Kubura 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Croatia had strong military industry, and Serbia none at all?

Military industry was spread across entire Yugoslavia.

Maybe Croatia had much better "connections" (compared to Serbia) in international community, through various international bodies, through all the elements of diplomacy?

Serbia had good international connections, with Badinter commission absolving breakup of Yugoslavia? What are you smoking, it must be darn good?

Shall I add Bosnian Serbs-populated areas, to worsen the picture of "poor, innocent, weak Serbs"? Maybe federal army shelled Čačak, Kragujevac, Nikšić, Podgorica, Kikinda and Niš?

It would had these cities tried to separate from Yugoslavia.

Rhetoric of Slobodan Milošević ("the interrepublic borders are only administrative"), as well as of those Serb and Serb-influenced Montenegrin leaders, was the one that spread ideas of territorial expansionism.

The interrepublic borders were only administrative, so that was correct.

Maybe Croats have organized "log-revolution", aimed to destroy Croatian key export activity, tourism?

Maybe log revolution would not have been neccessary had Croatia not separated from Yugoslavia and demoted Serbs to a minority?

Maybe Bosnian Serb leader, Vučurević, that boasted with his shelling of Dubrovnik and scaring of tourists, did that by Croatian orders?
Shall we post here scanned pages of Serbian newspapers (it'll take some... a lot of time... to do that) with all that warmongering in it?

Would you care to do the same with contemporary Croatian papers?

National feelings were not the problem, problem was territorial expansionism of Serbian leadership, as well as of one of Serbian academics ("Memorandum SANU").

"Memorandum SANU" is complete fabrication. Serbian leadership did not plan any territorial expansion.

Has someone forgot here all anti-Croat rhetoric in Serbian media? Whatever SR Croatia did towards its "being itself" (but without even thinking about independence!), they attacked it. Every SR Croatia's attempt to have its own way of development (but inside Yugoslavia!), in each area of social life, was hyperbolically stigmated as "ustashi" (an extremist WW2 movement).
Trolls should be blocked. Kubura 10:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Were Croatian authorities smuggling arms because they were not thinking about independence? The only troll here is you. Nikola 11:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nikola, how do you "know" that reference "troll" was pointed towards you? I referred that to someone else.
"...Total mobilisation was declared across entire Yugoslavia.". Please, cite sources.
"...JNA did not invade anything but was in Croatia all along...". Really? When military corps from Novi Sad and Belgrade go into Croatia, they didn't go on summer vacation. Further, read carefully the sources. And how the Serb generals disobeyed president Mesić's orders.
Regarding "Would you care to do the same with contemporary Croatian papers?" no problem, YOU said it yourself. You proposed that idea, I didn't do that already, because I've expected that criticism with arguments like "unneutral sources" 'll be said.
And, please, don't butcher someone's messages (with inserting the lines inbetween), rather insert your answer at the bottom. This way it's hard to follow who said what, almost impossible. Kubura 11:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding mobilisation.
On March 15, 1991, President of Presidency of SR Serbia, Slobodan Milošević, has said on TV Beograd (TV Beograd) that "Serbia won't recognize/respect the decisions of Presidency of SFR Yugoslavia anymore" ("Srbija više neće priznavati odluke Predsedništva SFRJ"). He also said on TV, that he ordered the mobilization of reserve forces of JNA in Serbia "in order to protect the interests of Serbia and Serb people" (kako bi se zaštitili interesi Srbije i srpskog naroda).
About the Serbian aggression...
On March 7, 1991, President of Presidency of Socialist Authonomic Province of Vojvodina, Jugoslav Kostić, speaking in front of all Councils of Parliament of Vojvodina "...If Croatia wants to leave Yugoslavia, it can, but without Serb people and its ethnic territories, where only Serb people is sovereign" ("Ako Hrvatska hoće iz Jugoslavije, može, ali bez srpskog naroda i njegovih etničkih teritorija, na kojima je samo on suveren).
Jugoslav Kostić continued "We won't allow that Serb people 'll be national minority. Neither in Croatia, neither in Bosnia and Herzegovina ("Ni po koju cijenu nećemo dopustiti da srpski narod bude nacionalna manjina ni u Hrvatskoj ni u BiH").
Later, all three Councils of Vojvodina Parliament brought the conclusions, in which was said that "It is the historical right of Serb people to live in one country"(!!!).
And there's a lot more...
Sorry if I haven't translated ideally, I'm not iurist. But the Serb users 'll know very well what I've wanted to say. They can check this. Kubura 22:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and length

Well this article definitely doesnt sound encyclopedic with statements like The second in this series of conflicts, the Croatian War of Independence, occurred when rebel Serbs started to take control over some parts of Croatia. Yugoslav People's Army pretended[citation needed] to mediate between rebel Serbs and Croatian government forces, before completely taking the Serbian side. We should avoid using subjective terms like 'pretended'.

Seondly this article is too short for an event of its importance. It doesnt even cover the events Bosnia. Alternately we can base this article on the lines of Indo-Pakistani Wars and move all info to the main articles about each war.

Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 21:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge tag

I've just discovered the existence of Breakup of Yugoslavia article, which is fairly extensive (disclaimer: I didn't read it so I can't comment on accuracy and POV) but barely wikilinked. There is a lot of overlap between the two, though. I see several possibilities:

1. Merge both into one, under whatever title
2. Keep both, but
   1. In the Breakup of Yugoslavia, focus on the events of 1980s-1991
   2. In the Yugoslav wars, focus on the events of 1991-1999 (with links to articles about individual wars)
   3. In any case, the timeline from this article should be removed altogether; Timeline of Yugoslav wars does that job in that form well enough
3. (suggest something else?)

Duja► 15:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion is to keep both, but when possible keep the focus of Yugslav wars on the military actions and the wars themselves, and keep Breakup of Yugoslavia focused on the sequence of political events. They are hard to separate I know, but a general focus could help make sure that they do not overlap too much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matches10 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. Keep both. The Breakup should focus on socio-political events that led to the end, and Wars to the actual military action and events. By that account, the Breakup would mostly focus on the period of the 80s (covering economy, politics, Cold War), then just touch on the subject of the individual wars (with links and possibly short intro for each) and finish off by mentioning post-war developments like Montenegro and Kosovo.The Spanish Inquisitor 07:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep both. TSI articulates precisely why, and there's also something about "Breakup" that overbearingly asserts closure that ain't there yet. Many related things going on in the world for which the story is just beginning. --chaizzilla 17:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

There are several problems in the section, but let's start from the beginning:

Trigger for Conflict

The Yugoslav civil wars were triggered by the Socialist Republic of Serbia under the leadership of Slobodan Milosevic, which through political maneuvers sought to give Serbia more control in the SFRY.

No, they were not. The Yugoslav wars were triggered by separation of Slovenia and Croatia from Yugoslavia. Milosevic's politics were aimed at strengthening federal authorities, and not giving more control to Serbia.

Unitarism was only favored by Serbia, whilst all the other republics wanted to keep the federal relationship. Milosevic undermined, rather than strengthened federal institutions by monopolising the votes of Vojvodina & Kosovo (where he removed the autonomy provisions of the 1974 constitution). When he did not get what he wanted through political means, he sent in the JNA, as he did in Kosovo, then Slovenia, Croatia & finally Bosnia.

You see, Yugoslav politics was a state of toing & froing between the unitarists & federalists - when in 1974, Tito formalised the Federalist spirit of the partisan movement (otherwise it would not work b/c as demonstarted in the 90's, no other nation wanted to be in a centralised state with Serbia). Once Croatia & Slovenia saw Milosevic operating outside of the federal institutions (e.g pilfering from teh treasury), they rightly recognised that they could no longer rely on the federal institutions (which they had relied on since 1945 to guarantee their national rights), which ceased to function, and subsequently declared independence. iruka 14:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right that unitarism was only favored by Serbia (and Montenegro), but other republics didn't want to keep the federal relationship - they were already on the path of separatism. 1974 constitution created an impossible political situation in Serbia with provinces being able to control Serbia in entirety and had to be dealt with. While it certainly suited Milosevic to effectively tie the presidency, note that he couldn't do otherwise as he couldn't change the constitution of Yugoslavia, but only of Serbia.

This is the first time I hear that the partisans had federalist spirit. To my knowledge, the republics and provinces were artificially introduced "following the model of the Soviet Union", while the movement had unitarist spirit. You are probably aware of speculations that Tito (Croat-Slovene) created the republics specifically so that they would enable separation of Croatia and Slovenia from Yugoslavia later on. Nikola 10:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nikola? Questionable federalism among partisans movement? Then where from all those ZAVNO's came?
How the Communist Party was organised before the war?
Still, I agree that there were unitarist tendencies and fractions in the partisans movement, as well as in the Communist Party leadership.
"Tito created republics specificall...enable separation..."????? Communist Party also dealt with nationality questions, at least at the beginning. They knew what kind of problems Kingdom of Yugoslavia had with Serbian hegemonism. Kubura 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The party was federally organised, but most partisans were not party members (at least not before they would join the partisans). There was no Serbian hegemonism in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Nikola 13:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The first Yugoslavia was characterised by Serbian hegemony - more specifically hegemony by the Serbian royal family & corresponding Serbian security structures. This is reflected in the assasination of Croat political leaders such as Stjepan Radic, the murder of Croat intellectuals like Milan Sufflay, and the dissolation of historic Croat crownlands such as Dalmatia, Slavonija & Civil Croatia, in favor of new banovina adminisrative uunit, with the aim of assimilating the non-Serbs into kingdom. The only way Tito could recruit the Croats, Slovenes, & Bosnians was to promise them a federal model of Yugoslavia, that was reflected in the AVNOJ boundaries from the beginning, and constitutionally formalised in 1974 to put an end to the unitarist politics of Rankovic. In sort, in order for Yugoslavia to work, fear of Greater Serbia had to be overcome, and to overcome this, the federal model was adopted from the begginning. iruka 16:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no Serbian hegemony in the first Yugoslavia, and two murders don't show otherwise. Splitting the country into banovinas broke up Serbia even worse, and you are forgetting that Croatian Banovina was later created, which was even bigger than today's Croatia. Croats, Slovenes and Bosnian Muslims wera minority of Partisans, so even if what you tell is true, the movement overall would be unitarist, as most Partisans were Serbs. Your statement regarding Greater Serbia is very strange - fear of Greater Serbia would have to be overcome, but fears of Greater Croatia or Greater Albania (which were helped by federal model) would have not? Nikola 22:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's all Laibach's fault. Just ask them. --chaizzilla 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Science & Arts

The act was consistent with the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, which argued that the Serbs' status in Yugoslavia was unduly inferior and that to compensate for this, Yugoslav institutions and borders should be reorganized.

Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts is a fabrication. SANU never published the memorandum. The document was a draft made by several SANU members "leaked" to the press. Either way, there is no evidence that it influenced subsequent policies.

I think you have just conceded yourself that 'a' memorandum existed that was leaked to the press. It didn't need to influence policies, but rather reflect the thinking among the elite and the dominant paradigm in Serb state policy. The very same arguments espoused in the memorandum were used by Milosevic & other politicians of the time (Kostunica, Draskovic, Cosic, Panic etc). iruka 14:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I did not. A document draft existed that was leaked to the press. That draft can not realistically be called "Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts" because that implies that the document is a memorandum, and that it is published and endorsed by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, neither of which is true. We have no way of telling how would the final document look like had the draft not been leaked to the press, or indeed whether it would be published at all.

Having said that, if it is not clear that it is the document that influenced these policies, why does it need to be mentioned at all? The sentence could simply be "The act was consistent with current Serbian political thought". Or something to that effect could be added to the preceding sentence. Or it could be removed altogether. Nikola 10:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The memorandum is important not because it influenced politics (it may well have to some degree), but rather that it reflected the views of dominant currents in political thought of the Serbian state. Final ver or not, it was in the public domain and was a rallying point for existing political thought - the basic premise being that Yugoslavia institutions are anti-Serb; Serbs are persecuted in Croatia & Kosovo, and measures need to be taken to redress it. The langauge contained within it is inflammatory & reflects the language used by politicians ranging from Draskovic, to Seselj to Kostunica. iruka 16:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the memorandum was never written in the first place, it did not reflect the views of Serbian political thught. I could agree that a finished document, if endorsed by SANU, could be said to be representative, but there is no way of telling how it would look like when finished. Nikola 22:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Confederation Proposal

Slovenia and Croatia, two republics located in the northwest of the SFRY, declared independence after proposals to reorganize Yugoslavia into a more loosely controlled federation were rejected.

Their proposals would have led to a confederation, and it is likely that they would declare independence anyway. Nikola 11:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This represents original research. Who knows what would have happened if it was a confederation - they probably would have undergone EuroAtlantic integration. It's all speculation - we can only go of the facts which are, a confederation was proposed which was rejected by Milosevic. iruka 14:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"...they would declare independence anyway..."? Nikola, are you sure? That's clairvoyancy. Kubura 11:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

With Serbians the dominant nation among the federal authorities you speak of, Nikola, I suppose this is saying the same thing. Strengthing federal authorities in effect gives more control to Serbians (so maybe it is wrong to say "to Serbia" but on the other hand it doesn't seem like there is any way to view the Vojvodina & Kosovo cases (in a general sense) as anything but giving Serbia more control.

However the point that the wards were actually triggered by the separation of Slovenia and Croatia, I feel is valid. I was considering an edit of this because the war itself was not started until the declaration of independence by Slovenia. I have made this edit now and I hope it is for the good.

If this is an argument as to whether the changes would have made it a "federation" or a "confederation", let's just decide which is more accurate; since it is often a fine line between the two. To avoid problems my recent edit calls the proposal a "more decentralized" SFRY and I hope this is fair and accurate.

The existence and influence of the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts aside, I suppose the question is how important is it to mention the memorandum in an article on the Yugoslav wars? In the section we establish the event that started the wars (the declaration of independence), and briefly examine the cause of the declaration (political moves by Serbia). It may be beyond the scope of this article to discuss the causes of the causes of the event that started the war, and as I mentioned on the talk page for Breakup of Yugoslavia (but is now missing?) perhaps that page should deal more with the socio-political aspects of the breakup while this page addresses immediate causes and specifics about the wars themselves. I hope the resolves the disputed portions.Matches10 22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The significance of the memorandum, is that is tangible document that succintly captures the political platform and thinking of Serb state elites @ the time. Thus it is important to mention it. iruka 09:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But it doesn't. Even if we would accept that its writers were proper representatives of Serbian political elite, there is no way of telling how would the final document (one that would, arguably, succintly capture their political platform and thinking) look like. I recall that one of the writers (I think that he was a witness at Milosevic's trial) stated that they couldn't agree about anything in the draft but the section on economy!

And, what I said is not original research. Again, I recall that some of the proposals were calling for a confederation, using that term (this of course should be verified in printed sources). Similarly, in the same way that there existed Serbian political thought favoring unitarism, there existed non-Serbian political thoughts favoring separatism. I believe that at very least it could be said that in Serbia, calls for weakening of the federation were viewed as mere mask for the separation. Nikola 10:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"...the war itself was not started until the declaration of independence by Slovenia..."? Wrong.
Some users here think that till the declaration of independence of Croatia and Slovenia, "everything was flourishing and birds were singing".
War started much earlier.
Whose military airjets intervened, prevented legal Croatian authorities (police helicopters), when Croatian police went to solve things in rebelled areas? There're more examples. Kubura 09:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the war & preparations for war began far earlier than any declaration for independence. There were clashes before the independence vote near Knin. iruka 09:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that it was rainbows and sunshine prior to the declaration, but if we refer to skirmishes, clashes, etc as "war" then for the purposes of an encyclopedia article it is difficult and moreover a source of dispute what specifically started the war. Is it not agreeable if we are talking about a civil war, war for independence, what have you, that this is the historically significant instance. At present the section states that the wars collectively were "were triggered by the Socialist Republic of Serbia under the leadership of Slobodan Milosevic", then in the second paragraph, that the first of the wars was initiated by the secession of Slovenia, which is confusing. The Ten-Day War article supports the second version: independence was delcared on 25 June, the JNA moved to secure borders on 26 June. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matches10 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, if we go on technicalities, a war never occured because noone declared war on anyone! Reality is extensive skirmises were occuring well before the independence declaration. The actual war began with a war of words. For the most part, the nature of the conflict is unequivacal - we are talking about an international conflict or a conflict between two nations & not a civil war as defined by ICTY decisions.

Agree with you that the wording is confusing - I suggest we leave "were triggered by the Socialist Republic of Serbia under the leadership of Slobodan Milosevic", as is, then reword that the first of the wars was initiated by the secession of Slovenia, as that the first dramatic escalation in the war coincided with the secession of Slovenia - this way you remove the controversial attribution of causality. iruka 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What? This entire discussion started regarding POV in the article, and now you are proposing something which is even more POV?

How about replacing the entire paragraph with something like:

The Yugoslav civil wars were triggered by opposite desires of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia to separate from SFRY, and Serbia and Montenegro to strengthen the federation.

? Nikola 22:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

For me I still think it is most clear to say the wars were started after the first republic(s) announced secession. In fact my new suggestion is to remove the wording regarding "the wars were triggered by" altogether since it it's kind of controversial amd it's hard to agree upon. I suggest phrasing such as: In the years leading up to the Yugoslav wars, relations among the republics of the Socialist Federal of Yugoslavia had been deteriorating. Slovenia and Croatia desired greater autonomy within a Yugoslav confederation while Serbia, under the leadership of Slobodan Milosevic, sought to strengthen federal authority. As it became clearer that there was no solution agreeable to all parties, Slovenia and Croatia moved toward secession. Stuff getting too far into the motivations of these nations politically and socially should probably fall into Breakup of Yugoslavia. For example, Common Sense is referred to in American Revolution but not American Revolutionary War. I am simply using this as a comparitive example and am not saying one is analagous to the other in any strict sense.Matches10 08:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The proposal sounds good - but disagree on one point - the Slovene & Croat league of Communists had no interest in restructuring the federation & seeking greater autonomy as the structure up to then met their needs. There are plenty of examples of the to & fro between Unitarists & Federalists in 2nd Yugoslavia's history, but in almost every case, a solution was sought within the framework of the federation as it still safegaurded the elites position & national identity. It was only when Milosevic changed the federal structure to such an extent that these basic provisions where no longer assured by the federal institutions, that the LCC & LCS explored solutions outside the federal framework, in what can be described as the periphery mimicing the state centre. I would leave the intro as is, but change the reference to the wars as dramatic escalations in conflict (as the war was not declared & sporadic in nature). iruka 01:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal it too, except for the mention of Slobodan Milosevic. It seems odd that one of the republics' leaders is mentioned while others are not. Iruka, Milosevic didn't change federal structure. He restructured Serbia, and the effects of that then spilled over into federal institutions. Which were designed to strangle Serbia in the first place, so it is no wonder that they met the needs of LCC & LCS. And, I think that preparations for war in Croatia started before this. Nikola 21:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is iruka is disputing - unless it's simply that my proposed edit isn't clear enough on sequence/causality. Is it just a matter of changing to Slovenia and Croatia desired greater autonomy within a Yugoslav confederation after Serbia increased its political control in the autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo. Bear in mind this is just an encyclopedia article on the wars and the detailed history needs to be condensed for brevity and clarity's sake. If my above text is inaccurate, please suggest adequeate "bridge sentence" to go between In the years leading up to the Yugoslav wars, relations among the republics of the Socialist Federal of Yugoslavia had been deteriorating. and As it became clearer that there was no solution agreeable to all parties, Slovenia and Croatia moved toward secession. so we can remove the disputed tag from this section.

Archiving and template data

The page is getting too large, we should archive the sections that aren't discussed recently.
Second, the "combatants" part in the template shows how inconvenient and senceless is this article, and how inconvenient is to put all the (para)military activities on the territory that used to be Yugoslavia, before and after its dissolution.
E.g.: Croats and Slovenia on one side, and Macedonia on the other side??
When were Croatia and Slovenia in the war against Macedonia? Kubura 19:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This article

This article has general problems: it encompasses various wars that only one thing have in common: their theatre was the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
There are "groups of" wars that had more things in common:
First is Serbian/Serbian-led military campaign (Serbian aggression) on republics that proclaimed independence, with the intention of conquering theirs territory and phyisical elimination of non-Serb population (either by expulsion or by killing).
Second are Albanian independence wars. The latter are with Serbia, on Kosovo and Preševo valley area, and in western Macedonia. Point is, the last three appeared "independently", not at the same time. Every area for herself.
The term "Yugoslav wars" is too general, it's too generalizing, it overgeneralizes things. Kubura 09:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Although this is off topic, searching "balkan war" should not be directed to Yugoslav wars. The three balkan wars right before World War one, though some consider the third the start of WWI. They were fought over the Ottoman controlled lands of Macedonia and Albania by the balkan countries.

Casus belli

I suggest that the casus belli in the article should include 'ethnic tension'. You might have received this suggestion before, I don't know. Undoubtedly, nationalism deserves to be an extremely important reason for war, but people like Slobodan Milosevic used ethnic tensions to get people to support Serbian expansion throughout the former Yugoslavia. Therefore, for the specific circumstances of nationalism within Yugoslavia, ethnic tension was a root cause.

Also, the very fact that the war was a war between combatants based on their ethnic allegiance, means that ethnicity must feature as a cause of the war. If it were just nationalism, then why didn't Croats kill Croats, or Serbs killed Serbs?

It seems that there is scope for debating why ethnic tensions should be included in the casus belli; so I put this thread up here so we can discuss.

EasyPeasy21 12:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As someone tired of fighting the losing battle to keep things somewhat neutral on this page, I welcome the addition of "ethnic tension" to the casus belli box. I would only caution readers against assuming that the "ethnic tension" was strong enough to start a war before Milošević, Tuđman, Izetbegović et al. latched onto it and promoted it for their own ends (cases can be made on either side). Of course, any implication that the Slovenian and Croatian leaderships were perfectly happy with the situation until Milošević got nationalistic is flatly wrong, and any "ethnic tensions" covered here would have to include the Croatian and Slovenian anti-Serb sentiment that helped cement the secession movements. Whatever the disagreement here, the current edit is certainly preferable to the incendiary and unbalanced "Serbian nationalism" claim that's been plaguing the box for so long, and I like the fact that the editor has opened up a discussion about it. Hubacelgrand 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for approving my edit. :) I agree that anti-Serb tension was just as extreme as Serbian hostility. I believe that the phrase "ethnic tension", is generic enough to include all forms of ethnic conflict between each sides. EasyPeasy21 13:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want casus belli, look no further from Serbian usurpation of federal institutions through coup's in Vojvodina, Kosovo and Montenegro. This gave Serbia (contrary to the federal constitution) 4 votes in the federal presidency, opposed at times by Slovenia and Croatia alone and other times by all the other four republics - resulting in a stalemate and the presidency being unable to exercise control over the army. Had it not been for these coup's, the army could have been used to prevent the wars and not to participate in them or to start them. The coup's had nothing to do with pre-existing ethnic tensions and all to do with Milošević's (and his wife's) ambition to become the new Tito on the wave of Serb nationalism, produced by manipulation concerning the events on Kosovo in politically controlled mass media.

In the 1974 constitution, Kosovo and Vojvodina were given unprecedented veto powers over Serbia, and that situtation couldn't be further maintained. Nikola 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right and the situation couldn't be maintained any longer, but the proper way to change this was through revision of the federal constitution and not through nationalistically delirious revolutions and instalations of puppet regimes, completely loyal and dependent on Milošević, accompanied by unilateral changes to Serbia's constitution. The fact is that Serbia was annoyed by veto powers of the autonomous regions (Vojvodina, Kosovo) over it, but it had no objections to these regions having a seperate vote in the federal presidency, as long as these votes were in accordance with Serbia's will. The instalation of puppet regimes meant that Serbia effectively had 3 votes in the presidency, allthough any real autonomy of Vojvodina and Kosovo no longer existed after changes to the Serbian constitution. Together with the Montenegrian vote (after the instalation of a puppet regime there), Serbia (Milošević) was able to block any decision in the federal presidency. If it managed to recieve an additional vote either from Bosnia or Macedonia it was able to assert its will over Slovenia and Croatia, which is exactly what the 1974 constitution sought to prevent. 125.14.156.206 13:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The constitution of Serbia was changed in a constitutional way and there was no need to revise the federal constitution to this end. Revision of the federal constitution might have been desirable afterwards, and it might have even been done (compare 1974-1989 - by the same schedule it would be in 2004) but we will of course never know now. I fail to see how is situation in which Milosevic is able to block any decision of the federal presidency (and, by the way, his control over Montenegro was nowhere near complete, as further events have shown) is significantly different from the situation in which any province is able to block a decision of Serbia. Nikola 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The article also speaks of Slovenia's and Croatia's secession from Yugoslavia, which is a Serbian nationalistic POV. According to Badinter's arbitration committee, which - due to the very nature of arbitration - has to be considerred as NPOV, Yugoslavia was "in the process of dissolution". See http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol3/No1/art12-13.pdf If you are asking for casus belli, you are asking in fact, when did this process begin. Clearly it began when the federation found itself in an unconstitutional situation, i.e. when Serbia gained 4 votes in the presidency, the majority in the federal parliament, as well as in other federal institutions. Slovenia responded to Serbia's attempt to dominate Yugoslavia by amending its constitution in late 1989. From then onward until the formal declaration of independence it was effectively in a confederative relation to the other republics, thus ending the Yugoslav federation before the first democratic elections were even held. Since the confederation was unacceptable for Milošević and for the army at a time when the presidency was unable to control it, Slovenia and Croatia declared independence and war was inevitable.

Crap. Badinter's committee had no right to decide in the issue and its resolutions were motivated by political goals of the countries that formed it. Serbia never had four votes in the presidency, Slovenia's attempt at ammending its constitution was unconstitutional, as was declaring the independence. Nikola 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Badinter's committee consisted of presidents of the constitutional courts of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Belgium. Of these 5 states only one (Germany) could be considered as suportive of Slovenia's and Croatia's independence. At the time when opinion No. 1 was made, non of these countries were recognising Slovenia and Croatia as independent states. To you, it seems, the only NPOV is the view of Serbia. Slovenia had every right to change its constitution after Serbia changed its own, as well as to declare independence, because the right of self-determination was written in the federal constitution. The very fact that you responded, and I responded back, goes to show that Yugoslavia disintegrated because of a constitutional crisis and not due to pre-existing ethnic tensions. I don't think there ever were any relevant ethnic tensions between Slovenes and Serbs in the second Yugoslavia prior to Milošević taking over in Serbia, nor are there any nowadays, however Yugoslavia would never fall apart without the conflict between Slovenia and Serbia. 125.14.156.206 13:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, all the countries have quickly recognised the independence afterwards, and later events show their level of support for everything but Serbia. Slovenia had right to change its constitution, but not in a way which goes contrary to the federal constitution. Change of the constitution of Serbia did not go contrary to the federal constitution. NPOV is a Wikipedia policy - you can't really apply it to international political organisations. Nikola 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise, the Brioni declaration which ended the Slovene war was signed on July 7th 1991, not on July 9th as the article currently says. This false information has sadly been there since 3rd November 2006. So much about the article's credibility. 122.37.150.174 23:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)