Talk:Croatian War of Independence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.


1. April-November 2006

Contents

[edit] OK Laughing man

I dont seem to work well with you and when Mr Duja came instead of you we had a compromise that i am very pleased with, now my next step is to try and change the fact that it wasnt simply a war. Im trying to give the type of war it was. This is NPOV. The JNA, Republik of Serb Krajina started the war through their aggression on CROATIAN SOIL. This is NPOV.

I dont see the problem in displaying NPOV, truthful information

THE MILJAKINATOR 21:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think your most recent edit [1] is "NPOV TRUTH", then you either have some serious issues or are simply trolling. // Laughing Man 21:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well tell me then mr laughing man, wat is wrong, ive sed wat i believe now why dont u give me reasons. ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY THAT THE CROATS WERE AGGRESSORS!!!! LOL. Oh Laughing man you make me laugh!! Give me a reason please why not to.
May i remind you that just because some things dont push a rosy serb version of events or puts Serbia in a slightly lesser light, doesnt make that information POV
Regards,THE MILJAKINATOR 09:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not "trying to say" anything. You are the one that is trying to change war to greater Serbian aggression. Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia article not a soapbox, and this change in no way even resembles an attempt at a more neutral point of view, and actually is just the opposite. // Laughing Man 15:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I also think it should say "war" instead of "greater Serbian aggression". The reason it should say "war" is because the introduction is supposed to sum up the whole article, so that part definitely should state that this was a war - since that's what is was, a war (pretty simple). Also, if you state it was an "aggression" that leaves it quite ambiguous, because states can show aggression without actually having a war. Also, "greater Serbian aggression" is POV because those words seem to say that it was every Serb that started the war (or "aggression" as THE MILJAKINATOR wants to put it) and every Serb took part in the war. I'd suggest re-wording it into something like "a war to create a greater Serbia", but I don't think that's necessary because I think the last version by Laughing Man is right, as "war" seems very appropriate for the intro. - Ivan K 08:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, truce, leave it at war. THE MILJAKINATOR 11:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modified Intro

Changed

The Croatian side aimed to establish sovereignty for the Republic of Croatia, previously a socialist republic in Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, while Serbs wanted to stay in Yugoslavia, effectively seeking new boundaries in parts of Croatia with a Serb majority or with influential Serbian minority. The war was striking for its brutality in a relatively developed society in Europe, and in modern times.

to

The Croatian side aimed to establish sovereignty for the Republic of Croatia, previously a socialist republic in Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, while Serbs did not want to stay in an independent Croatia, effectively seeking new boundaries in parts of Croatia with a Serb majority or with influential Serbian minority. This view reflected the desire of the Serb elite to unite all Serbs on the territory of the former Yugoslavia into one state, effectively creating a Greater Serbia, an objective consistent with the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. The war was striking for its brutality in a relatively developed society in Europe, and in modern times.

because the Badinter Arbitration Committee had found that Yugoslavia had effectively ceased to exist by virtue of the federal institutions no longer functioning, thus it is difficult for the Serbs to stay in a country that effectively no longer existed. This is particularly so when it is considered that the SFRJ was a country was defined by it's federalist structure and the attempt to redraw Republic boundaries went against the very reason for the country's initial existence.

As such, I have redefined the Serbs aim as not staying in an independent Croatia and added a couple wikipedia links that are relevant. iruka 07:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not NPOV. First, the Memorandum is more a semi-mythic accusation of "new Serbian version of Mein Kampf" than a document of profound political weight; it's too undue weight to be put in the intro and I doubt any of the rebel Croatian Serbs even read it. Second, and more important, the entire change is the classic example of poisoning the well: you put the POV-reasoning for the war into Serbs' mouths en general, while in reality their motives ranged from genuine concerns for their status change in independent Croatia to chauvinistic calls for Greater Serbia and ethnic cleansing for Croats. Duja► 10:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Legitimate point about the avg Croat Serb not necessarily reading the document, but there are two parralel streams at work here. One is the loss of privelage of many Serbs in the civil service where communist party members (many Serbs) were replaced with HDZ apparatchiks (both dissidents and converted Socialists) which has more to do with consolidating power than with any anti-Serb animus.
The other is the memorandum, the underlying political views (Serbs status of oppressed in Yugoslavia, implied redrawing of Republic boundaries etc) were adopted by Milosevic (most famously reflected in his speech at Kosovo polje) and implemented by his cronies among the Croatian Serbs, most notably Babic and Hadzic, and inculcated into the Croatian Serbs leading to seeking solutions outside the framework of the Croatian republic including force and the use of the JNA, versus negotiations with the newly elected Croatian govt that Pupovac, and to a lesser degree Raskovic seemed to prefer.
The memorandum was signifcant in propogating the myth that the Serbs were victims of Yugoslavia and treated badly in SR Croatia (ignoring their privelaged position by virtue of communist party membership). The memorandum quantified the prevaling policy goal of the Serb elite for much of Serbia's existence since it's reinstatement as a state in the 19th century?(all Serbs in one state) and is a view which still prevails today aong sections of the Serb state elite - just the means to achieving it has changed; its core principles was adopted by Milosevic, a key player in the Balkans during the 1990's. In this context, the memorandum carrys alot of weight as it codified one of the most significant forces driving the conflicts. This does not deflect the legitimate concerns of Croatian Serbs at the time, but in the world of real politik, the memorandum's text was of greater significance and influence. iruka 00:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps rewrite:
The Croatian side aimed to establish sovereignty for the Republic of Croatia, previously a socialist republic in Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, while Serbs did not want to stay in an independent Croatia, effectively seeking new boundaries in parts of Croatia with a Serb majority or with influential Serbian minority. This view reflected the desire of the Serb elite to unite all Serbs on the territory of the former Yugoslavia into one state, effectively creating a Greater Serbia, an objective consistent with the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. The war was striking for its brutality in a relatively developed society in Europe, and in modern times.
to
The Croatian side aimed to establish sovereignty for the Republic of Croatia, previously a socialist republic in Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, while Serbs did not want to stay in an independent Croatia, effectively seeking new boundaries in parts of Croatia with a Serb majority or with influential Serbian minority. Whilst many Croatian Serbs expressed legitimate concerns over loss of status as part of the fallout from moves by the newly elected governments attenpt to replace communist party appointees with their own party loyalists in the civil service; the approach to seek solutions outside the Croatian state was driven by local leaders heavily influenced by a policy goal of the Serb Republic elite to unite all Serbs on the territory of the former Yugoslavia into one state, effectively creating a Greater Serbia, an objective consistent with the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. The war was striking for its brutality in a relatively developed society in Europe, and in modern times. ??
iruka 00:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
My point is, the memorandum has nothing to do in the intro at all. It's scope, intent and consequences are controversial at best and mostly irrelevant to the subject of this article. "An objective consistent with the memorandum" is an original research at best. I maintain that consequences of the memorandum were later overblown to mythical dimensions. While I don't endorse its contents, any neutral reader of it would conclude that it's a nationalistic document expressing somewhat overblown concerns for the position of Serbs in former Yugoslavia, and it doesn't even hint at the creation of Greater Serbia. In my opinion, it was more the product of the nationalist atmosphere that was "being cooked" in Serbia, with academics being first to openly speak on what was on many people's minds, rather than the cause of such atmosphere. It was abused later in a similar way as Zion Protocols. Duja► 15:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Duja, appreciate the response. I see a number of different issues with the intro and will address under separate headings:

[edit] Reference to Yugoslavia

The intro as it stands is disingenuos because as explained in previous post, Yugoslavia ceased to exist according to the Badinter Arbitration Committee and the very notion of SFRJ (a federation of equal nations) would not exist under the Serb elites proposal. Hence I suggest that the intro be reworded to state that the Serbs wanted to live in a Serbian state or the Serbs did not want to live in Croatia. I think the latter reference is more appropriate. iruka 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Greater Serbia or United Serb States

I think that there should be mention of this because the current intro does not capture the main thematic that has plagued Croat-Serb relations for approximately last 100 years, and that is disparate notions of territorial delineation. It has always been a policy goal of Serbia since it overthrew Turkish rule to expand it's boundaries to include the "western territories". This policy is most visible in the platform of groups like the Black Hand, the negotiations for the spoils of war after WW1 and the lead up to the first Yugoslavia. It was also a source of the tension with Austria Hungary that had annexed BiH. This policy is captured by various documents from Ilija Garašanin's Načertanije (1844)) to the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and the plans differed ranging from Milosevic's plan of utilising the guise of ensuring "Yugoslav's territorial integrity" to the more transparent plans of Draskovic and Seselj with the notion of a Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag border. Even the indictment of the ICTY against Milan Babic [[2]] talks of a joint criminal enterprise was the permanent forcible removal of the majority of the Croat and other non-Serb population from approximately one-third of the territory of the Republic of Croatia ("Croatia"), in order to make them part of a new Serb-dominated state. I think there should be a reference to the policy goal of "Uniting all Serbs in one State". iruka 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of Memorandum

I agree the memorandum captured the thinking of the Serb political elite at the time and that is why it is important to mention it. It is this notion of persecution and disparate concepts of each others states captured in the document that underlied the conflict. The inflammatory language was merely a means to an end.

I also don't see how the Zion Protocols is related which is a hoax and is essentially anti-semitic. The Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts actually exists and is not Serbophobic - but it is rather isolationist, ethnocentric in it's assesments, and almost paranoid in the manner it ascribes political motives and causality to certain statistics. As such, the memorandum was not open to abuse, but helped create a framework for funnelling grievances (imagined and real) and propagating such abuse. It did this by promoting a victim complex among Serbs, and demonising the Croats (by ascribing unfavourble demographic changes as a a sophisticated and quite effective policy of assimilation) and labelling Kosovar Albanian politics as chauvanistic. Finally it makes many references to how many Serbs live outside of Serbia proper (why? to what end?) and concludes the need to have decisively implemented reform of the entire governmental structure and social organization of the Yugoslav community of nations. I think there should be some reference, if not to the memorandum, then to the prevaling political paradim dominating the Serb elites. iruka 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You're addressing a series of fairly complex questions. Some of those are covered in this article; others are in Slobodan Milošević, Yugoslav wars, Greater Serbia and Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (somewhat oddly, Greater Serbia contains more info about Memorandum than the last article, so perhaps those should be backmerged). Not all are covered in satisfactory manner, I agree. But I still think that the intro of this article is not the place for such elaboration; many aspects of it are already covered (while some tweaking is called for, like "Uniting all Serbs in one State" policy you refer to). Look, what if the intro sounded like:
...the war was caused by the Croatian attempt at secession from Yugoslavia and outlawing all Croatian Serbs' constitutional rights. The Croatian politicians attempted to revive the spirit of the nazi-puppet Independent State of Croatia, stating that it was the "expression of thousand-years wishes of Croatian people"<ref Tuđman's speech>, which was profoundly feared by Serbs, who were mass-executed in concentration camps like Jasenovac during World War II.
(I'm just hypothesizing, I don't think it should be in the intro). Oh, I got an idea... checking... yes, something very similar to that, of course, is in sr wiki article. Something similar to your version is, of course as well, in hr wiki article. Let's keep it NPOV as possible and stick to the facts, OK? Duja► 13:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand your example but I think it lacks relevance to the changes I propose and is somewhat of a red herring because what I am advocating shouldn't be construed as POV. How is it POV to state that the underlying tension is over overlapping concepts of territorial delineation? - this is backed up by policy documents(nacrtanje etc), court decisons (ICTY indictments), speeches explicitly outlining policy goals (Vuk Draskovic, Tomislav Nikolic, Vojislav Seslj) with it possible for the roles of the individuals giving these speeches to be cross-referenced to where they sat in the 'food chain' at the time - all things that can be scrutinised.
The notions you have given in your example on the other hand, involves an interpretation of the constitution, an assumption of the Croat government's policy goals and imputing it's motives, and selective use of history.
As the article stands, the conflict is reduced to a battle between those wanting to preserve the federal state versus a region that wants to seccede. This should be changed to reflect that the federation disintegrated because of competing republic interests (and the loss of balance between unitarists and federalists which were really proxies for the autonomy vs united serb state positions) with differing concepts of delineation leading to conflict.
Supporting this notion is the federal nature of SFRJ, the history of Croatia as a crown land, the conclusions of the bandinter commission. The fact that only Montenegro was willing to stay in a modified union with Serbia (with Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, BiH the republics that succeded and the SR Serbia autonomous province of Kosovo also secceding) also signifies the fear of Serbian dominance in any modified union without the federal framework of the then defunct SFRJ.
Thus I propose that in the intro be reworded to state that the the Serbs did not want to stay in an newly independent Croatia. There should also be mention of the United Serb States idea being the dominant political paradigm in neighbouring SR Serbia which would require a redrawing of republican boundaries and that it was a platform that was adopted by Croatian Serb institutions as a result of pro-Milosevic leader being installed. (akin to the installation of Boban in Herceg-Bosnia). Do you consider this NPOV/POV and why? iruka 01:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You're slightly wrong - it depends. Not all of Croatia wanted to secede, a large portion of its population didn't want to. Also, Macedonia's original desire wasn't to secede either (it generally supported Milosevic), while Montenegro's original desire was independence, for example. Also, the factual notion of Bosnia and Herzegovina's secession could also be easily discussed - constitutionally, the referendum for independence failed, and a very large of the Bosnian populace didn't want independence of the Republic. I also see absolutely no visible relevance of Nacertanije with the 1991-1995 Croatian War of Independence :D. Also, even though Vuk Draskovic himself was/could be one of those persons like Seselj, Moljevic or Jovic, he surely does not belong to the same category. Presenting "Kosovo seceding" makes the way like everyone was running from Belgrade - but they weren't. The Croats of Herzeg-Bosnia wanted their own country away from Sarajevo, so did the Serbs. The Croatian Serbs wanted to be free of Zagreb. The Bosnian western Muslims opposed the Bosniac extremist authorities in Sarajevo. The Albanians of Macedonia didn't want to be in Skopje... other notions are there - Sanjak from Podgorica/Belgrade... it's all separatism caused by the disappearing of Tito. "United Serb States" would be Original research and the key fact is that Serbs wanted to stay in Yugoslavia, and not stay in Croatia. --PaxEquilibrium 17:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You are using are few weasal words there aren't you? ;) Re Croatian independence, of course not all (implying 100%) will be in favour. And a large portion of the population - what does this mean? 20% 30%. If we look at the statistics then we will know that 83.56 percent of the electorate had taken part in the referendum and out of that number 94.17 percent were in favour of a sovereign and independent Croatia [[3]]. Considering the number of areas that were blockaded by local Serb militias & JNA preventing affected Serbs & Croats from voting (covering roughly 14% of the population), this is almost close to a full turnout. What is also significant is that from the precentages, we know alot Serbs in Croatian cities not under the JNA'S control would have voted for independence as well. Thus we have the statistic that approx 94% of those that voted, voted for independence translating into 79% of eligible voters voting for independence - a resounding result by any benchmark - stronger than the 55% in Montenegro and 66% in BiH.
Note also, in most of the referendums for the republics and autonomous provinces - Croatia, BiH, Montenegro, Kosovo, it is the Serb minority that is the dominant group that voted against independence. This is fundamental to the notion of the problem that x million Serbs live outside Serbia representing the fragmentation of the Serb nation (as per the memorandum) which in turn leads to the solution of uniting Serbs in one state. iruka 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Weasel words? Where? Please point out. Fifteen percent opposing might be a small percentage, but not so for a population territorially living on thirty percent of the whole state. And was I denying that the Croatian independence referendum failed? No. I said that the referendum for independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina failed (and thus, to my opinion, Serbia, Montenegro & BH could've really kept a little Yugoslavia themselves), but due to declared dissolution of SFRY after one half had already seceded, it became "illegally & unconstitutionally" independent. It was below 66% in BH.
Why are you generalizing about the Serbs. Actually, what's the point of that notion in the first place? --PaxEquilibrium 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Vis a vie Draskovic, he may or may not be in the same category (on economic/social issues) as the other politicians named, but on the issue of expanding Serbia's borders westward to incorporate BiH & most of Croatia, his positions were virtually the same as Seselj, Milosevic et al. His Serbian Renewal Party, like the Serbian Radicals etc had it's own militia. Refer to the following ICTY evidence which covers not just Draskovic's role but includes an analysis of Moljevic's and Nedic's plans from 1941 for a Greater Serbia and Jovan Raskovic's (leader of Croatian Serbs) support for such plans, as well as analysis of different political parties and their geographical distribution - [[4]] iruka 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It is true that he dispatched units to fight, but did they go for an evil cause? No. They went to defend Serb civilians from ethnic cleansing and discrimination. Fighting for one's rights can hardly be called mean. The Democratic Party of Serbia abandoned the Democratic Party plainly because it was for an establishment of a different Yugoslav, possibly Serb-dominated state (and of course, even it dispatched volunteers). The DSS leader is the today's Premier of Serbia (Vojislav Kostunica). Compare his speech in eastern Republika Srpska 1992 alluding to a Greater Serbian state to Stjepan Mesic's fascist speeches from 1991. It would be foolish not to claim that the other peoples (most notably Croats) have had similar sympathies (Herzeg-Bosnian Croats, "Greater Croatia"). And lastly, even you'll agree to this: in 1991, no one expected that there will be a time (like after June of 2006) that all republics of Yugoslavia would be independent countries - back to Vlk - the only actually bad thing that I see in him is that he said to the international media in the late 1990s that that no organized genocide was being committed against the Albanians (despite the possibility that he perhaps might've been even correct at that one) - he indeed stated subsequently after Milosevic's fall that atrocities were committed against the Albanians. All in all, Vuk Draskovic was compared to Slobodan Milosevic, a symbol of democracy and the leader of the opposition, and as such - despite the fact that he himself is a Serbian (positive?) nationalist - I think that he cannot be tagged simply "bad". Stipe, the President of Croatia, could've been/could be stiled as ultra-nationalist/racist even, as he even now alluded to a Greater Croat state. Note that Stipe I greatly admire (in many ways). The (ruling) Croatian Democratic Union might be styled as an ultra-nationalist and is quite possibly an irredentist one - imagine if the Socialist Party of Serbia and the Serbian Radical Party returned to power in Serbia - that would be (almost) the same. --PaxEquilibrium 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The HDZ was initally a movement, a coalition of different factions. It was nationalist b/c it need to be for the Republic to survive the war & mobilise relevant resources to counter the threat from Serbia. Now that the war is over & indpendence assured, the HDZ has become a regular political party, of the Christian Democrat/ Conservative persuasion, with it's headline policy EU Integration and macroeconomic management (actually not too bad in the later). Compare this to the Radicals & their nationalist campaigns centred on Kosovo. Your analogy is thus an erroneous one as you are comparing apples and oranges.
When did Mesic make a fascist speech? You are not referring to one where he refers to Croatia winning twice - one with recognition of the NDH, & then again with the victory of the anti-fascists and the formation of SR Croatia. All he is referring to it global dipplomatic recognition from both Axis & Allies for disparate iterations of the Croat state @ the start & end of WW2. Certainly a novel interpretation if you see that as fascist - I think you maybe seeing things which aren't there. Mesic is the anti-thesis of a nationalist - he has appeared @ the ICTY as a witness; retired nationalist generals; reciprocated Marovic?'s apology in his historic state visit to Serbia (note he made the effort to visit Serbia to break the ice). If anything, Mesic is pro-Serb minority and an internationalist, with a strong Partisan heritage. iruka 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The smaller seccessionist/autonomist movements did exist, but you miss the overall picture. That is, with Slovenia and Croatia leaving the now defunct federation, the other republics like Macedonia and BiH (backed by an absolute majority of the voting population) chose not to stay in a revised union with Serbia. And those seccessionist/autonomist movements like Herceg Bosnia, Fikret Abdic's Western Bosnia, Macedonia's Albanians did not envisage "staying in Yugoslavia" but either going alone, existing as an autonomous entity within BiH or joining compatriots in Croatia and Albania respectively. It should also be remembered that most of these movements had two or more streams of thought ranging from militant seccession to autonomy within the state structure. iruka 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"Defunct"? The Federation became defunct only after Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia seceded. Even as a "rump" one, it was very much functioning. I already said that the referendum in BH failed. What do you mean by "revised". And it was not choice "with Serbia", but "together". It's not a union of "Serbia and the rest", but of six equal constituent republics. --PaxEquilibrium 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The federation became defunct as soon as Milosevic usurped the autonomy of Vojvodina & Kosovo, deadlocking federal institutions that ceased to function. Also raiding the federal treasury also didn't help, given Markovac's success in stabilising inflation.
By what criteria did the BH referendum failed - the turnout in the referendum was 64-67% and the vote was 99.43% in favor of independence. iruka 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
As for United Serb States being original research, consider the following reputable media and international criminal court sources:
  • From Institute for War & Peace Reporting - Tieger also presented Krajisnik with an interview that he gave to the Srpsko Oslobodjenje newspaper during the war, in which he spoke of a future in which united Serb states would have Belgrade as their capital. [[5]]
  • Article by Vreme News Digest the war option had priority and the dream of the "United Serb States" was within reach, so that all sufferings could be borne and all means justified. None asked why Serbs across the Drina River were fighting and leaving their homes in order to come to Serbia [[6]] & It was thus made clear to disoriented people of Krajina that the official Belgrade does not intend to abandon the concept of the United Serb States [[7]]
The term Greater Serbia which alludes to the same result of uniting Serbs in one country is covered in the following media -
  • pbs [[8]]
  • BBC (Djukanovic speech) [[9]] & (Seselj speech) [[10]] & (Nikolic statement) [[11]] & (Yugoslavia timeline) [[12]]
  • IWPR [[13]]
From the ICTY [[14]], transcript from ICTY session discussing whether Greater Serbia implies ethnic cleansing [[15]], & The Reports of Mr Mazowiecki give a clear account of the policy of the so-called "ethnic cleansing" consistently employed by the FRY for the purpose of creating a Greater Serbia by the forceful incorporation of the parts of territory of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina into a Greater Serbia. For instance, his third Report of November 1992 further describes the methods used for "ethnic cleansing" and states: "This lends credence to the fear that the ultimate goal may be to incorporate Serbian-occupied areas of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina into a ‘Greater Serbia’." (UN Doc. A/47/666, para. 13.) [[16]]. iruka 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Still, there's no plan for a country called "United Serb states" (alluding to the United States of America). --PaxEquilibrium 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Whatever the tag - Greater Serbia, United Serb States, "Preserving Yugoslavia" - it all amounted to the same outcome -> territorial expansion of the Socialist Republic of Serbia. iruka 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Serbs wanting to stay in Yugoslavia, this is disingenuoous because it was only Serbs that wanted to "stay in Yugoslavia" without defining what that Yugoslavia meant and how it had changed. The statement does not reflect that the underlying policy objective was to unite Serbs in one state. Note also, that Yugoslavia ceased to exist i.e. the federation that was SFRJ no longer functioned (as indicated by the EU's Bandinter commission; by Mesic's non-election as the President of the presidency of Yugoslavia; and the revoking of autonomy of Vojvodina and Kosovo) and the Yugoslavia that the Serbs wanted to stay in was in effect an enlarged Serb state, a fact acknowledged in the media sources supplied, by the ICTY, and Serb politicians such as Seselj, Draskovic et al. This is not in question - what differs is the legitimacy of such a political venture and the reasons for it's inception. iruka 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That's something like words-tricking. :) There was no need to create a Serb unified state, ("Greater Serbia"), because such a state already existed - SFRY was this "Greater Serbia". The Croatian Serbs wanted to remain in this state, rather than "transfer" to a newly-created one (an independent Republic of Croatia). --PaxEquilibrium 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting view & would be supported by some. But there is one fallacy - Yugoslavia could not be a Greater Serbia b/c it was a federation of autonomous republics & the Croatian Serbs were part of the Croatian republic, just as the had been part of the NDH, the Banovina Hrvatska before it & the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia/Triune kingdom before that. The socialist republics had there own symbols, parliaments, and had considerable sway over economic management.
There certainly was a unitarist faction (nominally Serbian), that intially was led by Rankovic. Milosevic was just the latest in a line of unsuccessful unitarists that wanted to rollback the federal foundation of the state. Why unsuccessful, b/c w/o the federal model, no nation wanted to be in a joint state with Serbia b/c of it's Greater Serbia politics - as it was poignantly demonstarted with the republics voting with their feet - first Slovenia, Croatia, then BiH, Macedonia, then CG then finally the quasi-republic Kosovo. iruka 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 700,000?

The article has over 700,000 displaced by 1991 on the Croatian side. This seems somewhat overestimating. As far as I recall over 200,000 Croats had to flee and were subject to brutal ethnic cleansing in 1991-1992 according to most sources (including the UN). The Croatian overestimate (I believe mainly because of nationalism) is over half a million, tops 550,000; but that had been refuted because it counted all citizens of Croatia displaced and it counted refugees that came to Croatia (mostly from BH). After all that 700,000 seems a bit... odd; as far as I remember the Serbian nationalistic overestimate was - exactly that (for Serbs ethnically cleansed) - but considering that the Croatian highest claim is 500,000-550,000 - this breaches the roof. No offense intended to the victims, I just think that we should have sources - as the source given bears no reference to this figure at all. --PaxEquilibrium 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete it. Reference is broken. I guess I added the number (since I created the infobox) and I really can't remember where I got that number from and why I put this link as source. Sorry for inconvenience. --Dijxtra 18:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Eeh.. I'm not sure I'm going to tag it false since you're the one who added it... --PaxEquilibrium 22:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Man, you really should be WP:BOLDer. --Dijxtra 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I will, when it's needed to. --PaxEquilibrium 13:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war

Look Kubura, you may have some points but the methods you emply are unacceptable. You're blindly reverting to an old version while many things are changed in the meantime, and do too much collateral damage. As much as the previous insistence on the term "Krajina Serbs" (which I cleaned up) is unacceptable, so is your insistence on "rebel Serbs". The figure of 700,000 refugees is disputed and dismissed right above in this talk. If you want to contest that, you're welcome, but articles have talk pages to discuss changes. Plus, your edit summaries are misleading: "(Sources removed? "Unsuccesful operation"?)" for a total revert. Duja► 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It'll take more than few lines to put all reasons into a summary.
Medak Pocket is an "unsuccesful operation"? Really? Or someone here can't live with the defeat?
Removing of sources that I put there? I won't tolerate that.
Proper word is "rebelled Serbs". "Krajina Serbs"? No. Krajina is a name of bunch of Croatian areas (Imotska, Cetinska, Sinjska, Drniška, Vrgoračka...). Rebel Serb-controlled areas encompassed more regions of Croatia, not only one. Kubura 10:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Or someone here can't live with defeat"? Thanks for an ad hominem attack.
I don't care whether Operation Medak pocket is successful or not, but it did damage to Croatia's reputation. If you disagree with the assessment, rephrase or remove. That doesn't mean you should revert entire article.
Removing on which sources? If you mean this one, it doesn't contain the number (anymore), and it was apparently malformed, not pointing to any specific page. If you take a look at discussion above, you'll see it's dismissed.
The proper word is not "rebelled Serbs", as it was not "Krajina Serbs" either, which I cleared up but you reverted anyway. Duja► 10:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The official Croatian expression is "rebelled Serbs". Kubura 10:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Successful or not? Well, to shorten: who gives a damn about the opinion of the rest of the world, when you've liberated your country and beaten your enemy. At least, that should be clear to you.
After the Operation Medak pocket, Gospić was relieved from pressure, and there weren't artillery attacks as it was before the Operation. And that's a lot. Simple, isn't it? Kubura 16:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, Wikipedia gives a damn about the opinion of the rest of the world, rather than The Truth. "The threshold is verifiability, not truth", but you've probably heard that litany before. Duja► 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If it was an usuccessful operation, we, Croats, wouldn't boast about it. Da nije uspila, ne bismo se hvalili. Kubura 10:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

This should be referenced:

Also the logistical support from Serbia and Yugoslav Army was building up during this period.Organization of Guerilla force was led by Petar Gracanin as experianced II World War General and later the KOS(Army Contra Espionage Organization)general.

Duja► 13:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology of for the war

Why is the war in Croatia titled "Croatian war of independence"? I just find the term to be somewhat misleading, especially considering the fact that the war in Slovenia only lasted for 10 day and that Macedonia left the federation without any response from the JNA, while the Croatian war raged for months into 1992, or '95. Pluse for me, it's has too much of an American connotation. It gives the impression that the whole conflict started, or revolved around the issue of Croatia's constitutional right in theory, (as enshrined in the 1974 SFRJ constituion) to withdraw from the Yugoslav federation. Does the Serbs' territorial pretentions towards Croatia, or "uniting all Serbs into one state" depending one one's POV another factor to be considered? I propose for a NPOV terminology of either "Croatian war", or "Serb-Croat war" that i consider to be more accurate terms that better reflect how the conflict started, what it was all about etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.132.167.83 (talk • contribs).

Yes, we were there before (and then some) -- check out the archive link at the top. Basically, it was raised before in a good faith, but then the roof collapsed after partisan opinions from both sides; result: no consensus. I'm afraid that the history would repeat if the issue is raised again. Duja► 11:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homeland war

Why isn't this article called Homeland War, which is its REAL name? The current name is wrong and misleading. I trying to do/edit it myself, but somehow cant do it. --CroDome 13:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

because only Croats call it by that name. So it is real, but only among Croats. + read WP:NPOV --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commented part

Duja, all, please read.
I've put one unsufficiently defined part into comment, because it wasn't completely correct. Some descriptions aren't in English, but in Croatian. I know about Wiki policy, but this is the only way to present to "interested persons" what I've wanted to say.
Some sections are hard to translate, because of specific historical situations. "Mitinzi Srba i Crnogoraca sa Kosova" don't have good translation with "meetings...", etc..
Na engleskom se možemo objašnjavat i pripucavat 20 dana na 20 strana, nitko neće shvatit. Nićemo se "nać". Ovako, na hrvatskom će ić puno brže. Kubura 10:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

mitinzi Srba i Crnogoraca, s Kosova, demonstracije diljem Srbije, traži se minjanje rukovodstava i dovođenje tada nepoznatog Miloševića
Slobodan dolazi na vlast
mitinzi Srba i Crnogoraca s Kosova, sa ikonografijama koja je bivala sve drskija - počelo se nekažnjeno mahat sa znakovljem koje bi se u ondašnjem sustavu smatralo ekstremnije nacionalističkin i kažnjivin - nacionalni znakovi bez zvizde, slike Karađorđevića, klicanja Rankoviću (o ovome je pisao i Tijanić još onda ), sve otvorenije kritizirat Tita - za isto znakovlje bez socij. oznaka je milicija poj. Hrvatima u to isto vrime doslovno izbila bubrige, primlaćivanja su bila obvezna, jogurt-revolucija u Vojvodini, tek nakon nekoliko godina dolazi do izbora u Hrvatskoj i otvorene nacionalističke retorike
Borisav Jović se čak pritia (bilo je na TV-u) da bi tribalo zabranit te pokušaje izbora, odnosno proglasit ništavnim slobodne izbore u Hrvatskoj

moved by Duja► 14:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I was about to say that those late 1990 events are not sufficiently covered in wikipedia, as you said; hovewer, much to my surprise, I discovered the existence of fairly extensive Breakup of Yugoslavia article, but it's barely wikilinked. I'd like to keep the articles of individual wars more succinct and of narrower scope, and the events preceding it described more thoroughly there. I'd like to move most of the debate about those events there, and add that article to several navigation templates, making it in fact part of {{History of Croatia}} and {{History of Serbia}} series. Duja► 15:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

youre gay












lols

[edit] HEY WANKOV

`AW2Qb —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benjaminc1234 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/o/Talk%7ECroatian_War_of_Independence_f985.html"