The Srebrenica video

[Commy]

Well now I'm very curious, Vetlegion, what exactly is true about all this? If you are going to disagree with people, that's fine, but heck, atleast give us a reason or some facts...

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I would add that Croatia has become a much better place for minorities to live today.

True.

Most of their Tudjman era laws and such have been removed, but that didn't happen until after he died in 1999.

False.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Sorry - me bad. I should have clarified. The Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia only turned to Milosevic after those majority/pluralities refused to grant them the same freedoms that those groups had seized.

False.

Now this article claims an initial organizing factor of Milosevic, but I watched it unfold and it appeared that the Serbians in those regions did not turn to Milosevic until after they were marginalized and refused equivalent rights that the Croats and Muslims had already demanded.

False.

Was Milosevic a player in Serbian politics prior to 1990? Yes, and a major one. Did his power increase, with his becoming the de facto strong man in Serbian areas, due to the conflicts in the Balkans. Absolutely. That is why I used the phrase "The people turned to Milosevic." You could argue semantics, and I would be the last person to say that is not important, but however you phrase in Mislosevic became essentially a dictator in a large part due to his successful playing on the Serbian fears as a result of actions taken by Tujman, and the Bosnian Muslims.

False.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Apparently, the borders of Yugoslavia were artificial,

Is there such a thing as natural border?

but the parts of Yugoslavia were inviolable.

True.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We got involved because Yugoslavia was a socialist state that was working.

False.

[q]Hell, it was Western policies in the first place that precipitated the breakup, and then ensured a civil war.[q]

False.

Serbia was the bad guy because it refused to embrace the free market.

False.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Che, there I will disagree. Chile was flirting with socialism, not communism which accross Eastern Europe had an anti-democratic tradition. Once Tito died there was going to be a civil war. Yugoslavia was very likely going to break up due to this, no matter what anybody did.

True!

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Perceptions matter. The fact that Chile, at best, was steering towards a Swedish style capitalism or that Yugoslvia was instituted what could be termed, market-socialism, is irrelevent. They both pointed the way to an alternative during turbulent times. And the way was in opposition to the interests of the US and western capitalism. How different might things in Eastern Europe have turned out if the Yugoslavian civil war hadn't destroyed the alternative both to Brezhnev style socialism and neo-liberalism?

No different. The history of transition shows us that countries learned nothing from each other. They merrily went their own ways, mostly reinventing each other's mistakes as they did so.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The conflict had stablized in Croatia, and it was only Westerns arms, intelligence, and analysts that enabled Croatia to conquer Dalmatia. In Bosnia, the Serbs were slowly winning the war until the same thing plus the intervention of NATO war planes. Given time, it's likely that the Serbs would have won the war in Bosnia and reached an accord with Croatia allowing Dalmatia and Slovenia to secede and rejoin Yugoslavia.

False. The conflict never really stabilised. There was a lull during which Croats and Muslims cought up with Serbs in terms of military equipment, thus negating their initial advantage and making possible their offensives.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Commy
Well now I'm very curious, Vetlegion, what exactly is true about all this? If you are going to disagree with people, that's fine, but heck, atleast give us a reason or some facts...

Commy, I am usually very ready to explain my points in length, but due to the sheer amount of nonsense written here I can't do it at the moment. I just had to point out that most of it is obviously false.

If you have a particular question I will gladly answer it to the best of my ability.

You should however consider that I am a Croat who lived in Croatia during the period discussed and that I have biases that go with that.

[VetLegion]

About the Srebrenica video - what amazes me is how people in such moments make peace with their fate and get slaughtered like sheep. They don't try to run away. I mean, yeah, you probably wouldn't get far, but still...

[Mr. Harley]

VetLegion - are you being smugly superior, engaging in cheap shots, or are you just lazy. False - True - False - True. If you are so knowledgable, then maybe you should be working for the state department. Otherwise - cite. Both Che and I, as well as other poster not here including Ned, Oerdin, Ted Stryker, etc. cite and give examples. IIf you look at my posts I gave the reasons I had the opinions I had, cited hard facts where I had them, and since I was not in the Serbian areas at the time, I could very well be wrong. Your statements provide no data to evaluate. I'd rather have Serb posting than you useless one word judgements.

[VetLegion]

I don't really care what you'd rather have.

Your knowledge is so incomplete you fail to recognize even the timeline of events - the very minimum you shold know if you want to engage in meaningful debate.

Lot of stuff you wrote is analogue to claiming that the Poles attacked the Germans in 1939, that the Allies invaded Normandy in 1942. and such. And you want me to find cites to disprove it? Do your own homework.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Fact - the Serbs only brought in Milosevic after the Croats started their offensives against Serbian area in Croatia.

Erm, what? There wasn't even a Croatia until two years after Milosevic was elected. I wrote a research paper on this a couple of years ago, and I'm not going to pretend I am that knowledgeable on the subject, but you and chegitz are both so mistaken, or in some cases downright out-of-touch with reality, that I can hardly blame VetLegion for his reaction.

[Jaguar]

Sarajevo was shelled by the Bosnian government, not the Serbs.

My god, do you even understand the difference between Bosnia and Republika Srpska?

The Bosnian Serb Army (BPC/VRS) shelled Sarajevo. The BPC/VRS was direct offspring of the JNA. It was almost entirely Serb Orthodox.

I won't even start with your delusions of grandeur about socialism.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Did you know there were two Bosniak armies, one fighting for the Islamicist government and one fighting to keep Bosnia part of Yugoslavia? Did you know that just before the massacre in Srebrenica, Croat forces massacred a village nearby in which several hundred Serbs were killed? But all this was ignored for the proper message, the Serbs are murdering demons who deserve everything bad that happens to them.

OK, looking back to here, I see that you understand there were two separate armies from Bosnia. But the BPC/VRS was not at all Bosnian. It was Serbian Orthodox.

In the quote from my previous post, you said, more or less, that the Bosnian Government shelled itself, in a stunning display of military tactical genius.