Wars and ConflictsĢż permalink
|Serb conflict
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ģż
Posted by downloadable (U12503365) on Saturday, 2nd August 2008
Radovan Karadzic's capture has made that conflict topical again. What was the context in which his alleged war-crimes were committed? I'm especially interested in similar atrocities from the other sides, and the reasons for the lack of intervention by the UN. Also, I hear from Serb newspapers about the activites of Al Qaeda; what truth is there to that?
-
Message 2
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 2nd August 2008
2 sentences,
it is not only a Serbian conflict, but also a Croatian and a Muslim conflict. It happened that the Serbians commited far most of the atrocities.
I read a lot about the ongoing conflict when it happened. In fact if I remember it well there where two "rounds".
The best I read was after the wars from the NIOD (The Dutch Institute for War Documentary) after the Srebrenica event, with in fact the whole history leading to the conflict and up to what I read it is quite "honest" history from a "renowned" institute.
(Mods, it is entirely in English)
After you read it, come once back to the boards
.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 3
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 3rd August 2008
Jan Willem Honig (now a senior lecturer in War Studies at KCL) has written extensively about this conflict. His book on Srebrenica (written with Norbert Both, Penguin 1996) is excellent.
There is a profound irony about 'Caravan Raddishpatch' (or whatever alias he is currently using) ending up in the Hague, as the Dutch are not really in a good position to throw stones at him.
If the Dutch UN contingent had stood their ground in Srebrenica rather than running away to let the Serbs take-over the so-called 'Safe Haven', so that the latter could kill 8,000 men and boys and rape most of the young women, there would not have been a massacre there in the first place.
But there is blood on the hands of Bosnian Muslims and Catholic Croats too. All used 'ethnic-cleansing', not just the Serbs. Croat police bullied ethnic Serbs in Crotia and the Muslims of Sarajevo are thought to have shelled (or at least mortared) their own people waiting in queues for bread, to get some publicity for their plight.
Perhaps the Serbs had the misfortune to be on the frontline of the "Clash of Civilisations" (like the Russians in Chechnya). The Serbs lost, Kosovo is now a semi-autonomous Muslim state and the frontline is moving westwards at a brisk pace. -
Message 4
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 3rd August 2008
There is absolutely no proof that Serbians committed more war-crimes than Bosnians, Croacians and Albanians. In fact having been indicted by the international community as "the bad guys" and let to be hit from all sides and on all fronts they suffered more victims than others (even in 1 on 1 comparisons) and some 1 million more refugees than others (note that in Croacia, Croacians completely ethnically cleansed the place from Serbians with the blessings of EU and US - but especially EU).
The truth Radovan Karazits was indicated as a war criminal even before Serbians commenced their struggle in Bosnia (he says that to defend himself now and nobody believes him but having monitored closely this war since its begginings, I really remember it being mentioned back in late 1994 by Greek journalists who were of the few journalists with early and full cover of that war far away from the NATO coverage!!!), it is highly ridiculous even to talk about all that.
The arrest of Radovan Karazic has less to do with any direct to perceived war crimes and more to do with the current geopolitical games considering the ramp up of the Russian project of the trans-Black Sea gaz pipeline that connects directly Russia and Bulgaria, then Greece (EU) and potentially central Europe through a combination of Serbia then Slovenia (EU) or Greece (EU) and Italy (EU). One has to make some indirect links also with the real aggresive tone that US uses currently for Greece when - note down, under a traditionally US-friendly right wing party in government - it signed the accord with Bulgaria and Russia.
Currently, all those sad people that shout against Radovan Karazic know absolutely nothing about the war and what had really happened there, they know nothing about Karazic and its whatever real responsibility and they are not even in case of proving anything on war crimes being committed "largely from the Serbian side". In fact they do not give a "human waste" about the whole case, the real motive behind are geopolitics and the effort of US to continue its half-hearted effort in containing the evolution of Russia and its links with Europe.
People have to realise that far from the gepolitical games that exploited the - indeed strong - local tensions and fully fuelled the fire, these wars were fought largely by local people organised in guerilla warfare, divided in parties with loose co-ordination and control where political leaders like Karazic (and his Croacian, Bosnian and Albanian equivalents had not really any extensive control over the operations and what happened there).
Radovan was sacrificed by a Serbian government that ruling a country in desperate isolation and with a Russia or any other not interested in undertaking a fuller responsibility of protection and with an EU that is half-under the control of the US regarding its games in the greater area, it is ready to sell every part of its dignity to get some bits and parts from the EU.
Sad image from Serbia, but above all sad image from the world that fascistically decides who is bad and who is good on the basis of gepolitical games. I would understand that being done by politicians and analysts but being congratulated by common people like you and me, that is really disgusting. -
Message 5
Posted by vera1950 (U9920163) on Sunday, 3rd August 2008
perhaps all that happened during this conflict is a demonstration of what can happen when varying cultures are living side by side and neither side can or will tolerate the other.
Perhaps it is also a demonstration of how muti-culturism goes wrong.
What worries me is that now Radovich(not sure of the spelling) is going to face his crmes in court ,what this is going to spark off by his supporters.I cannot see that peace will persist. -
Message 6
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 3rd August 2008
Radovan Karadzic must be found guilty (he probably is) to allow for the smooth passage of Serbia into the mighty EU.
Catching Ratko Mladic is an entirely different matter. He will not be arrested pretending to be a faith-healer or bearded snake-oil busker. If he is taken at all it will involve an exchange of shots and his pals in Pale will probably try to free him. He is the real architect of the Srebrenica massacre, which just happens to be the worst of many vile acts committed by all sides.
Those with longer memories will recall that while the Croat Nationalist Ustase were running concentration camps for the third Reich from 1942 to 1945, and some Muslims were joining the SS, it was the Serb population of the Balkans that gave allied interests their best support.
That does not make the Serbs 'right', it just hints that their version of history has been 'air-brushed out'. It is no longer fashionable. -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 4th August 2008
Hmmm, regardless if Radovan or Ratko are directly guilty for massacres (and like U32 above I have more suspicions for Ratko, the military leader rather than Radovan who was the political leader)... guys don't you realise that all that theater has nothing to do with any justice towards anyone but its merely another geopolitical game - after the orange revolutions in Ukraine (that can hardly live without Russia now taking out even Serbia (the country hurt by EU-US policies and military attacks) from Russian reach.
Radovan's arrest is largely symbolic as well it was the process against Milosevic lastig 6 years with a Milosevic getting better and better and the prosecutors more and more depressed being unable even to fake it up anymore and thus opting to let this man die out of an illness that even 80 years old homeless people do not die knowadays cos they find easily some basic medical support.
Had the court sought real justice it would take to court all including an equal share from Croacians, Bosnians and Albanians (including fascist Tujman, jihadi Izebecovic and drug dealer mafioso Thatchi). Once, again it has also to be highlighted that it was not Serbians that started these wars but Croacians, Bosnians and Albanians with Serbians only reacting (over-reacting if you like) to violence coming from the others. To my eyes the leading figures of the three other communities are more responsible for what happened there together their European and American mentors rather than the Serbians who were chosen to play the ugly role of the bad guy (and thus suffering most out of all).
Hence, even speaking for Jugoslav wars with a vengence tone against Serbians just because some Germans (who down to the basics did not forget who was their real friend and who their real enemy back then... ) and some Americans (with a fresh Imperial vision to retain the european links of the new Russia) chose to dismember Yugoslavia into little powerless states isolating "the strong one of them", is not only wrong, not only immoral but really disgusting. Geopolitics are geopolitcs and I cannot judge the EU or the USA (their role is not to be just), but the truth is the truth.
And the truth is that there is absolutely no proof that Serbians went on to do far more crimes than what others did to them despite the fact that they were hit in a series from all sides. -
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 4th August 2008
You have said above:
"perhaps all that happened during this conflict is a demonstration of what can happen when varying cultures are living side by side and neither side can or will tolerate the other. Perhaps it is also a demonstration of how muti-culturism goes wrong."
Hmmm, it is not exactly like that. I have talked (occasionally of course, its not my main interest) for more than a decade on this issue and understood that only the likes of Greeks, Bulgarians and Roumanians may have a more deep understanding of why all that happened there. However, I was surprised to read a book by a French writer Emmanuel Todd (really great writer) which is called "AprĆØs l'Empire" where within his analysis of how USA decided a bit superficially to become the planet's sole power but somehow now struggles, he gives some insight on how "demographics" and "family structures" are even more important than "recognised cultures" and "religions" when talking about "culture clashes".
Anyway I will try to provide you with the following basic points to aid you understand better the case: -
Message 9
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 4th August 2008
To Nikolaos (re:7&8)
Interesting posts.
I agree with your points about geo-politics. It seems that we are both old and cynical enough to know how "the west" was drawn in the defence of "plucky little Bosnia" (as the press portrayed it at the time).
I was fooled just like everyone else in the UK in the early 1990's. I confess that I even wrote to Tony Blair, asking him to intervene to 'save Bosnia from the Serbs'. Only later did I grasp the fact that the Muslims of Bosnia had no right to declare 'independence' from Serbia if that so-called independence necessitated the deployment of US and UK jets to fight against the very people who were trying to hold former Yugoslavia together.
But you also say some things which I just don't grasp (I'm not disagreeing with them, I just don't follow them).
1) only the likes of Greeks, Bulgarians and Roumanians may have a more deep understanding of why all that happened thereĢż
Why is Romania mentioned in that sentence? I can see why Bulgaria and Greece are mentioned.
2) Sometimes you seem to hint that all this 'South Balkan difficulty' has its roots far back in Yalta. Is that how you see it, a massively unjust carve-up, sixty years ago? -
Message 10
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 4th August 2008
Trust me in that: any effort to understand will fall down if concentrating on what happened in the 20th century.... just trust me in that... but then the analysis is long, very long. Just keep it to some basic stuff (that will be long):
1) In ancient times uknown tribes usually bunched under the term Illyrians (the most well known out of them) lived in the area of north western Balkans (Croacia, Bosnia and Serbia).
2) In archaic times small Greek colonies existed already in the Dalmatian coast but there was never any huge establishement as colonists were mostly attracted by South Italy or the Black Sea where commerce was aboundant. However due to the near-by Epirot kingdom, Illyrians were quite aware of Greek culture.
3) Gauls in pre-Roman times (3rd cent. B.C.) and Goths in later Roman times (3rd cent. B.C.) passed from there, the latter staying in numbers and intermingling with the local by then largely latinised (and to the south hellenised) Illyrian populations.
4) Slavs (among other slavic, half-slavic and non slavic tribes, Bulgarians and Serbocroacians) arrived in the area around the mid-late 6th century A.D. Bulgarians established in the central eastern part of the peninsula mixing mainly with Gotho*-Thraecians while Serbocroacians remained in the north western part of the peninsula mixing with the Gotho*-Illyrians.
(** Goths of those times were actually also a mix of ancient Goths, Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans). It had been repeatedly supported - and not without basis - that for the case of Serbo-croacians (but also for Bulgarians) it was more of a cultural-linguistic change brought in steps by establishing Slavic tribes that attained local supremacy rather than the arrival of a huge number of Slavic populations from the north that outnumbered the locals.
5) Slavic tribes in western Balkans are falling under the authority of Pope, however, their bulk chooses to pay more attention to the Patriarch because back then the latter was more "in vogue" living in The "City" than Pope who was based in the "old city". That is the first solid cultural-that-became-ethnic division between Serbians and Croacians no matter if there are indeed some hints that these two come from different tribes: if they do come from different tribes as they insist nowadays (because of their hatred), in anyway their language shows nothing of that as it is one and the same. Till late middle-ages you have only Serbocroacians - slavs in general ruled by Voevods (local rulers) and occasionally falling nominally under the Eastern Roman authority, other times not at all but most certainly at all times influnced by it just like Bulgarians in the east.
6) By 10th century A.D. the displacement of Armenian Paulikians in modern day Bulgaria gives birth to Bulgarian Bogomils who give birth to Serbocroacian counterparts (but also after some displacement to Cathars in south France)... and so on... in one of such displacements during the late 12th century - obviously by displacements we talk about violent political-religious events!! - an important number of Serbocroacian Bogomils cencetrate themselves in the region of modern Bosnia, back then just another Serbocroacian land. Currently, this is seen by Bosnians as the birth of their "nation", but this is half the truth. Indeed though Bogomils were nothing else than Serbocroacians, had somehow to defend themselves against the attacks of catholic orthodox christians - note that the schism was too fresh then and the churches still not perceived as two, hence Serbians and Croacians were not exactly holding knifes for some Konstantinopolis-Rome affair.
7) 15th century A.D.: the first mentioning about Albanians. In fact it was all about a Greek aristocrat, Georgios Kastriotis (known as Skenderbeis to Ottomans), a local despot, ruler of Epirus, ruler also of lands in modern day mid-northern Albania who organised an army mainly out of Albanians to fight against the Ottomans that had already invaded the south of his lands. Today Albanians claim direct descendance from Illyrians, something that is not just an innocent attempt to "extend their history" but also an effort to substantiate territorial claims in lands of ex. Jugoslavia. However, down to the basics southern Illyria started only in modern-day north Albania while llyrians had been largely Latinised and their southern tribes Hellenised: modern Albanian language shows as much of that as... Norwegian while Albanian culture has abslutely no "rememberence" even of the rather late Byzantine Empire (contrary to Slavic cultures, including muslim Bosnians). Hence, the arrival of Albanians in the area must had been made through the tumultuous period following 1204 A.D.
Hence, when Ottomans arrive and conquer they find in the lands of ex. Jugoslavia (back then this was all the lands above the Greek lands of coastal regions of the south). the following:
Bulgarians in the east-central part and Albanians in the west-central part. Above Albanians and on the Adriatic coast, the Montenegrans (practically Serbocroacians, more serbians due to religion with not any serious differentiation other than their region). Above Montenegrans and on the Adriatic coast the Croacians. East of the Croacians the Serbians covering most of the western part of the peninsula (but also having much of the coast - back then Croacians had not the exclusivity of the sea). Bosnians were living in an enclave south east of Croacians and south west of Serbians, not really any different to them, apart the fact that often they were Bogomils rather than orthodox catholics. On the top of all there were the Slovenians, a slavic tribe albeit differntiated to Serbocroatobosnians.
Thus Ottomans went in, conquered, tried to take as many with them, the others were for being expoited, the story is well known... -
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 4th August 2008
(continue... long thus with telephone breaks! preparing also vacations... who knows, maybe near Dalmatia also!)
And it was indeed during the Ottoman times that the main four nations of the Jugoslav wars were shaped and their inbetween relations defined.
Ottomans initially had conquered all the place till Austria including Hungary and in mid-16th century they besieged Vienna and again re-tried in late 17th century, however Austrians won and they gained lands in the south including all Slovenia and parts of modern-day Croatia and Montenegro. Ottomans were never fond of rhe sea, their ships were run by un-ruly greeks anyway and thus they were completely incapable of controlling the Adriatic - as any other sea anyway. However, their organisation was good for controlling the inland through the well known regime of terror for which there is a huge effort nowadays to be downplayed - we won't change history now for some trivial geopolitics, won't we?
Well the truth is that Ottomans had managed to muslimify easily the bulk of the Bogomils in central area since these people resisted their catholic-orthodox prosecutors and naturally found a nice way to get some revenge. Bogomils became a muslim bastion that continued alongside the Ottoman administration through pressure and violence the muslimification of the area. That means that modern Bosnian muslims just not derive from Bogomils exactly but practically out of any Serbian or Croacian who became muslim. Also, another actor ascending in the area were the highly mobile Albanians who briefly muslimified, became the Ottoman soldiers of the western Empire as Kurds were the main soldiers of the eastern Empire. That event also marks the presence of a lot of Albanians in modern day Kosovo and other southern lands of Serbia.
It goes without saying that Serbians and Croacians saw all those Slavic muslims (Bosnians) as traitors, as brother-killers, as "worst than Turks", while they saw Albanian guerilas that served as either Ottoman militia or in the Ottoman army as "pillagers" and "thieves". In generall as it usually happened those sad days, muslims saw christians as sheep to be exploited, stolen, raped and killed on will and christians saw muslims as a plague and a curse that had to be cleaned off their lands - tales of terror, and I mean real tales of terror (not fabrications) sitll haunt all christian populations all over the balkans. However, even back in the early days and since the two churches split became bitter and bitter Serbian orthodox and Croatian catholics started following this trend and despiced each other. I suspect though other much more localised reasons (local antagonism due to the intermingling of populations... you know: village fights village) since Serbians orthodox were not much in competition against neighbouring Slovenians who were also catholics but not so much living within them but largely just north of them.
The differentiation between Bosnians and the others was clearly more on the religious basis (their muslimification), however the differentiation between Serbians and Croacians was not only due to the schism of the churches but also due to the fact that from early on Austrians took control of the bulk of Croacia later even Montenegro. Hence, Croacians along with the northern Slovenians largely by-passed the Ottoman Empire while the bulk of the Serbians continued to live suppressed and in backward conditions. Interstingly a number of Serbians lived under Austrian occupation but due to their orthodox religion they were not seen positevely by Austrians who co-operated with a part of the Croatian nomenclature of the times - that creating at times further friction between the two people. The latter does not implies that all of Croatians liked Austrians nor that Croatians ever lived freely under them nor that Croatians had constant friction with Serbians, however their conditions were largely improved in comparison to what happened in Ottoman occupied Serbia were christian populations were in the mercy of the madness of any local half-or fully-illiterate Bosnian or Albanian or any other pasha.
By late 19th century and after the half-successful paradigm of Greeks (always the example in the greater area), all Balkan people made an effort to achieve independence from the Ottoman Empire and Croato-slovenians from the Austrian Empire and expand as much as possible their borders. In the case of Serbians they were quite successful and thus attracted the attention of a part of Croatian and Slovenian leadership who saw in Serbians the "elder slavic brother" who could protect them from Austrians. Serbians having also populations mainly in Croacia found in that a way to approach them while Bosnians and Albanians from being the local rulers with the Ottoman back-up became isolated and went back to a rural life-style in communities all over modern Bosnia that simply became a part of Serbia (there was never any Bosnian state entity prior to that). It goes without saying that a large part of Bosnians played the "slavic brothership game" trying to downplay the "religion factor", some successfully others less since they were not taken seriously - it is not easy to have oppressed others for generations and then play the "brother"... we are still in the 19th century!
Through the Balkan wars and the WWII the recently formed Serbian kingdom (that was modern Serbia and Bosnia as one) went on to incorporate Croatia and Slovenia and Montenegro but also in a war against Bulgaria the lands of modern FYROM that were largely populated by Bulgarian talking populations not very friendly to Serbians. Hence by that time we enter the more recent phase of Jugoslavia: -
Message 12
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 4th August 2008
It was really clear from the first point that not all of Croatians wanted to join the Serbians. Some were Austrian collaborationists, some just wanted total independence but then most of them worried that Serbians would get the supremacy all over the place. Inside a large Jugoslavia, the big brother would be always Serbia and the capital Belgrade.
One has to note down again that Croatians did not pass much of their history under Ottomans and thus largely by-passed the traumas of Serbians however they despised equally the muslim Bosnians and Albanians (though Albanians mainly lived next to Serbians). Hence, they found the co-habitation difficult even in terms of culture, let alone religion. For Croatians Serbians were "Ottoman-raped", for Serbians Croacians were "Austrian-lickers" and so on... you know. So even by early 1920s Croatians that only recently thanx to Serbians had achieved freedom from Austrians a part of them started violent action (today it would be seen as terrorist action) against Serbians trying to push for independence. Serbians saw that as an unspeakable treason from Croatians who played the Slavic brother in difficulty and then when at ease, stabbing in the back and thus sent special police forces that fell down unstylishly on all Croatians only giving birth to more reaction. Croatians saw Serbian royal police and paramilitaries as the replacement of Austrian oppressors and often even worse (Austrians were perceived at least as more cultured and advanced). It is noteworthy though to note that Slovenians seemed not to have such problems with Serbians despite being catholics, living along with Croatians under Austrians and actually having another language. The difference with Croatians is that the latter lived among Serbians (i.e. borders were never defined just as with muslims in Bosnia) while Slovenians had clearly their lands in the north and nobody discussed about them.
In parallel Bosnians and Albanians not having fully digested the fact that they would live then in a christian controlled state showed a lot of signs of reactions ranging from disobeyance to rules up to common terrorism.
Serbian oppression (or counter-oppression for them - and one has to admit that they clearly did not oppress that much the likes of Slovenians or Hungarians) continued till the outburst of the WWII:
In WWII German plan was to go down to Greece. Jugoslavia was seen as a passage despite the countries capacity to fight. The reason was that while Slovenians would remain neutral or even inclined to Germans, the bulk of Croatians, Bosnians, Albanians and Bulgarians would ally with them thus crippling any effort of Belgrade to resist - and that is what happened. During German occupation the bulk of Croatians (not all of them though), Bosnians (most of them), Albanians (all of them) and Bulgarians (all of them but them they aimed conquering lands of the greek south) allied with Germans in order to retaliate. Croatians and Bosnians became so active as to have achieved the killing of nearly one million Serbians something that remains still an unhealed trauma for Serbians. To complicate more things, under the British aid, communists led by Croatian Tito eroded even the lines of Serbians (as well as those of Croatians and to a small part those of Bosnians) and a general killing happened all over the place to the point of not knowing who fights who!!!
Right after the WWII Tito prevails. Tito led a Jugoslav communist force, thus ideologically not nationalist but then it was largely comprised by Serbians. However, Tito a Croatian himself had no special love for Serbians. His aim was to create a large communist Jugoslavia and if possible on the expense of neighbouring (no matter if communist) Bulgaria and Greece. -
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 4th August 2008
So Tito while always keeping Belgrade as the capital and having as a basis the Serbian element, in order to reduce the importance of Serbia that overweighted in the previous Jugoslavia he chopped up the lands of Serbia gained only recently with pain and scrifices, created Bosnia, created the fake Macedonia (the latter in an attempt to re-name local Bulgarians and use them to get the real Macedonia that is northern Greece), gave autonomy to Kosovo and in general tried by means of internal mobilisation to mix the populations. Jugoslavia thus became a huge experiment, a perfect playground for any politics, ethnology, demographics
-
Message 14
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
If the Dutch UN contingent had stood their ground in SrebrenicaĢż
The Dutch were under no obligation to do such a thing. It wasn't their war and so it wasn't 'their ground'. -
Message 15
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
The Dutch were under no obligation to do such a thing. It wasn't their war and so it wasn't 'their ground'.Ģż
I disagree.
If it wasn't their job to defend the UN designated 'safe haven' of Srebrenica, why were they wearing blue helmets? Why were they there at all?
(Google: "Ā鶹Ō¼ÅÄ News, UN and Dutch Disaster at Srebrenica" for Ā鶹Ō¼ÅÄ film of the Dutch UN commander receiving a gift of flowers from Mladic's officers, before leaving the locals to their fate!)
If the Dutch have no reason for feeling guilty about this episode, perhaps you can explain why the Dutch government resigned en masse when the report on the Srebrenica massacre was published?
(See Ā鶹Ō¼ÅÄ News, April 16th 2002, "Dutch Government resigns over Srebrenica").
The Dutch troops funked it, pure and simple. They ran away to Zagreb and got drunk, while the people they had been told to protect were being killed.
Read J.W. Honig's 'Srebrenica' (1996) for details. -
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
Some other time I will continue the latest 50 years of Jugoslavia as a part of my ... trilogy... haha!
Anyway, regarding the Dutch, they should feel guilty and it is digraceful for their part to throw all responsibility to Serbian side. Not only they stood were they should not but also they took clearly the side of one combatant by protecting armed Bosnian guerillas who thought they had found an easy way to protecting their folk while continuing their war (kind of saying). Details of Serbrenica show that a number of people died but more clearly reveal a very "grey situation". -
Message 17
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
But of course it was not a mere problem of Dutch there but of whole UN forces for whom it can be easily said that not having a clue about the situation they would be more interested in finding their ways with Croatobosnioalbanoserbian girls than with any mission objectives many cases were more than half-rapes taking for granted the circumstances with most well known the case of that young muslim girl that was alledgedly raped by Serbian troops and got pregnant and thus became the flag of anti-Serbian propaganda while finally in the end giving birth to a Bosnio-latino baby. The event was never discussed in international media (apart in the rest of the Balkans) nor did the event that nearby the village of the girl there was a US base. The natural lack of interest of local UN troops was highly indicated in the case where a Russian task force from Hungary reached first the airport of Saragievo ahead of the Enligh that were based just next to it. It was not of course English uncompetence but a sign that UN military forces did not comprehend what was going on and since they moved usually after a lot of political judgement and not on the needs of the situation, they finally were not interested at all doing anything of value. Whenever they did something was only to take clearly sides helping Croacians, Bosnians and Kosovars. In the latter it was criminal - Serbians had established some order by 1996 using only special police forces and had talks with Albanian leader Rugova (a great man, should take the nobel of peace this guy!) for giving some autonomy to the area. However unde the US orders Rugova was internationally isolated, the common law criminal and drugs & arms dealer Thatchi was "specially prepared" to take control, local bandits were armed with heavy weaponry thus forcing Serbians to retire special police forces (that had received heavy casualties)
and send in the army to put down the unrest. The next is history and as ex-prime minister of Serbia said it will become "a handbook of how to get independence" for just every minority on earth.
The role of UN was not just catastrophic, it was immoral and criminal: it clearly bent its rules to satisfy the gepolitical needs of two three countries (in the absence of any strong answer from Russia or China). -
Message 18
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
If the Dutch have no reason for feeling guilty about this episode, perhaps you can explain why the Dutch government resigned en masse when the report on the Srebrenica massacre was published?Ģż
The Netherlands government resigned because they took collective responsibility for being the ones who had sent the soldiers out there in the first place. The politicians should never have done that and so (instead of lamely shifting the blame on to the soldiers on the ground) they - quite rightly - resigned.
It's a pity that the UK government can't be honourable like the Dutch. The UK government should have resigned several times over during the last 10 years for launching their various illegal wars of aggression. -
Message 19
Posted by hambi22 (U2309395) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
Hello Nicolaos,
you mentioned thatt it were Croatians who started this war, which war do you mean, the whole Balkan war or only the Bosnian theatre?
Best regards -
Message 20
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
To Nikolaos (10, 11, 12, 13 and later)
Sorry for my delay in responding to your full history of the Balkan states. I needed a quiet hour to concentrate on all you had said, as well as the Times World Atlas, my old school Thucydides and some texts by Bernard Lewis on the advace of Islam through Europe.
Your most interesting posts brought alive, once again, a journey I made about 30 years ago from Trieste to Zadar, Dubrovnik and onto Belgrade.
You should write a book about this area, but my guess is that you already have?
What your posts have done, with great skill, is to explain why the Serbs feel so ill-treated by recent history. The western media have portrayed them in the main as savage thugs struggling to hold on to a dead empire. Your posts above provide the antidote to that simple-minded analysis.
You also use some stunning language when distinguishing the psychologies of Serb and Croat:-
"The Croats see Serbs as Ottoman-raped, the Serbs see Croatians as 'Austrian-lickers'..." (Nikolaoas, M12)
That is so true. It makes sense of what I saw. But the 'Ottoman-raped' are not broken or subjugated by that experience.
Your analysis of the cultural ambiguity of the Slovenians, at once trying to be modern and western and yet still distinctly non-Austrian is spot-on.
When you go back to the Goths, Epirots and the Illyrians you take me into zone I know nothing about. But things have changed there beyond anthropological recognition. Xenophanes described Thracians as "blue-eyed and red-haired" but that is not a look you see there much these days.
Thanks for all that information. Have an excellent holiday. -
Message 21
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 5th August 2008
Re: Message 17.
Nikolaos,
I read your history of Yugoslavia till Tito with great interest and support U-number's praise. And I enjoyed it too with your "typical" style.
But when you start your message 17 I say the same as to 2-sentences: you have to read once first the Dutch Srebrenica report I mentioned in message 2. It is very objective as I checked it against all my information I had from other sources. And it is perhaps the third or the fourth time that this Yugoslavia subject came on these boards and I did every time a lot of research for it, as I checked the history during the developing conflict also.
You are many times right about the background, but as many times wrong too. I have no time for the moment to correct them and it is not a flight for responsability, but I want to go further with my Islam-Renaissance thread. And already up to one o'clock in the morning each time.
As about your "international big money" conspiracy theories we never agreed on, you many times exagerate particular circumstances to the extent of inventing or seeing links that don't resist genuine and methodical history research.
BTW. I nevertheless expect with great interest the post-Tito era of your Yugoslavian history.
Warm regards from your friend,
Paul. -
Message 22
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
Dear All,
I thought I would give my tupence worthā¦ I am one of a couple of guys who have been on these boards over the years who served out there, so itās a personal insight.
1.) The Dutch.
The problem was the rules of engagement, which were at best pathetic. They could only engage an on an INDIVIDUAL basis when they identified the person shooting. A simple way to get around this? Fire from a forest so they canāt identify a shooter and engage. A Classic politicians restraint to a soldier.
The Dutch took casualties because of this ridiculous rule and motivation went. We would have sent in the SOG (Which I was part of) IDād the shooters and take them out. The Dutch were not a particularly well trained force who had stupid restrictions placed on them.
The Serbs managed to convince the Dutch that they refugees would have been taken care of. I see this at best (From the Dutch) as contravening their orders, at worst cowardice.
So, IMO, should the Dutch āstood their ground?ā Yes. However, they had both hands tied behind their backs, one by politicians, the other by sending such a poorly trained group of soldiers.
2.) Independence.
From the outset, Yugoslavia was dominated by Serbs. Internally, they Bullied the other countries, so a declaration of independence was inevitable. I remember seeing a football game, Red Star Belgrade Vs Dinamo Zagreb and the fans rioted. It pretty much summed up the entire situation. The Police did nothing while the Red Star Belgrade fans tore the Stadium to pieces, when the Croats retaliated, the Police attacked them,. The entire system was Biased. It was the game where Zvonimir Boban ended up attacking a policeman who was attacking a fan.
3.) Attrocities.
A Simple statemement. There were savages on all sides, cowards on all sides ā they were all as bad as each other. -
Message 23
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
A most interesting and helpful recollection Mani.
It just goes to show that there is no substitute for a first-hand account. -
Message 24
Posted by Bashfulsmudger (U11287440) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
Mani,
Message 22 was a 'Excellent Two pennyworth'
There is substitute for the 'First hand' experience of being there.
In my eyes and in by humble opinion, that makes what you have to say a qualified reply.
The rules of engagement, having your hands tied behind your back reminded me of something my late father once said about his time in Greece, after he was sent there from the Italian front on 1st January 1945.
My father lost several good friends that had served together through Italy, only to die at the hands of unknown individuals that threw grenades from behind shoppers in a busy market place.
It must have been very hard to restrain from pulling the trigger and opening up in such circumstances.
I think good training helped prevent innocent people from being shot. -
Message 25
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
Bashfulsmudger
The limitations placed on us by politicians has always been there.
My old man had limitations placed on him in Aden, many good people died because of it. They refused the request of light armour and heavier equipment to 'prevent antagonism' of an already aggressive population.
Whoever decided to send these Dutch troops with nothing heavier than a GPMG, most with just side arms must have been out of their mind...
Military decisions need to be made my military personnel, not politicians. -
Message 26
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
E_Nikolaos_E
"only the likes of Greeks, Bulgarians and Roumanians may have a more deep understanding of why all that happened there"
Is that why the Greek flag was raised over Srebrenica by the Greek Volunteer Guard after massacre and fall of the City? -
Message 27
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
Whoever decided to send these Dutch troops with nothing heavier than a GPMG, most with just side arms must have been out of their mind...
Military decisions need to be made my military personnel, not politicians.Ģż
Yes - this is the crux of the matter.
Too many politicians (without military experience) have watched war movies, television programmes and read newspaper reports and tend to think that 'sending in the troops' is some kind of political panacea.
They think that if the troops have a Union Jack, or a blue helmet or the words US Marines Corps on their person then this will give them superhuman warrior qualities and the 'bad guys' will, therefore, be cowed and/or defeated - just like in the movies.
We need to get away from the current media-driven sensationalist approach to foreign policy which demands the deployment of 'British troops' for 'sexy' television pictures. Rather we need to start showing a bit more restraint and savvy when there are conflicts in other countries. -
Message 28
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
"...Military decisions need to be made my military personnel, not politicians..."
That is not necessarily a great idea. The military are an extension of politics, not the other way round. I am not trying to say that restrictions from above are always competently done. Far from it. But there can be reasons why apparently bad decisions are made by politicians.
In Korea the politicians were probably right to restrain MacArthur from all out war, for instance.
I suspect that the politicians were hoping that limiting the arms of their soldiers around Srebrenica would help placate the Serbs with a milder show of force. A mistake with hindsight.
War crimes are not mitigated by the errors of others. The Serb soldiers at Srebrenica were the criminals. Others just made mistakes. -
Message 29
Posted by Nielsen (U3014399) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
numbers,
As I see it two things (at least) are needed,
WE must s/elect a better kind of politician - wherever a kind of democratic proces makes that possible, and
tv should stick to showing 'facts' in their news and stop 'sexing it up'. -
Message 30
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
However, I was surprised to read a book by a French writer Emmanuel Todd (really great writer) which is called "AprĆØs l'Empire" where within his analysis of how USA decided a bit superficially to become the planet's sole power but somehow now struggles, he gives some insight on how "demographics" and "family structures" are even more important than "recognised cultures" and "religions" when talking about "culture clashes".
Ģż
I've read that! It's a good book, and is in English too (I think Todd is Franco-American).
Back in the 70s he used demographics to suggest that the Soviet Union would collapse within 20 years. At the time nobody took him seriously, but lo-and-behold, he was right!
Here's the book on Amazon:
-
Message 31
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
TimTrack,
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.
Once the objective has been specified by a ploitician, the means should be specified by military, bound by law.
"I suspect that the politicians were hoping that limiting the arms of their soldiers around Srebrenica would help placate the Serbs with a milder show of force. A mistake with hindsight"
If that were the case, other UNPROFOR units would have been armed in the same way... It wasn't a mistake with hindsight, it was thought of as a mistake at the time.
"War crimes are not mitigated by the errors of others. The Serb soldiers at Srebrenica were the criminals. Others just made mistakes."
I agree, although;
A.) What Dutchbat did din't help, could have even made the situation worse.
B.) They weren't all Serbs. -
Message 32
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
Re: Message 22.
Mani,
as usual one of your impressive posts.
About the Dutch: it is now some time ago that I read the Dutch Srebrenica report that I mentioned in message 2.
Yes as you said the Dutch were lurred by the Serbs, who they seem to have found "valable" negotiation partners because they were no "irregulars" as the others and looked like a really and "honest" army. Of cause that was a big error from the local Dutch responsables. If I recall it all well. Have to reread the episode in the report.
You are absolutely right about the rules of engagement. And when it at the end came to a real conflict with the "yugoslavian" army and when the first Dutch were killed in an untenable position, the Dutch local commander called for "close airsupport". The jets could have blown the tanks to scrap within minutes.
But if you read the mishmash that happened between the UN, the NAVO headquarters at Brussels and the American airbase in Italy...?Even our former prime-minister Willy Claes, then head of NAVO in Brussels was mixed in the mishmash. As I understand the poor trained Dutchbat was let on its own in that difficult situation and had to decide for themselves and they seem to have understood that they with their light weapons were no party for the well-trained and well-equiped ex-Yugoslavian army...Yes the coordination between the UN, the NAVO and the planes, which had to act, was really a cacophony. And the ex-Yugoslavian army knew it.
Nearly entirely agree with your 2) and 3), although not sure if "a declaration of independence was inevitable"?
Warm regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 33
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Thursday, 7th August 2008
Paul, I couldn't agree more about the co-ordination between the ground and Air. It was a joke; Too much Bureaucracy in-between.
I know it's easy to criticise, but as a minimum, if Air support is being relied upon, I would expect only one 'layer' of co-ordination between the ground and Air, then and only then can it be close to practical. Certainly not inter department and inter organisation co-ordination. Only a politician could have thought that up, mind you, the entire conflict involved politicians getting involved where they had no place becoming involved.
I don't think the Dutchbat troops did themselves any favours by accepting such a placid interpretation of the rules of engagement... But as has also already been stated, these were not the crĆØme de la crĆØme, compromise in the field was not one of their strong points.
To me the mandate was simple. Protect civilians. They failed to do so, although this is not putting the entire blame on the Dutchbat troops. They should not have been there, and not in such small numbers...
Maybe Iām being harsh by judging them by my own, and my old regiments standards. -
Message 34
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Thursday, 7th August 2008
To Paul and Mani.
I think Mani is generally correct when he says that Dutchbat did not acquit themselves well at Srebrenica, but as several people have said, they were between a rock and a hard place.
Stepping back a few years before the massacre, we see that the idea of 'Safe Havens', which had worked for the Kurds after Gulf War 1, was never likely to work in the far more complex scenario of an imploding Bosnia with so many protagonists (see Nikolaos's posts).
The big push for this strategy came from the Austrian Foreign Minister, Alois Mock. Most people in the know at the time:- Vance, Owen, French, British and American military, thought the idea was flawed. It would worsen not end, the problem of ethnic cleansing. It did.
But Mock received enthusiastic support from one very influential quarter, however. Joris Voorhoeve (later the Dutch Defence Minister) was a big fan of Mock's plan.
There was a televised debate between Voorhoeve (the politician) and General van der Vlis in Holland in late 1992. Van der Vlis pointed-out the weakness of the Mock-Voorhoeve strategy. This implies that the Dutch military were not keen on the idea (for good reason).
But by spring 1993, with Srebrenica overflowing and in crisis, the UN adopted resolution 819, declaring Srebrenica a "safe area". The experts had been out-voted.
What Mani has said about rules of engagement and the complexity of ordering-up close air support is true but the Dutch did not cover themselves in glory in Srebrenica in the summer of 1995. At the very least the Dutch commander at Potocari might have guessed Mladic's true intentions.
Lest my earlier remarks have been perceived as a symptom of a generally anti-Dutch disposition I would just like to say that I have a great admiration for the Dutch, their culture, art and proven courage (Captains Van Brakel, Van Rijn and Admiral De Ruyter, who defeated the might of the Royal Navy in the late 17th century, would be spinning in their graves to learn of the Dutch debacle at Srebrenica!).
Finally, whatever the Dutch army did or did not do, in the last analysis the massacre of the defeated Muslims was carried out by Serbs. -
Message 35
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Thursday, 7th August 2008
Hi U3280211
"the massacre of the defeated Muslims was carried out by Serbs." Mainly, but not just Serbs.
But as I have pointed out previously, and something I found 'ammusing' when someone commented that Greeks understand the situation... The Massacre was far from Greece's finest hour, but in a different manner to that of Dutchbat. The Bosniaks weren't the only forces to take advantage of Foreign help.
Couldn't agree more about the Dutch. They have a lot I admire, Particularly Lisa Gogh, circa 1986, of whome I still have fond memories! -
Message 36
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 8th August 2008
rules of engagement and the complexity of ordering-up close air supportĢż
Complex indeed.
It was just this which was probably in the minds of the Dutch commander at the time.
When the media had got bored with demanding āsurgical air strikesā (a phrase which they had picked up during the Kuwait War and which they didnāt have the first clue about) they then began to set themselves up as know-it-alls regarding something called āclose air supportā.
The media (and predictably followed by many politicians) had now picked this term up from the armed services and started casually using the term āclose air supportā like so many self-appointed experts in military strategy and air force technology. To the media and their politician followers it was as though this was the āanswerā to the Yugoslav question. They thought that ātroopsā supported by ājetsā would beat the ābad guysā ā just like in the movies.
And so an all too predictable equation emerged. The armed services would attempt meet ludicrous demands imposed on them by politicians who were in thrall to a media which was, of course, singularly ill-qualified as a director of foreign and defence policy. Needless to say the results of this ludicrous equation were the various disasters on the Yugoslav wars:
Media > Politicians > Armed Forces = Disaster
Time and again the media would encourage the politicians to make unrealistic āpromisesā to one or other of the sides in the conflicts. The politicians would then order the armed forces to uphold the āpromisesā. The armed services would then valiantly attempt to implement these grandiose promises but, of course, would be unable to effect them (because it would be real life and not the movies). When these unrealistic āpromisesā of āsafe havensā and āinterventionsā etc would fail and then be seen to be empty promises then bitter recriminations (by everyone against everyone else) would ensue.
In the meantime, of course, the moderate politicians on the ground, on all sides, would have been sidelined and vilified (both locally and by the international media) as āappeasersā and āquislingsā etc. The hawks and the extremists (again on all sides) would gain the ascendancy as the āpromisesā to one side would be seen as a threat by the other. The extremists on the side in receipt of the āpromiseā could say - āwe donāt have to compromise we can be as intransigent as we like as the UK, the US the UN and the EU will back us up, bail us out, underwrite our loses and make it all better in the endā.
Equally the extremists on the side which could perceive the āpromiseā as a threat to them could say ā āwe canāt trust the āWestā. They are ignorant television viewers who have demonised us. Powerful forces are ranged against us. No amount of compromise will help us. Their demonisation means that they hate us and they wonāt lose any sleep if weāre wiped off the face of the earth. No. We must fight fire with fire. We must present a united front and be hard and we must fight for our survival. They offer us no other choice.ā
And so a vicious circle is set up. The pride and vanity of the promisers (the media and the politicians) means that they will try to make up for their inability to deliver by making ever more ambitious promises later on. Itās bit like the snake oil salesman who offers you 2 extra bottles of snake oil when youāre dissatisfied with the first one.
And so it was in Bosnia-Herzegovina whereby the military of European and other UN countries were increasingly being asked to operate in impossible situations while also being asked to conjure up miracles out of nothing. For example the UK mediaās demand for āclose air supportā resulted in the needless death and injury of UK SAS personnel outside Gorazde in 1994.
The following year the commander of the Dutch soldiers at Srebrenice was not prepared to allow the men under his command to suffer the same fate as had befallen the UK forces. He took the difficult but correct decision to face the reality of the situation on the ground. The politicians making pompous pronouncements thousands of miles away in New York or wherever were not prepared to take personal responsibility for their words and actions. By contrast, however, Lieutenant-Colonel Karremans was prepared to take personal responsibility. -
Message 37
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 8th August 2008
Hi Vizzer,
"He took the difficult but correct decision to face the reality of the situation on the ground."
Which ellemtn of his decisions do you see as correct? -
Message 38
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 8th August 2008
The element of Karremans' decision which was correct was probably not an active decision at all.
It seems to be only in retrospect that some people have criticised Karremans and the rest of Dutchbat for not 'defending the safe haven'. The simple fact is that Dutchbat was in no military position or logistical condition to do any such thing.
Any retrospective fantasy, (incidentally by people who were not members of Dutchbat and were not even there), that the physically exhausted, lightly armed and heavily out-numbered Dutch soldiers should have somehow 'sold their lives dearly' in a futile attack against the VRS is - just that - a retrospective fantasy.
By all accounts the members of Dutchbat (from the commander down to the squaddies) were all too happy to finally get the hell out of there. There was never at the time any way that Karremans was going to launch an attack against the VRS. This is just nonsense.
Not only would taking sides in the war have been in direct violation of the objectives of the UN mission but it would also have been a breach of Karremans' own rules of engagement. Criticism of Karremans on this is just another example of the media-driven ignorance of what a soldier is and how a soldier is supposed to act. It may come a s surprise to the media types but it's not the job of a commander to risk the lives of his men on the basis of any sort of 'Boys Own' whim.
And this is precisely the element of the decision - if it can be called a decision at all - which Thom Karremans made. As exhausted, stressed and emotional as he undoubtedly was he, nevertheless, decided not to lose sight of his primary duty. Anything else was just secondary and, anyway, was also outside of his control. His first duty, of course, was to the safety of the men under his command. -
Message 39
Posted by downloadable (U12503365) on Sunday, 10th August 2008
A Serbian I spoke to today mentioned this news item which I hadn't heard;
It seems that Bosnia has always been a well-known training ground for al-Qaida. My Serbian contact went on to say that the Srebrenica massacre was of a known terroist training area. He was pretty even handed, admitting it was terrible, but claiming there was some kernal of justification behind this ethnic cleansing. It's not something I've heard much about from impartial sources; how much truth is there to it?
If true, it would be uncomfortable for Karadžić to stand up in court and point out that Britain and America used the same justification to invade countries and kill, what, 100's of thousand of innocents? -
Message 40
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 11th August 2008
2 sentences
I think there may be a bit of a miss understanding of the factsā¦
āMy Serbian contact went on to say that the Srebrenica massacre was of a known terroist training areaā
Maybe from a Serbian prospective as there were foreign, illegal combatants in the area, but that would be ignoring the fact that Serbia actively used both illegal and foreign combatants.
There was no Al Qaida there at the time. The News link you have provided is about ten years too late for the Srebrenica massacre.
There were Muslim volunteers who served in Bosnia, particularly from North Africa and Saudi. However, there were volunteers on all sides. The Greek Volunteer Guard performed in many atrocities, including Srebrenica, under the command of the Bosnian Serbs (even symbolically having the Greek flag raised over Srebrenica after the fall of the city).
At the time, there were no training camps for terror cells as we understand it now, however, when you have foreign volunteers you need somewhere to train and equip themā¦ This was the same on all sides.
What has happened since, (Which the report does refer to) is a different story and not relevant to the massacre. -
Message 41
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Good post Mani.
Although I always challenge the shameless Serb-bashing which we so often get from lazy commentators on the Balkans - I do draw the line at attempts to 'justify' any criminal acts and atrocities which may have been committed by any of the sides during the war. A crime is a crime.
Any attempting to excuse a massacre on the basis of links to 'Al-Qaeda' or whatever is not only morally repugnant but also (in terms of historical timing as much as anything else) insults the intelligence. -
Message 42
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Vizzer,
I can't pretend that I don't hold, to this day, a great deal of contempt for many in that theatre, not just Serbs.
It makes things easier if we try to understand the conflict as a whole, with facts, rather than allowing our passions and feelings get in the way.
As you say, you canāt justify some actions.
Putting a gun to an unarmed civilian woman's head and pulling the trigger can't be justified in any way (Just one of many things I witnessed.). I must confess, if I head a weapon with enough range at that moment, I would have used it. -
Message 43
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 11th August 2008
To Vizzer
It seems to be only in retrospect that some people have criticised Karremans and the rest of Dutchbat for not 'defending the safe haven'. The simple fact is that Dutchbat was in no military position or logistical condition to do any such thing.Ģż
Some of that is true, some of it is not.
Firstly, letās look at the time-line in a bit more detail.
After the 30 British troops in Gorazde were taken hostage (late May 1995), UNPROFOR suggested, even urged, Karremans to leave Srebrenica with his men. The OPās could be abandoned first. But it was Col. Karremans who refused to go. It was HIS wish and belief that he could defend Srebrenica. Both he and the Dutch politicians were suffering from what (the Dutch historian) Jan Willem Honig calls āthe terrible hollowness of their āprincipled courseā and an excess of āmoral superiorityā (Honig and Both, (1996) Srebrenica. Penguin; page 184)
lightly armed and heavily out-numbered Dutch soldiers (from Vizzer)Ģż
Each of the twelve OPās around Srebrenica were armed with a Browning 0.5 inch machine gun, AT4 anti-tank rockets, TOW or Dragon anti-tank munitions, 81 mm mortars and the usual array of rifles and small arms (Honig, op cit p.7)
He could also call-in air-strikes. These could arrive within two hours. We have heard much of the complexity of calling-in air-strikes, yet, when the Dutch government wanted them STOPPED, on July 12th, (after the Serbs took Dutchbat hostages in revenge for two tanks-destroyed) Verhooeve was able to phone from the Hague to Col. Arjen Koopmans at Vicenza airbase in ten minutes. āStop, stop, stopā, yelled Verhooeve. The raids were immediately called off. (Honig, op cit, p26)
By all accounts the members of Dutchbat (from the commander down to the squaddies) were all too happy to finally get the hell out of thereĢż
That was not Karremans starting position but was certainly his view after his troops had been forced to help bus the Bosnian men to their deaths on the Bratunac road. Dutchbat actually compensated Mladic with 30,000 litres of UN diesel used for the Serb transports to the killing zones! He was really rubbing it in.
Letās just remember that the Serbs did not kill a single Dutchman in Srebrenica. On July 8th 1995, at 16.27, private Van Ranssen was killed by fragments from a grenade thrown at his APC (or YVR) by a Muslim, who realized that the Dutch were trying to pull-out, leaving the Bosnians to their fate. The Bosniansā only hope was to force the Dutch to stay.
Karremans had been ācleverly out-manoeuvred by General Mladicā (Karremans own words on 23rd July, after the massacre). Karremans said that his war with Mladic was almost like āa game of Pacmanā. (op cit p176) āPacmanā to him, perhaps. Not much like āPacmanā to any male Bosnian from the enclave who was bussed to Bratunac to be shot in the head or back and then buried, still perhaps alive. Or to the grandfather who was forced to eat his grandsonās liver before being killed; one might add.
The problem for Karremans, and the Bosnians whose lives were in his hands, was that he talked tough and acted submissive. His reports to UNPROFOR after the Serbs first attacked the southern OPās around Srebrenica (Sat 8th July) were calm, matter of fact and lacked urgency. He also failed to draw-up potential air-strike lists in a timely manner. It was only when he relinquished command to his deputy, Major Rob Franken, after he became too ill to act, on July 11th at 19.00) that the SAS and commando FACās were sent into the field to direct the air-strikes. Within 24 hours of Major Franken taking charge, the jets were in the air and a Dutch woman F-16 pilot was attacking the first Serb tank. But after four days of dithering it was too late. The Dutch OPās had been surrendered, their munitions stolen, their uniforms and blue-helmets taken and used by the Serbs (Some Serbs put on these blue helmets and fooled Bosnians into thinking that they were UN and should thus be obeyed). 23,000 Bosnians had been ācleansedā from the Srebrenica enclave in just over a day.
. There was never at the time any way that Karremans was going to launch an attack against the VRS.Ģż
Well, if that is true then he should not have told the Bosnian Muslim Mayor, of the enclave that he had earlier said he wished to protect, that on the morning of July 11th:
āthe whole road from OP foxtrot to Srebrenica will be a killing zone when 40-60 jets hit ever Serb vehicleā.
This lulled the Bosnians into false confidence.
Because of his dithering, lack of urgency and the ambiguity of General Janvierās orders, the FACās were not even in position to direct the strikes at that time. The Dutch called off the strikes minutes before the A10ās arrived. (They could have given Mladic a big scare).
He also tried to āpretend to attackā the Serbs, telling his men to āfire to miss and to use the 81mm mortars, but only to fire illumination roundsā. Mladic was not fooled, he knew that Karremans was bluffing.
it's not the job of a commander to risk the lives of his men on the basis of any sort of 'Boys Own' whim.Ģż
OK then, If Karremans was not willing to risk his men, what on earth were they doing there? They would have been safer in the Hague or picking tomatoes form one of those big glasshouses you see when flying into Rotterdam!
Soldiering is all about rational, courageous, risk-taking. It is not a game of āPacmanā
His first duty, of course, was to the safety of the men under his command.Ģż
In which case the mission was a huge success since he brought all but one back home.
Pity about the 8,000 he helped bus to their deathsā¦
Look, the debacle was not all down to Karremans. He was a classic āChickenhawkā (Masonās term) trapped between the hawks (Chirac, USAF), the moral philosophers (Verhooeve, Mock and the Germans), the realists (Vance, Owen, Rupert Smith) and the chickens (Janvier and the Japanese).
But letās not turn him into Lord Nelson, please! -
Message 44
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Re: Message 33.
Mani,
thank you for your reply. Did in the meantime some research: Read some days ago again the part! of the NIOD report about the fall of Srebrenica. It took me more than four hours till three o'clock in the morning to read only that part. I now understand the critics about the lengthy of the report. In todays reading from Dutch and English language sites I now realize that it is about 8 thousand! pages. (the one from my message 2.
Did again this evening some two hours research to answer to U-numbers. I will put there what I wanted to say overhere too.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 45
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Addendum to message 44.
Mani,
I just read on another site that the Srebrenica report of the NIOD was only 3400 pages.
Regards again. -
Message 46
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Hi Paul,
Only 3400 pages? Good luck!!!! -
Message 47
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Re: Message 34 and 35.
U-number and Mani,
about "a sympton of a generally anti-Dutch disposition" Do you say that to a Belgian? Those Belgians with there hate-love relation with their "Ollanders"? Even the Flemings...and perhaps even more than the Walloons ...
Yes, but in history the truth and nothing else but the truth...and no partisan to any ethny, nation, "volk"...even the English... (and I mean English...)
Warm regards to both,
Paul. -
Message 48
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 11th August 2008
3400 pages eh?
I offer a fiver to the first person here who finishes it.
Why not read something a little more accessible such as
"Srebrenica: record of a War Crime"
by Jan Willem Honig and Norbert Both. Penguin Books 1996.
ISBN:0-14-026165-6.
The authors are Dutch academics with no axe to grind. It comes in at a mere 204 pages. -
Message 49
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Re: Message 43.
U-number,
I will answer to your interesting and well documented reply to Vizzer, but first my links. You haven't to be drunk to type some of these http's even with small o's in it. No "nil" and no "capital O".
(mods it is all in English)
Norbert Both was civil servant in the Dutch foreign affair ministry. Before that he was assistent of ex-minister Lord Owen and was involved together with him in the peace negociations of the falling apart Yugoslavia.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 50
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Monday, 11th August 2008
Paul,
I know the Dutch well, I travel to the Netherlands a lot, having family in Brabant and elsewhere in the northern isles.
I like the Dutch a lot, their pragmatism and their capacity to have fun without hurting people or getting drunk.
As for Belgium; alas, I only know it as a route to get to Holland, although its cities are fine and highly cultured.
Are you a citizen of either?
AUB
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ģżto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ā鶹Ō¼ÅÄ iD
Ā鶹Ō¼ÅÄ navigation
Ā鶹Ō¼ÅÄ links
Ā鶹Ō¼ÅÄ Ā© 2014 The Ā鶹Ō¼ÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.