Talk:Operation Storm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information...
PEER This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Contents

[edit] On removing POV

I've reverted the latest anonymous edit en masse because it didn't appear to contribute much other than POV and hearsay. I'll probably look at the diff in detail later and see if any actual factoids can be salvaged. --Joy [shallot] 22:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Should they prove to be authentic, as far as the major points are concerned, they present the case for clean and brilliant military operation that decisively defeated the Serbian expansion of the 90ies and paved the way to the Dayton peace agreement."
This line, and in fact the whole Controversy section, doesn't abide a neutral POV. I'm not familiar enough with the details of Operation Storm to correct this all, but this certainly shouldn't be allowed to stand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.119.118.12 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC).
One should add that the Serbs who were driven out during Storm were not backed by Milosevic at the time, they had been abandoned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.70.153.38 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC).
"clean and brilliant military operation" - could stand, "defeated the Serbian expansion" - could not stand, because Serbs lived there for ages. I agree that this paragraph shoud be changed. --Majmun 18:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The following document makes me believe that Krajina Serb exodus was initiated by the RSK Supreme Defence Council. This was also echoed by the former president of Republic of Serb Krajina Milan Babic:
(the following was translated into English...)

REPUBLIC OF SERB KRAJINA
SUPREME DEFENCE COUNCIL

Knin, 4th Aug 1995
16.45 hrs
No: 2-3113-1/95.
Due to a newly created situation appearing from a large-scale agression of the Republic of Croatia against the Republic of Serb Krajina and in spite of successful defence at the beginning, the greater part of North Dalmatia and the part of Lika are endangered. Having considered all these facts
WE DECIDED
1. To start evacuating population unfit to military service from the municipalities of Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, Drniö and Graãac.
2. Evacuation to be carried out according to the plan towards direction of Knin and furthermore via Otriç, and towards Srb and Lapac.
3. UNPROFOR HQ Sector South Knin to be requested support.
Knin, 4th Aug 1995

Certified by Serb Army HQ dtd 4th Aug 1995 at 17.20 hrs under Reg. No. as above.
P R E S I D E N T
Mile Martiç

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mynameismine (talk • contribs) 09:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] What does "Casualties" mean?

I'm against the redefining of the term "casualties" by including people who left their homes. If one consults dictionary.com, the definitions are as follows:

1. An accident, especially one involving serious injury or loss of life.
2. One injured or killed in an accident: a train wreck with many casualties.
3. One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: Battlefield casualties were high.
4. One that is harmed or eliminated as a result of an action or a circumstance: The corner grocery was a casualty of the expanding supermarkets. [1]

"People who left their homes" do not fit into any of the above - except, perhaps, into definition #4, which is chiefly metaphorical. Still, the grey box on the right ("Battlebox") shows a military textbook-style information on a particular battle, used in a number of articles; in that sense, when one speaks of casualties, only definition #3 makes sense and is appropriate.

I have no objection to discussing the effects of a battle on a civilian population, provided it is done elsewhere in the article (especially that, in fact, it already is). GregorB 22:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Choice of the word "casualties" is perhaps not optimal; I believe that, in sense #3, slightly more correct would be "losses". This is, of course, a template issue. GregorB 22:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

This war and battle are very specific and controversial. The entry "left their homes", gives something to think about. "Why? What were historical/present/at-the-time reasons, if any? Is that something that contradicts some other information?" We are not talking about some small number of people, but ~200 000, and that is something that should not be left out of "immediate" after-effects.
There's more - this is not military report, to base information solely on info strictly involving "military" stuff. Alter all, this is en encyclopedia, "civil" one.
Btw, "casualties" is not suitable word at all for things like this, I agree - and not only in this example. In fact, it is "chosen" jut because of that (so that some facts could be interpreted differently). But, this has nothing to do with Wiki, but with some broader topics including use of language & psychology. As you pointed out - losses is maybe far more better choice. --Majmun 10:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree completely that "this is not military report" if by "this" you mean the article. It shouldn't be, and it isn't. But the infobox itself is meant to be a military report, so I think it's better that it be kept that way. Incidentally, Template_talk:Battlebox (I've read it only after my original writeup here) is also rather clear in that respect.
I'd like to add that I certainly don't consider this to be a big issue. It is simply that I had deleted extra information from the infobox, and wanted to explain here why, so that my edit is not confused for pushing a particular POV on the article. GregorB 14:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support from the USA

I noticed that this article claimed that Operation Storm had received air support from the US. That isn't accurate, I'm afraid: the only US activity was the destruction of two SAM sites before the start of the operation, and it wasn't linked to the operation as far as I know. I quote from http://www.afsouth.nato.int/operations/denyflight/DenyFlightFactSheet.htm :

On 4 August 95, four NATO aircraft attacked two Croatian Serb surface-to-air missile radar sites using anti-radiation "HARM" missiles. Two U. S. Navy EA-6Bs and two U. S. Navy F-18Cs struck sites near Knin and Udbina in self-defence after the aircraft' electronic warning devices indicated they were being targeted by anti-aircraft missiles.

The article also claimed that the US had supported the operation by destroying telecoms facilities. That didn't happen until Operation Deliberate Force, which took place in Bosnia (not Croatia) about 3 weeks after the end of Operation Storm. -- ChrisO 13:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

First, even if this would be the only attack, it still amounts to air support, especially given that later Croatia used aviation against Serbian civilians and that SAMs could be used to defend from it. Second, here's a link to Yugoslav aeroclub "Nasa krila" (our wings) which says "Exact list of targets is not reported, but it is known that NATO was shooting communication centers, radars AA systems, command posts and repeaters of Serbian television. Besides in this operation have also participated airplanes of Croatian air force MiG-21." Tha page details other attacks of NATO on RSK. Nasa krila is a respectable aeroclub, I think the oldest in Serbia, founded in 1921. Nikola 13:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I looked it up and it would appear that Nasa krila is definitely wrong. There were no NATO air strikes during Operation Storm (indeed, NATO was criticised by the media at the time for sitting it out). According to the Washington Post of 5 August 1995, the air strike of 4 August 1995 took place after UNPROFOR personnel at Knin requested a show of force from NATO after coming under threat from Croatian Serb forces. While on patrol near Knin, the EA-6Bs were illuminated by SAMs, which were then targeted and destroyed.
How does destroying a SAM system protects UNPROFOR personnel? Nikola 08:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't - it protects the NATO pilots. -- ChrisO 22:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The air strike took place under the auspices of Operation Deny Flight, which was the enforcement of the no-fly zone over Bosnia and the UNPAs. NATO aircraft were allowed to shoot down aircraft violating the no-fly zone, as well as attacking ground air defence sites which were deemed to pose an immediate threat. Earlier air strikes against RSK targets (such as the 21 November 1994 strike against Udbina airbase) were in response to violations of the no-fly zone.
I would guess that Nasa krila was probably thinking of the later Operation Deliberate Force, in which communication centres, radars, command posts and TV transmitters were targeted - but that was in Bosnia, not Croatia, and it wasn't until three weeks after the end of Storm. -- ChrisO 20:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I should add that the 4 August strike shouldn't be characterised as "air support" either. Look up the Wikipedia article on close air support: "Close air support (often abbreviated as CAS or CAIRS) is the use of military aircraft in a ground attack role against targets in close proximity to friendly troops, in support of ground combat operations. In this role, aircraft serve a purpose similar to that of artillery." This wasn't the case on 4 August, as the strike was mounted to defend patrolling aircraft against a hostile surface threat rather than supporting ground forces. Technically it would be counted as a defensive counter air operation. -- ChrisO 22:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Is all air support close air support or maybe there are some other kinds of air support? Nikola 08:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
There are other uses of air power - air interdiction and strategic bombing come to mind. However, an attack on SAMs wouldn't have constituted close air support, as SAMs aren't a threat to the ground troops whom CAS is intended to support. If the attack had been premeditated, it would have counted as air defence suppression or offensive counter air. The rules of engagement allowed the pilots to attack air defence sites on their own initiative if their aircraft were fired on or locked onto by SAM radars, as apparently happened in this instance. -- ChrisO 22:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
so in fact although this was not a CAS it was a strategic bombing, as you say,which can be caled air support since it helped Croation Air Forecs in this battle. Thank's for the clarification. Strategic bombing is the right term for the NATO air support given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mynameismine (talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] On ethnic cleansing

This article lacks the mention of ethnic cleansing and it should be more specific about the place where it was underdone - on the soil of the Republic of Serbian Krajina HolyRomanEmperor 17:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Serbian Krajina was a crime itself. No ethnic cleansing was done on it, because it should have never existed.--Juraj j 09:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not the existence of political entities (such as Serbian Krajina) is a 'crime' according to people like yourself, ethnic cleansing did occur and should STRONGLY be mentioned. (If the tables were turned, and an expulsion of 250,000 Croats from Serbia occured during the war, you can bet International media would blast reports of ethnic cleansing until infants in Timbuktu heard about it. Ironically enough, this never occured, and Serbia is still the most diverse of the former Yugoslav republics...) Stop The Lies 01:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

[edit] Article and USA

Thiis article hardly mentions the role of the US in this operation. United States officials and generals have spoken about this and their constant surveilance of Gotovina's movements. THey bloked certain pathways and HELPED ISOLATE kNIN. They provided logistics and other information ,surveying the scene, 24/7, with Predator planes and the like.

THis sort of information should be added, also the fact that the Us gave the all clear to clean -up Croatian territory and enter Krajina.

What do others think

THE MILJAKINATOR 03:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think if you can find some reliable sources, please be bold and add it to the article! If there is something notable, there's no reason why it shouldn't be in the article. Laughing Man 05:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I also would like it be noted that you should please take care on your selection of words "THE MILJAKINATOR", as your "clean -up Croatian territory and enter Krajina" is quite offensive to be frank. Laughing Man 18:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's sources:

NGO Organization, Member of United Nations: US Officials aided and abetted Croatian General Ante Gotovina
Former Croatian minister confirms CIA's involvement in 1995 military operation
Was the US behind the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia?
US Involvement in Croatian War Crimes?

Feel free to apply them to the article.Stop The Lies 02:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

[edit] Afrika paprika

User:Afrika paprika keeps removing the fact that this is marked in Serbia as the darkest day in Serb history, commemorating the dead and exiled. Why? I can't see anything in here but bad faith. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've warned him against removing content for POV reasons. -- ChrisO 08:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracy and POV statements

First where does it states that it "led to ethnic cleansing"? Second where is the statements that this action enabled the return of about 250 000 people to their homes and at least twice as much in neighbouring areas? Where are the statements that this military operation also effectively stopped the war both in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia and enabled peacful reintegration of occuppied Croatian teritory in Eastern Slavonia, Croatian Baranya and Eastern Syrmia? And last where is this supposed "krajina region"?

As it is now this article is more like a Serbian POV then a NPOV article as some like to claim here thus it warrants an accuracy dispute tag. Afrika Paprika 13:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it led to ethnic cleansing seems unsourced at first - but it's also not arguable, but almost evident. This action couldn't've enabled the return of about 250,000 people to their homes and at least twice as much in neigbouring areas (750,000 Croat refugees? Where did you get that). Krajina itself had 78,000 Croats and 2,000 Muslims in 1991 - and a minority yet remained through the Serbian occupation. Your "krajina region" mention is not understandable... --HolyRomanEmperor 23:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It is NOT A FACT but an opinion...yours at that. There is no such thing as "Krajina" and you enforcing this supposed term is showing your true side. In the occuppied territories by the 1991. census there were over 205 000 Croats living in the so-called "Republic of Serbian Krajina". In zones South and North over 110 000 and in zone East over 92 000. Your diminishing of this number seem transparent. Also we have documents saying and ordering withdrawal of civilians from the Serbian terrorist leaderhip...most of them never even saw Croatian soldiers. Also the radio stations were blocked by the Serbs themselves due to messages from Croatian authorities to stay calm and not to flee, that nothing will happen to them. Afrika Paprika 00:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Question of Objectivity

Though I absolutely agree that editing or deleting passages is disrespectful, specifically the comments made by User:Afrika_paprika. However this article reads like an extremely one-sided Serbian POV. For one, the majority of the sources is obviously Serbian. I doubt very much you will get a balanced account from either a Serbian or Croatian source - especially if it's official.

Perhaps this article should be graded as pro-Serb biased and User:Afrika_paprika would like to write an article from a different POV. Users would then be able to make their minds up which sounds more believable.

Try reading the entry on this operation in the German-language Wikipedia - it gives a clear and objective view of the topic in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.44.130.214 (talk • contribs) 10:56-11:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] BIRN

"In spite of all the controversy, Operation Storm was seen as the event that ended Serbian aggression in both Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Had it not taken place, the Bosnian city of Bihac would have fallen, and more ethnic cleansing by the Serbs would have taken place. [1] Many believe that had it not been for Operation Storm, a Greater Serbia would still exist. "

The following source on "BIRN" is by Brian Gallagher from the propaganda "lobbying" organization, "Croatian Worldwide Association" [2]. Hardly a reliable source. // Laughing Man 22:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On ethnic cleansing 2

Oluja was not "ethnic cleansing." Did you actually read the Amnesty article? Nowhere does it say that 200,000 Croatian Serbs were "cleansed;" rather, it says that there were individual crimes committed during and after the operation. ...Which is very different than saying that the entire operation was a concerted effert to terrify and expel all of the Krajina Serbs. Mihovil 01:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International article states [3]: "During and after these military offensives, some 200,000 Croatian Serbs, including the entire Croatian Serb Army, fled to the neighbouring Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina under Bosnian Serb control. In the aftermath of the operations members of the Croatian Army and police murdered, tortured, and forcibly expelled Croatian Serb civilians who had remained in the area as well as members of the withdrawing Croatian Serb armed forces." I don't know how else you would describe the displacement of an ethnic group from a territory. I would appriciate it this reliable source is not removed as it has been previously by the following users:
Thank you // Laughing Man 06:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
No, you still don't get it. Those 200,000 people left pretty much of their own volition. If you are going to argue that those who remained were ethnically cleansed, that's another matter. But as it stands now, you have cited this source incorrectly and inappropriately. That's why we have been removing it. Mihovil 13:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Of their own volition? Are you out of your mind? I know people who were too scared to visit their home towns in 2006, 11 years after the war. Needless to say, I've reverting - no need for you to delete sources. --estavisti 15:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Where do you see anything about "ethnic cleansing"? "some 200,000 Croatian Serbs, including the entire Croatian Serb Army, fled to the neighbouring Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina under Bosnian Serb control" <- This doesn't sound to me like "ethnic cleansing", does it to you? Afrika Paprika 25:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

<------ Great, but that doesn't prove much, and convinces me of absolutely nothing. The propaganda machine in Belgrade had people in a frenzy, telling them that if they stayed, it would be a repeat of NDH. I'm not denying that crimes were committed, but the operation as a whole was not ethnic cleansing. I'm reverting.Mihovil 02:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The propaganda machine? Before the war even started, Serbs were been discriminated against and killed. I suppose the Croats who fled Croatia because they had Serb wives etc were also under the influence of the supposed "Belgrade propaganda machine"? --estavisti 02:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence. Either provide something more reliable than your word, or cite the amnesty article properly. Mihovil 02:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Like where for example? And what Croats fled because of their Serb wives? I have an uncle who is married to my aunt..he is a Serb...he didn't fled. What the hell are you ranting about? Afrika Paprika 25:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of just repeating "don't remove my reference," why don't you consider the reason I gave for removing it? As I see it, you have distorted what the Amnesty article was saying, and the reference should therefore be removed. I am not interested in some stupid edit war, and I am willing to work out a compromise, but you must be willing to do the same. Ok? Mihovil 22:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with compromsing on this issue, I just think it's unacceptable to remove a "reliable source". I've just disambiguated displacement. // Laughing Man 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes but this reliable source is very shortsited. It mentions what it belives to be the reason of he displaceent o all Serbs. It does not look into any hidden agenda which might be behind the leaving of so many serbs, and that was a result of Belgrade's propaganda machine. The source has not been cited correctly.
P.S i still have to get started on that USA bit, i just havent had the time.
THE MILJAKINATOR 03:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Who removed those external links and why? Unless you give me a good enough reason, they're going back where they belong.Stop The Lies 01:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

User "Rts freak" you removed them. Why did you remove them? If you do not give a good enough reason, they are going back. Stop The Lies 01:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies
I forgot to put a summary of my edit: I replaced the external links Stop The Lies 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

[edit] Factual Accuracy

Just wondering which facts are disputed so we can try to reach consensus and remove the box: "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed" at the top. If the discussions in this talk page contains all of the disputes, I don't think that box should be there, because many articles have much more significant disputes and do not have the box. (And please no one bring up ethnic cleansing, that is not a 'factual error'. There can be disagreement if ethnic cleansing occured, but that doesn't mean that the "factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed"...and I don't see any mention of it in the article anyway. Stop The Lies 11:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/p/e/Talk%7EOperation_Storm_2da2.html"