Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Croatia Portal Republic of Serbian Krajina is part of WikiProject Croatia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the nation of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	Serbia Portal Republic of Serbian Krajina is part of the WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents 1 Stuff from 24.70.95.203 2 wifes of Croat husbands 3 International recognition 4 Article title 5 WWII stuff 6 Figures Census 1991 7 Ethnic map 8 old Krajina rights stuff 9 map 10 Igor's latest edit... 11 quotes or explication 12 western slavonia etc 13 soldier percentage in 1995 14 Newest version of the article 15 maps 16 Many, many factual and historical inaccuracies 17 Pijade's ideas 18 Statement from 147.91.1.45 19 context 20 == Frontier == 21 Original Krajina 21.1 Naming "RSK" 22 Republic of Serbian Krajina is a misnomer 23 Recent changes 24 Map discussion 25 Outsider's opinion 26 Neutrality of "Creation" section 27 Unviability 28 ICTY 29 Fraudulent Map 30 RSK Towns Category 31 Tree log-revolution. 32 deletion 33 Required sources 33.1 Rebelled Serbs 33.2 Organised evacuation 33.3 Terrorist activities 34 Tagging of this article 35 Croatian sources and WP:NPOV 35.1 Atmosphere of fear 35.2 Fear, terror, terrorism 35.3 Organized evacuation 36 Badinter Arbitration Committee 37 Non-Serbs as victims 38 Republic of Serb Krajina (RSK) dates (December 19th, 1991 - January 15th, 1998) 39 Input needed 40 Deleting Serbian POV 41 Wikiprojects 42 Z4 43 Missing images

[edit] Stuff from 24.70.95.203

I have no idea where the user from 24.70.95.203 got those ideas about legal takeovers and still existing areas of Krajina and whatever. Maybe they refer to non-military takeovers and places with Serb majority, respectively? Or maybe it's just very bad English? Either way, that was really appalling... hopefully we won't have another pseudo-nationalist edit war here... --Shallot 23:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah, it's just a lot of rumours. That's fairly okay, as long as they're marked as such. --Shallot

[edit] wifes of Croat husbands

User 24.70.95.203 wrote that (only) wifes of Croat husbands returned to Krajina. Well, that's just plain wrong. I happen to have discussed this with someone on Usenet and I googled for the exact numbers, and here's the post: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=slrnbtovte.jb3.jrodin%40jagor.srce.hr

Translation of the relevant paragraph into English:

[In Croatia], in the following year the building of the last ~5,000 houses for Serbian refugees will be completed (the deadline is August 2004). According to the records of the ministry of rebuilding, 100,861 refugee of Serb nationality has returned (together with 208,505 refugees of non-Serb nationality, into around 23,000 objects rebuilt up to 2003, and 8,000 rebuilt up to the end of 2003), while another 13,547 people remains in Serbia and Bosnia, and 3,334 people in the Danubian region that still don't have the preconditions to return. So, 85.6% of cases have been resolved, and the rest will be within a year's time. Financing method is in a small part directly from the state budget, and the rest is mostly from foreign loans. (Which we will, I assume, also pay back.)

So basically if those numbers are wrong, then either the government is faking those registrations, or the people are faking them. I figure there's a little bit of both (if nothing else, because of the rules of statistical probability), but in general the refugee return is indeed happenning. --Shallot 08:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I saw on TV now that the number of Serbs returnees increased to around 115,000, with around 13,000 requests pending. There's also a widely recognized issue of people having their property returned but not actually returning, for whatever reason. The Serbian government minister reported around 140,000 refugees there (NB: this includes both BH and HR). So anyway, the process is slowly progressing, we definitely don't need random anonymous rants, that doesn't help at all... --Joy [shallot] 18:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International recognition

Don't know very much about the Balkans, but I'm almost positive that China didn't ever extend diplomatic recognition to Krajina. China is extremely reluctant to extend diplomatic relations to secession states, lest people get ideas about Taiwan.

Roadrunner 04:50, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The same could be probably said for Russia (Chechnya) and Greece (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus). Could someone please double-check this official recognition thing? --Romanm 08:39, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Russia ever recognised Srpska Krajina. And can any EU member (say, Greece) extend diplomatic recognition to a country that is not recognised as such by the EU? apoivre 19:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Members of the EU can recognise anyone they want to. Or not. The EU simply has no power over this. 145.253.108.22 13:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, probably none of them actually officially recognized, they might have merely condoned the course of events that led to its establishment. I'll rephrase it. --Joy [shallot] 11:27, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

S=The Republic of Serb Krajina had recieved more international recognizations when it was created then Croatia (Russia (Soviet Union until recently), Germany, Austria, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Italy, Macedonia.. P.S. I'm not completly sure that I've listed the correct ones, but that's because I saw it a long time ago. (On the TV. The Europe convection of 1991) but I am positive that there were a lot more then the ones that recogniyed Croatia at that time.

[edit] Article title

I've moved this to the Serbian translation, because it has about double the number of Google hits, and is much more commonly used. It's in the same boat as Republika Srpska in Bosnia, and the country of Cote D'Ivoire. Ambi 04:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It has about double number of hits when searched in any language![1] But there is practically the same number of hits when searched in English[2], [3]. Add to that almost as many results of "Republic of Serb Krajina"[4]. So, I'm moving this page back. Nikola 10:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• shrugs* Whatever. Ambi 11:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On 15:03, 26 June 2006, User:Estavisti moved Republic of Serbian Krajina to Republic of Serb Krajina, with the log message Serbian relates to Serbia. Here the correct form is Serb

I beg to differ. "Serbian" does not map only to "srbijanski", it also maps to "srpski". Yes, it's not particularly logical, but it's like that. --Joy [shallot] 13:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's true that many people use Serb/Serbian wrongly, but that doesn't make their usage correct. --estavisti 17:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of what we might consider "correct" usage; after all, most people still call Myanmar Burma, despite what that country's government would consider "correct". The unarguable fact is that "Republic of Serbian Krajina" is the overwhelmingly the most prevalent form in English (18,000 Google results versus only 672 for "Republic of Serb Krajina"). On that basis, I'm moving it back to the former name. -- ChrisO 19:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWII stuff

An anonymous user previously inserted: Following World War II, Partisan leaders made it part of the republic of Croatia, though the map on their original declaration showed it as being part of Serbia. A rough draft of this declaration showed it as being part of a separate republic.

An analogous thing was inserted in Prevlaka Peninsula, too. I left it in, but I don't think I've ever heard of any such thing. A (non-vague) reference would be appreciated. --Joy [shallot] 11:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Figures Census 1991

May i draw your attention to the german version of this article: After very long discussions we finally found a quite reliable source for the number of residents in the former RSK. The ICTY indictment against Slobodan Milosevic (see HERE), Section 69, contains information about these figures, so we decided to put them in. This is a format you could use, if you want (sorry for my bad english, just use it as a "template" and correct my spelling mistakes...):

Results of the 1991 census:

During spring 1991 lived 555.540 people in the region of the later proclaimed Republic of Serbian Krajina, 331.619 (59,7%) Serbs, 168.026 (30,2%) Croats and 55.895 (10,1%) other nationalities. The allocation of the population in the different parts of the RSK was as follows:

--Spacecaptain 09:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Joy [shallot] 11:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic map

I'll also note that the ethnic map (Image:Krajina ethnic map.jpg) is somewhat crude and from some analyzing of eastern Slavonian villages (I come from Vinkovci and have always had an interest in my old county's maps), it seems like it is slightly tilted towards a pro-Serbian stance. AFAICT it completely omits notable Croatian majorities or at least notable minorities in the vicinity of Tordinci, Antin, Stari Jankovci, Slakovci, Nijemci, Apševci, Lipovac, Ilača, ... Not to mention villages like Marinci or Novi Jankovci which didn't have clear majorities (IIRC). --Joy [shallot] 11:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be wise for you to put on your spectacles. The county (opstina) of Vinkovci is divided into 40 settlements (naselja) including the city of Vinkovci itself. This map merely colours each settlement's administrative region (situation from SFRY pre-war) the color of its respective ethnic majority. When no absolute (50%+1) majority could be found the village territory would be colored in purple. In the case of the county of Vinkovci the following were colored in blue: Gaboš, Karadžićevo, Markušica, Mirkovci, Mlaka Antinska, Orolik, Ostrovo, Podrinje, Sremske Laze, Šidski Banovci, Vinkovački Banovci. --Igor 8:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Apparently one of us doesn't orient oneself on the map properly. What about those that I mentioned above? How is Antinska Mlaka blue if Antin is supposed to be red or at least purple? And what about Korođ, Laslovo and Ernestinovo (last two in the old Osijek municipality) which had notable Magyar population and I'm almost sure that they didn't have >50% Serb majority so would have to be purple? It's not like I'm disputing Serb majority in Bršadin, Trpinja, Pačetin, Bobota, Vera, Negoslavci, Borovo Selo, ... Blech. I'm really going to have to go back home and dust off my old maps with each village's census percentages... --Joy [shallot]

This map originates from www.srpskapolitika.com (which is probably not a very neutral source of information) and was subject of discussion in german wikipedia too. But as there is no other map of this kind available yet and the discrepancies were considered to be minor, we did not remove it. --Spacecaptain 11:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)11:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What discrepancies precisely? --Igor 8:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You must notice how indicative it is that there are little blue patches all over central Slavonia or Bilogora, while such little red patches don't appear in places I've named. Given the name of the site I see completely why there was incentive for the author to do this... *sigh* --Joy [shallot]

Do you have a map of settlements (naselja) of the 1981 county (opstina) of Vinkovci so that we can compare? You are aware that the HDZ régime of Franjo Tudjman changed the whole administrative system in 1991 just before or after independence (in order to dilute the Serbs settlements). Maybe that is what is confusing you and inducing you into an erroneous conclusion about the map being pro-Serbian? --Igor 8:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh and what is this massive evil change that you're talking about? The new municipalities could not have "diluted the Serb settlements", the census methodology is orthogonal to that. Also, I can't exactly see how grouping into new, smaller municipalities affected minority rights more adversely than the old ones. For example, in the old municipality of Vukovar the Serbs were in a plurality, a minority in the old Vinkovci municipality, and negligible in number in the Zupanja municipality; whereas, in the new Vukovar-Srijem county (created by combining the old Vukovar+Vinkovci+Zupanja municipalities) the Serbs are a minority. At one hand, they lost a plurality in one area, but at the other hand, their votes in the county council influence a larger area. And they have new, smaller municipalities which allow them to be in a majority where they were previously in a plurality. --Joy [shallot] 01:10, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not from croatia and therefore have no idea of the correct allocation of the patches. If you could send me a "redesigned" map, i would include it in the german article as well. Or if you don't like to "paint" so much, just send me a rough draft, i will do the "artwork" then... --Spacecaptain 11:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I'm not blaming you for this. I know it all came from the same little propaganda headquarters :) I went back and checked Image:EthCleanCroatia.JPG and found that it has the same 1991 part. Oh well. Been there, done that. --Joy [shallot] 11:40, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The ethnic map is great, but it does not say what ethnicity does each colour represents. It should at least be written at [Image:Krajina ethnic map.jpg] Bogdan | Talk 11:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Blue is Serbs, pale red is Croats, green is Muslims (modern Bosniaks) and in Vojvodina Magyars, ... Heh. I guess to someone used to this kind of discourse (cf. the past controversial ethnic maps) everything's clear, but for outsiders it's not... --Joy [shallot] 11:25, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:Dear Sirs, may I show you another ethnical map. It seems not to be from a serbian site.cmap. :http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/yugoslav.jpg

That simply describes majority by county (opstina), same thing, only not as precise as the given map. --Igor 8:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at this very interesting collection of old maps .http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_balkans.html It seems that serbia (for 500 years as a part of turkish empire) was through the centuries in the "far east" of croatia.

The creation of the so called "RSK" was a illegal act of terrorism. 217.187.61.195 14:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the time when the oluja started, krajina and bosnian serbs just tryed to occupy the bosnian muslim enclave of Bihac. They would have succeed, (and remember Srebrenica) without the oluja. In Bihac have lived at that time about 100.000 people.

[edit] old Krajina rights stuff

I also wasn't able to easily confirm the statements:

The Serbs who immigrated in the region liberated it from the Ottomans in 1659, and agreed to join the Austrian Empire in 1669, because the Austrians offered them the status of a crown land, greater autonomy and special rights.

A Google search shows one page[5] that has:

In the 17th century, a military government was formed in the Austrian city of Graz. Its primary task was to organize the settlement of Serbs, who would later turn into the Austrian defense shield. In that way, the whole of Krajina was turned into a Serbian province. The Austrian Emperor solemnly confirmed the privileges given to Serbs on many occasions. He did it for the first time on September 5, 1538, and again on March 8, 1659. This, then, was the way in which the military border in Krajina came into being.

It seems rather hyperbolic to talk about these events this way... but then, that is to be expected from something written so obviously like a propaganda pamphlet. I could find no other page that talked about these supposed 1538 and 1659 grants, including in specific searches on srpska-mreza.com, suc.org and rastko.org.yu. Just for reference, in 1538 the said Austrian emperor was Ferdinand I, while in 1659 it was Leopold I. --Joy [shallot] 15:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, the chronology at de:Türkenkriege doesn't mention a war with the Turks in 1659 so presuming it's complete, it's unclear to me how this "[liberation] from the Ottomans" could have happened without a war (between the Austrians and the Turks). --Joy [shallot]

Serbs were for more than 500 years a part of the turkish empire. So isnt´t it logical that serbs were fightig together with turks in the turkish army?217.187.61.195 15:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The establishment of Vojna granica (Militaergrentze) had had nothing to do with Orthodox Vlachs. This Serbian agitprop junk is simply imbecile. http://www.geohistory.com/GeoHistory/GHMaps/GeoWorld/NCroatia.html http://www.genealogy.net/privat/flacker/military.htm http://www.hr/hrvatska/WAR/causes.html For literature: Valentić, Moačanin, Roksandić, Buczynski,..http://www.geocities.com/hlebine/Radovi/Povijest/Rad_1-29/Rad_1-29a/rad_1-29a.html Mir Harven 16:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, I am not an expert, but maybe they refer to the Battle of Mohács (actually there were 2 battles) which took place in 1687 (see german version of de:Mohács). --Spacecaptain 10:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) Addendum: The english article only refers to the first Battle of Mohacs, which resulted in an Ottoman victory. In 1687 (the second Battle of Mohacs) the Austrians won. --Spacecaptain 11:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've removed this, then. I did leave the notion of some special rights because I recall vaguely from history classes that settlers were given some land rights or something like that. Can't remember the details. --Joy [shallot] 12:12, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] map

I've just fixed up Image:RSK.png to be far more pertinent and accurate. Spacecaptain, if you're watching, I noticed some disturbances on the German version of the article, it no longer includes the original image, what's going on there? --Joy [shallot] 11:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The original source of this map was considered to be quite biased so we took off the map and are working on a new version where we'll put in all available, neutral figures we can get. I'll keep you informed about the progress we make. The disturbances mentioned above were the result of a discussion between two very opponent participants fighting about the wording of different parts in the article, it seems that this discussion has ended now. --Spacecaptain 20:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Igor's latest edit...

...is nonsense. You saw that one coming a mile away, didn't you?

Let me try to explicate why, though it will probably fall on deaf ears...

Krajina existed first in the Croatia that was part of SFRY and then after it separated and was internationally recognized, in Croatia. Not in "former Yugoslavia".

The original MF was carved out of the Austrian crownlands that were officially named Croatia and Slavonia. They weren't "deserted crownlands", only parts of their territory was deserted. This shows a pattern of evasion, as if it was never part of Croatia, whereas it clearly was.

These supposed free peasants didn't particularly benefit from it given the military government and the generally conditions. The fact that these people were there not in a wonderland must not be understated.

The MF was disbanded and restored to civil government -- again of Croatia/Slavonia, which is where they originated in the first place.

The party of Pribičević gathered all of the Serbs that the Serbians called "prečani" (those from over (preko) the Drina river). The term "Krajina" cannot be applied to this whole territory.

The claim that Croatia had "paramilitaries" that tried to "disarm Serb policement(sp??)" is just ludicrous. It doesn't take a wizard to conclude that when e.g. when police stations stop following orders from their ministry of the interior it's not the ministry that became the outlaw.

Further, to state that the JNA sided with the Serbs because the Croats "abandoned it" is silly given that the Yugoslav leadership pulled out the Territorial Defense from Croatia in an attempt to avoid ever having to hand over its Croatian units to the new Croatia. Given that Croatia was one of the wealthier republics and as such it funded the creation of the JNA, having to relinquish all of it would be just plain wrong.

The "ethnic cleansing of regions not protected by SAOs" is another red herring. I'm not particularly acquainted with the whole situation in northwestern Slavonia, but I remember that e.g. the village of Voćin was first occupied by Serb forces and the Croats were removed, after which the Croatian forces retook it and the Serbs were removed. With the probable difference being that the Serbs first looted whatever was there and evicted/killed the Croats, and then when the Croatian forces advanced, they picked up whatever they could take and fled claiming "ethnic cleansing".

But this is just interpolation based on previous experience... Granted, there was some ethnic profiling and crime being done by the "Jesenje kiše" paramilitary unit of Tomislav Merčep, the executions on Pakračka poljana and whathaveyou, but that's not the story of all of Bilogora and nortwestern Slavonia...

And what I don't have to check into is the fact that Krajina Serb forces immediately proceeded to bomb the hell out of all the borderline areas that they couldn't manage to occupy, for months. Whatever sympathy anyone might have for e.g. the family of Dušan Zec pretty much pales in comparison with thousands of casualties inflicted by this campaign of (uh-oh, here comes the buzzword) terror.

The removal of information about ICTY and Babić is pure and unadulterated censorship. I don't think there's much reason to elaborate that.

Overall, same old, same old... --Joy [shallot] 15:39, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] quotes or explication

An anonymous user added notes to the effect that the RSK was self-styled and not recognized by anyone much else. I'm wondering if we should use quotes around the bolded initial instance or prepend "self-styled"? What about all other instances of the term in the text (those being both "RSK" and just "Krajina")? --Joy [shallot] 13:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think as long as it's mentioned that it wasn't internationally recognised, that's enough. Using quotes appears as if we're making a judgement. Ambi 13:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quotes are ususlly used for this.

[edit] western slavonia etc

Current text:

Croatian armed forces began attacking those regions trying to force the Serbs to disarm. Finally the Yugoslav People's Army got involved trying to separate the two sides although standing aside most of the time and later siding with the Serbs once most of its Croat top branch deserted it. [...]

What ensued was an ethnic cleansing of Serbs from regions not protected by the SAO's, first in Northwest Slavonia (Bilogora) in Winter of 1991-2. A lot of Serbs forced from their homes came to the RSK while in turn almost the entire Croatian population of the Krajina was expelled.

This is a bit disingenuous.

First off, the notion of "Croatian armed forces" needs to be delineated: there was the Croatian police (the "milicija" or "policija" under the command of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia), and then there were the paramilitary formations which didn't have a single name or central organization, and then there was the "Zbor Narodne Garde" which was something of a legalization of these militias and reorganization under the command of the Ministry of Defense of RH (IIRC).

The process of disarmament was, well, not. The Croats organized public rallies and acquired (illegally) various arms in an effort to barricade the barracks of the Yugoslav People's Army since early 1991 (note that the SAO barricading began in mid 1990). Initially, the conflict was marked by local ruffians (under the sponsorship of the local political activists) sending verbal threats (commonly by phone), destroying property, placing mines under houses and detonating them. Occasionally there were raids of what one would call paramilitary formations on what their leaders would declare a target -- often houses of influential figures among the locals of the other ethnicity. In response to this, people who were harrassed, and their compatriots who witnessed the harrassment, fled.

Note that there were also people who fled because they were influenced by warmongering propaganda (without having had anything done to them or anyone they knew). There was also a practice of exchanging houses between Serbs from Croatia and the Croats from Serbia. (Each of these topics could use more elaboration and correlation with the rest.)

It's rather hard to assess who started the whole thing or who "led" in it -- it was done to the Croats in areas where the SAOs were dominant, and to the Serbs in areas where they were not. The police records, if they survived to this day, should provide some insight as to how many of these incidents happened, in which areas, etc. The censuses should provide more information about the number of people moved. The information I gleaned from some UN page a while ago said that 300K Serbs and 220K Croats were internally displaced in Croatia during the war. I can't find that one right now. Googling found me a page on suc.org that quotes a UN document saying 251K Serbs went to RSK and to Serbia (i.e. not just internally displaced), and Croatian Helsinki Group leader Čičak saying that 280K Serbs were expelled from Croatia. It's not likely that any of these numbers were anything more than approximations.

But anyway, I may have strayed a little bit. On to the next sentence -- the JNA did not have a neutral role because it was an institution responsible to the headquarters of SFRY in Belgrade, and Croatia was prevented from having its legal say in that (per Milošević's obstruction of Mesić's becoming the president of the rotating presidency). The JNA's Territorial Defense was withdrawn from Croatia for some reason, too, and this made it impossible for the Croatian authorities to control this armament (regardless of whether this kind of obstruction was the intent of JNA or not, it's still true and it's true that it wasn't done in other republics).

The winter of 1991-1992 was the period well within the "real" war had started. (For reference, Vukovar's three-month siege ended in late November 1991.) The process of ethnic cleansing or terror or however we want to call it, regardless of the side, had been going on for quite a while. Introducing the Serbian casualties this late and then mentioning the Croatian ones after them, that's wrong, as it doesn't do justice to either of those people.

While researching, I ran in to an interesting page at http://www.hlc.org.yu/srpski/Suocavanje_sa_prosloscu/Izvestaji/index.php?file=613.html It talks rather frankly about the whole quagmire.

Anyway, enough for now. --Joy [shallot] 22:31, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please be aware that the Humanitarian Law Centre headed by Nataša Kandić is not to be trusted. My advice is follow the money if you want the truth. --210.50.177.191, 03:46, 7 Feb 2005

Nikola, what's up with the edit war? Please stop acting like Igor. --Joy [shallot] 17:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] soldier percentage in 1995

I'm not sure why the "including 60K soldiers" would be removed. I've checked what Veritas has, and it says 4,142 of 6,780 dead and missing are soldiers (61%). It doesn't seem unlikely that out of 150-200K in total that there would be 60K (30-40%) soldiers, too. Especially given the long border that had to be guarded. --Joy [shallot] 22:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The RSK's army (the VSK) numbered 55,000, according to Jane's, of whom 16,000 were deployed in eastern Slavonia and wouldn't have been among those fleeing in 1995. However, apparently only 30,000 of the VSK's soldiers could actually be mobilised. -- ChrisO 17:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Jane's sounds trustworthy enough.

[edit] Newest version of the article

Thanks to ChrisO for a full historic overview in the article. I wouldn't go so far to use the same term (ethnic cleansing) for the two sets of wrongdoing, but that's a minor semantic difference for most readers, I guess. As long as we've got the facts listed that explain the nuances, the phrasing is not that significant. --Joy [shallot] 21:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no hard evidence Serbs were “ethnically cleansed” in 91, a lot of them left voluntarily believing they would soon return with JNA as victors (Same thing happend in Bosnia, where the majority of Serbs voluntarily left Sarajevo for neighboring Serb-controlled Pale, it was in fact an organized policy by SDS). While there certainly were some occasional excesses by the Croat side, it was never an organized campaign like the Serb one, and the Hague’s indictments prove that. I feel this also ought to be reflected in the article. GeneralPatton 23:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Having said that, there should be some more discussion with regard to the purported ethnic cleansing in 1995 (above I was primarily referring to the 1991 sections). What do the sources say, was the behaviour of Croatian army (or paramilitary even?) units in `95 similar to the behaviour of Serbian units in `91 and `92? How much deportation was there and how much displacement, and how is the displacement defined? How are Gotovina's actions/subordinates more inherently involved in this compared to the actions of other Croatian commanding generals during "Storm"? Details matter... --Joy [shallot] 21:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In spite of that stuff, the article as it is now, is pretty balanced and comprehensive.GeneralPatton 23:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excellent Stuff: First this

[edit] maps

I neglected to mention that another reason why Image:RSK.png shouldn't be trashed in favor of Image:Krajina ethnic map.jpg is that the latter is a blunt scan from some Yugoslav geographic atlas (definitely made after 1981, which is the year of census the data of which is shown on it) with a few lines drawn on it. One day someone's going to investigate its lack of true license and subsequently have it removed. On the other hand, RSK.png is based on a public domain image and safe from that kind of a problem. --Joy [shallot] 22:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Many, many factual and historical inaccuracies

This article is very, very poorly written & it amounts to Greater Serbian apologetics in not few cases (no "Serbs" immigrated into Military frontier, but Vlachs. Also, Catholic Vlachs who became Croats outnumbered Orthodox Vlachs who became Serbs). Serious revision under way. Mir Harven 12:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

what vlach,serbian from Kosovo,Serbia,herzegovina and Montenegro emigrated to military frontier and they become CONSTITUTIVE PEOPLE not minority as in so caled croatia 1990!soory for my poor english!--195.29.40.162 21:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

haha! How you croats can lie to world! Croats become minority in Austro-Hungary empire su croats force serbian in catolich religion,becose of that in so caled croatia there is mene familes with serbian LAST NAME!STOP SPREADING LIES!--195.29.40.162 21:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Serbs weren't the constitutional nation in Croatia.
Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I (Basic principles of Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia, section I):
"...utvrđeno je da JE hrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj.......izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku."
(...it was confirmed that Croat people HAS established (in the common fight in national-liberation war and socialist revolution, together with Serb people and other nations and nationalities in Croatia) HIS OWN state, SR Croatia. As you see, only singular form is used.
Ustav SRH, čl. 1. (Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia):
"SR Hrvatska je: (SR Croatia is)
- nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda (national state of Croat people)
- država srpskog naroda i (state of Serb people)
- država narodnosti koje u njoj žive." (state of other nationalities that live in Croatia)
Serbs weren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they were mentioned specifically, but nothing more. Croatia is national state solely to Croats. Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država".
Source: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004..
There you have it, please don't spread that POV about Serbs as "constitutive people" anymore. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pijade's ideas

proposal by a Communist functionary Moša Pijade, a former member of Greater Serbian organization "Black hand" to grant territorial autonomy to the Croatian municipalities with Serbian majority

Pijade was a member of the Black Hand, and made this proposal? I can't find any backing of this, and on the hr: version I see Mir Harven removed it. --Joy [shallot] 21:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement from 147.91.1.45

I have NO HOME thanks to the evil Ustashi Forces, my sister is dead as well as several other siblings; my two houses bruned, estate pillages and I saw my horsw running set ablaze by the Ustashi flamethrowers. DON'T EVEN START to say that the operation was a success. 'cause it killed the world I knew and destroyed my childhood. The Operation Lightning and Storm were nothing but products of extreme and utmost evil created in the brains of several corrupted greedy Croatian fascists.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.1.45 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 July 2005

First off, I sympathise with your losses, but that is not an issue here.

A military operation can't be described as anything other than success when the attacking army defeated the defending army. This is not an emotional statement, it is just a factoid.

And it's also wrong to conflate issues like you do - the attacking army that conducted "Storm" was not Ustashi because that is a fascist organization from the mid-20th century, not from this time. Correlations between the two sets of crimes can be done, but equating them is factually incorrect.

Criminal activity such as killing civilians and destroying their property during and after "Storm" is described at some length at Operation Storm. If you wish to contribute information with regard to that, please don't hesitate to do so. However, expressing opinion such as that it's a "product of extreme and utmost evil" is not encyclopedic and does not belong to Wikipedia.

--Joy [shallot] 9 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

If you don't know, the Croatian forces called themselves Ustashas, I know 'cause I have heard it myself, and there is no "defeating the defending army". I meant stricly at the organised ethnic cleansing activities that the Croatian Army took by. The job was not to defeat any army, but to decrease a nationality by: (this was a designed Croatian plan) "killing a third, forcing a third to leave and turning a third into catholics". The mere concept of an "army quelling a rebelion" was carefully used as an iron curtain to cover the major operation of creating an ethnicly clean country. P. S. I hope that I am not insulting you with this article in any way.

I heard of people who called themselves 'Ustaše' too, but that definitely doesn't mean that the entire army called itself as such, it would be anachronistic and insulting. The army of the Republic of Croatia is called Hrvatska Vojska or Oružane snage Republike Hrvatske.

The stuff about killing, expelling and converting - that's from the Ustaše organization. As a whole it is not relevant to the war in the 1990s, because no Croatian commanders at this time ever had any such plans. You may interpret actions of people in the field in some manner, but you can't mix the actions of an entire army with the actions of individuals. You will notice how this article does not go about saying "it's all a Greater-Serbian plan". --Joy [shallot] 22:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No, no, what I just said was connected to THIS war, not WWII as you probably mean; and it was an ORGANISED plan to ethnicly cleanse the country of minorities, preferrably, the Serbs; the "killing a third, forcing a third to leave and turning a third into catholics" was a plan that was devised by the highest officials in Zagreb (I can't say Tudjman's government because it would be too offending to the Croatian readers) P. S. Where're you from, Joy?

Well, you have to provide some proof for these claims. (I'm from Croatia.) --Joy [shallot] 18:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I get the feeling that you understood "Where're you from?" as an insult. If you have, my apologies. As for the Ustashi part, I found a cassette in my village (Varivode near Knin) several years after the Croatian Army burned it; it said: "Ustaski domobrani 17, BC723", the recordings contained recordings of the squadron's executions of the local populace, as well as a well-organised plan recording. Unfortunatly, those men have never been identified, but it is obvious that they were working on a previously organised plan. About the "killing a third, forcing a third to leave and turning a third into catholics", you're utmost right; I have only heard it on several occasions on the TV and in several newspapers (of which some are also from Croatia), but I must admit that the actual authentity of that "plan" was never confirmed. Although, I have passed a lot around the bordering parts of Croatia, trying to evade soldiers that were continuosly chasing us (until my family and I DID finally manage to flee to Hungary), and I can confirm you (although I don't think that you'll believe me) that there were major ethnic cleansing activities present. For instance, in the history section, Karlovatz (my city, my ancestors were present there {and the surrounding regions) for four centuries, all the way back to the founding of Karlovatz in ... hm... I think it was... yeah... 1526) is only mentioned as a place where the Serbs (The Army of Srpska Krajina, in particular) alongside wih many other cases assaulted and shelled it. It is true, but the true story of Karlovatz is not shown. We were oppressed (Serbs) in it. Sharpshooters were placed on the roofs for the soul goal of shooting anyone attempting to flee and all local Serbs were mostly cornered into a fourth of the city. Then me and my family fled. The Soldiers have already entered our apartment building and have started to "relocate to a better area" the local residents (all Serbs by the case), there were several gunshots heard and not one soldier was harmed (they probably executed those who did not want to leave). We have entered the car with whatever small stuff we could pack in a few moments, and went. Then someone said: "Vid' ih jebem im mater, pobjegose!" and a patrol chased us. If they were not recalled to station the defenses (which were currently under attack by the Serbian Krajina Forces) we would be surely done for. I am sure that Karlovatz wasn't the ony place. (and since the operation was a full success, it's no wonder if a plan like the one mentioned above wasn't exposed into the publicity)

P. S. Do you actually think that I would lie about such things?

(Nah, I didn't take the question as an insult.)

No, I actually sympathise and believe. I'm from Vinkovci, which like Karlovac was on the front lines during the lines. After the balvan revolucija began, I heard various stories of Serbs in the city being terrorised, even seen people's houses blown up because of the inhabitants' nationalities. Heck, later when the war already escalated, after a grenade from Mirkovci damaged the Orthodox Church, the fine Croatian gentlemen (*snicker*) thought it was a good idea to level the whole building down.

I've also heard the story that at one point Glavaš, Vice Vukojević and other Croatian 'leaders' went to a field near Borovo Selo with a mortar and fired a grenade onto the village (which is inhabited almost exclusively by Serbs) and damaged a house (no idea if it killed anyone, possibly). A few days later, the Serbs massively picked up arms and organized a militia, and when the Croatian police sent a squadron to intervene, they ambushed them and killed a dozen mostly young men. Those twelve policemen are venerated today, but apparently they never would have died in the first place had it not been for certain criminals.

There's also widely circulated information about a secret police / militia unit led by Tomislav Merčep called Jesenje kiše that apparently had a mandate to interrogate, intern and kill anyone they thought was against the Croatian government. Obviously, they relied on ethnic profiling - if someone was a Serb who wasn't openly against the rebellion in Krajina, they were a suspect. The unit has been implicated in various executions near Pakrac and elsewhere.

These are probably all true stories, but it still stands to reason that had it not been for the mass hysteria initiated by the likes of SANU members and Serbian media (remember reading reports in Svijet and Danas about how Albanians sodomized a Serb peasant in Kosovo? I wouldn't bet on the exact details, but it was something equally gross), there might actually have been law and order and the criminals among the Serbs or the Croats may not have surfaced. And eventually, the terror changed into outright war, with the border cities picking up the most damage and casualties (around 11 thousand non-combatants was the last count, I think).

It's probably not a good idea to make broad generalizations, but by and large it seems to me that several conclusions are fairly clear: that the civilians near the front lines were endangered on either side, that they massively fled because there was a real chance that they would get killed if they had stayed. A slight but notable difference might be in the bare fact that most of the area of and near Krajina was a battle zone, whereas in the 'outer rim' of Croatia was relatively safe. Many Serbs survived the war in Zagreb, Rijeka and elsewhere without having grave problems because of their ethnicity - I live and work with many of them and nationality is simply not an issue for us. Granted, some were terrorized too, but not nearly all. Whereas, I doubt that there were many such cases with Croats in Drniš, Petrinja or Beli Manastir - at least I never heard of them. That seems to be a basic distinction that separated the two entities. It might not have been intended that way, but that's how it came to be.

That's why Croatia managed to preserve a decent standing (despite harsh criticism for its own misconduct, too) in the international community, and was eventually recognized as 'the right side' of the war. That changed the overall perspective from "it's a Balkan quagmire where Croats terrorize Serbs who terrorize Croats who ... ad infinitum" to "it's a Balkan quagmire where the Serbs terrorized the Croats more than vice versa".

As far as the encyclopedia article is concerned, I suggest that we try to include as much information as possible, and keep the scope balanced. Which is to say, we can and should add the information about terrorism, but it also needs to be matched with information about military operations because they marked the war at least as much as the terror did. --Joy [shallot] 14:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] context

This article lacks any mention of Vukovar and Kijevo.

I noticed also that a new user created articles:

• SAO Krajina
• SAO Kninska Krajina
• SAO Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem
• SAO Bosanska Krajina

They all need to be vetted and integrated (the fourth only peripherally, but still). --Joy [shallot] 13:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Quote: I saw my horse running set ablaze by the Ustashi flamethrowers

How can any serious researcher and compiler even bother to answer such patently ridiculous claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.236.22 (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] == Frontier ==

I am requesting a change of the name to "Frontier" since it already says Krajina, and would be much more understanding for foreigners. HolyRomanEmperor 12:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually the internationally known name of the entity was "Krajina", so changing it to "Frontier" won't accomplish anything but further confusion. --Joy [shallot] 21:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed.

But, Serbs were a constitutional people of Croatia (minimal was 12% of the total population). And here it says 11% (a figure released by Croatian nationalists) It was actually between 12,2% and 14,4%. HolyRomanEmperor 20:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Serbs weren't the constitutional nation in Croatia.
Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I (Basic principles of Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia, section I):
"...utvrđeno je da JE hrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj.......izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku."
(...it was confirmed that Croat people HAS established (in the common fight in national-liberation war and socialist revolution, together with Serb people and other nations and nationalities in Croatia) HIS OWN state, SR Croatia. As you see, only singular form is used.
Ustav SRH, čl. 1. (Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia):
"SR Hrvatska je: (SR Croatia is)
- nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda (national state of Croat people)
- država srpskog naroda i (state of Serb people)
- država narodnosti koje u njoj žive." (state of other nationalities that live in Croatia)
Serbs weren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they were mentioned specifically, but nothing more. Croatia is national state solely to Croats. Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država".
Source: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004..
There you have it, please don't spread that POV about Serbs as "constitutive people" anymore. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, maybe I didn't notice this in the same revert? Fixing now. 581663/4784265=0.121578. --Joy [shallot] 22:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should rely on population census data rather then on calculating: [6] (12,2%) HolyRomanEmperor 21:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

How do you suppose that the statisticians who conducted the census arrived at that percentage, other than calculating? Black magic? :)) --Joy [shallot]

There were nearly 100,000 Orthodox Yugoslavs in 1991 in Croatia. I don't discard the possibility that they are all Orthodox Croats, but it is funny how the number of Yugoslavs fell to almost zero, and the number of new Croats in Croatia climbed for exactly the same number of Bosnian Croatian refugees and migrants from Serbia and Montenegro that came by 1995 (this is how the nationalist Serb propaganda spreaders got their 700,000 Serbs in Croatia) HolyRomanEmperor 21:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This should be mentioned, yeah. Although with the Yugoslavs, there's always a reasonable possibility that these were people from mixed marriages who intentionally did not wish to opt for either side (in the war or otherwise), so this warrants at least a small discussion rather than just a mention.

Having said that, I can't find the exact religion to nationality mapping in the above page. It says that there were 104,728 Yugoslavs in SRH in 1991, but it doesn't mention Orthodoxy. Can you find a reference for that? --Joy [shallot] 11:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, because of the Communism, there is no religeous census in Yugoslavia. The sources that state that are mostly from nationalist excuse-of-a-website pages that I do not aprove (no matter that I believe that). Yes, that with mixed marriages is entirely correct, although they mostly emigrated under pressure and assimilated as Serbs. The only place where I find the 100,000 Orthodox Yugoslavs that is acceptable, is www.rastko.org.yu although yet again, it doesn't mention the source. But then again, 100,000 Yugoslavs were ethnicly cleansed from Croatia (no matter of religeon), so I accept these claims that they are Serbs. P. S. change the 12.15 to 12,5 if you will? HolyRomanEmperor 19:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I should add, that on 19 August 1990, the Serbian national council (in Croatia) released a referrendum, regarding Serbian autnomy within the Socialist Republic of Croatia. 756,549 votes where released (later, according to nationalist claptraps of Serb Frontier politicians in 1993) The official tribune for justice of the Republic of Serbia processed this information, and declared that around 150,000 votes where forged (mostly Serbs that did not have voting status, and also largely Croats). Which gives us still over 600,000 people that voted for it (amd the census says around 580,000 Serbs in Croatia!) Add up to this number those without the voting status, and all becomes clear :-) HolyRomanEmperor 19:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The official census of 1991 (Croatian, although forged) stated that there are 76.5% Roman Catholic Christian, 11.1% Serbian Orthodox Christian (remember that decreasing-to-11% note?) Sunni Muslim 1.2%, Protestant (various) 0.4%, and undecided 10.8%. Jeremija D. Mitrović and various resources from rastko.org claim that of this undecided 3.4% are Serbs, others are lesser religeons, Muslims that feared nationalims, and stout communist Croats. All this fits-in with current religeous and ethnic structure of Croatia (nearly 700,000 Croatian Serbs) HolyRomanEmperor 19:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed the percentage to 12.2 (rounding to the first digit after the decimal point), and noted the number of Yugoslavs with a link to their article and a note that a significant percentage of them were Serbian-inclined. That should be the the most accurate statement given the available information.

I don't think that there will be any more value provided if we repost various unsubstantiated claims. Even if you accuse the census to be forged, at least it was made by the state statistics office and not a historian known to be controversial (this is abundantly clear from a google search on Jeremija Mitrović). --Joy [shallot] 10:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree :-) HolyRomanEmperor 12:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the Frontier part, but I strongly object that the country should be named Serbian Krajina. The unsimpathizing of Serbians is known for Serb Frontiersmen. The adjective should be Serb, just like Serb Montenegro is stated on www.njegos.org Besides, the Montenegrin are more related to Serbians than we are :)) HolyRomanEmperor 13:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by even if I...? I thought we made clear that it was forged (11%?) HolyRomanEmperor 20:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Bingo: There were 782,000 Serbs in Croatia in 1981. because over two thirds of Yugoslavs were in fact Serbs. HolyRomanEmperor 17:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

That makes around 17% of Croatia's population, no? HolyRomanEmperor 17:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

In 1910 there were 611,257 Serbs in Croatia (17.7%) HolyRomanEmperor 17:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

In 1921 there were 606,252 Serbs in Croatia (17.6%). It is from this moment that more and more will proclaim themselves Yugoslavs. HolyRomanEmperor 17:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

In 1931 there were 636,284 Serbs in Croatia (16.8%); number of Serb Yugoslavs: unknown HolyRomanEmperor 17:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The Croatian Ustašas, Nazi Germans and Hungarians and fascist Italians are responsible for (most acurratly) 90,000 Serb deaths in the period of 1941-1945 on present-day Croatia. HolyRomanEmperor 17:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The Croatian Ustašas, German and Hungarian Nazis and Italian fascists are responsible for (most acurratly) 90,000 Serb deaths in the period of 1941-1945 on present-day Croatia. HolyRomanEmperor 17:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The Croatian Ustašas, German and Hungarian Nazis and Italian fascists are responsible for (most acurratly) 90,000 Serb deaths in the period of 1941-1945 on present-day Croatia. HolyRomanEmperor 17:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, somebody please delete the upper twice repeated (technical problems). In 1948 there were 543,795 Serbs in Croatia; the number of Yugoslav Serbs is unknown. Due to migration, there were 98,314 Serbs less that year only HolyRomanEmperor 17:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The percentage of the upper-mentioned number is 14.4%. Now, in 1953 there were 588,756 Serbs in Croatia (15%); the Serb Yugoslavs are again unknown.

In there were 624,991 Serb in the Socialist Republic Croatia (around 15%) Although the number of Yugoslav Serbs is unknown; this year signifies 83,301 less Serb in Croatia due to migration. HolyRomanEmperor 18:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

In 1961 there were 624,991 Serb in the Socialist Republic Croatia (around 15%) Although the number of Yugoslav Serbs is unknown; this year signifies 83,301 less Serb in Croatia due to migration. HolyRomanEmperor 18:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

1971 states 626,789 Serbs in Croatia (14.2%, unknown other) yet it strangely marks 60,938 Serbs less in Croatia due to migration. HolyRomanEmperor 18:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

1981 says 531,502 Serbs in Croatia (11.6%). This year migration marked 60,188 less Serbs in Croatia; yet we have a positive figure on Yugoslav Serbs - there were 782,000 Serbs in Croatia (17%) HolyRomanEmperor 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

1991 calls 581,653 citizens of Croatia Serbs (12.2%). It is known that almost definatly all Yugoslavs were also Serbs. HolyRomanEmperor 18:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This clearly states that the number was constantly decreased and supprassed. Besides, calculation counts 380,032 exiled Serbs from Croatia (not calculating "others" who were Serbs). HolyRomanEmperor 18:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

And you can't even imagine the grim on my face when I went to Zagreb and saw that I was listed as a citizen of Croatia (I am a war refugee that lives in Serbia and Montenegro) This created doubts in my mind whether the current a-little-over 200,000 Serbs in Croatia number is completly correct :P HolyRomanEmperor 18:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original Krajina

I feel like this whole section needs to be placed in a separate article. "Republic of Srpska Krajina" really has nothing to do with Krajina during the Austro-Hungarian/Ottoman times. The map of this original Krajina is particularly confusing to the reader. Request to create a separate article, or merge it with "Military Krajina" article. Nouanoua 02:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, the section is good introduction to the history of RSK. It is also not quite true that RSK has nothing to do with Austro-Hungarian Krajina. And why do you think that the map would confuse readers? Nikola 16:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

What history of RSK!?? It has no history, except this Military Krajina which is not a history of RSK but of the entire region, irrespective of the illegal entity during the 90s. I see no reason for that section to be in this article when there is a completely separate article Military Krajina that deals with this history. As far as the image... it does not help the reader understand what RSK was and where it was. Instead right near the top of the article, it shows the map of Military Krajina and other regions during Austria-Hungry, which makes no sense to me. RSK is not a continution of Military Krajina, but something rather unrelated. Nouanoua 17:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I also don't understand how AH Krajina is related to RSK. RSK was created in 1990, and this is the start of it's "history". Also, the article is way to long and detailed. 16:19 23 December (UTC)

This article is lacking the main reason for Serbian people's rebellion: the 1990 illegal (towards any Yugoslav law) constitution of Croatia that also contradicted itself in which the Serbs in Croatia are stripped of full rights (they are no longer a constitutional nation, only a minority) HolyRomanEmperor 22:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Serbs weren't the constitutional nation in Croatia.
Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I (Basic principles of Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia, section I):
"...utvrđeno je da JE hrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj.......izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku."
(...it was confirmed that Croat people HAS established (in the common fight in national-liberation war and socialist revolution, together with Serb people and other nations and nationalities in Croatia) HIS OWN state, SR Croatia. As you see, only singular form is used.
Ustav SRH, čl. 1. (Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia):
"SR Hrvatska je: (SR Croatia is)
- nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda (national state of Croat people)
- država srpskog naroda i (state of Serb people)
- država narodnosti koje u njoj žive." (state of other nationalities that live in Croatia)
Serbs weren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they were mentioned specifically, but nothing more. Croatia is national state solely to Croats. Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država".
Source: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004..
There you have it, please don't spread that POV about Serbs as "constitutive people" anymore. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming "RSK"

I changed the name of RSK in so called "RSK", because;

Croatian Republic (RH) is a legal succesor of Socialistic Croatian Republic (SR H) which (whith other socialistic republics) made Socialistic Federal Republic Yugoslavia (SFRJ). By study of Baudilaire Comission SFRJ broke apart and every of its parts became independent. Republic of Croatia exist in unbroken continuum in that time ('90ies). So caled "RSK" is parastate which existed in & ocupated territory of another souveren nation (RH). I also corrected that so called "RSK" had right to secede from Croatia and to stay in SFRJ. By study of Baudilaire comission it did not have that right. Ceha 22:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your use of "so-called". It's an extremely loaded form of words and fails NPOV; we're not in the business of deciding whether a self-proclaimed state is a legitimate entity or not. -- ChrisO 22:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Serbian Krajina is a misnomer

The title of this article should be “Republic of Serb Krajina” – not Serbian Krajina – because Serbian is a term used to distinguish Serbs from Serbia (Serbians). Serbs from Croatia are not Serbians, thus it should be Republic of Serb Krajina not Republic of 'Serbian' Krajina.

[edit] Recent changes

As for "Serbs began to increasingly fear a nationalist Croatian government, and the return of fascism and ethnic killing. Whether realistic or otherwise, such talk provided a powerful rallying point for Serbian nationalists opposed to the prospect of living in a newly independent Croatian state." is exchanged by "Serbs began to resent Croatia wanting to become their own country, because most followed the idea of a "Greater Serbia", where Croatian land was really "Serbian"." Better said serbian POV is changed to croatian POV (as for ideas of greater Serbia look at [7] and statments of Seselj. JNA at the time was Serb dominated. "Serbs became opposed to the regime of Tuđman for his demands of an independent Croatia. More specifically, they saw this process as resulting in a loss of certain number of their minority rights. Also, Tudjman in his political speaches tried to deny role of Ustase in Second World War. Serbs felt unsecure in new Croatian state, especially when compare it with NDH, Independent State of Croatia during WW II. After the election of Tuđman in April 1990, a new Croatian constitution was passed in December 1990. This constitution declared Croatia to be the nation state of Croats. The constitution downgraded the status of Serbs from a nation within Croatia to that of a minority. This only heightened the sensitivity of Serb demands for cultural autonomy, language rights among many other demands. The constitution contradicted the Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, despite Croatia still being legally part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Serbs responded to these rejections by leaving parliament. The rebellion of the Croatian Serbs was thus set in motion" is changed by "Serbs became opposed to the regime of Tuđman for his demands of an independent Croatia. More specifically, they saw this process as ruining their image of a Greater Serbia. After the election of Tuđman in April 1990, a new Croatian constitution was passed in December 1990. This constitution declared Croatia to be the nation state of Croats, since they made up 78% of the population. The constitution put the status of Serbs within Croatia to that of a minority, infuriating Serb radicals. Many Serbs try to justify their so called independent state by saying the constitution contradicted the Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, despite Croatia still being legally part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. But Croatia declared independence from Yugoslavia, which meant they would follow their own constitution." and by the statments of Baudilaire comission Yugoslavia fell apart and (S)R Croatia is one of its succesors. Serbs politics were oposed to Croatian independence, not just to Tudjman's policy.

"The fighting in the Krajina generally took the form of Serbian attacks on Croatian police posts and state buildings, with the Croatian police fighting back. In addition, there were numerous attacks on civilian targets, such as the blowing up and burning of houses belonging to people of the "wrong" ethnic group, and inevitably the killing of civilians. Serb paramilitaries were often initially armed with small arms. However the JNA soon gave them free access to army equipment, up to and including armoured vehicles and artillery. The European Union and United Nations attempted to broker ceasefires and peace settlements. The truces however were repeatedly broken, often after only a few hours, as one side tried to play the diplomats for their political advantage." is changed to "Serbs began numerous attacks on Croatians in the area, with many calling themselves Chetniks. They massacred Croatian villages and ruined Croatian towns, killing a large number of people. They were supported by the JNA, which provided them military arms. Many Croatians fled their homes, or were forced out by the rebel Serbs. The European Union and United Nations attempted to broker ceasefires and feeble peace settlements, but to no avail." because as JNA was pro-Serb, and most of weapons of TO were captured by JNA, Croats did not have any weapons, so it is pointeless to talk about "fighting". Non-serbian population is mostly Croatian one (why should this be hidden) "The score by then, in the undeclared war against Croatia, was 2,200 Croats killed, 140,000 refugees, razed villages, shelled towns, destroyed cultural monuments, churches, hospitals, old people's homes, kindergartens. TV transmitters were also destroyed, cameramen and journalists of the Croatian Radio and Television were killed." is added. And so one... -- Ceha 21:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That is Croatian POV --212.200.202.222 10:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to discuss & change something please argument it. -- Ceha 21:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sentence"The Krajina Serbs did not initially seek independence for their area." is not true. They wanted to stay in Yugoslavia (which was braking apart). So, basicly the whole project was about to stop Croatian independence. Even when they occupied that area they were talking about anexion of that territories to Serbia. They wanted independence from Croatia and autonomus regions (from which other Croatian citizens were forcibly evicted and fired upon) where just first step along the way.

-- Ceha 11:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Serbs weren't the constitutional nation in Croatia, they weren't stripped of their rights, Constitution from 1991 hasn't downgraded their status.
Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I (Basic principles of Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia, section I):
"...utvrđeno je da JE hrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj.......izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku."
(...it was confirmed that Croat people HAS established (in the common fight in national-liberation war and socialist revolution, together with Serb people and other nations and nationalities in Croatia) HIS OWN state, SR Croatia. As you see, only singular form is used.
Ustav SRH, čl. 1. (Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia):
"SR Hrvatska je: (SR Croatia is)
- nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda (national state of Croat people)
- država srpskog naroda i (state of Serb people)
- država narodnosti koje u njoj žive." (state of other nationalities that live in Croatia)
Serbs weren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they were mentioned specifically, but nothing more. Croatia is national state solely to Croats. Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država".
Source: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004..
There you have it, please don't spread that POV about Serbs as "constitutive people" anymore. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map discussion

First off Ceha, the map you're referring me to is of a too small resolution for me to be able to make anything out. Secondly, the map we do have doesn't exclude the possibility of Croat villages around Doboj. It shows a few mixed and Croat areas very near to the city, so I don't see how it contradicts what you're saying. // estavisti 00:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this map[8] large enough for you?:) I gave you the link to watch which contains all the lesser maps (of every village). Please next time look a little bit closer. There is a census with this maps so you can see for each village what it looks like. Also in the previous map there is no mention of Serb mixed areas northwest of the city (you can look at the census), and map with incorections shows that area 100% Serbian....

Ceha 22:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, now I see. Still, the site you link to is hardly very reliable - it's such a hardline Bosniak nationalist site that it accuses Alija Izetbegović of betraying BiH! A report is a report though. --Еstavisti 00:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, they might be what they might be:), but census of 1991 is correct(can be googled out). Also look for info about town population of Sanski Most, Prijedor and Foča (add all the numbers of town setlemns (marked with g)) which show serbian relative majority (in the cities, not in the whole municipalities). Or the Croat relative majority in the towns of Travnik and Bugojno (or Bosniak in the Bosanska Gradiška). Data is data --Ceha 02:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the map; yes, it might have some errors, but nothing is perfect, and it doesn't look bad. I say we just leave it alone unless someone has a better map. --Jesuislafete 08:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, map is not deleted it is just stated that it has some inacuracies. Second most of those are in serbian favor so map is slightly POV. And noone is going to look for batter map if we do not state that this have errors:) --Ceha 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outsider's opinion

I've marked the facts that need to be referenced by the {{fact}} tags. Currently the article seems to be a bit one-sided. Alaexis 09:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of "Creation" section

This section has a complete absence of context, it seems to imply that Krajina Serbs motivated only by "nationalism" decided apropos of nothing to massacre Croats, when in fact there was a progressive breakdown in events to the point where Serbs of the Krajina expected a Croatian genocide to begin imminently if they did not act first. Several months before the section says Serbs started killing, a videotape of Croatian Defence and Interior ministers discussing a planned genocide was aired on Yugoslav television ("We are going to slaughter everyone," "Serbs in Croatia will never be there again for as long as we are there").

Surely the deplorable violence against Croatians should be discussed, but as it stands we have the standard NATO-approved whitewash of demonic Serbs versus angelic Croats.

209.146.241.93 15:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unviability

Here is the citation from the source provided by Jesuislafete:

“

A Serbian journalist observed border crossings by JNA vehicles and testified that the “[a]ssistance to the army of the Republika Srpska … was practically a non-stop process.”146 He said this was obvious in any border town, though he noted a brief period where, due to the presence of international monitors, convoys were sent in a more discreet fashion.147 He observed Yugoslav army vehicles crossing the border several times between 1992 and August 1994.148 Others also testified about observing military convoys crossing the river from Serbia to the RS.149 The SVK also depended on the FRY for continuing support. An exhibit introduced at trial shows that in a November 1992 meeting about the mode of financial assistance for RSK forces, the RSK president and Milosevic decided that financing for the RSK’s defense would come from the Serbian Ministry of Defense. Other support, including equipment maintenance and financing for the active officers who stayed behind, would be via the Yugoslav army.150 Documents and testimony introduced at trial show that military support was indeed provided to the SVK by the Yugoslav army.151 A December 17, 1993 “Memorandum for the coordination of tasks meeting at the Yugoslav Army General Staff,” for example, lists “[s]cheduled equipment (KUB/SA-6 surface-to-air missiles) has been taken possession of and stored at SVK depots” as an implemented task from the previous coordination meeting. The document then notes further SVK requests for ammunition and spare parts as well as a request for the coordination of Yugoslav Army teams to be sent to repair complicated systems and equipment.152 Another exhibit is an April 8, 1993, request from the RSK to the JNA chief of general staff for 200 rockets.153 Milan Babic in his testimony confirmed that the rockets were received.154 Milanovic's witness statement also describes an incident in which an oral request for a tank battalion was granted: In 1993, there was a situation whose details I cannot remember, but I know that I believed we were under threat so, together with Bogdan Sladojevic, I went to meet with General Momcilo Perisic, the VJ NGS [Yugoslav Army Chief of General Staff]. We asked Momsilo Perisic to give us a tank battalion (50 tanks). Momcilo Perisic approved this a few days later and handed the tanks over to Colonel Sladojevic.155 The tanks were delivered in secret.156

”

While this proves Serbia's help to RSK beyond a reasonable doubt nothing is written about the viability of RSK with(out) Serbia's support. Could you point out where is it written about this? Alæxis_¿question? 07:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Read from the begining of the article:

"Neither wartime Republika Srpska (RS) nor the self-declared Republic of the Serbian Krajina (RSK) had the resources to finance a war.37 In his testimony, the former Krajina president, Milan Babic, explained that the RSK municipalities were in an underdeveloped part of Croatia. When Croatia stopped providing financial support to them, they had to turn to Serbia for assistance.38 Babic testified that “under no circumstances could [the RSK] exist” without support from Serbia or Yugoslavia.39 Former U.S. Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith described Krajina as “a completely impoverished region that could not exist even at the very low level that it existed without financial support from Serbia.”40 Milan Martic, at the time the RSK minister of the interior, acknowledged to Milosevic in a letter admitted as an exhibit at the Milosevic trial, “the [RSK] has no real sources from which to fill its budget, as you certainly know.”41 Belgrade, through the federal government, financed more than 90 percent of the RSK 1993 budget.42"

I meant to put the entire link as a source, not the one starting from that certain point, I'll fix it. --Jesuislafete 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Alæxis_¿question? 06:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ICTY

Could you please give more specific refs rather than just <ref name=ICTY>ICTY http://www.un.org/icty/</ref>? Alæxis_¿question? 07:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried, but each time I did, large red letters saying "Error, link cannot be shown blahblah" in huge red letters where the reference link should have been. I was too tired to try to figure out why on earth it was doing that, so I just put the ICTY website with the intent of putting the specific links another day. They are not hard to find, why couldn't you do it? --Jesuislafete 00:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Figured out the problem, it's fixed for your viewing pleasure. --Jesuislafete 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fraudulent Map

The map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Krajina_ethnic_map.jpg is a fraud. I have proof. It is a simple edit of the original map. The original map was made by the University of Belgrade's geography department. This is the real map - http://www.rastko.org.yu/istorija/srbi-balkan/img/fry4b.jpg . The frauduelent full map can be found here, http://www.kosovo.net/ethnmap_yu.jpg.

Some typical frauds are done by spreading the blue color to where serbs were not the majority, and in some places did not reside in. We can see that this was done for Kosovo, Bosnia and Croatia. Some particular parts in croatia that are frauds are municipalities in baranja.

I am a Serb and do not mean to be a traitor, but the map is wrong.

http://www.rastko.org.yu/istorija/srbi-balkan/img/croatia5b.jpg is a good one.

-LAz17

Yes, there are some differences in these maps... The Hungarians, for example, aren't present in Baranja in the map that is now in the article. Do you have a bigger version of the "real map"? And what's the copyright status of the last map, can it be used here? Alæxis_¿question? 17:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what copyright status it has. It is probably free for use, but I don't know. -LAz17, July 6th - central time zone US, 11:13

Could you find out its copyright status (write them a letter, for example)? Alternatively, one could make a new map based on that one. Alæxis_¿question? 07:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would but I do not know how to get in contact with them. The map is part of a book that was put online. It is here, http://www.rastko.org.yu/istorija/srbi-balkan/index.html under the 15th chapter. Since the entire book is online, I don't see why it would be a problem to use the map as long as we site who made it. We can find a similar map here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Srbi_u_Jugoslaviji.jpg and the same one here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CroatianSerbs.jpg . So I think there should be no copyright worries. I hope that helps. Pozdrav, Lazar / LAz17 - July 10 2007, 12:14 am, US central time zone

well, if it's already uploaded to Wikipedia let's just use it. Alæxis_¿question? 05:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RSK Towns Category

There are major pressures to delete our category, the former towns in RSK. The link is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_Towns_of_RSK_1991-95 The discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_29#Category:Former_Towns_of_RSK_1991-95 I'm posting this here so that you folks would know that there are some developments going on, and if you have some input on the matter, it would be appreciated. (LAz17 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).

[edit] Tree log-revolution.

About my change: tree-log revolution was the event that preceded all other events.
It was the first major terrorist activity by rebelled Croatian Serbs.
All other declarations, referendums, proclamations came later. Kubura (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's your responsibility to find reliable sources backing information you add. In this case you have to prove that 'tree-log revolution' is significant enough to be mentioned in the infobox and (more importantly) to find neutral reference proving that the Ukrainian plane incident indeed took place and is notable enough. Finally, 'Terrorist activities' is certainly not an NPOV section name. Alæxis_¿question? 16:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that statement of Krajina president Milan Babić is enough to confirm this:

"Babić also attempted to absolve his role in the conflict once again by claiming that in

August 1991, Martić’s men had tricked him into announcing a state of war in Krajina by

falsely stating that Croatian special forces were advancing on Knin.

When he realised that this was not the case, he apparently tried to revoke the announcement but

it was too late. Babic testified that by the time he knew the truth, the so-called “log

revolution” in Krajina had already begun.

The witness said that as the revolution got underway, Martic had established immediate control of

barricades used to block off tourist routes to Dalmatia on major Croatian roads. Babić described

how Martić had implemented a policy of persecuting Croats, first by searching their houses and

arresting them" [9] --Rjecina 16:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

About the importance of "tree log-revolution" (balvan-revolucija):
the term in not "original work", it came in use (it was coined) very quickly, possibly in a week. The expression is known in Croatian and in Serb sources, and it's not questioned neither by Croats, neither by Serbs.
Second, Alexis, how do you think that you know things better, than us, that lived here at that time?
"Tree log-revolution" was very important event. Because, since then, no person with Croatian registration plates (unless they were Serbs) could pass through or go into that area. If one somehow succeeded in that, that was a big pushing of luck, that was a severe daredevil action.
The proclamations that came later, were just administrative action, action made in the offices, not on the battlefield.
The "balvan-revolucija" was an act of terrorising of citizens and tourists, purposedly organized action of disturbing of Croatian economy and traffic.
Third, you cannot come to the article and delete the section just like that. Especially, when that section was referenced. That was linked to article of the daily newspaper, that is under government control. That's not some "yellow press", nor tabloid, nor short-living "mud throwing" magazine or longer living sensationalistic magazine. That was the article in Vjesnik, long time existing Croatian newspaper (since 1940).
That means, if you cannot beat the referenced text, don't mess with it (explanation given in the comment, especially ones like ...of questionable notability and reliability is not an argument).
Otherwise, your action is ordinary defending of your POV and trolling (especially since you deleted that section twice on 5 Dec 16:30 [10] and on 6 Dec 20:26 [11]).
Untill you give some counterarguments, I'll restore that section. Kubura (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, you should've noted that I didn't remove 'tree-log revolution' the last time I edited the article.

Secondly, I seriously advise you not to blindly revert others' edits. I've changed 'show in red' to 'shown in red' two times already and now you've restored the wrong version again.

Finally, I still belive the source you've provided cannot be consiedered a reliable one in this case. It's a Croatian newspaper, so we can't just take as facts what is written there (of course, it would be equally unacceptable to back some info in the article only with an article in some Serbian newspaper). We should use not partisan but neutral sources. If it's impossible for some reason we may write 'according to Croatian/Serbian sources there was something and something'. Please see WP:V and WP:NPOV. So, before any further discussion about the notability of the info you've added, you have to provide neutral sources confirming it. Alæxis_¿question? 17:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, I think everyone here is doing a good job, so I hate to see scuffles over something trivial. The log revolution is actually an important event in the history of the war, it was the beginning of Croatia being cut in half. Mostly, I have heard it as simply the "log revolution" such as:

From Harper's magazine 4 January: The prosecutors contend that the so-called Log Revolution--the harbinger of the rapid fragmentation of Yugoslavia into increasingly polarized, antagonistic ethnic groups and a decade of savage conflict--was not a spontaneous grass-roots movement but a carefully planned set of events, fueled by propaganda and orchestrated on Milosevic's orders--or, at the least, carried on with his knowledge, approval, and help. Milosevic's control of Serbia's media, and his use of it as an instrument of state for demoralizing his enemies while bolstering the morale of combatants, as well as a means of persuading his constituency, is an important part of the prosecutors' case. --Jesuislafete (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after running a quick google test I agree that 'Log revolution' is the name used in English to describe these events. Alæxis_¿question? 09:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is the most common in English; I think the previous version was a direct Croatian translation, which as we all know, doesn't always work out in English.--Jesuislafete (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deletion

Rhun, as you can see the info you've added is contested. Therefore it's your responsibility to find references backing it. Please don't revert back to your version without doing it. Alæxis_¿question? 10:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I was trying to modify the sentence which states a new Croatian constitution was passed in December 1990 which removed the constitutional protections of minority peoples, which isnt referenced either, and I have not been able to find what minority rights were "removed" by this constitution change. As of my knowledge, the croatian serbs waged a rebellion _because_ they got the status of a minority, not because, as a minority, some of their former rights were removed. So I ask the other editors to reference this sentence I tried to explain, or remove it.

That the croatian Serbs as a people got removed from the definition of the croatian state is a fact, which you can check by comparing the croatian constitutions from 1974 and 1991. I do not exactly know what rights people lose by such a removal from the state definition, but in practice, the official RSK Serbian position was, as you can read in the defence papers from the ICTY trial of milan martic, that the Serbs, through this explicit mentioning in the definition, were a "constitutive people" and thus somehow had the right to veto the croatian referendum, veto the subsequent parliament decision to separate from jugoslawia, and third, had the right to decide themselves, without any agreement from the croatian side, what the borders of the new RSK will be.

Citation: "And, as we had obtained the status of a constituent nation - previously, earlier, it was not given to us, but it was by our sacrifices that we earned that - we thought that we could never be divested of the status of a constituent people. But this was violence against law, because Croatia could not unilaterally divest us of that status. We were supposed to be asked. And secondly, it is true that -- the second factor is that the Croatians announced that they would secede from Yugoslavia, and we thought that we had the -- the preemptive right of remaining in the country of our birth, and that that right preempted the right of secession from that country. We had no claims to Croatian towns in which many Serbs lived, but we did have a compact territory which could have been completely separated from Croatia in the way that Croatia was separated from Yugoslavia." Source: Lazar Macura, a defence witness for Milan Martic, the President, Defence and Interior Minister of the RSK, in the icty martic war crime trial Does this suffice as a reference on the official position of the croatian Serbs on vetoing official decisions of the croatian parialement regarding the separation from Jugoslavia and setting unilaterally the new RSK borders? Greetings, --Rhun (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Rhun, I would appreciate it very much if you didn't add things in articles that are not true and cannot be referenced. I know a lot about the history of the beginnings of the war, but the statement, "...removed the explicit reference to the Serbian people from the definition of the Croatian state, making them, with 12% of the Croatian population, a national minority. The Serbs believed the explicit mentioning in the definition of the state would make them a "constitutive people" and thus qualified to veto the decisions of the Croatian goverment, parlament and the independance referendum, and thus able to hinder Croatia from leaving Yugoslavia, or in case of a Croatian independance, to redefine croatian borders unilaterally as they see fit.^{[citation needed]}" is just incredible.

Not to mention your terrible spelling and grammar errors, your wording is clearly ambiguous, and concerning a very specific legal and constitutional issue which meanings cannot be guessed. You are trying to say what "Serbs believed", yet how do you know that is what they believed? And you are bringing up serious allegations, "qualified to veto government, parliament, independence," etc. The last part "to redefine Croatian borders unilaterally as they see fit" almost made me spit my coffee onto my computer screen, I was laughing so hard. You should really try fiction. --Jesuislafete (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

English is not my mother language, as you can imagine. You are always invited to correct my grammar and/or my spelling errors. I do not know exactly what "Serbs believed", so its ok to reword that part, no problem. The current text says the new croatian constitution removed the constitutional protections of minority peoples. This fact isnt referenced. So I tried to reword it to make it clearer what changes happened to the status of the serbs as of my knowledge. And that means that the term "Serbian people" got removed from the definition of the croatian state and thus the Serbs became a national minority. But what minority rights were removed from the constitution exactly? As to the sentence about redefining borders, I think we can let this stay, because the borders of the RSK were defined unilaterally, or did the croatian side ever agreed to them? Greetings, --Rhun (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point. The passage about the removal of the protection of minorities should be referenced and expanded. Alæxis_¿question? 12:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I never noticed that the text wasn't referenced, I'm glad you brought it up. If someone has time, please research whether the constitutional protection of minority people was removed, I have never heard of it being removed, so I am surprised. If no one is able to find anything in a few days, I'll take it out and reword it differently when I find the answer. But I happen to disagree about the last sentence about redefining borders, because there was no legal way for group to redefine the borders of a state/country that was set during AVNOJ. "Redefining borders" was never an issue to be discussed legally, as I am sure everyone knows already. --Jesuislafete (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Serbs weren't the constitutional nation in Croatia, no national minority in Croatia lost its status.
Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I (Basic principles of Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia, section I):
"...utvrđeno je da JE hrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj.......izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku."
(...it was confirmed that Croat people HAS established (in the common fight in national-liberation war and socialist revolution, together with Serb people and other nations and nationalities in Croatia) HIS OWN state, SR Croatia. As you see, only singular form is used.
Ustav SRH, čl. 1. (Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia):
"SR Hrvatska je: (SR Croatia is)
- nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda (national state of Croat people)
- država srpskog naroda i (state of Serb people)
- država narodnosti koje u njoj žive." (state of other nationalities that live in Croatia)
Serbs weren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they were mentioned specifically, but nothing more. Croatia is national state solely to Croats. Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država".
Source: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004..
There you have it, please don't spread that POV about Serbs as "constitutive people" anymore. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Required sources

[edit] Rebelled Serbs

The term "rebellion" is mentioned by Serb leaders themselves. On the meeting of Serbs in Srb, Jovan Rašković exclaimed: "Ovo je pobuna srpskog naroda!" (this is the rebellion of Serb people). Also, the term "rebelled Croatian Serbs" or just "rebelled Serbs" is official term in Croatia.
Using the term "Krajina Serbs" is not OK, because there's lot of parts of Croatia (and also in Slavic world), where Krajinas exist. And many of those Serbs were not the rebelled ones. So, using the term "Krajina Serbs" in this context is not fair, because it puts them in the level of those that dirtened their hands. Kubura (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organised evacuation

• Barić, Nikica: Srpska pobuna u Hrvatskoj 1990.-1995., Golden marketing. Tehnička knjiga, Zagreb, 2005. (the links under are from his book)
• RSK, Vrhovni savjet odbrane, Knin, 4. avgust 1995., 16.45 časova, Broj 2-3113-1/95. Faksimil ovog dokumenta objavljen je u/The faximile of this document was published in: Rade Bulat "Srbi nepoželjni u Hrvatskoj", Naš glas (Zagreb), br. 8.-9., septembar 1995., p. 90.-96. (faksimil je objavljen na stranici 93./the faximile is on the page 93.).

Vrhovni savjet odbrane RSK (The Supreme Council of Defense of Republic of Serb Krajina) brought a decision 4. August 1995 in 16.45. This decision was signed by Milan Martić and later verified in Glavni štab SVK (Headquarters of Republic of Serb Krajina Army) in 17.20.

• RSK, Republički štab Civilne zaštite, Broj: Pov. 01-82/95., Knin, 02.08.1995., HDA, Dokumentacija RSK, kut. 265
• RSK, Republički štab Civilne zaštite, Broj: Pov. 01-83/95., Knin, 02.08.1995., Pripreme za evakuaciju materijalnih, kulturnih i drugih dobara (The preparations for the evacuation of material, cultural and other goods), HDA, Dokumentacija RSK, kut. 265
• Drago Kovačević, "Kavez - Krajina u dogovorenom ratu", Beograd 2003., p. 93.-94.

(Note: Drago Kovačević was during the existence of so-called RSK the minister of informing and the mayor of Knin, the capitol of self-proclaimed state)

• Milisav Sekulić, "Knin je pao u Beogradu", Bad Vilbel 2001., p. 171.-246., p. 179.

(Note: Milisav Sekulić was a high military officer of "Srpska vojska Krajine" (Republic of Serb Krajina Army). Here's a book review.

• Marko Vrcelj, "Rat za Srpsku Krajinu 1991-95", Beograd 2002., p. 212.-222.
  

This one's not from Barić's book. Martić's order.
This one also. Youtube.com RSK Evacuation Practise one month before Operation Storm
I hope this helps. Kubura (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist activities

See those massacres of civilians and POV's on that list. Add the shelling of Croatian cities, ethnic cleansing (mentioned in the unbeatened parts of indictments of Milan Martić and Goran Babić).
If you don't find that as terrorism, I don't know. Opened threats and intimidations, that were done. What was said in a threat, it was perpetrated later. Kubura (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You are not allowed to remove these kinds of references [12].
The reference you've removed, [13] is the article (an interview) from the Croatian daily newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija. If you've read the subtitle, it said, Ivica Kostović was (at the time of interview) the subpresident of Deputy Dome in Croatian Parliament (potpredsjednik Zastupničkog doma hrvatskog Sabora).
He was at that time the government official, and their words are credible source.
Removing of such references is considered as vandalism. You're warned for the first time. Kubura (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging of this article

Please, don't use Wikipedia as a place for fullfilling of unfullfilled expansionist wishes.
So don't tag this article into "wikiproject Serbia". The territory under occupation and control of rebelled Serbs, JNA and Serb volunteers is not a territory of Serbia, so this article doesn't belong there.
Don't abuse Wikipedia. Kubura (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Croatian sources and WP:NPOV

The argument is whether Croatian sources alone are reliable enough to be used when describing Serbo-Croatian conflict in Krajina. See this for specific cases. A similar problem exists at the article about Siroka Kula massacre (see its talk)

If this is typical, I would answer

• {fact}}1: This needs to be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Grammar.
• {fact}}2: Please read Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter
• {fact}}3: Please see {fact}}1

Aatomic1 (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your question.
"The argument is whether Croatian sources alone are reliable enough to be used when describing Serbo-Croatian conflict in Krajina".
First, Krajina is name for a bunch of areas in Croatia, so you have to be specific, use the full name of rebel's self-proclaimed state, or its abbreviation.
Further, you've asked: "Are Cro sources reliable enough for its territory???"
What, are you suggesting that Soviet sources aren't reliable for Germany's conquering campaign and their rule over occupied territory?
Are you suggesting that Polish sources aren't reliable for the same thing?
Are you suggesting that French sources aren't reliable for the times of Italian occupated/annected area of SE France?
Aatomic1, I see that you have a history of trolling behaviour on en.wiki. Don't protract things here.
Court decisions are serious thing, real persons from real life have been sentenced to prison (in absentia) for this case. In some cases, Interpol was alerted. Don't belittle or neglect the decisions of Croatian courts. I gave you above the link to the office of Državno odvjetništvo, Croatian legal office (State attorney). Is that enough? What do you want more?
It seems that you find Croatia as some small barbaric tribe whose uncivilised chieftains-witchdoctors' courts should be ignored.
Respect international legal system. Kubura (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atmosphere of fear

This is my contribution from the talk:Široka Kula massacre:
I'll speak about references in English.
http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/bab-ii031117e.htm is initial indictment (6th of November 2003) of Milan Babić (later convicted). The header of the document is "The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY - the prosecutor of the tribunal against Milan Baić - indictment.
Milan Babić was charged with crimes against humanity and violations of laws or customs of war. Kubura 06:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll provide ICTY transcripts of sentencing judgments for Milan Babić and Milan Martić. Kubura 06:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Saborsko is explicitly mentioned in the sentence judgement in the ICTY site, on the www.un.org (UN's site).
A shorter version, [14] is titled "Milan Martić sentenced to 35 years for crimes against humanity and war crimes", on the same site.
This should be the "third party". Kubura 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On ICTY's sentence judgement page (the case of Milan Martić), says:
"The Trial Chamber has taken particular note of the fact that the attacks on predominantly Croat areas during the autumn of 1991 and early 1992 followed a generally similar pattern, that is: the area or village in question was shelled, after which armed ground units entered. After the fighting had subsided, acts of killing and violence were committed against the non-Serb civilian population who had not managed to flee. Houses, churches and property were destroyed, and widespread looting was carried out as part of the forcible removal. On several occasions, the SAO Krajina police and TO organised transport for the non-Serb population in order to remove it from SAO Krajina territory altogether to locations under Croatian control. Members of the non-Serb population would also be rounded up and taken away to detention facilities, including in central Knin, and eventually exchanged and transported to areas under Croatian control.
Thus, the threat clearly expressed in Milan Martić's ultimatum in Kijevo was carried out in the territory of the SAO Krajina through the commission of widespread, grave crimes. This created an atmosphere of fear in which the further presence of Croats and other non-Serbs in the SAO Krajina was made impossible. The Trial Chamber has therefore concluded that the displacement of the Croat and other non-Serb population which followed these attacks was not merely the consequence of military action, but in fact its primary objective. "
This should be helpful. Kubura 07:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On that same page Martić's sentence, says:
"The attack on Kijevo marked a turning point in the JNA's role in the conflict in Croatia , and from that point, the JNA participated in attacks on majority-Croat areas and villages together with SAO Krajina MUP and TO forces. From August 1991 and into early 1992, these combined forces attacked several Croat-majority villages and areas, including Hrvatska Kostajnica, Cerovljani, Hrvatska Dubica, Baćin, Saborsko, Poljanak, Lipovača, Škabrnja and Nadin. The evidence shows that the attacks were carried out in order to connect Serb villages and areas across non-Serb areas. During these attacks, the crimes of murder, destruction, plunder, detention, torture, and cruel treatment were committed against the non-Serb population. ". Kubura 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Siroka Kula incident mentioned somehow in the sentence judgement? Alæxis_¿question? 11:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the incident with Ukrainian plane mentioned somehow in the sentence judgement? Alæxis_¿question? 11:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you fighting Paulcicero's battles, Alaexis?
Do you read the referenced material or you play like you cannot comprehend or do I have to draw you things? Read the Babić's initial indictment.
Milan Babić and Milan Martić were highly-positioned persons, that could have stopped some things, that had to stop those things, but they didn't.
Milan Babić was "President of the Municipal Assembly in Knin. From 31 July 1990 onwards, he was the President of the Serbian National Council ("SNC"). On 30 April 1991, Milan BABIC was elected President of the Executive Council of the so-called "Serbian Autonomous District/Sprska autonomna oblast/ ("SAO") Krajina." Subsequently, on 29 May 1991, he became the Prime Minister/President of the government of the self-declared SAO Krajina...Milan Babić: He participated in and contributed to the creation, organisation, recruitment, and direction of the Territorial Defence forces (TO) of the SAO Krajina... Milan Babić was the de jure commander of the TO forces. On 8 August 1991 he appointed Milan Martić Deputy TO Commander. ... Martic’s Police," "Marticevci," "SAO Krajina Police" or "SAO Krajina Milicija" (hereinafter "Martic’s Police")".
"Under Milan BABIC’s tenure as President/Prime Minister, Milan MARTIC was appointed to the following positions within the SAO Krajina: On 04 January 1991 he was appointed Secretary of the Interior; On 29 May 1991 he was appointed Minister of Defence; On 27 June 1991 he was re-appointed Minister of Interior. Milan BABIC co-operated with Milan MARTIC, which led to MARTIC’s command and control over “Marti}’s Police” involved in the commission of crimes".
"He participated in the provision of financial, material, logistical and political support necessary for the military take-over of territories in the SAO Krajina, and the subsequent forcible removal of the Croat and other non-Serb population by the TO forces, who acted in co-operation with the JNA and “Martic’s Police."
"Thus, the threat clearly expressed in Milan Martić's ultimatum in Kijevo was carried out in the territory of the SAO Krajina through the commission of widespread, grave crimes. This created an atmosphere of fear in which the further presence of Croats and other non-Serbs in the SAO Krajina was made impossible".
Enough? Kubura (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's written that the atmosphere of fear was created and that grave crimes were committed it doesn't mean that you can create the 'terrorism' section and put the info about the incident with Ukrainian plane there. Alæxis_¿question? 14:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Then, do you have any idea how shall we call the shelling of Croatian cities of Gospić, Županja, Osijek, Sisak, Karlovac, Vinkovci, Šibenik, Zadar, Zagreb...?
How shall we call the use of forbidden weapons ("zvončići"), used by rebel Serb forces in shelling of Croatian cities?
Civilian targets were being shelled there (intentionally or randomly, both is a crime), I'm not speaking about attacks on military camps.
Maybe you'll find the info in newspapers about the recent repairs on the cathedral of sv. Jakov in Šibenik (a grenade fired by Serbs, hit the roof of that cathedral).
Unfortunately, world TV-stations have been reporting mostly (and I believe, only) the shellings of Zagreb and Dubrovnik. Smaller cities weren't so interesting for them.
Second, I haven't made up the info about Ukrainian plane, I've cited the newspapers, so that section can stay, you cannot remove it just because you don't like it. If you have any other info about that plane, give the link, otherwise, stay away from that. Kubura (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. The regions in question were majority Serb and were not parts of independent Croatia just because of an illegal act by the leadership of Croatia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It was very legal act, dear child. Minorities cannot give orders to constitutional nation.
Serb majority? Oh, yes, especially after colonization of Serbs in those areas after WW1, 1918-1941, ("Serb volunteers"'s families that were colonized in Croatia, mostly in fertile valleys of Slavonia) and after Serb chetniks and converted chetniks (as well as big portion of those Serbs who hid behind partisanhood (but remained anti-Croats inside), in order to kill Croats) have ethnically cleansed those areas in WW2 (Udbina, Srb, Boričevac, Španovica...). Or the areas that were ethnically cleansed by rebel Serbs, Serb-led JNA and Serb volunteers from Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro?
"...were not parts of independent Croatia...".
Are you playing dumb or what? Have you read any article regarding Croatian medieval history (and those are undisputed parts!)? Please, don't play dumb. If you know the truth, but you hide it and twist it according to your wishes, you're serious POV-izer. If you don't know the facts, please, read some books and historical maps, many of them are available for free on the internet. Wikipedia is not a place to learn things "in walk", especially not a place for causing fruitless infinite discussions and infinitely protracted reaching of agreement of parties in dispute, just because some user has no knowledge (or is POV-izing) in the topic, where he/she has involved, behaving as big authority in that area.
Or simply: Man, what are you doing here? Procrustes, what are you doing on Wikipedia at all? Have you read the wiki-rules? Which troll and POV-izer is hiding behind this SPA account? Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fear, terror, terrorism

As you see above, ICTY has used the term "fear" in the indictment (those parts weren't beaten).
If you don't understand English, here's the meaning of terror:
From Dictionary.com - Terror.
intense, sharp, overmastering fear: to be frantic with terror.
2. an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causing terror: to be a terror to evildoers.
3. any period of frightful violence or bloodshed likened to the Reign of Terror in France.
4. violence or threats of violence used for intimidation or coercion; terrorism.
Terror, horror, panic, fright all imply extreme fear in the presence of danger or evil. Terror implies an intense fear that is somewhat prolonged and may refer to imagined or future dangers: frozen with terror.
And here's the meaning of terrorism.
From Dictionary.com - Terrorism.
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
(same site, citing American Heritage Dictionary) - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Was this helpful? Kubura (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organized evacuation

Rebel Croatian Serb authorities were preparing the evacuation of Serbs, in early years of war.

• Barić, Nikica: Srpska pobuna u Hrvatskoj 1990.-1995., Golden marketing. Tehnička knjiga, Zagreb, 2005. (the references under are from this book; he cited Serb sources)
  • RSK, Vrhovni savjet odbrane, Knin, 4. avgust 1995., 16.45 časova, Broj 2-3113-1/95. Faksimil ovog dokumenta objavljen je u/The faximile of this document was published in: Rade Bulat "Srbi nepoželjni u Hrvatskoj", Naš glas (Zagreb), br. 8.-9., septembar 1995., p. 90.-96. (faksimil je objavljen na stranici 93./the faximile is on the page 93.).

Vrhovni savjet odbrane RSK (The Supreme Council of Defense of Republic of Serb Krajina) brought a decision 4. August 1995 in 16.45. This decision was signed by Milan Martić and later verified in Glavni štab SVK (Headquarters of Republic of Serb Krajina Army) in 17.20.

• • RSK, Republički štab Civilne zaštite, Broj: Pov. 01-82/95., Knin, 02.08.1995., HDA, Dokumentacija RSK, kut. 265
  • RSK, Republički štab Civilne zaštite, Broj: Pov. 01-83/95., Knin, 02.08.1995., Pripreme za evakuaciju materijalnih, kulturnih i drugih dobara (The preparations for the evacuation of material, cultural and other goods), HDA, Dokumentacija RSK, kut. 265
  • Drago Kovačević, "Kavez - Krajina u dogovorenom ratu", Beograd 2003., p. 93.-94.

(Note: Drago Kovačević was during the existence of so-called RSK the minister of informing and the mayor of Knin, the capitol of self-proclaimed state)

• • Milisav Sekulić, "Knin je pao u Beogradu", Bad Vilbel 2001., p. 171.-246., p. 179.

(Note: Milisav Sekulić was a high military officer of "Srpska vojska Krajine" (Republic of Serb Krajina Army). Book review

• • Marko Vrcelj, "Rat za Srpsku Krajinu 1991-95", Beograd 2002., p. 212.-222.

There you have the sources. Kubura (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, let's leave this for a time being. Alæxis_¿question? 11:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that we are having saying how picture is worth 100 (or 1000) words. Serbian name of this youtube movie is:"Training of civilian evacuation from village Tržić in Kordun region (july 1995) . Croatian Operation Storm has started on 4 August 1995. In movie oni govorit srpskij no kak ti znaet ruskij ja verit da ti pomnjit potomu cto horvaskij/srpski i ruskij bit srodnij jazik .. Poka.--Rjecina (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's interesting. Yes, I can understand something (thanks to captions:)). Alæxis_¿question? 14:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. The regions in question were majority Serb and were not parts of independent Croatia just because of an illegal act by the leadership of Croatia. I doubt that these same people would trust only Serbian sources for information on the integral part of Serbia known as Kosovo-Metohija... even the sacred Badinter Commission ruled it was so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 05:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Badinter Arbitration Committee

Here is the excerpt from the pdf file (lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/80-1/Hasani PDF3.pdf), which shows the stance the Committee adopted:

Among its major decisions, the Commission concluded:

1. that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“SFRY”) no longer met the definition of a state;

2. that the Serbian minority within Bosnia was entitled to have its nationality respected, but was not entitled to alter the boundaries of Bosnia;

3.that the former internal boundaries that defined republics within Yugoslavia had become external boundaries of new states, and that these :boundaries could not be altered without the consent of the new states;

and

4.that Slovenia, Macedonia, Croatia, and the Federal Re public of Yugoslavia (“FRY”) (comprising Serbia and Montenegro)—but not Bosnia—were entitled to recognition as states.

Hope this clears up any misconceptions. --Jesuislafete (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

From where did the Badinter Commission get its legal authority? It came from nowhere. Its decisions moreover violated completely the Helsinki treaty and international law in general. So it was outlaw. Moreover, its own rulings are not even respected by those who were behind it, as the movement to recognise a so-called independent Kosovo proves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 03:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Yugoslavian constitution however did state that Serbs in Croatia had a veto on Croatian secession as did Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina had a veto on that republic's secession. Thus, independence could only be achieved with agreement with the Serbs; though it was under duress, they were able to get such an agreement in Bosnia only to have it disavowed by the so-called victim side, I'm sure people remember that one. In short, the so-called international community promoted lawlessness and disregard for the constitution, and then they make ruling that they have no business making. As for this "expansionist state", this is a joke. Serbs were in one state in 1990, they were well within their rights to not be broken up against their will. To impute an evil criminal motive, a "joint criminal enterprise" on the mere exercise of rights is just ridiculous and should not be accepted by any serious person. The only reason it was "evil" and "criminal" was because the major Western powers ruled on this matter against the Serbs and they demand that their orders be obeyed without question, and failure of certain people to do so can only mean criminal penalties because in the end, might makes right. It's in truth the law of the jungle when it comes to these things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 04:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

“

The Yugoslavian constitution however did state that Serbs in Croatia had a veto on Croatian secession

”

Could you please show some sources proving this? Alæxis_¿question? 09:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is new SPA account. They are not having evidence or it is writen in obscure books. During war Serbian position has been Serbs of Croatia and Bosnia are having right of self determination. On other side Albanians, Croatians and Hungarians of Serbia (Kosovo and Vojvodina) are not having right for self determination. You will agree that this is POV position ? --Rjecina (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know (Joze Pirievec "le guerre jugoslave", Einaudi 2001 - croatian author) the Badinter Committee answered in early '92 that Slavonia and Macedonia only met the requirements for being independent states. Croatia did not meet the requirements for respect and protection of minorities. Serbia and Montenegro (then Jugoslavia) did not ask the judgement for themeselves, of course. Croatia has been internationally recognised against the Badinter Comm. judgment. Concerning the Badinter Comm. in general: I agree it is made of people and people are involved in politics: the Badinter Comm. it is not the "Good" or the "Truth". At first i found reasonable that if Croatia was declaring its independance based on a geografically limited referendum, then Krajina could do the same. But this is a never ending process, as then every village could do the same and finally every single person, which is a bit difficult to manage administratively :) So, it would have been better to accept the decision of highly recognised international body and to struggle to have them completely adopted (minorities respect and protection) and improved (not ethnic states, not ethnic minorities but all constituent citizens). Thank you all for this very interesting "forum". --Butalso (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What "Slavonia"? And he thinks about himself as an authority to speak about that? Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the pdf with the comission's conclusions (the address is at the very top of this section). It's written rather clearly there that Croatia also was entitled to recognition. How would you explain this? Alæxis_¿question? 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The PDF you quoted on Badinter Commission Opinions is not the document written by the Commission itself but an essay on it. Looking in more details at it you can see that about Croatia it says "Recognition to be conditioned on certain amendements to Croatian constitution". So it seems our sources are in agreement. (see also the Badinter Commissions Opinions 1991 at: http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol3/No1/art13.html)
Unfortunately Croatia did not comply with these conditions for long after its international recognition.
About Badinter Commission I have to partially correct my previous statement: it was an highly recognised international body but not a legally binding one nor authoritative: it has been set up as a consultant body for EU to take decisions about Yuogoslavia, but, as I said, Europe itself did not take much into account its opinions (see the interesting "The Break-Up of Yugoslavia and International Law" by Peter Radan) --Butalso (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the Badinter Commission had no authority except perhaps for the power that comes from the barrels of western guns. The Yugoslav constitution was clear that Croatia could only secede with the agreement of its Serb population. The same thing existed in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where it could only secede with Serb and Croat agreement. The attempts to gain Serb agreement to BiH secession through the Culteiro plan in 1992 could be said to be the proper way to prepare for a separate state, though in that case, the Serbs were forced more or less to accept secession because that's what western powers wanted.

The definition of constituent people means that all important decisions must be done with Serbian consultation. That includes changing the constitution to downgrade them to a "national minority", by the way, thus this decision was illegal. This formula by the way is taken very seriously in the BiH of today, where International Community representatives are using this to claim that Republika Srpska is a state of Serb,Croat and Muslim because BiH is, and that Croats and Muslims should have veto power on decisions in RS and that Serbian symbols and names should be abolished as "racist", or so says the International Community-controlled supreme court over there (yes, it's true, the supreme courts's swing votes, that always make a bloc with the Muslims for centralising Bosnia, are held by foreigners) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 04:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbs weren't the constitutional nation in Croatia.
Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I (Basic principles of Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia, section I):
"...utvrđeno je da JE hrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj.......izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku."
(...it was confirmed that Croat people HAS established (in the common fight in national-liberation war and socialist revolution, together with Serb people and other nations and nationalities in Croatia) HIS OWN state, SR Croatia. As you see, only singular form is used.
Ustav SRH, čl. 1. (Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia):
"SR Hrvatska je: (SR Croatia is)
- nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda (national state of Croat people)
- država srpskog naroda i (state of Serb people)
- država narodnosti koje u njoj žive." (state of other nationalities that live in Croatia)
Serbs weren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they were mentioned specifically, but nothing more. Croatia is national state solely to Croats. Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država".
Source: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004..
There you have it, please don't spread that POV about Serbs as "constitutive people" anymore. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've made it clear enough now )) Still I think it would've been enough to write it one time :) Alæxis_¿question? 18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that, Alexey, but all readers don't read whole talkpage (especially when it becomes larger), and the problem was here that the POV claim was on several places on this page, so I had to repeat the referenced counterargument on those several places. Kubura (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone mentioned that Serbs supposedly have this evil double-standard saying that Serbs have powers in Croatia and Bosnia yet Albanians don't in Kosovo, this is a double standard, etc. This line of questioning was used by the Prosecutor in the Martic trial and in my opinion was an extremely insulting and perhaps even racist line of questioning that incapsulates what is wrong and was wrong here. The Yugoslav constitution under which the administrative borders of the republics were created, stated that Serbs, Croats, Muslims and Slovenians, Montenegrins and Macedonians were constituent peoples. Pursuant to that, Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia had status as constituent people there, and Croats in Bosnia also had a status as constituent people there... (I suppose that they could have made Muslims a constituent people in Serbia too but they were recognised after the agreement was hammered out at Jajce in 1943.

At any rate, the Albanians and Hungarians were considered to be nationalities without a status as constituent people. This was part of the deal that was signed, part of the package that put the borders as they were of the republics.

Now outsiders come in and move the goalposts, change the rules. They say that part of the package is sacred, whilst the part that favours the Serbs is to be junked because the West believes that a referendum of 50% plus one voting yes in a territory entitles it to independence. The fact is is that the borders were drawn to disfavour the Serbs and these other stipulations were compensation for that. Taking away that was an injustice. Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia didn't want to sign away their rights especially when considering what they went through in 1941-45 under the NDH.

I mean why not force Belgium to get rid of the rule that says that Flemings and Walloons need to be in government? For that matter, why not allow RS to secede on the 50% plus 1 principle? Western powers go into these places and make these arbitrary rules mostly for geopolitical ends. Now they lecture about how they want to create democratic institutions there. They do the opposite of course, like when they claimed the RS presidency had all the power when Plavsic was president and Klickovic the prime minister, then did a complete 180 degrees when Poplasen was president and Dodik was premier. How can institutions develop and customs develop when they are jerked around in this way according to geopolitical expediency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 05:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is wikipedia. Your or my personal thinking is not important. --Rjecina (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but the law is the law. The law was written a certain way. Now, you had outsiders making new law, and enforcing it with brute force, in effect. That's also a fact, and is not something that can be denied. I mean, can anyone tell me the real legal source of Badinter's authority?

Remember also that this timeline coincided with that when Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia had declared independence. The breakup of the USSR was a possibility, with Gorbachev trying to cobble together a new Union Treaty to decentralise the USSR, and there was talk of adopting a similar approach in Yugoslavia. As soon as the breakup became inevitable, all of a sudden Badinter turns up and demands the breakup of Yugoslavia. Can people understand why? There was great fear in those days of Russia trying to grab pieces of Kazakhstan, Ukraine, of Crimea separating, etc. They spoke of "Yugoslavia with nukes". I guess they still regret that Milosevic was not a Serbian Boris Yeltsin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrustes the clown (talk • contribs) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, as said before the Badinter Commission has been set up as a consultant body for EU to take decisions about Yuogoslavia but its opinions are not legally binding nor authoritative (see "The Break-Up of Yugoslavia and International Law" by Peter Radan).--Butalso (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear child, the conclusions of that Committee have been considered when EEC and other countries recognised former YU republics as new independent countries. That's why those committees are for. What do you want to say, Butalso? Maybe you want to turn back the time? And forcefully keep the countries in the union, in which they don't want to be? Don't use Wikipedia as your virtual playground for winning of your lost battles. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but it is hard for me and many others to take seriously SPA account which is writing how has been OK to kill Serbian primeminister Zoran Đinđić [15] , how all world has made conspiracy against Yugoslavia in which Slobodan Milošević has become victim [16] and how suspected war criminal Dragan Vasiljković is good person [17] --Rjecina (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

On talk pages us SPA accounts Butalso , Procrustes the clown and Mike Babic I have writen puppet warning--Rjecina (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Serbs as victims

Here's the case Dalj.
Državno odvjetništvo RH Sud proglasio krivim V. D. zbog ratnog zločina protiv civilnog stanovništva, dok je Z. K. oslobodio optužbe za istovrsno kazneno djelo.
"V. D. (1961.) proglasio krivim zbog počinjenja kaznenog djela ratnog zločina protiv civilnog stanovništva ...".
" ...jer je 18. travnja 1992. u Dalju, tijekom oružane pobune dijela lokalnog srpskog stanovništva protiv ustavnopravnog poretka RH; protivno odredbama međ. humanitarnog i ratnog prava, a u namjeri protjerivanja nesrpskog stanovništva s tog područja; zajedno s drugim pripadnicima paravojnih postrojbi, prema popisu sastavljenom u tzv. "Štabu TO", nasilno istjerao iz njihovih kuća 90 građana hrvatske narodnosti, 11 građana mađarske narodnosti, dvoje građana muslimanske narodnosti i jednog građanina slovačke narodnosti, te ih protjerao na tada slobodno područje RH ne dopuštajući im da ponesu niti najnužnije osobne stvari....".
I gave this link, because from time to time, always appear some smart*ss who says that only the Croats were the target, and not the others. Kubura (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Serb Krajina (RSK) dates (December 19th, 1991 - January 15th, 1998)

It seems to me that there is some confusion about the exact dates concerning RSK's chronological beginning and ending. RSK was created as a self-proclaimed entity on December 19th, 1991 - this date is correctly quoted in the article. However, RSK continued to exist until January 15th, 1998, confined to Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (covered by the Erdut agreement and UNTAES administration). Borislav Drzajic was RSK's Prime Minister from 1995 to 1996, and Vojislav Stanimirovic was RSK's last Prime Minister from 1996 to January 15th, 1998 (their governments were situated in Vukovar). --FreedonNadd (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that this part of "Krajina" continued to exist, the basis of the article is on the areas of Northern Dalmatia, Eastern Lika, etc. The government basically collapsed after the military defeat in 1995. Remember, the eastern regions were never truly organized together with the south, although they claimed solidarity. When the quasi government in Knin fell, that is when RSK fell. --Jesuislafete (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Input needed

I have added the following "Although it remained unrecognized by the international community, Republica Srpska Krajina implemented its own currency, police force, army regiments, schooling systems, hospitals, vehicle licensing plates and other basic tasks usually performed by the state."

in my knowledge the facts are real, and using logic we can even prove them. Krajina had an police force since Milan Babic was a police chief. They had a functioning hospital in Knin. They had school since i went to one of them. They had licence plates since i have one in my garage that i can take a picture of. They had currency since its on the page..

I feel like the sentence describes Krajina's rather well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument that you went to to school and therefore they existed isn't acceptable in Wikipedia :(. try to find something about in in the Internet or in other sources. Alæxis_¿question? 06:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I understand that it is not acceptable on wikipedia. Howevere it proves its validity and most of the things on the articles are not cited well. Should we do a total redo of the article where only acceptable sources are accepted? is there a way for us to do a poll? Mike Babic (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you understand that it is not acceptable on wikipedia then you know that it will be reverted. Everybody knows that all states (recognized or not) are having hospitals, police, courts but if you insist on writing about Krajina police (example) then somebody other will write how police has not protected citizens from massacres, ethnic cleansins and similar stuff.--Rjecina (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel like that is acceptable since it is the truth. let the truth be known i dont care. I have removed the facts that are not backed up in the articles already, facts like that RSK had schools. other facts are well known and are written in the article. Mike Babic (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Some things are obvious, there is no encyclopedic need for them. I moved your original statement to the the section of the creation of rsk, but took out a couple of obvious mentions. This should be agreeable to all. Remember, don't clutter up articles with additives, though I'm not saying that is a problem here. Good job to you all. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The part on the founding of RSK is very messy and badly done and has some words that create a Croatian POV; words like "rebel Serbs", etc. During these moments of time, RSK and Croatia were recognised as part of the sovereign state of Yugoslavia, and this context is required so people can understand. Moreover, it seems that people don't want any mention of the NDH context, in that symbols were used associated with NDH; this is not a judgment about whether it's a wrong or right association, it's just that this was what happened. At any rate, my changes are a great improvement and provided order and context, and yet it's always being rolled back. If someone has a problem with the tone and content that I produce, why not simply edit that more ordered text instead of obliterating it? I saved what I did and I would alter it before saving it here, hoping in vain that it would be deemed acceptable but someone is determined to keep that honestly messy text there. Procrustes the clown (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want the creation of Krajina in a nutshell, this question by Seselj to a prosecution witness about the 25 July 1990 Srb declaration would be very useful : "Is it the case that Serb political leaders offered to the gathered Serbian people for acclamation three basic positions. One, if Croatia remains within Federal Yugoslavia, Serbs require only cultural autonomy. Two, if Yugoslavia is to turn into a confederation, Serbs then insist on territorial autonomy. Three, if Croatia is seceding from Yugoslavia, Serbs are seceding from Croatia and remain with Yugoslavia." The prosecution witness agreed with this and then agreed that this was the policy of the Serbian Democratic Party that governed the future RSK. This is from the 13 February 2008 Seselj trial transcript at http://www.un.org/icty/transe67/080213ED.htm Procrustes the clown (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the language of who is a rebel and who is not should be based on UN recognition; that is the best measure. In the old days, it used to be that treaties between the great powers settled the borders; the Treaty of San Stefano was deemed unacceptable by many great powers and so the Treaty of Berlin changed the outcomes of the previous treaty. The UN and its Security Council is the best measure of great power redrawing of borders. In the case of Yugoslavia, the UN recognised the breakaway republics in April 1992. It was unfair and violated the Helsinki Final Act, but nonetheless Great Powers are not necessarily fair so this would make a good standard. Thus, from the time before that, the Croats were the rebels and the Krajina Serbs were loyal to the legitimate sovereign authority. Any articles here should reflect that. Unfortunately, there's a tendancy to claim that Croatia was independent far before that date, even claiming it to be so during the time of the Brioni Moratorium when Croatia suspended its independence and had its presidency member in Belgrade serve as President of Yugoslavia(!)... talk about having it both ways!... the ICTY indictment of Stanisic and Simatovic, for instance, claims that crimes were committed by them "in the countries" of Croatia and Bosnia in 1991, which of course is nonsense as the UN did not recognise them as countries. I think people should make sure that the definitions and point of view OF THE TIME is considered and that the standards of how things are today are not used... remember that breaking up Yugoslavia and the USSR for that matter was considered to be radical, almost beyond the realm of possibility. It was certainly illegal to change Yugoslavia's borders without its consent as the Helsinki act guaranteed that fact. That's why Slovenia chose to sabotage the functioning of Yugoslavia because there was no guarantee that the UN and powers would accept its secession from a functioning Yugoslavia. So it picked a fight over Kosovo and tried to impose an unworkable confederation on the rest of Yugoslavia and just caused trouble to try to break it apart... in the case of the USSR, it was Yeltsin in the central Russian republic who usurped Soviet functions and invited the other republics to do the same; that's why it broke apart. Milosevic in Serbia did not do this and wanted to preserve Yugoslavia so in the name of "managing the Soviet breakup", and preventing a "Yugoslavia with nukes", Yugoslavia was declared to be dissolved as the USSR was dissolving; this really was not a credible threat as Yeltsin made it clear that he was not claiming parts of other republics and accepted the principle of having the republics secede with existing Soviet-era borders, decapitating the central government.

Procrustes the clown (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Great information. I think the UN is biased since they are funded by 1 or 2 countries. BUT, i agree. We should base our termanology on the UN standard. Secondly, could you share the links that give you this information. I would love to learn more.

Mike Babic (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a case of one person talking to himself on talkpage (but two accounts)?.
What Helsinki act? Who changed Yugoslav borders? Has any country expanded itself at the expense of Yugoslavia? Man, you don't know what are you talking about. Further, stop spreading your POV about "secession". Respect some things. YU republics were supposed to be equal members of YU federation, and no member of that federation had rights to impose its wish to another. When Serbia's leadership began to do that, Yugoslavia's collapse began. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Serbian POV

I am tired of SPA account bandit clown and even more tired for need to explain reason for deleting his fantasy. In my thinking for editor which is writing using misleading words how it has been OK to kill Serbian primeminister is not having right to edit wikipedia but .... To make long story short I will give 3 example why his nationalistic edits are deleted:

• He is using like sources defense witness statement during ICTY trials. This is not accepted on wiki because we need to have neutral sources of statements.
• Writing false statements:"Serbs in Croatia enjoyed the status of a constituent people, with the right to veto secession"
• Writing misleading statements:"Croatian Ministry of the Interior Police were sent to the Knin area, triggering the Log Revolution..." Statement is misleading because police has been send only after police in Knin is rebelled....
• Second misleading statement:"The new government also claimed Serb domination of the republic and overrepresentation of Serbs in the public service, police and the professions in general" Ulmost nobody from ex Yugoslavia or historians from Europe is questioning fact that there has been overrepresentation of Serbs in Police and Army. This has not been evil Serbian plan but Croats and Slovenes for example has rarely been interested in Army of Police career.

All in all ulmost all his statements from 27 March are full of misleading words, false statements or trial witness like source. --Rjecina (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiprojects

This page is not for categorization WikiProject Serbia. These were occupied areas of Croatia (so-called RSK was sockpuppet of Serbia) by greaterserbianist forces. Placing this article under that category is just another attempt of presenting of Croatian territory as Serbian. Don't play with that, that's open expansionism. I ask involved users to not to play dumb.
Also, this also doesn't belong to project "former countries". As an it was previously said in comment there, so-called RSK is not a "former country". So-called RSK was an unrecognised country. So-called RSK was never recognised, and as such, it never existed. Otherwise, you're putting this area in the level of Yugoslavia and USSR, internationally recognised countries, that exist no more. Kubura (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. First, this article is not placed in any category. This article is rather within the scope of WikiProject Serbia. It means (as far as I understand) that many (or some) members of that project find this article interesting and can potentially contribute to it. I hope you'll agree that there's nothing wrong with it (exactly the opposite, actually). I'm also rather sure that it is up to the members of WP Serbia to add or remove articles from within its scope. Alæxis_¿question? 11:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh is a region of Republic of Azerbaijan. Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh lists the article as within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia. Armenia and Azerbaijan fought over this region in the Nagorno-Karabakh War after the majority Armenian population of this region declared independence from Azerbaijan. As a political entity, it is not internationally recognized but that does nothing to subtract from the historical and political implications that are of encyclopedic notability. This is no different. RSK is, justifiably so, a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia. SWik78 (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's surely within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan as well. Alæxis_¿question? 20:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course! That's implied. I was just trying to illustrate why Armenia is not excluded and why Serbia shouldn't be. SWik78 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because mistakes were made on some other Wikiprojects, we have to repeat that here again?
I disagree with solutions above. In those cases, Wikiprojects should refer to nationality, not country. Otherwise, it sounds very, very bad.
In this case, tagging this talkpage as "Serbia" is continuation of Serbian aggression on Croatia, but with other means (information war, intelligence war). The area concerned (occupied areas of Croatia) was never part of Serbia. Wikipedia is supposed to give correct information. Kubura (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are not mistakes, the tags simply indicate an area of interest that can be based on several things. Everyone agrees that this was never a part of Serbia but this is not a continuation of Serbian aggression on Croatia. SWik78 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Z4

Following the rejection by both sides of the Z-4 plan for reintegration

This is false.Serbian side rejeced it for months,only to sign it one day before the Operation Storm.Then the Croatian Government refused it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GriffinSB (talk • contribs) 08:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it say that line in the article? I can't find it, it should be fixed if it's there. For the record, the "Z-4" was a peace plan which was presented several months before Operation Storm to both sides: the government of Croatia and the leaders of the RSK. It was supposed to be a working tool where both sides can negotiate the issues (i.e. it was not supposed to be a "final solution." It was a blueprint of a peace plan which had room to be changed and fixed during negotiations). True, RSK rejected it immediately (Martic didn't even want to touch it) because they did not want to be a part of Croatia in any way, and they did not want to negotiate. And Babic only signed it under the knowledge that Croatia was preparing to launch an offensive, and Croatia was not given any room to negotiate the terms of the plan. Moreover, they did not trust him, and knew Babic was only one of the small pawns in the game, and anything he signed would also have to be approved by Martic, Mladic, and of most importantly, Milosevic. --Jesuislafete (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Jesuislafete. Z-4 was a framework for taking steps toward reintegration.

Z-4 was presented to both sides (Croat and Serb) by the CG (ICFY + ambassadors of USA and Russia) in January 1995. The Croats received it, but did not agree to it. The Serbs refused to even receive it. You can read more about it here in the ICFY Official Papers, starting on page 1097.

The plans (there were two, actually) presented by Mr. Stoltenberg on 3 August in Geneva were not identical to the original Z-4, but were based upon it. You can read all about it in the Secretary General's Report of 7 August 1995 S/1995/666. Be sure to scroll all the way to page 9 to see the complete Annex II (Tudjman's terms).

Civilaffairs (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

[edit] Missing images

I deleted Image:8002oo7.jpg from the Gallery section because it has been deleted on March 13 by (you can confirm by clicking the redlink). Images Image:Croatian refugees.jpg, and Image:Vukovar refugees.jpg are still listed in the Gallery section but are not being displayed. Can anyone check to see that these are the right image names or confirm that these images have been deleted?
Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)