Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Balkan Wars 1990's

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Nov 2005, 21:16
Komsomol
Post 12 Mar 2006, 18:54
What do you all think about the Balkan crisis in the 1990's and the Malosavich trial? I have researched this quite abit but for all that research I know suprisingly little about it. Most of the imformation I have found turned out to be nothing but propaganda. What do you think about it?
"Its the ones who are subject to occupation that ultimately get to decide whether it was benicfial or not".

Myself.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1911
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Jun 2003, 23:38
Old Bolshevik
Post 12 Mar 2006, 19:43
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 60
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jan 2006, 20:36
Pioneer
Post 12 Mar 2006, 20:37
A very difficult one, I must admit!

As a member of one of the parties involved in armed conflict which is about to be discussed here, I cannot objectively speak about it. But if you need some specific informations about people and situations that really happened (especially on the military things), just ask.
Za Domovinu s Titom, napred!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2880
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 13 Mar 2006, 00:20
In the end, every side in the Balkan Wars shares guilt. However, given the exclusive media vilification of Milosevic and the Serbs, and NATO support of nationalist disintegration, I perceive Milosevic to be more a victim than a guilty party.
The Milosevic trial was borderline farcical. The prosecution did not have a single solid case for the 66 charges against Milosevic. The only redeeming feature of the trial was the solid, fact-based defense that Milosevic had until the end of his life.
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3508
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jun 2005, 23:39
Politburo
Post 13 Mar 2006, 07:34
And now he's a martyr.
Image

'Soviet-Empire. 500% more methods than other leading brands.'
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2880
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 13 Mar 2006, 15:38
He is a martyr, but I sense his martyrdom will not last long, because
1. the Western media will do everything in its power to block the voices of Milosevic supporters and believers in a united Yugoslavia, and most Western people will continue to be ignorant or one-sided about the Balkan Wars.
2. most Serbian people will move on with their lives and will make do with their new situations in life. There won't be any prolonged campaign of retribution, if any.

The sad part of this whole affair is that the fundamentalists, terrorists, and inheritors of the Ustashi regime won in the Balkan Wars. Milosevic was trying to keep his nation together, but people branded him a nationalist, Nazi imperialist (odd since he wasn't expanding into other nations), and the Serbs got shafted by their own former allies in WWII.
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Nov 2005, 21:16
Komsomol
Post 14 Mar 2006, 02:33
Quote:
A very difficult one, I must admit!

As a member of one of the parties involved in armed conflict which is about to be discussed here, I cannot objectively speak about it. But if you need some specific informations about people and situations that really happened (especially on the military things), just ask.


Well for one, which side started the killings of civilians first, and second was thier any big decisive battle like Stalingrad or MIdway, or was it just a war of attrition.

Thanks.
"Its the ones who are subject to occupation that ultimately get to decide whether it was benicfial or not".

Myself.
Soviet cogitations: 814
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Dec 2005, 16:51
Komsomol
Post 14 Mar 2006, 02:59
Westerners can't take a side because they don't understand the wars...at least Americans don't. "Yeah, some of them places with the confusin' names killed each other, right?"
Last edited by MagillaGuerrilla on 14 Mar 2006, 21:22, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Nov 2005, 21:16
Komsomol
Post 14 Mar 2006, 03:20
Quote:
Westerners can't take a side because they don't understand the wars///at least Americans don't. "Yeah, some of them places with the confusin' names killed each other, right?"

Bullshit, it is true that most Americans are ignorent of the events going on in the world, but many are not such as I.
"Its the ones who are subject to occupation that ultimately get to decide whether it was benicfial or not".

Myself.
Soviet cogitations: 814
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Dec 2005, 16:51
Komsomol
Post 14 Mar 2006, 03:53
Well obviously we aren't all idiots - after all, I'm an American
- but few people really understand those wars.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2880
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Mar 2006, 06:00
Not only do few people understand those wars, but also few people care to understand them. But yes, it is hard for most Westerners to take a side because the lopsided information they have been fed over the years prevents objectivity.
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 60
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jan 2006, 20:36
Pioneer
Post 14 Mar 2006, 19:46
First case of civilian casualties hapenned in Slovenia (western in every aspect, most developed republic of ex - Yu), during "Slovenian war" wich lasted only about ten days during june '91. At that initaial point of all Balkan conflicts, as you name it, Federal Yugoslav Army and its HQ (generalshtab) in Belgrade still acted as preservers of Yugoslavia. The orders were given to use force against slovenian separatists, wich appeared in the form of Slovenian Territorial Defence (something like National Guard in USA, every republic in ex Yu had it) and to secure borders toward Austria, Hungary and to seize important infrastructure.
On the first day of the war, some confused truck drivers stopped their long vehicles on one important crossroad, and unfortunately, that was the route for one mechanized unit of Federal Army wich was moving toward the front line. Army sent attack planes to clear the obstacles, and in substantial ground attack several truck drivers and civilians were killed. Everything is recorded on TV cameras of Austrian station. This people are first civilian victims.

There were couple of battles wich could be named decisive, but maybe the most significant one is 'Battle for Vukovar' during the opening months of the war in Croatia. Just type 'Battle for Vukovar on the Google and you will find enough infos. I think it is decisive battle because very strong and organized Serb-controlled Yugoslav Army irrationaly lost 87 days attacking one small and strategically unimportant town in eastern Croatia instead to continue their Blitz towar the capital, Zagreb. They lost unbeliveably high number of men and equipment.Meanwhile Croats organized themselves and waited prepared for enemy further on in the war in Croatia. The impact on public opinion of the West was also devastating for the Serbs, because the destruction of the old town and killing its civilian residents was particularly brutal.

I would compare it to the battle for Grozniy in Chechenia, but imagine Grozniy is far from capital of the state.
Za Domovinu s Titom, napred!
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 7
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2006, 22:11
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 17 Jul 2006, 08:57
Well im a Serb born in Zagreb (capital of croatia), during the war we had to flee to krajina (another part of croatia now where the majority of citizenz were serb). Vukovar was just another of many chapter in the whole conflict. Yugoslavia fell apart when Croatia occupied Plitvice (place in Krajina, about 20 min from my house). I remember when the serbs regained control when they pulled out the anti-aircraft guy, beast of a machine, has three barrels and is able to pearce 8 walls. When they got that beast out and going, croatians ran out. Thats where it started.

The fact is that, you are gonna have these lets say rebels anyhere, its just if you give them enough power, there bound to suck other people in. Thats what happend in Jugoslavia. Back when i think how we lived there, no one else lived as good as we did. But thanx to interferance from other countries (USA and few others) were now nothing but a couple of bannana republics.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 301
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Jun 2004, 17:01
Komsomol
Post 17 Jul 2006, 09:36
There was no ethnic clensing until Arpil, a month after the March air bombing, as it was anticipated. Also, no that was not the aim.

There's a very detailed record of this. The State Department has presented extensive documentation, as has NATO, the Kosovo observers and so on. There were plenty of atrocities going on. In fact, the British government, which was the most hawkish element of the coalition as late as January 1999, attributed most of the atrocities to the Kosovo Liberation Army. Look, it was a very ugly place -- there may have been 2,000 people killed on all sides in the preceding years and a lot of people displaced. But that was not the ethnic cleansing anyone's talking about.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had no registered refugees at the time the bombing was started.

The NATO position was that it had to be a NATO-led international presence with a free run of all of Serbia. The Serbian position was vague. If you take a look at the peace treaty, it's a compromise between the two positions. Suppose they had pursued the possibility of the compromised solution which, in fact, was reached on paper at least. Could that have worked? Well, we don't know because it was refused.

I'm not a pacifist. I think use of force is sometimes legitimate. However, if someone is calling for the use of force, they have a heavy burden of proof to meet. The burden of proof is always on those who call for the use of violence, in particular extreme violence. That's a moral truism. The question is, was that burden met? Try to find some argument which meets that burden of proof. Don't take my word for it, check the facts. You'll find that the literature on this almost entirely overlooks the crucial evidence which is the extensive, detailed evidence from Western sources on what was happening up to the air bombing campaign. The only book I know that covers this is my own.

Second, take a look at the arguments that are given to justify the bombing. Either they claim that ethnic cleansing and atrocities were going on before the bombing -- which we know is false -- or they claim the bombing was carried out because ethnic cleansing was going to take place. Well, by that argument you could justify anything.

The massive ethnic cleansing and atrocities began a little bit after the withdrawal of the monitors on March 22. But it really began after the bombing on March 24. That's just not contested. We can contest whether it was a consequence of the bombing. Gen. Wesley K. Clark, the commander, announced that a predictable consequence of the bombing would be ethnic cleansing.

Maybe he's right, maybe he's not. So we know that the bombing was not undertaken to prevent the ethnic cleansing that followed it. Clark himself, three weeks after the war, was asked over British television whether the reason for the bombing was ethnic cleansing. He said of course not. Ethnic cleansing was never a factor.

So we're left with the next two reasons: ensuring stability and maintaining credibility. I think those are probably the reasons. Maintaining stability has a very special meaning. It doesn't mean that the area is quiet. Stability means under Western control. What does maintaining credibility mean? It means making sure that people are afraid of you and what you're going to do.

So geneocide, or ethnic clensing, had nothing to do with it because there wasn't any happening until the month after the air bombing campaign as predicted.

What alternative was there? Well, in Kosovo, right before the bombing, there were two positions on the table. One was the NATO position, the other was the Serbian government position. They both called for an international presence in Kosovo but they differed on what that should be. The NATO position was that it had to be a NATO-led international presence with a free run of all of Serbia.

The Serbian position was vague. If you take a look at the peace treaty, it's a compromise between the two positions. Suppose they had pursued the possibility of the compromised solution which, in fact, was reached on paper at least. Could that have worked? Well, we don't know because it was refused.

I'm not a pacifist. I think use of force is sometimes legitimate. However, if someone is calling for the use of force, they have a heavy burden of proof to meet. The burden of proof is always on those who call for the use of violence, in particular extreme violence. That's a moral truism. The question is, was that burden met? Try to find some argument which meets that burden of proof. Don't take my word for it, check the facts. You'll find that the literature on this almost entirely overlooks the crucial evidence which is the extensive, detailed evidence from Western sources on what was happening up to the bombing. The only book I know that covers this is my own.

Second, take a look at the arguments that are given to justify the bombing. Either they claim that ethnic cleansing and atrocities were going on before the bombing -- which we know is false -- or they claim the bombing was carried out because ethnic cleansing was going to take place. Well, by that argument you could justify anything.

Inregards to the conflicts pre-1999, those were due to the breakup of Yugoslavia, not everyone wanted to let the others leave without a fight. One trajedy after another.
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 17 Jul 2006, 17:19
Quote:
At that initaial point of all Balkan conflicts, as you name it, Federal Yugoslav Army and its HQ (generalshtab) in Belgrade still acted as preservers of Yugoslavia.


federal army knew nothing, only generalštab did. when the troops arrived they've had no idea why they were here. offical report was that theitalians and austrians are attacking. on one occasion slovene tank commander started yelling on our troops "we're on the same side, what are you doing?". if army would only be serbian then it might be other story, but i dont really think serbs would want to fight us, since there is no serbian minority here. thats why many people like serbs and that is a good thing
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 1103
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jul 2006, 10:21
Party Member
Post 25 Aug 2006, 18:16
I'm not a Balkan expert, but it's kind of strange, how a non capitalist resource dist. mechanism held the various nations (some who haven't had an amicable history) within Yugoslavia together. After that resource dist. mechanism was done away with, all hell broke loose.

It's my guess that during Tito's time, a more or less equal resource distribution mechanism was in place. As in, if something was produced in Serbia but not Bosnia, the Bosnians got the goods in as much proportion as the Serbs. There was no price discrimination as in Bosnians, Serbs, Croats got their goods + services done in a uniform way, without any special taxes (say for Serbian goods delivered to Croatia or Bosnia).

Perhaps, after the passing of Tito, combined w/ the fall of the USSR, some influencial heads within Yugo wanted to have hegemony and control over resource distribution for their personal gains. Not quite sure how the layout is, but the last I checked, most of Yugo's heavy / consumer industries was in Serbia. These are good items to tax. And I bet certain persons w/ high charisma in Bosnia and Croatia tied this to ethno-nationalism...for their own personal gains as well (power). And it was again reciprocated in Serbia. And in the end- hell broke loose.

The same thing was seen in Chechnya. During the Soviet times, when we had a decent resource distribution mechanism (which wasn't in the hands of a wealthy/ influencial few), Chechnya was a very modern and thriving community. Even many notorious separatists such as Shamil Basayev chose to educate himself in engineering rather than go fight for Islamic jihad when Chechnya still was a part of the USSR.

I dunno. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but it's prolly the abandoning of Tito's resource dist. mechanism which spiralled the Balkans into civil war in the 90s.
Soviet cogitations: 1
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jan 2004, 03:58
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 03 Sep 2006, 01:21
Quote:
Well im a Serb born in Zagreb (capital of croatia), during the war we had to flee to krajina (another part of croatia now where the majority of citizenz were serb). Vukovar was just another of many chapter in the whole conflict. Yugoslavia fell apart when Croatia occupied Plitvice (place in Krajina, about 20 min from my house). I remember when the serbs regained control when they pulled out the anti-aircraft guy, beast of a machine, has three barrels and is able to pearce 8 walls. When they got that beast out and going, croatians ran out. Thats where it started.

The fact is that, you are gonna have these lets say rebels anyhere, its just if you give them enough power, there bound to suck other people in. Thats what happend in Jugoslavia. Back when i think how we lived there, no one else lived as good as we did. But thanx to interferance from other countries (USA and few others) were now nothing but a couple of bannana republics.


LOL

First of all Milosevic was a naci who tried to create "Big Serbia" which is the main reason why the war started..
And i know that becouse i am from former yugoslavia and i know what was happening here.. When Milosevic died more than half of Serbia were on the streets celebrating..


Quote:
Vukovar was just another of many chapter in the whole conflict.


Yes to you Serbs that was just a meaningless conflict. You killed 2000 civians there.. 8000 thousands in Srebrenica, there is a big list, but Serbs nazi liders at that time failed to achive their dream of big Serbia
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 03 Sep 2006, 01:54
lol you crotas
serbs are guilty of everything. but lets get hasty and not forget međak, lola, gospić, dalmatinska kristalna noć and many more that i could mention. and a bit ironic that you call serbs a nazi while having a proustashe president at that time.
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 775
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Feb 2004, 19:28
Komsomol
Post 03 Sep 2006, 12:55
Quote:
a proustashe president at that time


Lol being a Croat is now a nazi?


Quote:
međak, lola, gospić, dalmatinska kristalna noć


?? What happend there? We were defending our country. It seems that you dont know who attackers were..

Quote:
serbs are guilty of everything.


Well mainly yes..
Image

Victory to communism!!!
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 03 Sep 2006, 13:54
Quote:
Lol being a Croat is now a nazi?


your attitude to the serbs proves it preatty much. not all are of course. latinov for example is an exception.

Quote:
?? What happend there? We were defending our country. It seems that you dont know who attackers were..


yeah, when it is serbs it's a genocide, when it's croats it was all just war. even in bosnia you were fighting and it was not your country. even now serbs are treated like 2nd class citizents and very few are employed, others have to live with small social welfare.

Quote:
Well mainly yes..


mhm
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.