Talk:Operation Storm/Archive 1

On "Background"

Whole section is perhaps savable but general statements should be edited out. What does "according to Croatians" mean? What is "real truth"? Abstract statements about how history is written in the Balkans are meaningless and not suitable for reference works of any kind. Here is an example:

"In the Balkans, history is written in many different ways. According to Croatians, or nationalistic Croatians, the Croatian military did nothing more than probe Serbian rebels in Krajina while the Serbs destroyed and looted churches. According to Nationalistic Serbs, people were brutally attacked just for being Serbian. The real truth is somewhere in the middle."

On removing POV

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

"Should they prove to be authentic, as far as the major points are concerned, they present the case for clean and brilliant military operation that decisively defeated the Serbian expansion of the 90ies and paved the way to the Dayton peace agreement."

This line, and in fact the whole Controversy section, doesn't abide a neutral POV. I'm not familiar enough with the details of Operation Storm to correct this all, but this certainly shouldn't be allowed to stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.119.118.12 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

One should add that the Serbs who were driven out during Storm were not backed by Milosevic at the time, they had been abandoned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.153.38 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"clean and brilliant military operation" - could stand, "defeated the Serbian expansion" - could not stand, because Serbs lived there for ages. I agree that this paragraph shoud be changed. --Majmun 18:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

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

REPUBLIC OF SERB KRAJINA
SUPREME DEFENCE COUNCIL

Knin, 4th Aug 1995

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

Knin, 4th Aug 1995

Certified by Serb Army HQ dtd 4th Aug 1995 at 17.20 hrs

under Reg. No. as above.
P R E S I D E N T

Mile Martiç

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameismine (talk • contribs) 09:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What does "Casualties" mean?

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

1. An accident, especially one involving serious injury or loss of life.

2. One injured or killed in an accident: a train wreck with many casualties.

3. One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: Battlefield casualties were high.

4. One that is harmed or eliminated as a result of an action or a circumstance: The corner grocery was a casualty of the expanding supermarkets. [1]

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

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

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

This war and battle are very specific and controversial. The entry "left their homes", gives something to think about. "Why? What were historical/present/at-the-time reasons, if any? Is that something that contradicts some other information?" We are not talking about some small number of people, but ~200 000, and that is something that should not be left out of "immediate" after-effects.

There's more - this is not military report, to base information solely on info strictly involving "military" stuff. Alter all, this is en encyclopedia, "civil" one.

Btw, "casualties" is not suitable word at all for things like this, I agree - and not only in this example. In fact, it is "chosen" jut because of that (so that some facts could be interpreted differently). But, this has nothing to do with Wiki, but with some broader topics including use of language & psychology. As you pointed out - losses is maybe far more better choice. --Majmun 10:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely that "this is not military report" if by "this" you mean the article. It shouldn't be, and it isn't. But the infobox itself is meant to be a military report, so I think it's better that it be kept that way. Incidentally, Template_talk:Battlebox (I've read it only after my original writeup here) is also rather clear in that respect.

I'd like to add that I certainly don't consider this to be a big issue. It is simply that I had deleted extra information from the infobox, and wanted to explain here why, so that my edit is not confused for pushing a particular POV on the article. GregorB 14:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Support from the USA

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

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

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

First, even if this would be the only attack, it still amounts to air support, especially given that later Croatia used aviation against Serbian civilians and that SAMs could be used to defend from it. Second, here's a link to Yugoslav aeroclub "Nasa krila" (our wings) which says "Exact list of targets is not reported, but it is known that NATO was shooting communication centers, radars AA systems, command posts and repeaters of Serbian television. Besides in this operation have also participated airplanes of Croatian air force MiG-21." Tha page details other attacks of NATO on RSK. Nasa krila is a respectable aeroclub, I think the oldest in Serbia, founded in 1921. Nikola 13:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I looked it up and it would appear that Nasa krila is definitely wrong. There were no NATO air strikes during Operation Storm (indeed, NATO was criticised by the media at the time for sitting it out). According to the Washington Post of 5 August 1995, the air strike of 4 August 1995 took place after UNPROFOR personnel at Knin requested a show of force from NATO after coming under threat from Croatian Serb forces. While on patrol near Knin, the EA-6Bs were illuminated by SAMs, which were then targeted and destroyed.

How does destroying a SAM system protects UNPROFOR personnel? Nikola 08:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't - it protects the NATO pilots. -- ChrisO 22:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The air strike took place under the auspices of Operation Deny Flight, which was the enforcement of the no-fly zone over Bosnia and the UNPAs. NATO aircraft were allowed to shoot down aircraft violating the no-fly zone, as well as attacking ground air defence sites which were deemed to pose an immediate threat. Earlier air strikes against RSK targets (such as the 21 November 1994 strike against Udbina airbase) were in response to violations of the no-fly zone.

I would guess that Nasa krila was probably thinking of the later Operation Deliberate Force, in which communication centres, radars, command posts and TV transmitters were targeted - but that was in Bosnia, not Croatia, and it wasn't until three weeks after the end of Storm. -- ChrisO 20:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I should add that the 4 August strike shouldn't be characterised as "air support" either. Look up the Wikipedia article on close air support: "Close air support (often abbreviated as CAS or CAIRS) is the use of military aircraft in a ground attack role against targets in close proximity to friendly troops, in support of ground combat operations. In this role, aircraft serve a purpose similar to that of artillery." This wasn't the case on 4 August, as the strike was mounted to defend patrolling aircraft against a hostile surface threat rather than supporting ground forces. Technically it would be counted as a defensive counter air operation. -- ChrisO 22:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Is all air support close air support or maybe there are some other kinds of air support? Nikola 08:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There are other uses of air power - air interdiction and strategic bombing come to mind. However, an attack on SAMs wouldn't have constituted close air support, as SAMs aren't a threat to the ground troops whom CAS is intended to support. If the attack had been premeditated, it would have counted as air defence suppression or offensive counter air. The rules of engagement allowed the pilots to attack air defence sites on their own initiative if their aircraft were fired on or locked onto by SAM radars, as apparently happened in this instance. -- ChrisO 22:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

so in fact although this was not a CAS it was a strategic bombing, as you say,which can be caled air support since it helped Croation Air Forecs in this battle. Thank's for the clarification. Strategic bombing is the right term for the NATO air support given. {{Subst:unsigned|Mynameismine|09:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)}

You probably mean strategic bombing with possibility of nuclear bombs droping. Maybe 'RSK' forces were threatened to be nuked and withdraw? [Kreso Bilan] 217.41.217.23 18:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

See definitions

The mission of disabling or destroying air defense is Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD). It is neither strategic nor tactical, but supports some other mission such as offensive counter-air or battlefield air interdiction. I would observe that "strategic bombing" is rarely used in modern air planning, just as "strategic bombers" such as the B-52 are used for close air support, and fighter-bombers and attack aircraft against deep targets (e.g., F-117) See, for example, John Warden III's Planning the Air Campaign http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/warden/warden-all.htm Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On ethnic cleansing

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

Republic of Serbian Krajina was a crime itself. No ethnic cleansing was done on it, because it should have never existed.--Juraj j 09:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the existence of political entities (such as Serbian Krajina) is a 'crime' according to people like yourself, ethnic cleansing did occur and should STRONGLY be mentioned. (If the tables were turned, and an expulsion of 250,000 Croats from Serbia occured during the war, you can bet International media would blast reports of ethnic cleansing until infants in Timbuktu heard about it. Ironically enough, this never occured, and Serbia is still the most diverse of the former Yugoslav republics...) Stop The Lies 01:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Possibility that ethnic cleansing occured is currently (2007) being investigated by ICTY in Haague. Assuming innocence prior to the verdict, the correct intepretation is that the people left. Please check the words of American ambassador at the time in Croatia, Peter W. Galbraith... technically speaking it is not ethnic cleansing, whatever ICTY finds out. Only intention can be proven (as people left before forces of Republic of Croatia established control). [Kreso Bilan] 217.41.217.23 18:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the American ambassador is a very reliable source.... Not like the USA was one of the first nations to recognize the illegal independence of Croatia, not like the USA trained croatian officers and supplied weapons to Croatia... Oh wait, THEY DID! --24.150.77.3 17:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Serbs of the Krajina region were the unlucky product of Austro-Hungarian/Ottoman border disputes, and their illegal secession from the possibly illegal new Croatia was a desperate measure to avoid being killed or expelled by Croatian nationalists. Croatia is the least repentant of any Axis nation, barely concealing their pride in their fascist past. When Croatian Serbs (and Roma) saw the increasing anti-Serb sentiment, the crypto-fascist president, and the resurgence of Ustashe symbols, they could reasonably assume another Jasenovac was on the horizon. America and Europe's new pal frightened off, murdered, or ejected hundreds of thousands of people (and invaded a weaker neighbor) to the same slogans and banners they'd used under the Nazis. Now Croatia is a popular vacation spot. Hire Croatia's public relations guy (and fire Serbia's) if you're planning to carve an aggressive racist state out of a dissolving nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.163.28 (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Article and USA

I think if you can find some reliable sources, please be bold and add it to the article! If there is something notable, there's no reason why it shouldn't be in the article. Laughing Man 05:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I also would like it be noted that you should please take care on your selection of words as your "clean -up Croatian territory and enter Krajina" is quite offensive to be frank. Laughing Man 18:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's sources:

NGO Organization, Member of United Nations: US Officials aided and abetted Croatian General Ante Gotovina

Former Croatian minister confirms CIA's involvement in 1995 military operation

Was the US behind the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia?

US Involvement in Croatian War Crimes?

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

Afrika paprika

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

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

Inaccuracy and POV statements

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

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

The fact that it led to ethnic cleansing seems unsourced at first - but it's also not arguable, but almost evident. This action couldn't've enabled the return of about 250,000 people to their homes and at least twice as much in neigbouring areas (750,000 Croat refugees? Where did you get that). Krajina itself had 78,000 Croats and 2,000 Muslims in 1991 - and a minority yet remained through the Serbian occupation. Your "krajina region" mention is not understandable... --HolyRomanEmperor 23:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT A FACT but an opinion...yours at that. There is no such thing as "Krajina" and you enforcing this supposed term is showing your true side. In the occuppied territories by the 1991. census there were over 205 000 Croats living in the so-called "Republic of Serbian Krajina". In zones South and North over 110 000 and in zone East over 92 000. Your diminishing of this number seem transparent. Also we have documents saying and ordering withdrawal of civilians from the Serbian terrorist leaderhip...most of them never even saw Croatian soldiers. Also the radio stations were blocked by the Serbs themselves due to messages from Croatian authorities to stay calm and not to flee, that nothing will happen to them. Afrika Paprika 00:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A Question of Objectivity

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

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

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

BIRN

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

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

On ethnic cleansing 2

I will ad something- biggest diference between ethnic cleansing and this army operation is they simply fled before army even came!!! Ethnik cleansing that Serbs done prevously on that teritory and later in Bosnia, was unther their control and sistematicly true the years and orginased killing under theire goverment like in [srebrenica] masacre.-ivan zg

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

Amnesty International article states [3]: "During and after these military offensives, some 200,000 Croatian Serbs, including the entire Croatian Serb Army, fled to the neighbouring Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina under Bosnian Serb control. In the aftermath of the operations members of the Croatian Army and police murdered, tortured, and forcibly expelled Croatian Serb civilians who had remained in the area as well as members of the withdrawing Croatian Serb armed forces." I don't know how else you would describe the displacement of an ethnic group from a territory. I would appriciate it this reliable source is not removed as it has been previously by the following users:

• Mihovil -- [4] [5]
• Afrika paprika -- [6]

Thank you // Laughing Man 06:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you still don't get it. Those 200,000 people left pretty much of their own volition. If you are going to argue that those who remained were ethnically cleansed, that's another matter. But as it stands now, you have cited this source incorrectly and inappropriately. That's why we have been removing it. Mihovil 13:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Of their own volition? Are you out of your mind? I know people who were too scared to visit their home towns in 2006, 11 years after the war. Needless to say, I've reverting - no need for you to delete sources. --estavisti 15:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see anything about "ethnic cleansing"? "some 200,000 Croatian Serbs, including the entire Croatian Serb Army, fled to the neighbouring Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina under Bosnian Serb control" <- This doesn't sound to me like "ethnic cleansing", does it to you? Afrika Paprika 25:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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

The propaganda machine? Before the war even started, Serbs were been discriminated against and killed. I suppose the Croats who fled Croatia because they had Serb wives etc were also under the influence of the supposed "Belgrade propaganda machine"? --estavisti 02:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence. Either provide something more reliable than your word, or cite the amnesty article properly. Mihovil 02:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Like where for example? And what Croats fled because of their Serb wives? I have an uncle who is married to my aunt..he is a Serb...he didn't fled. What the hell are you ranting about? Afrika Paprika 25:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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

I am fine with compromsing on this issue, I just think it's unacceptable to remove a "reliable source". I've just disambiguated displacement. // Laughing Man 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links

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

User "Rts freak" you removed them. Why did you remove them? If you do not give a good enough reason, they are going back. Stop The Lies 01:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

I forgot to put a summary of my edit: I replaced the external links Stop The Lies 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Factual Accuracy

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

External Links 2

How convenient for user:161.53.116.99 to put the BBC article (trusted source) at the bottom of the external links (simply because it is sympathetic to the Serb cause), and replace it with two YouTube clips which are very far from being Wikipedia material. Not only do the links contain insulting/derogatory remarks in the comments but the videos themselves are propaganda. One example of propaganda is when a man claims that Croatian forces received no external help. This is widely reported to be false, as Croatia did in fact receive external aid. Feel free to add links, but make sure they comply with Wikipedia standards. Stop The Lies 05:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Intro lines

Stop the Lies, I've reverted the edit concering the number of displaced Bosnians. As you may know, Croatia took the higher number of refugees of Bosnian nationality then any other country in the world since 1992. The number of dispalced Croatians was high, but not nearly as high as this figure. Plus, if they were all Croatians from Bosnia, it would mean about 30% of the Croat population was displaced - much too high, especially since the majority-Croatian parts (south-west Herzegovina) in Bosnia wasn't directly in the war - most of the Croat-Bosnian war was fought in central Bosnia.

Concerning the second subject, the line "majority of them from Krajina proper", I don't have a source, but I find the line logical. The area of Krajina constituted about 80% of Serb-controlled areas in Croatia. By total numbers of population, it is obvious they were from there: the pre-war population of eastern Slavonia was no higher then 80.000 (high number were also Serbs) and this was the second largest area under Serb control. The Spanish Inquisitor 07:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Krajina had a large Serb population for a long time. Only after 1995 was the Serb population of Krajina lessened due to ethnic cleansing. A source is necessary, or the line will be removed. I do not find it 'logical'. Stop The Lies 08:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

We are talking about the Croatian population of Krajina, not Serb. You know, the one that was ethnically cleansed in 1991... Croats made up about 200-300.000 people who were driven off. I'll find a source stating that Krajina was 30% Croat in 1990 and 2% Croat in 1992. Will that please you? The Spanish Inquisitor 08:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "pleasing" individuals. Wikipedia is about the facts. If you can find a reliable source that claims so then yes, of course it belongs on Wikipedia. I have not seen one yet. Stop The Lies 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Milan Babić indictment (http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/bab-ii031117e.htm):

"The deportation or forcible transfer of thousands of Croat and other non-Serb civilians from the SAO Krajina/RSK. According to the 1991 census the total population of the SAO Krajina/RSK was 286,716. Croats amounted to 78,611 (27, 42%) of the total population. Only 1,932 (0,67%) Muslims were registered at that time. Virtually the whole Croat, Muslims and non-Serb population of the SAO Krajina/RSK was forcibly removed, deported or killed." - I'm modifing the sentance and adding this source. The Spanish Inquisitor 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Refugees from Bosnia

This is a direct quote from the source:

"Attacks against and harassment of Muslim refugees escalated in 1993 but have since subsided. Most of the attacks against Muslim refugees were due to hostility felt against Muslims who fought Bosnian Croat forces in central Bosnia throughout 1993. In early 1994, a rapprochement between Bosnian Croats and Muslims, on the one hand, and the Republics of Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina on the other, decreased tensions between Muslims and Croats in general. In recent months, conciliatory press coverage and government statements have led to a decrease in attacks against Muslim refugees in Croatia. However, following the expulsion of Bosnian Croats and Muslims from their homes in the Bosnian Serb-held city of Banja Luka in August 1995, the Croatian government has reportedly been allowing Croats to enter Croatia but has only accepted a small number of Muslims, most of whom remain on the Croatian-Bosnian border. Also in August 1995, the Croatian government was obstructing deliverance of humanitarian aid to rebel Muslims loyal to Fikret Abdi_, a renegade leader aligned with the Bosnian and Croatian Serbs against Bosnian-government forces in the Biha_ area.

The fighting between Croats and Muslims in central Bosnia in 1993 resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of persons. Many displaced Bosnian Croats came to Croatia as refugees, and some of these refugees attacked Bosnian Muslim refugees currently living in Croatia. The Croatian government did little to protect Bosnian Muslim refugees from attack. Moreover, the anti-Muslim propaganda regularly heard on the state-controlled television and radio throughout 1993 exacerbated tensions between Muslims and Croats in Croatia.

As of March 1995, the Croatian government was providing refuge to 189,000 refugees from Bosnia and 196,000 persons who have been internally displaced as a result of the war in Croatia in 1991 and thereafter."

Therefore, the 189,000 refugees from Bosnia were displaced due to Croat/Muslim tension.

Also, always explain/justify your edits, as I did. Stop The Lies 07:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Like you quoted the article, there WERE Bosnian refugees there. Claiming that there were ALL Croat refugees from the war is silly. After all, the article says these refugees were attacked. How could they have been attacked if there weren't there? In March 1995, the war in Bosnia was still very much active and Bosnian Moslems couldn't have just returned to their homes in the meantime. Like I said, Croatia held the largest number of Bosnian Moslem refugees in the world and you're negating that by misqouting a source. The same way you want me to provide a direct quote for "Krajina proper", find a direct quote for this or remove it. The Spanish Inquisitor 08:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes of course there were Bosnian refugees... wow you are really not understanding me... My edit to the article was saying that those 189,000 refugees from Bosnia came due to CROAT/MUSLIM conflict. AS THIS SOURCE CLEARLY STATES. What part of this don't you understand??? Stop The Lies 08:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

In fact, the 189,000 shouldn't even be in that sentence, because that sentence is talking about reasons Croat authorities gave for Operation Storm, and CROAT/MUSLIM tension couldn't be one of the reasons. Stop The Lies 08:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

OK, it's out of place here, but I'm saying that a large number of these 189.000 came BEFORE 1994 (majority in 1992) - not thanks to Croat/Moslem war. They didn't just show up overnight when the Bosnian-Croat war started, but the inflow of refugees was steady since 1992. The first two areas of Bosnia attacked by Serb forces were Posavina (north) and west Bosnia - from both of which refugees could have only fled over the border to Croatia. In fact, in early 1993 (before Croat/Moslem war) Slovenia had taken some 70.000 Moslem refugees before they closed the borders to Croatia saying they couldn't handle any more. The Spanish Inquisitor 08:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it's besides the point, just remove it.The Spanish Inquisitor 08:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Stop The Lies 08:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Croatia says this, Croatia claims that

I couldn't escape a feeling that there was a certain cinicism in the sentences I edited. There undoubtably was ethnic cleansing of Croats from "Kraina"'s territory yet the fact is stated somewhat half-heartedly and the reader is led to doubt it's credibility. The figures I'm not gonna go into, so I left them under the 'according to Croatia' frase. The same goes for the motivation of Croatia's government in the operation. There is no reason for this to be doubted. DIREKTOR

Removing unreliable article

That article is not a reliable source--extremely POV written by a Serb who does not acknowledge any wrong in anything the Serbs did, excuses every crime they commited, and even tries to diminish Srebrenica. His writing is very juvenile, he refers to the United States as "the Empire" and says Tudjman brought a "revival" of Pavelic's symbols and vocabulary (a blatant lie--the grb he is does not want to mention has been a Croatian symbol for centuries), he says Serb agression in Croatia was "imaginary" (I guess all those exiled and dead Croats are imaginary too), writes sarcastically that the Americans trained the Croatians in "democracy" and "human rights" (italiacs were put in by him). He uses incorrect and inflated Serb numbers instead of the more neutral U.N. numbers and claims all Serbs who were left behind were killed (another lie), claims only a tenth of the Serbs who lived in Croatia before the war have returned (huge lie--try one third). He even had the nerve to write "Tudjman made Pavelic's dream to rid Croatia of Serbs a reality." He further bumbles on about Srebrenica and Kosovo, and finishes it off by saying "Where the Nazis failed, the American Empire has succeeded." That is why I removed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.195.70.237 (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree - see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. We need to take care that we're not directing readers towards fringe sources. -- ChrisO 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The said link IS a reliable source.

• No, he does not excuse every crime they (Serbs) committed, this is simply a commentary on the crime that Croats committed. (Is that not allowed? A commentary on a Croat crime?)
• No, he does not try to diminish Srebrenica. He compares Srebrenica and Oluja:

"In both cases, a UN "safe area" was targeted by the attack. In Srebrenica, the UN at least tried to protect Muslim civilians; in Krajina, it did no such thing. Serbs evacuated Muslim noncombatants from Srebrenica; Serbs who did not flee Krajina were killed. Yet Srebrenica is somehow "genocide," while Oluja is a victory worth a national holiday"

What he says is factual, and he brings to light how the fact that Oluja is praised is horrendous.

• I disagree that his writing is juvenile: (1) The US is very commonly referred to as the American "Empire" (2) Before Tudjman the 'symbols' and 'vocabulary' were not present since WWII (Tito didn't allow it), so yes, he does bring a revival. He even quotes Tudjman, so it's not as if he's making stuff up.
• He says that the revival of suppressed Ustasa ideology and "not some imaginary "aggression" from Serbia – was the root of their "rebellion" - there was no aggression from Serbia. And yes, millions of people (mostly Serbs) believe that this was the reason for Oluja (and we do include dissenting/contradictory views on Wikipedia as long as there's a significant number of people who hold those views, don't we)
• He never added italics to "democracy" and "human rights", so you are lying. He added quotes to illustrate that these are actual words used by "officers, working for (US) government contractor MPRI". There is no sarcasm.
• You claim that Serb numbers are inccorect, showing your POV, which is fine. But all sides should be able to give their numbers (just as the Croats should be able to give their numbers, which are significantly lower than the UN numbers), and he specifically says "According to Serb documentation", showing that he is not trying to pass them off as UN numbers and that he will let the reader decide for himself if he will agree with those numbers.
• Um, yes, the Serbs that stayed behind in Krajina were not only killed, but were also raped and tortured (something this 'biased' writer doesn't even include). That is no lie. Croat soldiers went from house to house exterminating the Krajina Serb population.
• Please provide a reference for your claim that by 2005 a 3rd of Serbs had returned to Croatia.
• The quote "Tudjman made Pavelic's dream to rid Croatia of Serbs a reality" is a very honest quote. After the war, Croatia did rid itself of many many Serbs (which was Pavelic's dream - Pavelic= WWII Ustasa leader, under whose command a concentration camp was set up in which 500,000 to 1,000,000 Serbs (among other ethnic groups) were brutally exterminated - and you want to say that Pavelic's dream WASN'T to rid Croatia of Serbs???!)
• Your use of POV wording such as "bumbles" doesn't help. He correctly compares the case in Krajina to the case in Kosovo.
• The Nazis, who helped the Ustase, failed to remove Serbs from Croatia, the US, who helped the Croatian gov't, succeeded in removing Serbs from Croatia. Therefore "Where the Nazis failed, the American Empire has succeeded".

I have answered EVERY SINGLE one of your attemps to paint the link as an unreliable POV source. But, I will NOT replace it, because I am not one to start an edit war over one link (in most cases). I will however, put the link here, so anyone can use it as another source, for the case of ethnic cleansing that was Operation Storm (Maîtresse 22:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)):

ANTIWAR.COM - REMEMBERING THE STORM

Maîtresse, up until now I was very tolerant of your editing, but you really show yourself as very unbiased and pro-Serb. You take a lot of liberty on this article, reverting any edits which you do not like. This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and people have the right to add/remove content (as long as it's not vandalism), but you revert any effort from everyone, which drives people away from the article. In the last three months you made no less then 6 reverts, only one of which was vandalism.

Back to the subject. The "facts" you present here are themselves to be discussed, and are many, but I'll just stick to a few significant ones. The NDH numbers you use are the sterotypical Serb propaganda numbers. If you ever took a look at any publication (other then ones printed in Belgrade 1945-1995), you would find the number of Jasenovac victims is about 80'000 (74'000 were identified by names) and the TOTAL number of dead in NDH between 400 and 500'000 - and up to 40% of these were not Serbs, but were Jews, other Croats, Gypsies, etc. Any other number then that is a balant lie, but the propaganda is so strong that it results in stupid things like the ultimate Holocaust center having an article Jasenovac that says 600'000 were killed in one camp and an article NDH that says 500'000 were killed in the entire state... Food for thought.

I could go on about your other "facts", but to stick to the topic, I looked at what the subject is and I don't think anyone named "Nebojša Malić" could write a objective or neutral article about Op. Storm, do you?

Looking him up on the net, I found he argues against democracy and consideres monarchy superior (http://www.nspm.org.yu/Debate/2006_malic_re.htm), considers Kosovo a "occupied Serbian province" (http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=9980) and is, possibly most important, considered "a Serb hardliner" and biased by others involved in the subject (http://www.bosnia.org.uk/bosrep/report_format.cfm?articleid=1041&reportid=162)

The article's claims are, to say the least, very serious allegations and should only be considered if from a respectable writter or neutral source.

The Spanish Inquisitor 08:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

While I was writting, you revert count went up by one :( The Spanish Inquisitor 08:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Maitresse you are completely correct, i commend you. I wish i had the patience to deal with these ignorants.

So Spanish Inquisitor, no Serb written source is reliable? Then why are croats editing this page?? That is not reliable!--24.150.77.3 14:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Spanish Inquisitor's Attempt to Discredit my Work as an Editor

Dear Spanish Inquisitor,

1. Refrain from patronizing Wikipedia editors in an attempt to make their efforts appear futile with such phrases as:

• "up until now I was very tolerant of your editing"
• "This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and people have the right to add/remove content"

-I know very well what Wikipedia is, do not patronize me. You are in no way 'tolerant'.

2. If my edits are pro-Serb, then your edits are pro-Croat, a complete attempt to lessen the significance of Operation Storm, make the Serbs appear as the agressors, and the Croats as the victims (while this is true in other cases, Operation Storm is a case of aggression done towards Serbs, by Croats, and you are trying to hide this fact)

3. Comments such as these are unacceptable: " you revert any effort from everyone, which drives people away from the article"

• I am in no way 'reverting any effort from everyone', that is quite the laughable claim. And a lie.
• It is you who is attempting to drive me away from the article by patronizing and making such claims. Some editors have over 20 reverts on this article, so don't you dare say that I am reverting everyone's efforts.
• I also explain any changes I make
• There are many things I disagree with that I have not reverted. How could you possibly know that I "(revert) any edits which (I) do not like"
• How about the fact that I didn't put the Antiwar source back in the article? Even though I think it's a reliable source...

4. Let's see about those 'revert' claims of yours

• Revert 1: changed Krajina Serbs to Croatian Serbs: fact - as per source
• Revert 2: put that there were casualties on both sides: fact
• Revert 3: reinstated Wiki-standard sources that were replaced with youtube clips
• Revert 4: added Bosnian/Croat conflict info: fact - as per source (which you falsely reverted despite info from source)
• Revert 5: removed your attempt to downplay the effect of Operation Storm (completely unacceptable)
• Revert 6: reinstated external link (and not again after it was removed again)
• The one which you claim came while you were writing (which is a lie, since it came before), is a revert of an edit by user: 161.53.116.99, whose efforts have been reverted tens of times wo/ any explanation (including by yourself), so do not even try.

-If I were reverting everyone's efforts, don't you think that I would reinstate the link again which I clearly think should be there? Well I didn't, which shows that you are a liar.

5. Do not even try to appear 'tolerant'. Your attempt to discredit a user who always explains their edits and uses sources to back up their edits proves that you are very intolerant.

6. You say that you will go over a few significant facts. But you don't. You stick to one that is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT! The numbers of those killed in Jasenovac are disputed, that is why I gave such a big range. Obviously I didn't go low enough for you. I simply put a number there to illustrate that Serbs were killed in the thousands upon thousands, to illustrate my point. Even if you think the number is 10,000 that's fine, but it still proves my point.

• You COMPLETELY ignored the any arguments concerning the article! And you are trying to discredit ME? Unbelievable!
• Here are your attempts to discredit the author of the article:

• A democrat is better than a monarchist, and monarchists are automatically biased: haha
• He called Kosovo a Serbian occupied state?: umm... it IS! Kosovo is occupied AS WE SPEAK by foreign troops... wow...
• You use bosnia.org to show what others think of him?? what a shocker! Negative thoughts about a Serb on Bosnia.org..... *sigh...

7. Last but not least, what was it that "up until now" made you "tolerant" of my editing? What did I revert that so outraged you? Since I only made 2 reverts after your last contribution to the article, it must be one of those. So which is it? The removing of an article while asking the editor to explain their edits (after which I did not reinstate the article), or the reverting of user:161.53.116.99's edit (which you have done yourself)? Since you claim you did not see my 2nd revert until after finishing your rant, it must be the first revert. This proves that you are not only very intolerant, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that I do not revert things "I don't like" even though I strongly disagree.

If you make Wikipedia personal, expect the same in return. From now on, focus on the article/source, don't try to patronize or discredit other editors through misleading statements or outright lies. Maîtresse 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I was a victim of operation storm and I am in no way a "croatian Serb". That whole concept is garbage. We are Serb Serbs, Krajina Serbs, but certainly NOT any sort of croatian Serbs. --24.150.77.3 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to the replay to "My Attempt to Discredit Your Work as an Editor"® (now available as motion picture drama)

Seems you needed to blow off some steam... Feel better? :)

My post wasn't really an attack on you, I just warned you not to continue such practice of one-sided actions. But since you used my post to attack me, I will most certainly respond.

Wasn't "really" an attack, but "kinda" was... well "maybe"... ok it was. lol Nice. So now you're attacking me twice? You seem very aggressive... maybe you should seek help :) Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Excuse me for "patronizing you", I just never saw an article on Wikipedia where more edits are reverted then retained. Wikipedia, as far as I've known it (perhaps you can set me straight), was a community project. Unless your name is "Community", I have the right to warn you that other people can contribute too.

To warn me??? You're WARNING ME? Hahaha go excuse yourself and then remember that admins don't like editors who give themselves false authority by warning others for things they should not be warned about. Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

2) Since you wrote this, you most likely haven't even seen what my edits where, because I never deleted any of your edits, just added *reasons* as to why it came to the operation. I never added anything that could be considered revisionism, except that you choose to see my % of killed as that - your problem.

Um, yes you did. See there, another lie. *Sigh... Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

3) Unacceptable to who? You? Honestly, you act as you *own* this article. There are other people who are more then willing to maintain the article, no need for us to inconvienice you by making you go out of your way to revert other's attempts at what you find unacceptable.

I suppose I own this article. Maybe even every single article I edit. Maybe I own all of Wikipedia? Who knows? Haha Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

4) I'll just comment those that directly concerns me Nmr.4: you misquoted a source and misrepresented it. Just because the article said there were refugees from Bosnian-Croat conflict, you ASSUMED ALL refugees were from that conflict. How silly. Nmr.5: I added a percentage of killed. I didn't know mathematics equals downplaying effects of Storm :) Guess, as always, simple facts are unwelcome. The last revert came between the time I started writing my replay and ended it. You will forgive me if I haven't refreshed the page for an hour before I wrote, but it is indicative how you immediatly label me a liar. Good work.

And how 'silly' of you to think that those refugees fled because of Serbs (tee hee). You lied. You = liar. Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is downplaying the effects of Storm. It was a briliant military operation without which both the Croatian war and the Bosnian war would have continued for another two or three years, except that the Bihać pocket would have fallen - with the combined VRS-VSK offensive begining few weeks earlier (meaning another 20'000 dead Moslems), as would the last Moslem enclaves in north-central Bosnia (probably another 5000 dead). Unfortunately, the Serb population in Croatia took Martic's word (the evacuation order) that the "evil Nazi Croats" are going to slaughter them all, so most fled. And there were acts of murders and revenge, but these were not organized or ordered, but acts by a few stupid fools who wanted revenge for being driven out of their homes: you probably didn't know 30% of the Croatian army was formed from refugees which were driven out in 1991. So the units which attacked Krajina during operation Storm were battallions of people from Knin, Obrovac, Gračac, Glina... cities under Serb control. I trust you can't imagine what it's like returning home after being forced out for four years.

Brilliant military operation = this is where you show your bias. Way to go. I would never say ethnic cleansing done against Croats (or any nation) was "Brilliant". You sadden me. (I trust you can't imagine what it's like to be raped, don't patronize.) Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

5) Tolerant-Intolerant. Funny. You explain edits, but you still remove them. Say I would remove every motion of ethnic cleansing and explain it by not having a NPOV source for it. Which is true. The opening statement accuses Storm of being an act of ethnic cleansing without offering a neutral source for such a serious allegation (the oh-so-appropriate words: "some people belive/it has been called (by someone unnamed)"). By contrast the innocent "majority of them from Krajina proper" sentance, you found needed concrete sources... Yes, truely unbiased.

I guess you're right. In fact, if it were the other way around, Croats would welcome the expulsion (coughethinccleansing) of their people from Serbia. Get over yourself. Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

7) I was tolerant to see you do whatever you want because such a topic needs a little order, but you do selective order. It was the combination of all which threw me "into a rant" :) Which is best described by another external link which you chose to restore last: http://trinicenter.com/cgi-bin/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1059926910,54217,.shtml which you restored after it was deleted. Now this article is a little better then the previous, but the problem with this one is in the sentance: "14,000 Serbian civilians lost their lives". I had a laugh reading this. We have Croatian sources which say 1000 civilians, international which say 2000 and Serb sources which say 3000. Yet this article comes up with a number 7 times higher then the higest previous estimate, which to me looks like a game "Pick a number... Any number." The proof of the propaganda value of the article is in the sentance "the Croatian fascist(s) murdered as many as one million Serbs, Jews and Romani" during WWII." - which I've already covered.

"Tolerant to see me do whatever I want"?? Reinsert an external link? I guess you're right, I should stop abusing my privileges of POLITELY ASKING WHY SOMEONE REMOVED AN ARTICLE! hahhaha. Wow, great argument. Get it in your head that wwii Croatia was fascist (some argue it still is) and that they committed genocide. Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You are the one making it personal, I was attempting to ask you to ease up on the "undo" button, but you seem to view this article as your own.

Um, wasn't it you who attacked me? Lol. I see the article as my own? 6 reverts, each explained, and justified, and the article is my own? Please, get over yourself. Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

6) "my attempts to discredit the author":

"A democrat is better than a monarchist, and monarchists are automatically biased: haha " - doesn't have anything to do with bias, it has to do with inteligence. A man who consideres an autocratic society run by a power-hungry dictator "superior" to democractic principles should be considered somewhat "off" (not to use harsher language) "He called Kosovo a Serbian occupied state?: umm... it IS! Kosovo is occupied AS WE SPEAK by foreign troops... wow... " - occupied by Kosovars (police, local control); or the majority population of the area? According to such logic, Krajina was occupied by Serbs...? Or occupied by NATO whom they ASKED to stay there? According to this logic, peacekeepers around the world are "occupiers". Perhaps we should ask the people of Sierra Leone weather they want the "occupiers" to leave? "You use bosnia.org to show what others think of him?? what a shocker! Negative thoughts about a Serb on Bosnia.org..... *sigh..." - well you have to admit a monarchy-proponent attacking the entire world wouldn't be all too popular :) American Empire indeed...

Read: UN troops. Lack of any coherent argument... oh well I suppose you tried Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So since you asked for it, I will go over ALL of your facts:

First of all, you quote the article:

• "In both cases, a UN "safe area" was targeted by the attack. In Srebrenica, the UN at least tried to protect Muslim civilians; in Krajina, it did no such thing. Serbs evacuated Muslim noncombatants from Srebrenica; Serbs who did not flee Krajina were killed. Yet Srebrenica is somehow "genocide," while Oluja is a victory worth a national holiday"

- while idylic and romantic for Serbian thought to the last, not EVERYONE who stayed behind was killed. I know it doesn't count as a "reliable source", but I was in the Krajina a week after the operation ended and saw more then enough living Serbs to know that "went from house to house exterminating the Krajina Serb population" is an exaggeration.

Thank you for your patronizing comments to Serbs as an entire nation. And your failure to respond with any argument. Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree that his writing is juvenile: (1) The US is very commonly referred to as the American "Empire" (2) Before Tudjman the 'symbols' and 'vocabulary' were not present since WWII (Tito didn't allow it), so yes, he does bring a revival. He even quotes Tudjman, so it's not as if he's making stuff up.

- (1) Yes, US is commenly refered to as the "Empire"... by Iran, North Korea, Saddam Hussein... (2) So what are these Ustasha symbols? The Croat national coat of arms (differentiated by first field's color and dated from 7th century AD?), the Kuna as name for the currency (introduced in 1993, 3 years after it provoked the Serbs to rebel), the flag - by which clause flag of Netherlands is also Nazi-like :) Under Tito not these symbols were forbiden, it was forbiden to even say your nationality. For saying "I am a Croat", you would spend a few weeks in jail, is that too an ustasha symbol? I could say a few things about Tudjman, but I wont because I never liked the guy; however he became very unpopular in Croatia because even as late as 1993, he was still trying to negotiate with the occupiers of 1/3rd of his country. There were alternatives which would have been far worse and which really would have brought a "revival to 1941", but that didn't happen except in the brains of those that paraded through Knin in 1989 inciting the population to rebellion. There were many mistakes in the Croat leadership that fueled the tensions (including some doubious Tudjman speeches), but that is nothing compared to what Vojislav Seselj was saying in 1988 - or two years before Tudjman even became someone...

So you agree with me, I'm glad :)Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• He says that the revival of suppressed Ustasa ideology and "not some imaginary "aggression" from Serbia – was the root of their "rebellion" - there was no aggression from Serbia. And yes, millions of people (mostly Serbs) believe that this was the reason for Oluja (and we do include dissenting/contradictory views on Wikipedia as long as there's a significant number of people who hold those views, don't we)

Factual accuracy disputed... In September 1991 (as the war started getting serious), Serbia (that's right - the not-in-the-war republic) declared GENERAL MOBILIZATION and gathered reservists from cities as far as Niš to go fight at Vukovar. If it was only the local Serb affair, the war would have been over in a year. That is agression.

General mobilization to escape Croat aggression (as it points out in the document you provided). Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Um, yes, the Serbs that stayed behind in Krajina were not only killed, but were also raped and tortured (something this 'biased' writer doesn't even include). That is no lie. Croat soldiers went from house to house exterminating the Krajina Serb population.
• Please provide a reference for your claim that by 2005 a 3rd of Serbs had returned to Croatia.
• The quote "Tudjman made Pavelic's dream to rid Croatia of Serbs a reality" is a very honest quote. After the war, Croatia did rid itself of many many Serbs (which was Pavelic's dream - Pavelic= WWII Ustasa leader, under whose command a concentration camp was set up in which 500,000 to 1,000,000 Serbs (among other ethnic groups) were brutally exterminated - and you want to say that Pavelic's dream WASN'T to rid Croatia of Serbs???!)
• The Nazis, who helped the Ustase, failed to remove Serbs from Croatia, the US, who helped the Croatian gov't, succeeded in removing Serbs from Croatia. Therefore "Where the Nazis failed, the American Empire has succeeded".

So lets summarize your "ethnically clear" and "genocidal" Croatia:

Article Serbs in Croatia: "The number of Serbs in Croatia was much larger in 1991, when they numbered at least 581,663 and over 12,2% of the total population of Croatia." "Due to various reasons, only a fraction of Croatian Serbs actually still live in their native homeland of Croatia: 201,631 according to the 2001 population census. They currently comprise around 4.5% of Croatia's total population."

This means that 34% of those that were "raped, tortured, killed and ethnically cleansed by a genocidal regime" choose to return there to live in that country which is currently run by Tudjman's party. So according to your logic, it would be like 1/3rd of the Jews returned to Germany in 1948 while it was run by the reformed Nazi party (led by some lower ranking Nazi official).

????Are you actually trying to claim that those who are still there are those who left? 600,000-200,000 = 400,000 (could it not be those who weren't cleansed from Krajina that comprise those 201,631?) hahahaha. Yet again, nice try! Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The article also states: "The total population of Serbs who originate directly from Croatia can safely be estimated at around 600,000 people."

Still living today. 600,000 out of the original 580,000... Yes, they really did suffer a genocide.

I did not use the word genocide. You did. PS: I'm glad you figured out that Serbs don't procreate and that they don't live outside of Croatia if they were born there. lolMaîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish Inquisitor 08:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think my response was one to blow off steam, that's fine. It was a response to your attempt to discredit me as an editor (or to your attack, as you put it). Since you didn't bother reading what I said properly and responding accordingly, what I said still stands. Your 'responses' are juvenile at best. All the best in future editing, including this article. You did not scare me away :) Cheers! Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything more from you then calling people liars. My fault for trying to use arguments :( Eh, Canadians... :) The Spanish Inquisitor 11:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Video

I added it as a link. Is it valuable or not? [7] Fluffy999 23:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That recording can be misleading. The first part shows the members of "Hamze" division of ABiH killing a Serbian surrendered soldier and burning of the serbian villages. By the language and shoutings "Allah Agbar" it is obvious that they are muslim soldiers and have nothing to do with Croatian army, as it would seem since it is posted under this article.

The second clip shows "Crne Mambe", the members of HV Croatian Army. No killings are recorded there, just the search for disguised Serbian soldiers among the refugees fleeing for Bosnia. The man they are stripping has Serbian army uniform under the civilian clothes. Not much of abuse is recorded there, as suggested in the link description.

I edited the description of the link, though it doesn't look very neat. In my opinion, since this are two separate incidents, it can be easily misunderstood as being one and should be either split and only the one involving Croatian Army showed, or there must be an accurate description of it somewhere very visible.

--82.152.200.103 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

References

I reworked most of the references using templates; replaced some duplicate references with single reference called twice; commented out links I cant access... If anybody can fix them, please do. Also, does anybody have some kind of URL or ISBN for the three "Human Rights Watch/Helsinki" references? Shinhan 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

POV tag to background section

User Kellyburts changed the background section significantly. While I find the writing NPOV enough (perhaps more then it was before), his primary source is the "emperors-clothes" site, which is a right-wing pro-Serbian historical revisionist/conspiracy theorist site that negates Serb-perpetuated crimes and exaggerates those done against them. Reverting is impossible due to later edits, so tag is to remain until the section is cleared of these sources and more neutral ones are added. -The Spanish Inquisitor 06:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there were no changes to the section, I've reverted to the previous version by editing the section and pasting previous code. The Spanish Inquisitor 06:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this site is right-wing. After all, they support the "socialist party" of Yugoslavia and scream about Croatian "fascism". --HanzoHattori 06:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is very little "socialist" about Milošević's socialist party. After all: they eliminated the star as a symbol, made an alliance with Communist archenemies (Serb right-wingers) and dropped the word "Socialist" from the country's name. The Spanish Inquisitor 07:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please correct footnote #22

Footnote #22 is listed as a "UN Human Rights Commission Report". This is incorrect. It is actually a letter from a Croat chargé d'affaires to the UN. In other words, it a letter written by a functionary of the Croatian government. It is NOT a UNCHR Report! Please correct this. Shiningsea 10:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Shiningsea

Followup: I figured out how to edit and correct this. Sorry I didn't realise how to do it before! Shiningsea 11:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Shiningsea

THIS IS BEYOND BELIEF

I have never seen a more biased account of this fascist act of Ethnic Cleansing than here on wikipedia!! This is more than shameful, and was clearly written by a croat. The number of exiled was, first of all, 250 000 and the number of dead Serb civilians was in the thousands. This operation was a CLEAR violation the laws of UN protectorate zones and was nothing other than a revival of WWII croat nazism.

The ridiculous account of this article on wikipedia completely discredits this website in the minds of all self-respecting academics.

For shame... --24.150.77.3 00:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you have not noticed the orders of Serbian leadership for evacuation of local population prior to the attack. That means that there is no question of 'ethnic cleansing'.

Croatian army was reclaiming its own territory and bringing to an end years long military threat.

Can you pls remind us of what happened to Croatian civil population that lived on the Krajina territory prior to its 'separation' from Croatia? What happened to their homes? Were they welcomed back? And most significantly, what was their crime except for being Croatian?

At the same time, no one can deny the war crimes that were committed by certain individuals in Croatian Army. That was without doubt shameful act that ultimately showed the hypocrisy of Croatian leadership for covering up the civilian killings.

While I certainly don't wish to justify such acts of shameful and barbaric killings of unarmed and helpless civilian population, I would request you to consider the circumstances. In Croatian Army there were many soldiers who lost all of their families in unprovoked massacres by Serbian Forces (ever heard of Skabrnja, Vocin, Vukovar, Kijevo etc?). Many of them have witnessed most unbelievable atrocities with their own eyes. That has all resulted in consequent mental damage that was followed by rage and the desire for revenge. It is quite understandable that under such intense circumstances Croatian Army didn't have resources to effectively monitor the mental health of its soldiers. So as a result of such circumstances you get all the unforgivable killings that took place.

Contrast that against Vukovar for example. With Srebrenica. With Sarajevo. With Zvornik. With Bjeljina. List is too long. Tell us, how can we understand the most heartless killings in these cases? How can you compare these instances of unprovoked and senseless aggression against civilians with "Oluja"? The "Oluja" brought the war in whole Croatian and Bosnian area to halt. It brought long sought after peace. That is why it was sanctioned, supported and supervised by US.

You mention the numbers. Who can tell? Croatia will exaggerate towards their end, and Serbia to their end. That is nothing unusual. Not that I support it. But the safest is to take the middle figures, you are most likely to be correct. But at the end of the day, no one can tell. Nor can you. Unfortunately. I wish someone could and could also prove it. I'm in support of unbiased truth.

What do you mean by "revival of WWII croat nazism"? You mention academic readership, but your comments seem rather emotional and non-academic. Such a statement needs some sound factual support with clear and factual comparisons. For example, the most horrific element of WWII Croatian nazism was Jasenovac and Gradiska concentration camps. Are you aware of any made by Croatian Army in this war? At the same time, the whole world is aware of Manjaca and the likes. Even worse, like infamous 'Rape camps'. So much about "revival of WWII croat nazism".

In conclusion, the greatest mistake of Croatian leadership was to cover up all the wrongdoings of Croatian Army and to delay the persecution of the one's responsible. That is wrong and there is no justification for it. At the same time, that is widespread practice in any war. Vietnam Mai Lai, Ireland, Iraq etc. Nothing new. Sad and totally wrong, but unfortunately happens all over the place.

This article very clearly points out to these atrocities and states the fact that certainly Croatia would like to forget. But they happened and they are exposed.

For you own leisure, please read the following articles written by a former member of SAS. He's from UK, and if you remember, UK was the greatest Serbian ally (along with France) during the war and strongest opponent to Croatian EU membership in the years after. He wrote a diary of his experiences in Bosnia. Neutral. Non biased. Honest. Heartbreaking.

http://garystapleton.blogspot.com/ --82.152.200.103 11:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the above is a work of fiction and was not written by a former member of the SAS. This should be obvious, but I wanted to point it out. Former members of the SAS do not go around blogging about their assignments, for one thing. If you want to believe this guy assasinated Arkan and then blogged about it, fine. (He also erroneously states that his death was investigated by UN in Belgrade. What a joke.) And if you can swallow the bit about the guy in the "Serbian police shirt" wearing a gold crucifix... (shaking my head) And as for the UK being "the greatest Serbian ally, oh my. Civilaffairs (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

How dare you?? First of all, you are not at all impartial. You assume this land is Croatian land. It is not croatian land. Only because it was given to the administrative republic of croatia during the communist yugoslavia days does not mean that if Croatia wants to illegally separate from Yugoslavia it gets to take all the land with it, including the majority Serb lands. All the Serbs did was separate from the illegally separating Croatia, remembering well what happened to them last time Croatia was independent.

  How dare I what?

  Regarding as whose land it is, you obviously could do with some history lessons. That land has
  always been part of Croatia, and simply its being populated by Serbian people doesn't make it 
  Serbia, does it? 
  
  If that argument stands, why all that fuss about Kosovo? Aren't great majority of population
  Albanian people? Sounds a bit hypocritical, don't you think so?

  What really makes a land Serb land? the fact that there are some Serbs there? For example, if 
  there was a large Serb population in Niagara Falls, Ontario, would that suddenly become Serb land?
  Do you think that Canadians would like that? It sounds like Seselj philosophy, wherever there is
  one Serb that is Serbia. Yeah right...

  What do you mean by illegal separation? What was illegal? Its not that they were one country since
  eternity. It sounds like an emotional argument. If I'm wrong, please correct me. With facts.

I was there, i was 10 during the operation. You think we weren't forced to leave?? They came and kicked us out of our appartment at gun point and gave it to a croat family. We had nothing left, they never reinbursed us for anything to this day. We were targeted for hate crimes and for organized acts of violence. We were forced to go to Serbia. Where is the truth about the Medak pocket in this article???

 As I already mentioned before, the situation that you and many others ended up in is very tragic 
 and sad, and it is a shameful moral defeat on the side of Croatian Authorities. Instead of 
 following a civilized ways of dealing with the situations like that, they did wrongs. 

 Unfortunately they 
 followed Serbian example, which wasn't very clever. See, I had some land in Erdut, and many 
 relatives in Manastir and Osijek. And they also had to flee when Serbs formed Krajina. And Serbs
 took their property.  Do you remember that? Perhaps you were too young to remember... 
 Do two wrongs make right?

 Though I'm critical of the happenings that you mention (common sense and honestly really), at the
 same time it would be failry unrealistic to expect Croats to follow the highest moral codes and not
 retaliate. Just see how much rage and anger you have in your self, but what have you seen of war? 
 Imagine those that have witnessed all the atrocities with own eyes? Again, I dont justify it but I
 can understand why they acted wrong. 

 Look at this guy. What do you think he did to the next Serb or Croat civilan he held responsible
 for  destroyed his village? Can you blame him?  Who do you think is responsible for the possible
 attrocities he comitted after this? Think about it.
 http://www.photoarts.com/haviv/Bosnia/welcomehome.html

 This is an article about Operation Storm, and Medak Pocket has got its own page. Search for it and
 you'll find it, with all the descriptions of the most abominable atrocities comitted by some 
 individuals in Croatian Army. People responsible are already convicted and are undergoing 
 additional trials. Yes, Croatia foolishly tried to cover it up, but fortunatley it didnt succeed. 
 Its all there, no worries. :)

Once again, this article has biased premises and is apologist for this horrible act of ethnic cleansing. If you are so sure of the truth of your words, come with me to Croatia and ask for my apartment in Beli Manastir back.

 I'm not sure if I understand your point here. Sure, you have your opinion that this is biased, but
 you need to support it by hard evidence. If you want be academic... Otherwise, it's simply your 
 emotion that cannot write the history.

 I wasn't trying to be apologetic. I cannot apologise for something I'm not responsible for. I'm
 simply trying to help you see beyond your rage and anger.

 I'm not speaking as a representative of Croatia, so I cannot go to Manastir and get you your flat
 back. My words were simply honest observation of the happenings that many of us deeply regret. Many
 Croats are ashamed and sorry about it, and many are still affected by rage and the desire for 
 revenge like you and have no remorse. There is nothing I can do about it, unfortunately.

PS. Revival of nazism? No? Try living there when they fly the old nazi symbols and begin calling themselves Ustashe. Try living there when they start singing songs about Jasenovac and Gradishka Stara. Try that and tell me there was no revival. (Tudjman, Mesic, and others wrote many works defending the old Ustasha regime of WWII)

 When have you been last time in Croatia? 

 Fair enough, there is a minority of immature individuals who are singing abusive songs and 
 displaying NDH symbols. And yes, Croatian authorities didn't do enough to prevent it.

 But pls, how is that ment to be revival of WWII facistic regime? Was the problem of that regime its
 insignia or the acts of senseless murder and masscare? I haven't seen much of there, I'm afraid.

 A month ago I was in Dalmatia and I was well surprised to see the number of Serbian turists. All 
 well  and alive. Well fed. Perhaps a bit burnt, but that was due to too much sun.

 So pls give us some hard facts about the revival of facistic regime.

And that crap about rape camps has never been proven and you know it very well. Remember the infamous farce of "prisoners" posing in front of a barbed wire fence, that turned out to be staged and the prisoners turned out to be in a completely voluntary refugee camp.

--24.150.77.3 14:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 Below is some reading material homework regading the "crap about rape camps". It seems like it was
 proven at the ICTY court, and you will see some quite graphic descriptions. 

 http://www.un.org/icty/kunarac/trialc2/judgement/kun-tj010222e-5.htm#VC#
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fo%C4%8Da_massacres#Mass_rapes

 I would like to see your courage to go and face those women and tell them it didn't happen.

 About concentration camps you can read here:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omarska_camp
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manja%C4%8Da_concentration_camp

 Some videos here: (no "editing tricks" this time)

 http://www.virtual-security.net/attrocity/pt1_vid.htm

 About the contraversy, these links will give you some idea. 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omarska_camp#1997-2000_controversy
 http://www.virtual-security.net/attrocity/atrocity1.htm

 Also, I would like to see you dare to go to these people and their families and say they were in 
 "a completely voluntary refugee camp". 

 See this guy? Is he also clever photoshop creation? Anorexic to look better? Do you think it was
 his chosen haircut? 
 http://www.photoarts.com/haviv/Bosnia/prisoners2.html 

 It is very interesting how you are so ready to attack and accuse, but it seems like everything that
 Serbia did was just peaches and cream. Its a sign of great intelectual immaturity to lack any
 self-criticism to that level to deny these crimes.

 See, as Croat, I have no problem seeing and admitting all the wrongs that Croatia did. 

 Can you even attempt to do the same? 

 If you reply, please spare us emotional outburts, and support your accusations by some hard 
 evidence. Then you might find someone take you seriously. I can understand that you went through
 severe traumas during the war years as a child, and I can understand your anger. But that will not
 get you very far. You are obviously getting your information from carefully selected sources. If 
 you are so confident, then pls go and visit Foca, talk to some of Muslim women that survived. Ask 
 them if it happend or not. Are you that brave?

 Anger and revenge are not the answer to anything, my friend.

 God bless.
 
 --81.5.170.37 19:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I know you are a Croat, I could see that from your bias. The difference is i'm not editing this page, and you are.

I'm not overly keen of identifying myself as a Croat. That's my nationality, but I doesn't blind me
from seeing right from wrong. Its not my identification. That is one part of our problem today in 
the world we live, there are far too many meaningless identifications that cause nothing but strife
and war. 

Funny you keep on saying I'm biased, I admitted the wrongs done by Croats and Croatian army. I'm not
saying that Jasenovac or Medak pocket were staged to make Croatia look bad in the eyes of the world.
They happend. They were bad. People responsible for it should be punished. The victims and their 
families should be compensated (if there is such a thing in this case). 
That might or might not be the stand of Croatian Goverment. Does that change it from being wrong?

Have you admitted any wrongs on the part of Serbia? You made many immature claims, but cannot 
supprot them against the evidence. To claim that concentration camp were staged and rape camps did
not exist is far from being biased my friend. Its much closer to insanity.

It is funny how you say "Serbia" committed these acts, although when you talk about Croatian crimes you say it was a few misguided or evil individuals isolated from Croatia itself. May I remind you that Serbia was proclaimed not guilty of genocide by the International Criminal Court.

My apology for that. You are right. I was generalising. Yes, I know that there are many innocent and  
rightous people in Serbia, as they are in any country. And then they are those who are responsible
for misseading the masses and missleading the young and innocnet people like you. 

I'm not gonna waste my time providing you with other sources, western ones have been notoriously against Serbs, but just check out some Michael Parenti and Dianne Johnstone works.

Wasting your time or nor, you have put the claim that this article is biased and is a disgrace to 
Wikipedia. I'm chalenging your stand on that, and you have not supported your statements with 
anything but emotional and irrational outbursts. Are you able to admit that some of your statements
are wrong? Can you admit that Serbia comitted serious war crimes? 

You need to look at your history my friend, that land has not been Croatian. Certainly not after we won WWI and were given those lands. Then in Yugoslavia, especially under Tito, the present day oversized Croatia was created, at the expense of the Serbs living in areas belonging to us!

Besides the point of its accuracy and rationality, this is a very dangerous mentality. It is the
very mentality that caused all the trouble, in my humble opinion. 'You did this to us in 1941, so
now in 1991 we will revenge and do same to you. And then you will revenge to us for what we did to
you in 1991. And now we are waiting to revenge to you again. And revenge means we will kill all the
innocent people who didn't do anything wrong anyway.' 

Where will that lead? Is that what our Bible is teaching us? Is that the example that Jesus thought?
Do you think that the priests sanctioning and blessing such killing sprees are dear to God?

That is animal mentality. Dogs. They fight like that. As humans, we have capacity to do better. And
this is what our holy scriptures are teaching us. To understand. To forgive. To love. To help. To 
share. Look for God rather than for revenge. It will do much more good to you. Trust me. Been there
and done that.

Separated illegally means separated against the constitution of Yugoslavia to which the Republic of Croatia was a signatory, thus making the separation against the law. Maybe you should find yourself a dictionary.

If you married in Church, and your wife ends up being abusive, violent and cheats on you daily, 
would you leave her? Do you think it would be wrong though its 'illegal'? Do you think God would 
hate you for that?

It is alright however, Fiume will once again belong to Italy and Krajina to Serbia, as it always should have.

Revenge. Go on. Bring even more violence. Let even more innocent people die. Let the houses burn
again. Will that make you happy?

PS. I don't go to croatia as a tourist, i don't like being attacked for being a "chetnik" or beaten and murdered like italians in dalmatia. --24.150.77.3 18:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to with Italian tourists in Dalmatia. Are you trying to say that
they were killed because of their occupation of Dalmatia in WWII?

I can understand your fears of going to Croatia. It is perhaps possible that you might get attacked 
for being Serbian, just as it's possible that I would be attacked for being Croatian in Serbia. Its
sad, and I hope it will change one day. And that day will come when we all abandon the revenging
mentality that you are harbouring in your young heart. 

Do you want to join in and be a part of a solution?

--Simple4thesimple 20:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't be beaten in Serbia, i know many croats there, we never kicked them out unlike Croats do in Croatia. Serbia is the most multi ethnic former Yugoslav republic. To deny that operation storm is ethnic cleansing in any way deeply offends me because i lived it. To say the Serbian government told these people to put all they have on tractors and to go to Serbia where they have no place to spend the night is beyond ridiculous. Those are pure lies and croat propaganda that the West eats up as always.

I'm not saying that you WILL be beaten in Croatia, but there is a possibility. As there is a 
possibility of getting beaten in Serbia if you are Croat. Its very simple. I have seen many Serbian
people in Croatia, with cars from Serbia and they were all well and fine. I had many Serbian friends
in Croatia during the war time and no one touched them. 

There are the documents to show that Serbian authorities called people to move out of Croatia, and
you can see it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Martic-order1995.jpg

If you want to dispute authenticity of the document, that is a different story. Never heard of 
anyone disputing it.

In the same way you claim that ICTY cleared Serbia of genocide, this document technically clears 
Croatia the ethnic cleansing accusation.

Perhaps you and your family were not willing to go but were forced. That was a crime and it was
against the instruction that Army had received. That no one can dispute, provided you can prove it.
And I'm sure you are telling the truth.

I was referring to several old italian people who were beaten and one old lady beaten to death in Dalmatia a few years back. I read the article in a Croat newspaper so i do not know where to find the source online.

So in essence you are talking about criminal activity and violence. In Serbia none ever got beaten
up and killed. Nor anyone else in the world. It happens only in Croatia. No one gets beaten up in 
Canada, right? All angels there?

I am not speaking of revenge, i'm speaking of JUSTICE! I do not want to murder millions of croats to get even with how many Serbs they murdered over the last 100 years. All i want is justice, i want our lands and our property back, and i want only what belongs to us justly and under the same God you are mentioning. If you haven't noticed, Krajina, RS, Kosovo, Vardar, all our lands are being usurped. That will not stand and we will not give up our claims to what belongs to us. --24.150.77.3 14:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

When you speak of justice, are you willing to give justice to others? Are you willing to give that 
same justice you are demanding to the victims of Serbian aggression? Forget about that, are you
willing to at least admit the wrongs on the Serbian side? Rape camps didn't exist. No death camps.
Srebrenica didn't happen. Or if it did, it was an act of self defence. Muslims and Croats probably
killed their own people to get the attention of the world and demonize Serbia. Anything else I 
forgot?

In this entire discussion, you didn't even once show the sign of acceptance of any wrong doings on
the side of Serbia. That speaks for its self.

Its very unfortunate that such a young person like you gets so indoctrinated. Very sad. That very
ideology that you follow caused all this bloodshed, on both sides. Makes me cry how sad it is. 

--Simple4thesimple 16:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop right there

I took a quick look and this the first thing I noticed:

And that crap about rape camps has never been proven and you know it very well. Remember the infamous farce of "prisoners" posing in front of a barbed wire fence, that turned out to be staged and the prisoners turned out to be in a completely voluntary refugee camp.

Unfortunately, the picture(s) turned out not to be "staged", Trnopolje camp was not "voluntary" and not "refugee", and hundreds of prisoners died (mostly after transfer to Omarska, but about 300 also died inside). You can also read on the very related Korićani Cliffs massacre, where 200 of the "voluntary refugees" were executed as they were about to be set free.

Further on, the Omarska camp (do you confuse these two maybe? both were the source of the international scandal) was a torture camp in the style of S-21 in Cambodia, and the brutality was much, much more severe than in Trnopolje. Possibly thousands were murdered there.

And so on. Stop your rumbling and read on. Welcome to Wikipedia. --HanzoHattori 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

He is most probably referring to the video available through http://www.tenc.net/film/judgment.htm.

It is posted on You tube in few parts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRKwaJ1mSQM

When you watch it, its fairly easy to get fooled. However, if you follow the links that I referred to in my comment to him, it is obvious that there is no question of it "being staged". There is plenty of other footage that shows even worse things. The ITN TV, the guys who shoot the original footage that shocked the world went to the court and proved that it was indeed the concentration camp.

--Simple4thesimple 16:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you, but it is not a surprise that you 2 would form a 'federation' of sorts... hahahaha... I remain by my convictions that the Serbs never systematically killed off people, and never from a central command. We did not cause the war, illegal separatists did. We did what any other country would have done, including the States and France and Canada. We fought the separatists. What happened in Srebrenica i do not condone nor condemn. We all know what that scumbag Naser Oric did to provoke Srebrenica, and how much time he got for it. In Srebrenica the numbers were inflated and what's more all women, children, and the elderly were allowed to flee and only men of fighting age were executed. It is war... Look up the testimony of Canadian UN general MacKenzie, or something like that i believe his name was.

Again i know crimes were committed on both sides, but while the crimes by Serbs were isolated even though clearly overblown, the whole concept of modern Croatia is based on criminal acts.

You can cry all you want, 3 times you stabbed us in the back (WWI, WWII, 1991) and it is now our turn to receive some justice. --24.150.77.3 03:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

can we get a 'NPOV' label for this page

There are strong feelings on both sides and both Croats and Serbs are looking at this through propaganda and indoctrination.

Many things are only losely referenced, and if referenced then by a biased source.

For example, can we get some details on the expulsions of Croats - or if (as I believe) many of them left under the instruction of the Croatian government - to what degree is this different from the Serb departures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.32.16 (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

material by 67.163.52.167 moved from talk page

I am going to write in the response to the following "...but whether or not they were forced out, left because of fear or left on their own accord is disputed."

There were thousands of people who did not know what was going on, some left, but most people stayed, and most of those people died as well. I lived in the small village named Blata, about 24km from Ogulin. In late 1990's our electricity and the water supply has been cut off, so we lived off the land and the necessary supplies that we did get from the Serbian side.

On August 4th, 1995, at 6am I heard the first bomb drop, it hit my neighbors house. He screamed out loud, "dear mother can you help me." His mother was dead. The men were fighting in the war, far from the village, so why were we attacked? The bombing didn't stop until 9pm. We spent the entire day hiding in a tunnel with rushing water from the nearby waterfall. At 9pm my mother heard someones tractor. We were saved, but some people were left behind, including my great grandma who lived through world war one, world war two, and now this war, Operation Storm.

We left, and drove to Plaski. After spending a few hours, hiding, we left only to find ourselves stuck in a place with thousands of other Serbian children and women. I was 10, but I still remember the tiny black planes flying low over us. I thought we were going to die.

After we left this city, I cannot recall the name, we ended up in Glina. It felt like a movie as we crossed the bridge which collapsed a few seconds later. To make the story short, few days later we crossed the Serbian border. Eventually we ended up on a bus with women and kids. I got off to walk across the border. I was thankful for my life, but so many people did not get another chance.

How can someone even question whether we were forced out or not when there are millions of people who experienced this horrible war. I call the the forgotten war, most people don't know about it, and most Americans don't know that Clinton was involved as well.

11 years later, in 2006, I went back to Blata for the first time after the war. It was an amazing experience as I traveled to different towns and interviewed the people who have survived Operation Storm.

I am Serbian, but I am not on the Serbian side, they have done bad things, but I am not on the Croatian side either, as they have done their part as well. However, I will say this; During one of my interviews, I discovered something from a Croatian solider.

He said they observed and watched the women and their kids leave the town. Croatian president, Franjo Tudjman, was on the radio during the attack, he said the women and the children can stay at home, and those who left should return. However, he ordered the troops to kill everyone, men, women, and the kids. The man who watched my family leave the town ordered not to shoot. I was shocked knowing I could have died. Tudjman was a criminal, and this is my own proof.

A couple of months later I continued traveling through many Croatian towns, such as Karlovac, and finally Osjek. Our route had to be changed because of the land mies, and so we took a detour. A few kilometers later, I crossed the border and entered Serbia. I spent a few days Sombor and then ended up in Temerin where I watched the history station. I saw Tudjman say, "Croatia didn't need this war, but we choose it." (Along those lines) I will never forget those words.

This war was very unnecessary. Croatia is a beautiful country,and Krajina is a wonderful land. Croatia did gain independence, but they destroyed their own land just to let the Serbs come back in again, as they did hundreds of years ago. So what does the future hold?

I hope this never happens again, and I hope people will know that we did not leave before the war, if we left, why would there be a war? Some people left because they knew what was going to happen, but to most people this was a surprise. Operation storm happened within five days, I believe. I'll have to check up on that one. That is not enough of a notice.

-Goran Vrcel Dchall1 04:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Martic-order1995.jpg

Image:Martic-order1995.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

This link for example Was the US behind the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia? is more a suggestion. It labels Croats as nazi's again and has nothing to do with reality.Labeling of Croats as Nazis is proven in the ICTY to be part of Serb Ultra-Nationalist propaganda and for that i will remove that link. go to Serb propaganda (GriffinSB)

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg

Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(pro-Serb Bosniak forces of Fikret Abdić?)

They weren't pro-Serb,they just had to cooperate with Serbs because they were under siege for 4 years. Cooperating does not mean beeing pro something.For example... Bosnian Croats and Bosinaks had a war between them,but later on stopped attacking eachother.They were cooperating against Serbs but it doesn't mean that Croats were pro-Bosniak of the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GriffinSB (talk • contribs) 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is false.The prosecutor said that he didn't question the legality of Operation Storm,but that he believes the Operation Storm had a second side and that was cleansing.

Here is the inditement http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/got-ai040224e.htm.

The "ethnic cleansing operation" is deliberatly put there.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please correct these errors

This entry contains a mind-boggling amount of disinformation. I have nominated it to be checked for neutrality.

Let's start with the first paragraph. The UN Mission was not UNPROFOR at the time of Op Storm, it was UNCRO (United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation). The so-called "enclaves" (interesting choice of words) were not UNPAs (United Nations Protected Areas) at the time, either. Under UNCRO, these areas were designated as Sectors. Op Storm affected Sectors North and South. Furthermore, these Sectors were not "under the protection of UNPROFOR" or UNCRO either, for that matter. Read the UNCRO mandate. The "protected area" part of the mandate was not carried over from UNPROFOR to UNCRO.

Still in the first paragraph, we find this sentence: "During the first day of the attack, that was launched by the Croatian army, UN forces withdrew and after four days of fighting with Krajina Army, it ended in a decisive victory for the Croatian army." UN forces did not withdraw. Some 98 UN OPs were overrun (and some literally run over) by HV during the course of the offensive, but there was no withdrawal of any kind. Even UN civilian staff remained at their posts within the Sectors throughout Op Storm. In addition, this sentence is constucted in such a way it could give the false impression that UN forces were fighting with the ARSK (after withdrawing, of course).

Correct information may easily be found at the United Nations website and in numerous press accounts, so I see no problem with sorting this all out. I could pick through every paragraph of this entry and point out more errors, but I have no time for that at the moment.

Something which really must be corrected, and which has been complained about before. Under "Notes" #12 reads as follows:

^ Neven Madey (15 August 1995). report to the COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS - E/CN.4/Sub.2/1995/48 (HTML). unhchr. Retrieved on 2007-09-11. “The human rights of the local Serbian population were not "massively and flagrantly violated". All accusations are fabricated, even the number of over 200,000 people. Croatia has allowed the ICRC and other international humanitarian organizations into the liberated area, it signed an agreement with the United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia (UNCRO), all with the purpose of ensuring that the human rights situation was fully monitored.”

This is extremely misleading. It makes it sound like Neven Madey was a UNHCHR officer making an official report. This could not be further from the truth. He was in fact a functionary of the Croatian Government, whose job was to represent his government at the United Nations.

As you can see from the reference noted in this document (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1995/45), this is clearly his government's response to charges raised in a similar "letter from from the Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

This is the same as posting a similar document submitted by a functionary of Sudanese government claiming there is no ethnic cleansing in Darfur and making it look like it was written by a UNHCHR officer. As noted above, this has been complained about before, and was at one time corrected. It has since been edited back to its originally deceptive form. I strongly object to this.

67.172.96.71 (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Edited first paragraph to correct errors

Okay, I decided to jump in here and become an editor myself. I don't want to step on any toes, and hope we can all work together to make this a neutral and informative entry. As you can tell, I am quite new to Wikipedia, but this is a subject I know rather well. So I am happy to contribute as I can, and hope you will kindly help me out as a Wikipedia newbie.

I went ahead and edited the first paragraph to correct the errors I outlined above. It is so difficult to correct something without changing the original TOO much. I found I was writing in clumsy sentences trying to preserve something of the original while correcting errors, but so be it, for now.

I also added the second paragraph. I think we need to get the who, what, when, where, and something of the why into the opening sentences, keeping in mind that many readers may be quite unfamiliar with the players, the area and the history. This is not at all easy when dealing with such a complicated subject as Op Storm (understatement).

I also went ahead and corrected the note I mentioned above (it is now #13 because I added a note in the first paragraph). It was the only footnote formatted in that way, and the only one which includes a quote. I left the formatting alone and left in the quote (properly expanding it to include the first phrase so as to avoid confusion), but I think it would be much better to be consistent and format all the same and skip the quote. What do you think?

I will continue to work at this entry, bit by bit, as I have time. For those of you who are disappointed about the "protected area" part being removed from the first paragraph, rest assured I will write a paragraph explaining that the Sectors had until recently been designated as UNPAs and how it came about that this was dropped from the mandate. Civilaffairs (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

It is wrong how you described Operation Oluja.When reading the intro a unpartial reader can get confused.The legal status of the Operation is unquestionable.The prossecutor in the Trial against generals Gotovina,Cermak and Markac said it himself.He also said that he beleived that Operation Oluja had also a different side and that was the expultion of Serb population from that area.So i'll undo you version for now untill you change your intro text. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can explain to me exactly how it is wrong, and how it might confuse an impartial reader, I will be happy to consider a rewrite. As I already mentioned, I don't like it in its present form anyway. I didn't want to step on toes and change it too much, so I wound up with rather clumsy sentences.

I did add the part about UN officials calling it the largest exodus of refugees in the history of the 90s Balkans conflicts at the time. I think that is important: the scale of it compared to other "ethnic cleansings" in the Balkans. If we include a referenced quote about ethnic cleansing by a respected authority (ICTY or someone like Carl Bildt, for example -- see below) in the beginning, then that bit can be moved further down.

What I would like to do is completely rewrite the first sentence and include "crossed UN-established truce lines" and/or "in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution(s) (list resolutions the actual attack violated). It should also be noted somewhere, perhaps not the intro, that the military action itself was strongly condemned by the UN Security Council (UNSCR 1009). Shelling of civilian targets was also condemned in UNSCR 1009.

I did not remove anything about ethnic cleansing. Can you provide the quote from the ICTY prosecutor and a source for it? If so, I think that should be included in the intro. I cannot find the phrase "ethnic cleansing" in the ICTY indictment. I also did not see anything in the ICTY indictment about whether the military action itself being "lega" or "illegal". Would you kindly explain what you mean? Are you taking the position that it was legal or illegal? (By the way, why not include the link to the ICTY indictment in Note 3? It is available in the UN website.)

The present form of "has been called ethnic cleansing" is rather weak. I had planned to replace with at least part of the Carl Bildt quote from Daniel Pearl's WSJ article: That operation was "the most efficient ethnic cleansing we've seen in the Balkans," says Carl Bildt, former European Community mediator in the Balkans. "There was a blinking yellow light given to it in 1995, and there hasn't really been any sustained international pressure to reverse it." One of the few critics of the operation, he says acquiescing to ethnic separation would be "horrifying" because the Balkans' ethnic patchwork is so complex.

What do you think of a total rewrite as outlined above? If you can get the ICTY prosecutor's quote and source, that should go in the first paragraph, or at at the beginning of the second, I think.

The version I corrected sorely needed correcting: (1)"UNPA" was dropped when the UNPROFOR mandate for Croatia expired. UNPROFOR was replaced by UNCRO and the former UNPAs were designated "Sectors" under UNCRO. (2)UN did not withdraw. UN were killed, held hostage and grossly mistreated by HV. This should be included somewhere in the entry. The Secretary General noted these acts in his Report of 23 August. See Report of the Secretary General S/1995/730.

For background on the expiraton of UNPROFOR and establishment of UNCRO see Report of the Secretary General S/1995/38. Also see UNSC 981.

I believe it is rather distracting to have to explain RSK and who HV/ABiH were attacking in the first paragraph. What to call them? Separatist Croatian Serbs? Can we reach a consensus on a simple phrase like "separatist Croatian Serbs" and then explain RSK a bit further on in the entry?

Finally, your thoughts on Note 13? (see my concerns as outlined above).

Also, I see you did not get around to undoing my version yet. Or did you change your mind?

Civilaffairs (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Oh, I see what happened now. You undid my minor edit which corrected some typos (ie no space between "Krajina" and "region") and cleaned up the sentence structure a bit, not the substantive edit which corrected factual errors. So now we have my revision with the typos and the funky sentence structure. This is not cool.

Civilaffairs (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

"With respect to Operation Storm, I want to make clear that the legality, the legitimacy of the Operation itself is not the issue." http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p420-e.htm

"Tribunal officials say that Operation Storm is not on trial" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3522828.ece

"The legality of Croatia's retaking its territory is not in question" http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/892EE625-EB2C-452D-B6F5-8FCB7D931BD6.htm

"While the legality of the recapture of Krajina is not in question..." http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL11802714

I'm looking for a video of the prossecutor saying that just at the beginning of the trial of Gen. Gotovina.When I find it,i'll post it here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.138.91 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made no changes or additions concerning the legality of Op Storm. Please check the history and read what I have written here. The legality question was brought up by another editor. I found this editor's objections confusing and asked for clarification. Please state clearly what sentence or phrase you are calling into question and why you think it has anything to do with legality of the Op Storm. Civilaffairs (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

I was reffering to this.

The act was called ethnic cleansing of the defeated Serbs since the operation led to the displacement of approximately 200,000-250,000 Croatian Serbs,[2].

The prossecutor said that he believes that the Operation Storm had a second side,and that was the ethnic cleansing of Serbian population of the rebel Krajina region. So to explicitly call Operation Storm as an act of ethnic cleansing is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.138.91 (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not write that sentence. Again, I ask you to please check the history. The sentence you quoted has nothing to do with the edit being discussed in this section.

But,as this section seems to have drifted off topic anyway, I will say that I consider that sentence weak and think it should be moved out or the passive voice. If you want to stick with what the prosecutor is charging (and I do not believe it is wise to rule out all other sources, by any means), then you must certainly agree that ICTY indictment specifies "forcible transfer and deportation" in 17a. That sounds like a good definition of ethnic cleansing, no? Many respected officials and journalists have explicitly referred to it as ethnic cleansing. I agree though, that it should be sourced. Civilaffairs (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

If the actual indictment used "forcible transfer and deportation", it is both more accurate to use the specific words, and also more NPOV to avoid emotionally loaded terms such as "ethnic cleansing". Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting or writing a new caption for image of "Martic Order" of 4 August

In light of new developments in the trial of Gotovina, Čermak and Markač, I propose that a new caption be written for this image, or else that it be deleted. To make clear which image I am referring to, the present caption begins: The August 4th order by the Serb Supreme Defence Council ordering evacuation...

The source of the image is the CroForce message board. Whether this image is of an authentic document is questionable, given the source.

Secondly, please note the following statement by the ICTY prosecutor: The intention to get Serb civilians to flee was also reflected in efforts to broadcast false radio messages and drop fake leaflets that pretended to be from Serb authorities, leaflets and broadcasts instructing civilians to flee.

The prosecutor's statement and its full context (describing a similar document) can be found on page 427 of the ICTY transcript of 11 March 2008. Similar allegations may also be found in parts 17c and 28 of the ICTY Amended Joinder Indictment of Gotovina, Cermak, Markac.. Civilaffairs (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

I have gone ahead and added the ICTY information to the caption. Civilaffairs (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

The Martic order is original because it is used in the trial as an argument for Serbs fleeing and as a proof that they were not forcly deported.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I hardly think the ICTY prosecutor loaned the document in question to a guy on the CroForce forum (hardly an NPOV source in any case). An image of a document posted on some message board can cannot be authenticated.

Second, the document is being used in the trial for the very opposite reason than the one you stated. Had you read the original source (conviently linked above), this would have been clear to you. The prosecuter argues that Croatian forces dropped fake documents similar to the one pictured in the entry over populated areas in an effort to convince Croatian Serbs to flee. This charge is also included in the indictment. To clarify: the prosecutor alleges that the documents were made up by the Croatian forces and dropped from aircraft over Krajina to trick the population into thinking their leaders had ordered an evacuation. Civilaffairs (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

The alleged droped leaflets have nothing to do with the Martic's document in which he ordered the evacuation of the Serb population of Krajina on the first day of the Operation Storm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.10.12 (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you take the time to read the trascript (link is provided) you will find that the faked documents purported to be from Martic. Civilaffairs (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

don't see the link.Can you please put it here?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The link for the ICTY transcript is in the fourth paragraph of this section. Civilaffairs (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

What is the number of the paragraph?My search option doesn't work.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl Bildt

He was persona non grata in both Croatia and Bosnia because of his pro-Serb views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GriffinSB (talk • contribs) 09:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=BInS_EkHIUsC&printsec=frontcover

what does this refference has to do with Carl Bildt ?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The page number containing the Carl Bildt quote is given in the note. It is page 224. Civilaffairs (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Should we cite Carl Bildt???As i said he was persona non grata in both Croatia and Bosnia because of his pro-Serb POV.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Zagreb declared him PNG, in part because he was critical of the human rights abuses during and after Op Storm. In part to signal that the USA was the arbiter of the Balkans, not the EU. Still, he went on to become the High Representative in BiH. The Serbs consider him anti-Serb. Maybe that means he's neutral?

He did hold the post of EU Special Envoy to Former Yugolavia, and as such, his statement is quite relevant. I could cite numerous mainstream press accounts which also call Op Storm ethnic cleansing, so it hardly a pro-Serb or fringe view. ICTY seems to agree on that point as well. Civilaffairs (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Yes he did.But he was on the position only for few months.He was the only person in the world that got persona non grata up his ass by any Balkan state and he wasn't unpartial.Than his comments are not NPOV.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The biggest European land offensive since World War II,[1]

This has been put here deliberatly for a porpous.Offcourse it was the biggest land offensive on European soil since ww2 because there were no land offencives or wars of this size on European soil since ww2.

This is stupid.But because Srebrenica is called the biggest attrocity since ww2,Serbs have to equalize the guilt so they draw parallels between Srebrenica and Operation Storm.The difference is Operation Storm was a legal action with not as nearly executed civilans. 50% of the civilians died from shellings or crossfire.And Croatian Army is charged only with 300 deaths.While Srebrenica was a genocide which left 8140 people dead(executed in three days) and 35.000 expelled.

To GriffinSB: Yes, the purpose was to give the reader a perspective on the size and scope of the operation and of its importance in history. The size of a military offensive has nothing to do with its legality, nor does it have to do with atrocities. Civilaffairs (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Blitzkrieg operation...this is again put there to envoke the nazi parallels between Croatian Army in the 90's and the Ustase nazi regime in WW2.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg was put there to describe the nature of the operation. It is an apt description. This term was used to describe Operation Storm in numerous mainstream Western press accounts, both in England and the US, and it is even used by UNHCR. If you will look at the entry for blitzkrieg here on Wikipedia, you will see that it has no Nazi connotations. Civilaffairs (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Possible neutral wording

May I suggest that it is the exception, rather than the rule, for press accounts to use appropriate military terminology? I haven't seen "blitzkrieg" used in a professional military journal for years, simply because while it was revolutionary for 1939, its methods were rather primitive by modern standards. Blitzkrieg was new in that it had coordinated air and ground operations, and deep penetration by armored and motorized forces. Nevertheless, even in the subsequent Battle of France, the Germans had significant problems with coordination. It can be informative to compare the number of radios in a German unit of that time, and a modern one -- even before data and video links are continued.

Would your point be made if you said "combined arms" rather than "blitzkrieg", which, I believe, would avoid both Nazi connotations and be more accurate? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.That was my point exactly.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a helpful suggestion. I think the press accounts (and even UNHCR) used that term because the operation was very like you described in your first paragraph. However, the comms were superior to 1939, as you point out. As for the rapid pace, I suppose that will simply have to be spelled out, as that connotation is lost by changing from "blitzkrieg" to "combined arms."

Thank you! I have learned something very helpful here!Civilaffairs (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

May I ask a question just for my own knowledge? Just how fast did they move? To me, a fast movement would be the "left hook" of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) in Operation Desert Storm, where their movement was mostly limited by the 98 mile distance between forward ammunition and refueling points (FARP) imposed by the capabilities of the CH-47 helicopter. The 24th Infantry Division (called infantry, but really a heavy armored force) stayed mostly on the ground, but, IIRC, set quite a few speed records.

Another factor in the tempo of operations is whether the units have effective night vision equipment, so can move and fight 24 hours per day. As with the FARP problem, for a modern military force, the limit on their movement may be just as much from not outrunning their logistics as from enemy action.

Even faster models are being considered. See Swarming (military). Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I took so long to answer this. I somehow did not notice it before. It was all pretty much over in a day and the media were gushing about how fast it went, how "astonished" everyone was, even supposedly, the Pentagon. On the other hand, the ARSK/VRSK (Army of the Republic of Serbian Krajina) was not much a match, as you can read in the entry. Most withdrew on orders from on high. All indications were that a deal had been worked out between Tudjman (President of Croatia) and Milosevic, and there was no help for the ARSK from the Bosnian Serb Army.

The only real fighting was in Sector North. Some ARSK/VRSK units fought hard to protect the refugees around Turanj (border town just south of Karlovac where the UN crossing was) and Petrinja (near Moscenica where the other UN crossing was). The 21 Kordun Corps was successful in protecting the refugees who had massed in the Topusko area (UN Sector HQ) with no way out. Their commanding officer, Colonel Bulat, was one of the signatories on the Serb side to the Surrender Agreement of 8 August near Topusko. General Petar Stipetic, (not among the three generals in the Hague), was the signatory on the Croat side.Civilaffairs (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Quotes by important people/politicians about Operation Storm

Shall we include the quotes by President Bill Clinton,Richard Hobrooke and Gen.Wesley Clark in the article???

http://www.un.org/icty/transe90/080312ED.htm

16 He we turn to the book on the screen. This was an excerpt from

17 the book written by President Clinton, his memoirs, where he writes at

18 the bottom of the page: "In August, the situation took a dramatic turn.

19 The Croats launched an offensive to retake the Krajina, a part of Croatia

20 that the local Serbs," we are moving to the top of the next page, "had

21 proclaimed their territory. European and some military and intelligence

22 officials had recommended against the action in the belief that Milosevic

23 would intervene to save the Krajina Serbs, but I was rooting for the

24 Croatians. So was Helmut Kohl, who knew, as I did, that diplomacy could

25 not succeed until the Serbs had sustained some serious losses on the

Page 542

1 ground.

2 "Because we knew Bosnia's survival was at stake, we had not

3 tightly enforced the arms embargo. As a result, both the Croatians and

4 the Bosnians were able to get some arms which helped them survive. We

5 had also authorised a private company to use retired US military

6 personnel to improve and train the Bosnian Serb army," -- excuse me, "the

7 Croatian army."

8 The key, Your Honour, is in the last sentence of the paragraph

9 before that diplomacy could not succeed until the Serbs had sustained

10 some serious losses on the ground. That idea was echoed by

11 Richard Holbrooke where he noted, I'm quoting one of his colleagues: "I

12 realise how much the Croatian offensive in the Krajina profoundly changed

13 the nature of the Balkan game and thus this diplomatic offensive."

14 General Wesley Clark simply called it the turning point.

Actually, I was planning to use a quote from Holbrooke about Op Storm and the basis for Dayton. Please feel free to go ahead and do it yourself. That would be helpful, and save me some time. Civilaffairs (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Where shall we ad this???At the beginning(intro) or backround???--(GriffinSB) (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the intro now???--(GriffinSB) (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The article should also mention the Z-4 plan which promised the Serbs autonomy but as a part of Croatia which they refused.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Seselj's phrase taken out??? It is important because he said If they(Croats) come,you must leave,rather to live under Croatian rule.

Those kind of statements by such influential politicians also contributed to mass fleeing of the Serb population.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This should also be included in the article.

8 Show 23A, please.

9 In the Martic case, the Prosecution submitted both pre-trial and

10 final trial briefs and here are some of the excerpts of the Prosecution's

11 position as recently as 14 months ago in the Martic case. I quote: "The

12 implementation of this plan (referring to Martic's joint criminal

13 enterprise) took several forms. An intense media campaign directed by

14 members of the Martic JCE in Belgrade began to portray Serbs in Croatia

15 as being discriminated against and victimised by the Croat majority and

16 imminently threatened with genocide by the latter.

17 "This threat, which was repeatedly echoed by Martic and other

18 Serb nationalist leaders in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Belgrade,

19 instilled fear and resentment in the Serb population and eliminated the

20 possibility of co-existence between the ethnic groups.

21 "As a result of the implementation of this criminal plan, Serbs

22 living in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina were made to believe that

23 they could only feel safe in a homogeneous Serbian state."

24 And then in the final trial brief --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, I hear the French interpreters

Page 548

1 struggling with your speed of speech. Please proceed.

2 MR. MISETIC: Sorry.

3 The Prosecution 14 months ago told the Trial Chamber in the

4 Martic case: "There is no evidence that Croatian leaders or the Croatian

5 media were actually threatening the Serbs with genocide, as claimed by

6 Serb leaders at the time."

7 This was the Prosecution's case in Martic.

8 The Prosecution said Martic's intense propaganda over four years

9 had "eliminated the possibility of co-existence with the Croats." That

10 the Serbs were made by Martic to believe that they could "only feel safe

11 in a homogeneous Serbian state." That the Croatian government -- there

12 is no evidence that the Croatian government was actually threatening the

13 Serbs with genocide.

14 President Tudjman, in planning Operation Storm understood that

15 Serb civilians had become victims of Milan Martic's propaganda campaign

16 for four years and that they had been made to believe that they could not

17 live in a Croatian state. As a result, prior to Operation Storm, it was

18 understood not only by President Tudjman but by the entire international

19 community that if Croatia were compelled by Milan Martic to use force to

20 retake its occupied territories, many Serb civilians would flee as a

21 result of the fear of Croatia that had been ingrained in them by Martic.

22 What is the evidence for what I have just told you? Well, the

23 evidence, Your Honours, is as the Prosecution made reference yesterday to

24 an operation of the Croatian army known as Operation Flash in May of

25 1995. During Operation Flash, Croatia recovered its territory in

Page 549

1 Western Slavonia. Many Serbs fled Western Slavonia when the Croatian

2 forces launched the operation. However, some Serbs stayed behind.

3 At the insistence of Mr. Martic, the United Nations organised a

4 programme to take out the remaining Serbs from Western Slavonia and to

5 move them to Banja Luka. The UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights

6 submitted a report on this topic in July -- 5 July 1995, which is on your

7 screens, and he wrote, paragraph 29 -- sorry, paragraph 28, please.

8 "During the first two days of the military operation, as many as

9 10.000 people fled from the Serb-held area of Western Slavonia, mostly

10 from the Okucani area, across the Sava River bridge into northern

11 Bosnia ... the RSK authorities had previously held regular evacuation

12 drills, and there were reports that some of the refugees may have been

13 forced into leaving against their will. Subsequently, in negotiations

14 with the United Nations Protection Force and Croatian authorities, the

15 leaders of the RSK insisted that the persons left behind, estimated at 3

16 to 4.000, be given the opportunity to leave Western Slavonia and join the

17 other refugees in the Serb-held territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The

18 United Nations acceded to this demand and initiated the programme known

19 as Operation Safe Passage with the context of the four point Cessation of

20 Hostilities Agreement. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that the degree of destruction was not as near as JNA attack on Vukovar and Dubrovnik.Noone was ever charged for the complete destruction of city of Vukovar,while the ICTY prosecutors want to charge Gotovina with unselective shelling of Knin and that this remark was made in the court.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Be careful. If you promote using a defense attourney's opening statement as gospel truth in the intro of an entry, then you should not object if this is done in other cases. Think about the can of worms that opens up. Civilaffairs (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Veritas organisation

Veritas is a know serbian organisation and notorious for spreading propaganda and falsifying victims. It is runned by a serbian rebel intelligence luitenant.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to zap Serb refugee sources, then you cannot object when others zap all Croat sources. Do you really want to go there?Civilaffairs (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

I never use Croat sources because of the NPOV arguments.I would like to,but than i would have to argue about them for 3 hours a day with some Serb nationalists. My problem with the Veritas organisation is Savo Strbac.

Ex-RSK President, Milan Babic, signed an admission that the RSK persecuted Croats. He pleaded guilty at the Hague to persecution. On that day, the Hague published a statement of the facts that Babic agreed to.It clearly states that the government bodies of the RSK were set up to help the Yugoslav Army and parallel institutions to carry out a joint criminal enterprise. And Strbac was part of those government bodies. Amongst the crimes those bodies assisted in were extermination and imprisonment of non-Serbs, ethnic cleansing of thousands and the destruction of homes.

http://www.un.org/icty/transe11/060220IT.htm

Savo Strbac has publicly defended the innocence of Milan Martic and even said that the shelling of civilians in Zagreb wasn't a crime. www.un.org/icty/transe11/060817IT.htm--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have found Veritas to be rather unreliable in cleaning up their lists. For example, a few years ago I found the names of two people whose bodies were found by UNCRO after Op Storm and reported dead through various channels including ICRC. I found one who had been reported alive by UNCRO through the same channels. And I only got through names beginning with "A".

I may have been mistaken when I thought this was the link for the Serb count of the dead and missing. {There is one place where UN, Croat and Serb numbers are all given.} If Veritas is the source for this info, we will need to find another Serb source or else keep this one. If it merely an external link, we can certainly consider deleting it.

I agree that Savo Strbac's remarks are offensive and hardly worthy of someone who is supposed to represent a humanitarian agency. I don't know why hardliners always seem to be appointed to these posts -- it only makes their side look bad. On the Croat side, Mato Simic (representing displaced Croats in Osijek/Baranja) was no picnic, either (understatement). Civilaffairs (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

I don't know who Mato Simic is,but i'm positive that he didn't participate in a joint criminal enterprise structure like Strbac.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I ask how discussions of "my bad example is more evil than your bad example" contribute to the article, or how they could be sourced in the article? It's my suspicion that some of the anger, on all sides, on this talk page is simply turning the talk page into a place to vent. The purpose of a talk page is to improve the article.

Before posting to it, may I suggest asking oneself "how will this statement improve the article"? In this case, there appears to be some objective information that questions the NPOV of a specific source, Veritas. It may well be that some bad person was in a criminal enterprise, but if that's not sourced, it's not usable in the article. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is, both sides can be considered POV. Which is moreso does not matter. There is/was one place in the article where three figures were cited according to: (1)an international organisation source, (2) a Croat source and (3) a Serb source. It looked to me like editors had reached a consensus on presenting all three, but I don't know for certain as this was done before I joined Wikipedia. If Veritas was the source used in that instance (now that it has been removed, I find it hard to tell), then another Serb source should be found to replace it, or it should stand. Or, if it is simply removed, the Croat source should also be removed, leaving only the international organisation. I don't personally care which is done. Again, as I said above, if I am mistaken and Veritas was not used as a source for presenting Serb figures alongside those of Croatian and international organisations, then we can certainly consider simply removing it. It would be helpful if editors noted how and where sources were used when deleting them. Civilaffairs (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Srebrenica Genocide[dubious – discuss]

Why is it dubious????

The population of Bihac refugees is mentioned in the link at the end of that paragraph allong withe the citations by Bill Clinton,Richard Holbrooke and Wesley Clark.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.un.org/icty/transe90/080312ED.htm

It is dubious because the world didn't even know much about Srebrenica prior to Op Storm. The situation was confused and the extent of the atrocities was not known until after Op Storm. Read the Srebrenica timeline, and you will see that is true. What was going on in and around Srebrenica at the same time Op Storm was launched? The news about the atrocities did not come out until after Op Storm. Furthermore, Op Storm was in prepartation before Srebrenica.

Bihac refugees have nothing to do with the entire world fearing a genocide.Civilaffairs (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

The world leaders and the intelligence of USA and European countries knew what had happened because of the satelite images that showed possible massgraves.People who survived the Srebrenica Genocide came 5 days later to Tuzla trough the woods so they confirmed the fears of the UN,NATO.I will search for the other trials where this is confirmed.ok???--(GriffinSB) (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I only used the things in which they talked about another trials which are closed and those people are behind bars like Milan Martic. Only when something is confirmed by the judges themself then i will use it.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Albright did not present the satellite photos until 10 August. If you want to include that business about the world fearing genocide, you will have find a reliable source for it and provide a footnote.

You have used the opening statement of the defense attourney in the Gotovina, Čermak and Markač trial in the intro. Whenever you use the statements of a defense attourney, you must attribute it to the defense attourney. The opening statements of a defense attourney are not considered a reliable NPOV source. Civilaffairs (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

As i said i only used his statments/reffrences on other trials which were confirmed by the ICTY judgments before. As for the qoutes by Clinton,Holbrooke and Clark i used this refference because they are all at one place,but i'll prvide separate links if you want to.

The Americans presented the satelite images in early august,but the images were made right after the Srebrenica tragedy.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Because the USA and other international intelligence agencies knew what was happening.

If you have problems with preventing the Genocide in Bihac,then it should only be mentioned that the Operation Storm lifted the siege of 40.000 refugees in Bihac area who were besieged for three years.it that better?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is what is verifiable. If you can find a sources from before 4 August 1995 about the world fearing genocide in Bihac because of genocide in Srebrenica, then fine. But it has to be referenced to a reliable source. Civilaffairs (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Here is the link about Bill Clinton memoires in Croatian. VOA Croatian... http://voanews.com/croatian/archive/2004-06/a-2004-06-22-11-1.cfm?renderforprint=1&textonly=1&&TEXTMODE=1&CFID=41216627&CFTOKEN=92342436

There was an attack by the Bosnian Serb army and the army of

Page 3846

1 the Republika Srpska Krajina on the Bihac enclave, the army of the ARSK

2 crossing the international border. There was a time when we feared that

3 Bihac would fall and that Ratko Mladic would engage in the same kind of

4 slaughter of the people of Bihac, the men and boys of Bihac, that he had

5 done in Srebrenica. In the few days immediately before Operation Storm,

6 there were indications that the forces from the ARSK were ceasing their

7 military operations, but at that stage, the momentum for war was very

8 strong and as I've explained, we did attempt even at that late stage to

9 try to find a peaceful settlement.

Peter W. Galbraith ,the US ambassador to Croatia at that time http://www.un.org/icty/transe11/060426ED.htm --(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Roy Gutman Pulitzer prize winning journalist Roy Gutman said in his books that Operation Storm saved Bihac pocket and Bosnia. Here's his article about the Operation Storm and Gotovina. http://www.newsweek.com/id/76907?tid=relatedcl --(GriffinSB) (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Editorial suggestions

I went through the introduction and reformatted citations into standard inline form. In general, let the citation code decide what is to be italicized, wikilinked, etc. Remember that if you do put a wikilink in a citation, it will only show up in the reflist. If something is significant enough to be wikilinked, that link probably should be in the main text.

Try to come up with a consistent way of citing ICTY material. For example, if a URL resolves to text in the middle of a transcript, there needs to be additional material to show from which trial it comes.

When referring to a broadcast such as the VOA, there needs to be an indication of who transcribed the material, or at least when it was broadcast.

Not all the indicted generals have articles. They are presumably notable enough that the red linked names should have articles written.

Things such as "world community" need to have citations, as do statements saying such things as "no court ever indicted".

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's very helpful. Thank you! About the VOA reference, my copy was transcribed by the UNCRO Media Monitoring Unit, only available at the UN archives, so I'll work on about finding another that is widely available. May take a few days. Point taken about the ICTY transcripts; will do. About the red links, perhaps the editor who made those links is planning to write those articles? That would be good! As you pointed out, they should have articles. I wholeheartedly agree on your last point, too. Civilaffairs (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

For many broadcasts, for those of you with access to a university library, there can be free access to the U.S. Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), which does transcriptions and translations. I'm not sure if it can legally provide VOA transcriptions, because, unless it's changed recently, everyone except the U.S. public had access to VOA -- the concern was that it might be used for domestic propaganda.

FBIS is available through one commercial information service, but access is very expensive there. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as the ICTY transcripts, by any chance, is anyone here knowledgeable in their procedures and the way they reference proceedings? In the Wikipedia citation templates, there is one for U.S. court decisions, which I sometimes know enough procedure to use, although there are fields in the template that mystify me--I am not and have never been a lawyer. As far as international court procedure, I know even less. There probably is, however, a standard way to cite such things. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been wondering about the correct format for referencing those myself. I am no lawyer, either. I have some training in International Law, but that was before ICTY was established. I'll see if I can find anything on it.

About the VOA piece: I've found it online (finally--thanks for the hint about university access) in the State University of New York at Buffalo's Tribunal Watch archives[8]. I think VOA used to do feeds, because the hard copy I have looks like a copy of a feed tear and is formatted like a feed (remember the old teletypes?), and it is identical to the one online. So I don't think it was transcribed, but rather feed sent out by VOA. Anyway, it may be better to use Human Rights Watch as the source: "largest single movement of refugees since the beginning of the war in the former Yugoslavia in 1991."[9] After all these years, I guess it's catch-as-catch-can for reports still online.

Once I've replaced the quote and source, would you be so kind as to decide whether it still needs clarification? Civilaffairs (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

I was thinkin wasn't Kosovo refuee crisis even worse?One million Kosovars left their homes during that conflict.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Griffin, it's interesting that you bring this up, as I just finished posting, on a Polish-related page, the question of whether there gets to be a point at which absolute numbers may divert from the unique history of a conflict? While I loathe Stalin, his comment, paraphrasing roughly, that one death is a tragedy but a million deaths is a statistic resonates here. Both this and Kosovo were great human tragedies, although not unprecedented in death tolls, when one considers not only the Holocaust, but, for example, Japanese WWII operations in China? With the latter, for example, there are estimates of perhaps 250,000 dead in the punitive operations following Chinese support to the Doolittle Raid. Again, there are controversies of the actual casualty counts at the Rape of Nanking, but few argue they were immense.

Respectfully, is not the important thing to learn from both Balkan events is what went wrong, and perhaps a background for conflict resolution, in nationalist/ethnic conflicts, of the future? Speaking as a military historian with no particular Serb or Croat ties, I'm finding it hard to follow the events of Operation Storm. As you may have noticed, I've tried to edit some of the military parts simply for clarity and suggested needs for sourcing.

Civilaffairs, I suggest much the same thing to you. While HRW is often a reasonable source, is the real issue here "my atrocity is bigger than your atrocity", or that both were tragedies from which there are things to learn? It's often hard to determine death tolls in the sort of "ethnic cleansing" that we see in such regional conflicts. May I suggest looking at what may seem tangential but is not: Electro-optical MASINT#Mass Graves, which sources work reported in the Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal on "Remote Sensing as a Tool for the Detection of Clandestine Mass Graves"? Literally, more and more is being learned about clandestine killing fields that, in the past, might never have been discovered without advanced remote sensing technology? (I note in passing that the electro-optical sensors are complemented by other technical means)Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying.I was just pointing put that the Kosovo crisis was even worse.So that refference that Operation Storm caused the biggest movement of refugees at one time is wrong. The second problem I have with it is that with that phrase the nature of the conflict is hidden,because prior to that 1.5 mil people from Bosnia were evicted from their homes.500.000 in Croatia.But off course that never happened all at once it happened in 4 years of systematic ethnic cleansing by Serbian armies and politicians.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that statement about the largest single refugee movement it the Balkan conflict was made at the time of the event.Kosovo Crisis was in 1999 but it was also a part of the Balkan conflict.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I loathe "my atrocity is bigger than your atrocity" more than you can ever know. It is the most tiresome mantra of the Balkans. My intention was to put things into context for the reader, and to lay the groundwork for how difficult it was for international aid agencies to cope with such a sudden and massive flow of refugees. Refugees clogging the roads also impacted the military situation. I certainly don't insist on keeping it in. If the statement about it being the largest at that time will turn the discussion into an atrocity contest, then I am all for removing it. I suppose I should admit that I have a Refugee POV, if there is such a thing, as the refugee side of it happens to be one of my own fields of interest and experience. In addition to the 200,000 refugees fleeing away, there were the 30,000 Abdic followers who fled from Bihac into Sector North at the same time. It was truly a challenge to cope with it all: 200,000 out, 30,000 in, all in the space of a few days.

Yes, GriffinSB, the the number of refugees flooding out of Kosovo during the 1999 bombing campaign was far greater than Op Storm. At the time of Op Storm in 1995, it was the single largest (it occured over a space of days). A Serb might point out that the refugees in Albania got to go home to Kosovo again, whereas Krajina refugees ... and a Bosniak might point out length of time doesn't matter, only total numbers, so BiH tops Kosovo .... ah, the Balkans ... the arguments never end.

I was also perhaps trying too hard to be fair, as I was hoping consensus might be reached on using the 200,000 figure given in most accounts rather than the cumbersome "200,000 to 250,000". In addition I had corrected things in a way which could be interpreted as "in favour" of the Croat side. One correction likely to upset the Serb side was removing the reference in the lead sentence to the Croatian Army attacking United Nations Protected Areas. (In fact, I fully expected Serbs to show up and howl about that one.) The Sectors had been UNPAs from the beginning of the Mission in 1992 until a few months before Op Storm. (After Tudjman threatened to withdraw his consent to the UN Mission in Croatiam a compromise was worked out, including dropping the UNPA status and the name change from UNPROFOR to UNCRO.) I intended to explain the change in the UN Mission from UNPROFOR to UNCRO, change in size and mandate, etc, later on in a background section, as it is somewhat complicated and I don't think it belongs in the intro anyway. I also made a few other minor corrections which might also be taken to be "in favour" of the Croat side.

One of the first things I changed was the sentence about the expelled Croats to highlight their right of return. No one questions the right of people to return to their homes. The way it read before (the Serbs expelled 78,000 Croats so the Croats turned around and expelled three times that many Serbs) made the Croats look very sick-minded, vengeful and nasty indeed. One wrong is not made right by an even greater wrong. I know the Croatian government spokespersons sometimes stated their case in those terms, but I believe it more important to respect the rights of the expelled Croats themselves.

I haven't written or edited anything about mass graves in this entry, but I suppose we will come to that point later on. Technically, there were none as a result of Op Storm, so far as I know, but we can look into that. The Croats, so far I remember, were careful to bury the bodies so many inches apart in the known large gravesites at Knin and Dvor-na-Uni (if I recall correctly, if the bodies are at least two inches apart, it is not technically designated as a "mass grave" as per the UNCHCR Handbook). According to UN field reports, there was consistent and widespread evidence of bodies being buried on top of bodies in established graveyards all over the former Sectors after Op Storm, but this was never properly investigated. No forensic teams came to the Sectors to investigate suspected graves of Serbs killed during or after Op Storm, so all the UN Field Officers could report were bodies discovered in the open, and note evidence of possible recent burial (obvious fresh digging, latex gloves lying about, earthmoving equipment, etc,). The only forensic teams who ever came to the area were those investigating mass graves of Croats killed by Serb paramilitaries in 1992.

Thank you for the info about the new technology for finding mass graves. That is very interesting to me. I honestly don't believe there are any unknown mass graves in the former Sectors, though. (Edited to add: Maybe there were after all. There are some sketchy reports about possible ones. But I seriously doubt that, even if these are indeed mass graves, they will be exhumed in our lifetimes.) If the US has any such evidence as you speak of, we would not release it, given our complicity in Op Storm. The US refused to provide any such information on Op Storm to ICTY (which kicked up a small fuss). They did supply such info to ICTY for the Srebrenica case, as well as some others. I believe any additional bodies are in the old established graveyards, and scattered here and there. We must go with the official figures because they are all we have, and they are official. If there are disputes, we can always give the Croat and Serb estimates as well as the official (UN or whatever is decided).

...is not the important thing to learn from both Balkan events is what went wrong? That is a very good question, and the very one I hoped we could shed some light on in this entry. That is my main motivation and interest in the whole matter. Of course our job here is to provide a verifiable NPOV account which also leaves room for presenting each side's POV.

I agree the Op Storm narrative is hard to follow for anyone not already familiar with it. We can all work on that. It is quite complicated to explain in context, because it follows on Operations Flash and Summer and involves two recognised countries (Croatia and BiH) and two unrecognised ones (The Republic of Serbian Krajina and Fikret Abdic's Autonomous Region of Western Bosnia) and a number of forces: Croatian (HV), Bosniak (ABiH), Krajina Serb (VRSK), and Abdic's "Peoples Defense Militia". Then there is HVO (Croat forces from BiH). And while they did not come to the aid of the VRSK (Krajina Serbs), the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) was a concern.

The story of Fikret Abdic is one of the most interesting and mysterious in the whole sad saga of the war. Some have wondered whether there would have been no war in Bosnia-Hercegovina if Abdic had assumed the presidency as expected (he got more votes than Izetbegovic). The saddest thing of all, is that the Bosniaks wound up with slightly less territory under Dayton 1995 than they would have had under Lisbon 1992. Izetbegovic originally agreed to Lisbon, but changed his mind a few days later. (The BiH Serbs and Croats had also signed onto Lisbon.) I am not sure in my own mind that Lisbon would have held, but I do so wish it had been tried.Civilaffairs (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

I would also like to know the standard way of their procedures and the way they reference proceedings.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for assistance with a template here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International law. We can keep an eye on that page and see if any help is forthcoming. Civilaffairs (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Nationalistic SPA accounts

Before starting I need to say that in my thinking Civilaffairs and (GriffinSB) are nationalistic SPA accounts. My problem is that I am rude with nationalistic SPA accounts. In my thinking they are coming to wikipedia only to start nationalistic edit warring.

If you believe an account is SPA and being abused, please pass the matter to an administrator, who, possibly with investigation, can block them. Being rude by yourself is against WP:AGF and will inflame the situation, not solve anything. What if they start being rude to you? How does the rudeness stop?

• (GriffinSB) :It is not important what witness is saying, Only important thing are court decisions. Because you are croatian SPA account I will ask you: Do you agree that we add to articles witness statements from Slobodan Milošević trial ? When I ask this I think about witnesses which has supported Slobodan Milošević claims ! You are new so I will think that this has been good faith mistake.
• Civilaffairs :I have noticed that many facts confirmed with sources are now put under question. Maybe I am mistaking in thinking that this has been your work but .... You have changed text about document in which Serb Supreme Defence Council is ordering evacuation. Maybe it has been possible to sell your thinking to other users but you have made mistake. On 17 April in 03:51 you have given link for :Human Right Watch report of August 1996 .This text is clearly stating that evacuation decision has been made by "Vrhovni Savjet Odbrane" in Knin on August 4, 1995, 16:45 hours !! This order has been even reprinted in newspapers: Bezaniju Naredio - Martic," Vecernji Novosti, August 23, 1995; "Narod je iz Knina Poveo Vrhovni Savet Odbrane RSK," Politika, August 23, 1995; and "`Odluku o Povlacenju su Doneli Martic i Mrksic,'" Nasa Borba, August 23, 1995. Because you have known about this link and you have not reverted your earlier changes which are speaking about evacuation order my only conclusion is that you are bad faith editor. I will now delete all question for sources in places where we are having sources confirmed with NPOV internet links.--Rjecina (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The witness statements in the Milosevic trial from influential people like Wesley Clark or other diplomats can be used. But not the witnesses who were trained by Serb police. Peter Galbraith was involved in peace negotiations and he is a diplomat.

I repeat i will never quote a Croatian or a Serbian witness unless the court already made it's dessision.

I'm am not a nationalist neither is Civilaffeirs.We are just communicating in a normal manner.Our POV my be different,but we are trying to make this article accurate and honest.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Civilaffairs wants to have everything as sourced as possible and that's why she(i think it's a she) hes put everything under question untill we all provide good and neutral refferences.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen so many demand for refferences in 1 article. It is important to notice that I am on english wikipedia from February 2005 !--Rjecina (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

hahaha neither have I.i'm only editing for 6-7 months but i read a lot. but it's ok,as long we provide NPOV sources and refferences.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am neither Croatian or Serb, but I'll begin by saying that this is not, at all, an unusual number of source requests for a controversial subject. You might, Rjecina, might to look at a random sample of better-than-stub class articles from the Military History project. There are articles that may just be a page, but have 20 or more references, about which no one complained -- and these were relatively noncontroversial articles.

Along with others, I was involved in a major overhaul of Central Intelligence Agency, starting with a main page over 300 K, and, with a lot of good material, a lot of unsourced allegations. The eventual approach broke out 10 or more sub-articles. Some geographical sub-articles, for example, have 100 or more sources. There are still questions about missing sources, verifiability, or reputability of sources.

May I suggest, Rjecina, that before you start wholesale deletes of sources that do not meet your definition of WP:RS, WP:V, or WP:POV, you discuss your concerns on the talk page? Otherwise, you may simply get a revert war started, 3RR violated, people blocked, and no real change in the article.

Further, Rjecina, I personally put in quite a few tags for references being needed, more clarification, or simply understandability of the source. You have said you will remove source that do not meet some of your criteria. Do you plan to do anything about what you consider excessive source requests? Will you discuss them on the talk page first?

As a minor example, there is a place where one side is said to have attacked at five places, splitting the other side's forces into four pieces. Now, that is possible, if two of the movements for a "pincers" or a double envelopment, moving from both sides of a military force and meeting behind it. Double envelopments are quite difficult; ancient examples such as the Battle of Cannae are still studied in professional military colleges. Now, if the statement had said five penetrations splitting the enemy into five pieces, I would not have asked for clarification; that's a plausible description. If, for example, that clarification request is deleted, I have no hesitation about requesting Admin help.

As far as the sources you do not consider reliable, again, as someone with no particular bias to either side, try listing them on the talk page, and asking for consensus. You very well may get consensus that some should go. Unfortunately, I've found the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard is too busy for getting many answers. There are very good examples of such discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation.

It is not my intent to take sides, but simply get a good article. There was much suffering by many people, and I fully understand that many editors, close to the subject, have strong feelings about them.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It was my hope that we could get this entry out of Start Class by improving it and providing the necessary citations. The notations where citations are needed are helpful to me, because I can easily see what needs a citation. And it is most handy when reading over an article, report or book to be able to see at a glance if it will supply a needed citation and where it should go.

I enjoy working on a challenge, and I hope it will give us a sense of accomplishment when we can remove the accuracy tags, section by section, until the article is ready for review. It will be an even greater sense of accomplishment if we can move it up a class or two.

I honestly don't know what an SPA account is. I am new, so I hope you will forgive my ignorance and enlighten me. I am an American with no Balkan roots or ties. My ancestors arrived arrived from England in the early 17th century, so I am a mixture of Anglo-Saxon, Norman (Viking roots), Celtic and a mish-mash of other European ancestries, with a possilbe trace of Cherokee thrown in. In other words, I am something of a mutt or "Heinz 57 Variety" (after the ketchup with 57 ingredients). (Yes, GriffinSB, I am a "she". You guessed correctly.)

Regarding the caption of the image, you may see the discussion above in the section "Deleting or writing a new caption for image of "Martic Order" of 4 August." The image in question is from the CroForce message board (forum), not an online media outlet, and therefore cannot be authenticated as to original source. In light of the charges of faked documents similar to this one in the ICTY indictment, this image is doubly questionable. No consensus has been reached on whether to delete the image, so it seemed the reasonable thing to do to present both sides in the caption: your (Croat) POV and the ICTY POV. Let us not forget the "fog of war" clears up over time as more evidence and information comes to light. That is one of the good points of Wikipedia. We can update.

GriffinSB and I have certainly had our differences, but we have never been rude or engaged in an edit war. I don't see why we can't work together, along with any others who care join in, to improve the quality of the entry. Civilaffairs (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

I accidentaly F up the page while I was adding a refference [18].Can someone please fix the page?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with articles which are speaking about Yugoslav wars is very simple. We are having 2 sort of articles. In first sort there is never ending edit warring and in second sort there is agreement between Bosniaks, Croatian and Serbian editors that we are having NPOV version. Problems in second sort of articles are created only with nationalistic SPA accounts which are thinking that article is POV. Users Civilaffairs [10] and (GriffinSB) [11] has started to edit wikipedia with this similar thinking. To tell the truth after seeing writing of Civilaffairs my only thinking is that this bad faith editor. Why ? I can say that this is because of Serb Supreme Defence Council order but things are not so simple. Very great number of bad faith editors are speaking about personal knowledge of crimes, how family members has been killed or something similar. Civilaffairs is falling in this category [12] .

Because of agreement between Serbian and Croatian users all adding of Serbian SPA accounts in Croatian articles are reverted. Similar thing is with Croatian SPA accounts in Serbia related articles. SPA account Procrustes the clown has rewrited Serbia related articles about Yugoslav wars in POV style during first months of this year. After he has been stoped in doing this in similar Croatia related articles his editing has ended.

It is time to say something about "reference problems" in this article... Article Bosnian War is having only 44 references. In this article we are having demand for 70 references ???? Maybe I am mistaking but Bosnian War has lasted ulmost 4 years. This operation has lasted how many days ?

My last comment is I will find many new references for this article--Rjecina (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The length of a military engagement may not have anything to do with the number of legends, accurate or inaccurate, that have spread about it. To avoid any question that this is an example of Balkan nationalism, I suggest you consider the Battle of the Alamo, which did have an initial siege of approximately 2 weeks, but, when the Mexicans finally made their major attack, it was over in about an hour -- and there were survivors. Information, accurate or inaccurate, grows in more modern times -- the actual Battle of Pearl Harbor lasted about 90 minutes, but spawned ten major investigations, innumberable books, millions of pages, and a generous number of conspiracy theories.

It the description of a "routine" battle, there may be one main attack, perhaps with some diversionary feints. Simply in the context of military operations, "At 0500 on August 4, around 150,000 Croatian Army troops attacked at about 30 separate points along a 300 km front." That is a very large number of time-synchronized attacks, more than with the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989, and in the latter case, with forces that had extensive training and equipment for command and control. There is then a mention of five main penetrating attacks that split the defenders into four areas, which, geometrically, would call for a double envelopment, a rarity in military operations. So, to a military historian, some of the statements seem implausible and need clarification.

It's not simply a matter of finding more references; it's a matter of finding good references. Having looked up some that now exist, they include statements by the prosecution and the defense at the ICTY, neither of which should be expected to be completely objective since, in an adversarial trial, the sides are defined to have a POV. The court decision is more likely to be objective, although tribunals for wars often conveniently ignore some events. I don't, for example, remember Katyn Forest being mentioned at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, or any mention of any naughty things that might be associated with Arthur Harris.

If you believe a "demand" for a reference is unreasonable, I believe the Wikipedia procedure is to explain, on the talk page, why you believe the information is adequately sourced. May I suggest this discussion become an exchange of calm views, rather than accusations? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rijecina, I have never made any claims about having family members killed. Furthermore, before you exclude anyone with personal knowledge from editing on Wikipedia, consider this: Many thousands of people from all over the world lived and worked in the former Yugoslavia during the conflict for a variety of international organisations. UNPROFOR alone had a total of more than 40,000. Considering rotations, plus all the other international organisations in the area, a realistic figure of well over 100,000 people who are not "Serb nationalists" may have personal knowledge. Are they all to be excluded from editing any articles related to former Yugoslavia because they have personal knowledge?

Please note my original objections about inaccuracies in this article (easily found on this page) were as follows: (1) The UN Mission was called UNPROFOR in the article; it was actually UNCRO at the time of Op Storm. (2) The article falsly stated the UN withdrew. (3)Article used the term UNPA; the UNPA designation had been dropped prior to Op Storm; (4) A footnote was erroneously labeled as UN Human Rights Report, when the document in question was actually a letter from a Croatian government representative.

Instead of responding to my concerns about using an image from a message board and presenting it as an authentic document, especially in light of what Gotovina wrote in his book and the ICTY indictment, you repeat accusations about "nationalistic SPA accounts" and "bad faith." This article would be better served if you commented on those concerns instead of resorting to spurious accusations. Civilaffairs (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

I think everything has to be as NPOV sourced as possible,to leave minimum space for wide-spread unsupported rumours and to preserve the truth.Wikipedia is hard to control because every individual can just write whatever he/she wants. I made that statement on my account after an argue on the Srebrenica Genocide article in which some idiot wanted to present it as a retaliation for Operation Storm.He even got help from some editors as well. Srebrenica 15.7.1995 and Operation Strom 04.08.1995...I still don't get it.lol --(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Created minimal articles for Mladic Markač‎ and Ivan Čermak

These are mostly stubs from the ICTY indictment, intended to get rid of the redlinks and let more knowledgeable people fill in the details.

It's Mladen Markac,not Mladic...LOL

Ratko Mladic is a Serb general responssible for the Srebrenica Genocide.

Geography, responsibility, troop movements

"The Croatian movement crossed UN-patrolled truce lines, to recapture from separatist Croatian Serbs, a part of the Croatian Krajina region designated as United Nations Sectors North and South.[clarify]"

i will remove this because it has no context in the beginning of the article.Second Serb nationalists argue wether the Operation Storm was legal because of the "truce" agreement which wasn't respected by all sides.Later talks failed.Since noone is questioning the legality,i will remove it.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is written for all readers, especially those who may know nothing or very little about it. Since everything else has been removed (UNPA, for example), we will have to find some way to let the reader understand the situation early on. Some news accounts use "UN truce lines." If someone questions the legality, then that can be handled as a separate issue. We do need to find some sort of consensus on how to convey this. I don't insist on "truce lines" and if everyone wants to go back to "United Nations Protected Areas" I won't go against the grain. Perhaps they could be called "former United Nations Protected Areas"? This is factual. Civilaffairs (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Maps

The UN in Croatia didn't have the same mandate as in Bosnia.Srebrenica and Zepa were protected areas...who shold have been "demilitarised". Serb held territory wasn't a protected zone.Un was only there to observe.Which they did as shown here...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAa2nqIjyM4 LOL --(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a map that shows these that can go into the article? There's an excellent map library at the University of Texas: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/. Many, but not all, are from CIA. Everything on the site is public domain.

The home page features an entry for "Kosovo", but http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/kosovo.html will take you to an extensive list of maps of the region. Perhaps there is someone with the tools to overlay these zones and lines onto the maps?

Howard C. Berkowitz: I'm a map junkie and love that site. Unfortunately, the University of Texas maps for Croatia don't appear to be as detailed as those for Kosovo: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/croatia.html I have Photoshop CS2 and could try to do an overlay, but I'm not sure it would be improvement. Take a look at the Croatia maps and see what you think.

I uploaded some maps I have to photobucket, but they are UN maps. They aren't too helpful either, but may give you an idea of the the UNPAs/Sectors:

UN Battalion deployment UNPA Krajina (Sectors North and South) is the the most westerly blue splotch on the map. These are the Sectors taken in Op Storm of August 1995. UNPA Western Slavonia (Sector West) is the one outlined by a broken line (Taken by Op Flash in May 1995). UNPA Eastern Slavonia (Sector East)is the most easterly, and borders on Serbia (Was later peacefully reintegrated via the UNTAES Mission).

Sector North You can see the CFL on this one. The brown area is Bosnia, and the little mitten looking bit sticking up is "Bihac Pocket". I can't find my Sector South map, but will look around.

Border Crossings Again, UNPAs/Sectors in blue.

Crossing Points UNPAs/Sectors are filled in with dots.

Restiction of MovementThis one may help give you an idea of the relation of the UNPAs to BiH and Serbia.

UN Role

GriffinSB: Actually, the United Nations Protected Areas in Croatia (deployed in February of 1992) preceded the "Safe Areas" in BiH as you may read in this short summary on the UN site: UNPROFOR's mandate was to ensure that the three "United Nations Protected Areas" (UNPAs) in Croatia were demilitarized and that all persons residing in them were protected from fear of armed attack. It is true that they were all supposed to be demilitarized. In Croatia, they were demilitarized at first, but HV (Croatian Army) launched several offensives into UNPA Sector South on 22 January 1993. On 27 January 1993, HV attacked again,capturing the Peruca dam. The ARSK/VRSK (Krajina Serb Army) responded to these offensives by breaking into a number of the storage units inside the UNPAs and removing their weapons, including heavy weapons. There were Security Councils Resolutions and whatnot, negotiations to get back on track, then the Croatian Army's Medak Pocket incursion in September of 1993, followed by more stymied negotiations. I can upload documents describing the whole process if you are interested in reading about it. The demilitarization process did not work in the "Safe Areas" in BiH either, and the "Safe Areas" were used to launch attacks on surrounding areas. And, of course, they weren't so safe. That's another story, though, and doesn't belong in a discussion about this area.

In early January of 1995, Tudjman declined to agree to an extension of the UNPROFOR mandate in Croatia past 31 March. Following negotiations, the UN Mission remained but was reconstituted as UNCRO. You can read all about that about process in the Secretary General's Report to the Security Council of 14 January 1995. For the UNCRO mandate see UN Security Council Resolution 981. Civilaffairs (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

The problem of Krajina was that Martic and his bandits didn't want to be part of Croatia. The Maslenica and Medak pocket were needed to gain some land connection to souther Croatia.Because they were cut off. When the Serbs and JNA attacked Croatia there was no UN to stop them and nobody did.The young Croatian army had to stop them and it did. But then when the UN came(Croatia asked for it,Serbs first refused it) al of a sudden Croatia was forbidden to fight back. Law and agreements are hard to follow when you are fighting for your life.Serbs constantly shelled the Croatian towns ad cities.Myo city was shelled from the beginning 'till the last day of the war. For me that's a reason enough to attack their positions.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And in 1991 our former prime minister was stupid enough to believe the JNA and Slobodan Milosevic and gave them all the weapons of TO(Teritorialna Obrana for civilians) in my area.

I certainly empathise with your experience, and you have my heartfelt sympathy. It is a terrible thing to have to live through shelling. I know the JNA/VRSK shelled Croatian cities and towns mercilessly in 1991. (To be fair, ordinary people in border towns on both sides had to endure shelling during the course of the conflict.) My understanding from reading official reports, was that things were fairly calm after full deployment of UNPROFOR in the early part of 1992 up until the offensives of late January 1993. After that, hostilities flared up from time to time (including the Maslenica bridge incident) with concurrent shelling, I know. I am not aware of any Croatian cities being under constant bombardment from 1992 through 1995. I am not disputing that, simply saying I am not aware of it. Perhaps you can point me to the information so that I may learn.

In my opinion, Babic and Martic were vile criminals and their actions worse than reprehensible. But this is not about my opinion or your opinion, this is an encyclopedia and we must include the relevant facts. The UN was there at the invitation of the Croatian government, cease-fire agreements were signed. The UNPAs were a fact. Reasons why the agreements did not hold can be included, if necessary, in the article. It is true that the peace process bogged down, and did not proceed at the pace everyone hoped. It is true that self-serving politicians wrecked people's lives. The way the "international community" handled their end of it and the UN can certainly be criticised, as well. Some people think it would have been better if the UN had not gone in at all, that it would have been better to simply leave all parties to duke it out on their own.

I noticed when I was adding related military actions that you had started a section on Bosanska Posavina. It's about time someone did. It is among the most traumatized of areas, owing to its strategic importance. You might want to add a redirect for "Posavina Corridor", as many of us English-speaking foreigners will search on that term. Civilaffairs (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

My hometown is Slavonski Brod,on the border with Bosnia(Bosanska Posavina) The only difference in Slavonija between 1991 bombing and 1992-1995 was that Serbs did't use airplanes.So napalm and cluster-bombs stopped after the UN came. The way UN handeled the situation can't only be critisized.They should get sued.Bosniaks tried that,the answer they got was "We are UN,we have immunity".But it's better they were there to file rapports and document events.It they weren't there,trust me that war would be even uglier.It's hard to imagine but it would.TV reporters were extremly important,because they showed the world what was going on and they looked past Serbian state hate propaganda that was sentencing us to death by their false stories.They were just inventing sories to justify the killings of civilians,so it would be more understandable to their own people. What do you think Martic,Hadzic,Seselj,Karadzic and Mladic would have done if there was no presence of observers and media???

Then you and I wouldn't be speaking right now.....--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the UN can certainly be criticised, but I find it unacceptable to remove all mention of the UN presence. I believe we have got to find some way to get the UN back into the article. I have offered several options for how to phrase the UN presence, but you have rejected them all. As you have removed every mention I have made of the UN presence in the article, I don't want to get into an edit war, but rather discuss. Can you suggest a phrase you consider acceptable? Civilaffairs (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Terminology question: Croatian Armed Forces and Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Could someone clarify if the two military organizations use unit size terminology in the same manner? In this article, the main operational unit of the Croatians appears to be the brigade. ARBiH references are to corps, but, in the ARBiH, corps appear to be geographic rather than operational units.

Brigade-sized units (3000-5000 troops) are the largest tactical units of most Western militaries; some units have historical names such as regiment or group, but the brigade is typical. By comparison, a corps is a very large unit of 30,000 to 60,000 soldiers.

In the Operation Storm article, it reads oddly, from a military standpoint, to have brigades and corps as operating at comparable levels. While ARBiH units may belong to a corps, were the actual organizations of smaller size?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Will this help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Corps_of_the_Army_of_the_Republic_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina --(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The initial equipment list helps; that's about right for a (NATO) reinforced battalion, or a small brigade. I have no idea, however, of the size of brigades that go into a corps. For purposes of Operation Storm, I'll assume the Croatian brigade and the ARBiH corps are roughly the same power, unless someone can guide me.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they actually operated that way. ABiH 5th Corps (in local language Peti Korpus) had a total strength of about 20,000 to 25,000 and was based in Bihac. I don't know off the top of my head which brigades participated in Op Storm, but I know the 505 did, and I'm pretty sure 503 did as well. Their "special forces" unit called Hamza participated in Op Storm, but to which brigade it was attached, I don't know. I offer this info in case it might help with searching for info, not because it is useable. Janes had an excellent write-up on Op Storm in August or September of 1995, and I have a copy of it somewhere. I will do my best to find it.Civilaffairs (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Details on timeline

4 August, Franjo Tuđman

• In his speach of 4 August he has called members of Krajina military to surender. After that they will recieve amnesty
• He is calling Croatian citizens of Serbian nationality which has not been active in revolt to stay at home without fear for life or estate. They will recieve all civil rights archive of Croatian state television
• On this site there is map of first day fighting.--Rjecina (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

5 August 1995

• 04:52 Bob Dole leader of Senate majority in US Congres is declaring support for Operation Storm.
• 07:33 UN Security council is declaring that it is not happy with Croatian actions.
• 09:28 Croatian forces are controling roads Medak-Gračac, Plaški-Slunj and Benkovac-Knin
• 12:12 Knin has been taken
• 12:35 Croatian general Tolj is declaring that :"Žitnic, Dubica, Lovinac, Ljubovo and Primišlje are liberated and that Croatian forces are going toward Slunj. In his words Croatian forces has opened first road toward Srb and second road toward Dvor for civilians which want to leave."
• 12:35 Carl Bild has declared strongly against Operation Storm.
• 13:40 Egipat has declared support for Operation Storm
• 15:29 In words of Croatian television Croatian forces has connected with Bosnian forces near Tržačka Rastela on borders between 2 countries.
• 18:08 Benkovac has been liberated
• 18:21 UNPROFOR has declared that Bosnian forces has crossed Croatian border. Bosnian forces has declared that they have connected with Croatian forces near Plitvice Lakes.
• 19:12 General Tolj is declaring that until now Croatian forces has been fighting against 7 Krajina Corp (20000 soldiers), 15 Krajina Corp with 6000 soldiers, 21 and 39 Krajina Corp
• 19:51 Between 4 and 5 August Croatian forces has liberated: Vrlika, Kijevo, Drniš, Žitnić, Benkovac, Grčac, Lovinac, Sveti Rok, Ljubovo, Plaški, Primišlje and Dubicu.
• 21:48 Vaclav Havel has declared support for Operation Storm--Rjecina (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

6 August

• 09:06 Petrinja has fallen
• 09:11 Novi Lički Osik is taken by Croatian forces
• 09:13 Medak is taken by Croatian forces
• 09:45 Bosnian forces has taken Tržac
• 14:49 Croatian forces has liberated Korenica, Slunj, Cetingrad, Otrić, Bruvno, Plitvice and Plitvice lakes.
• 18:34 Warren Christopher has declared that Croatian action can help in solving Balkan situation
• 18:48 Kostajnica has been liberated.
• 19:24 Akashi is declaring that on demand of UN commander Croatian government has given garranty that they will not block leaving of civilians from sector north toward Dvor. UNCRO is thinking that there will be 80 000 refugees
• 20:31 General Tolj is declaring that 21 Corp of Serbian Krajina is trying to escape from pocket but it has been blocked--Rjecina (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

7 August

• 07:20 Croatian TROOPS LIBERATE GLINA
• 12:55 Kamensko, Popovic brdo and Gornje Mekusje are liberated. Agreement was reached between Croatian army general Zovnimir Cervenko and a representative of the rebel Serbs, mediated by UNCRO, in which the serbs have agreed to surrender
• 14:12 The Croatian army's Operation Storm, aimed at restoring Croatian authority in Serb-occupied areas of Croatia, would be completed by nightfall Monday, Defence Ministry spokesman Major General Ivan Tolj told a press conference in Zagreb--Rjecina (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

9 August, General Zvonimir Červenko

We are having his speach from 9 August 1995. He is saying:

• 21 Corp of Serbian Krajina has capitulated on 9 August in 17 hours. Commander of thas corpus has been Colonel Čedomir Bulat and capitulation has been accepted by general Stipetić. Bulat has declared that in region under his control (until then) there is 4000 soldiers and 10000 civilians.
• Červenko is thinking that 39 Corp of Serbian Krajina will capitulate on 10 August
• On 9 August Croatia forces are not controling roads Glina-Dvor and Kostajnica-Dvor. This roads are used by Serbian military and civilians which are going toward Bosnian Serbs held territory.
• In his words before Operation Storm military forces of Krajina has been: 37000-41000 soldiers, 385 - 430 tanks, 20 - 25 military airplanes.

Source of this statements is archive of Croatian state television [13]

All in all I am tired of writing this anymore. English language resourse for military operations (day to day) is here--Rjecina (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bihac poisoning of civilians and army peronel

I was thinking of making an article about the use of biological weapons in the Bihac pocket area. In 1995 Croatian Serb leader Martic,General Mrksic and leadres of Bosnian Serbs tried to poison the people of Bihac area. But all my information comes from croatian,serbian and bosniak media.The documents of this plan were discovered by Croatian army after Operation Storm,but were kept secret for unknown reasons until a croatian journalist form NOVA TV station discovered it.He made a show about this event.The show is on youtube.And it has been confirmed that Croatian and Bosnian ministry of Justice are investigating this case. The poison was made in a factory in Republic of Srpska(Bosnia),it was first tested on a Croatian POW.His fate is unknown.The document doesn't mention his name.Then 5 trucks of contaminated food were sold to the people of Bihac by a Serb-Bosniak smuggling route for 2.5 mil$.Their intention was to destroy the 5th corps or neutralize them buy posoning them.The people of Bihac were forced to buy food from the Serbs because they were surrounded for 3 years. The operations were named MAC and MAC1. Bihac area is known for it's high rate of cancer mortality today.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

First, this would likely be a chemical, not biological warfare.

My first question would not be asked of a journalist, but of competent scientists that had analyzed the food and found toxic substances. If it can be made in sufficient quantity to contaminate multiple truckloads of food, it's unlikely that the substance would not be detectable. Remember, for example, that while the poisonings in London were at first a mystery, it was a matter of days before polonium was found.

What scientific evidence is available? Youtube isn't that reliable a source. If there is chemical or biological contamination, that would be of worldwide interest. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The TV show is posted on youtube.It was aired on Nova TV station 2 months ago. The croatian army got those documents along with all the others when they liberated Krajina,but it was kept secret bu the Cro government. Untill the journalist somehow got that specific document,few months ago.After the show he protested against the govenment and demanded a investigation by the Ministry of Justice of Croatia.After that he made a contact with Bosniak General Afit Dudakovic(5th Corps).He confirmed along with the doctors in the area that there was an epidemic of diarea and blood vomiting in 1995.Now the Ministry of Justice BiH are also investigating the case.

But he only got the documents which confirm that it was tested on a Cro POW and that the contaminated food was sold. It's under investigation right now.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I watched the show again. The documents incriminate the Serbian government as well,not only Croatian Serbs and Bosnian Serbs.More then 50% of the money what they got by selling food went to Serbia and the HQ was informed about this operation.The planners of this action are Mile Mrksic and Milan Martic both in jail for a very long time.

In my opinion the Croatian governemt must have made some kind of a deal with the Serbian government and that's why this whole issue was kept secret.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't comment on this before because so many rumours have swirled around former Yugoslavia including ones about chemical and biological warfare similar to this one. There were also rumours about radiation in Sector West (investigated and proved false by scientists from the Netherlands and US). During the seige of Bihac,international aid agencies reported that some of the foodstuffs sold on the black market in Bihac were spoiled. Spoiled food can make people quite ill. Selling spoiled food to desperate and beseiged people is a horrible thing to do, but it is not considered biological warfare. I'm not saying the story is false, but I am skeptical, particularly considering the timing and the lack of any news stories outside the region. If true, the facts will come to light. Civilaffairs (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

GriffinSB, you have more knowledge of the Croatian and Serb governments than I do. I can't make a reasonable guess about what they would or would not do. Presumably, other readers are going to come across the article and also be unable to judge if the action is politically plausible.

On the other hand, at least some readers, perhaps drawn to this article by a search on chemical or biological warfare, might know something about these weapons, and about the broader subject of public health. This is something of an aside, but the relationship between public health, and both wars and natural disasters, is important and helps with recovery. In this case, if the food in question were canned, several kinds of biological and chemical contamination immediately come to mind, as things that happen to improperly canned foods. If the food were fresh vegetables, other things would be the first tests, and with bread and baked goods, yet another.

So, take the hypothetical reader that doesn't know the politics, but does know something about testing contaminated food. Such a person also might want a very specific idea of where the sick people were located, and exactly what symptoms they had. As you may know, in 1979, there was an accident with a Soviet biological warfare factory in Sverdlovsk (documents at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB61/, or Sverdlovsk anthrax leak). When news of it became known, the explanations of the Soviet government that people were sickened by contaminated meat immediately were doubted by medical specialists, mostly because what they were describing had very little to do with gastrointestinal anthrax, but were consistent with pneumonic (inhaled) anthrax. I remember these discussions at the time in medical journals, but the U.S. intelligence community wasn't sharing its knowledge of a biological warfare plant there.

There are going to be a fair number of reasonable people that may discount claims of poisoning simply because a government was evil enough to do it, but that the description doesn't make medical sense. With the Sverdlovsk incident, even with fairly fragmentary details, it was obvious to specialists that something did happen. Boris Yeltsin eventually made the specifics public.

So, I urge you to mention the possibility, but to concentrate on getting specific descriptions of what happened. If the food in question was canned, and the symptoms are consistent with botulism, bad canning or damaged containers may be a better explanation under Occam's Razor. If it was bread, and the symptoms were consistent with ergot poisoning, again, that's a reasonable explanation. I can think of other symptoms that would immediately make me think of deliberate poisoning, probably chemical. Covert contamination of large amounts of food with biological agents is not easy.

If something like this did happen, I'd want the objective evidence, and, a trial if there is reasonable evidence this happened. Perhaps the tribunal might sentence them to eating the food in question. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources are the problem becuase I only have Croatian,Bosnian and Serbian sources and newspaper articles. This story is fresh,so I'll wait with the article untill the investigation is finished. But according the media the documents that were found are authentic. Cro and Serb govenment are notorious for making deals during and after the war.Most of the deals resulted negative for it's own people..

Examples... Croats of Bosanska Posavina were sold out by Cro govenment and ethnicly cleansed by Serbs. Croatian Serbs were sold out by Milosevic.When Martic called Milosevic that RSK was under attack,Milosevic just told him to kill himself. Numerous of deals in smuggeling were reported.Croatian goverment was selling oil to Serbs who didn't have much because of the sanctions and that oil was used by Serb army to attack Croatia and Bosnia.Large amounts of weapons were sold by all three sides. It was a F dirty war and serb,cro and bosnian maffia were making millions of dollars in short period of time.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Have any of the media reports contained any specific scientific data? Again, think of this information from the perspective of a reader who doesn't know how dirty the governments were, and, if there's an allegation of poisoning, is more concerned with scientific evidence than suppositions of what the governments were capable.

I'm not trying to attack you, but trying to suggest what to look for to make this a verifiable report. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand.That's why i'll wait 'till some concrete news come out.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on sources

I suggest we take a lesson from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation (referenced above by Howard C. Berkowitz) and create guidelines which will help us achieve NPOV and accuracy of this article in an orderly fashion. As a basis, we might try to reach consensus on what sources are acceptable. Sri Lanka Reconciliation Project also decided to tag POV references as to which POV is reprensented. That might prove useful here as well.

So far, I see that I, Rjecina and Howard C. Berkowitz have objected to the use of ICTY testimony by prosecution and defense witnesses as references. I hope we can discuss this and reach agreement.:Civilaffairs (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2008

Prosecutors and defense attorneys as well. More generally, the Sri Lanka people have actually built tables of source POV, with four rough categories:

• Accurate for the government position but not for the LLTE
• Accurate for the LLTE but not the government
• Accurate for both
• Accurate for neither.

Could this be done? For example, not being an expert on the subject matter, are the decisions of the ICTY considered NPOV? Are there reasonable sources for accurately describing one side but not the other?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I meant prosecution and defense attourneys, and somehow typed witnesses instead. I would say the attourneys are certainly POV.

You asked about ICTY decisions. Some may consider certain decisions to be POV. Some of ICTY's precedures which fall out of the norm have been questioned by jurists, and this gives rise to more controversy. There is some controversy surrounding ICTY itself. Some see ICTY as a tool for carrying out the agenda of the United States (or, less commonly, the European Union), for better or worse.

An ICTY indictment is a fact, however, as is an ICTY decision. If an indictment or decision is controversial, and the controversy is not limited to fringe elements, could this be accommodated by noting the controversy in the article?

Source POV tables look like an excellent solution.

As for "reasonable sources for accurately describing one side but not the other," if I understand this correctly, yes, I can see that as quite possible.

Civilaffairs (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

I am too long in this sort of discussions (I am thinking on all Croato-Serbian wikipedia discussion). Because of my experiance I know that agreement will never been possible.

In one of old discussions there has been agreement that national courts are POV. Reason is that Croatian court is rarely putting in prisons Croats which has commited war crimes against Serbs (example). Similar to that Serbian court is rarely putting in prisons Serbs which has commited war crimes against Croats (example). Even if they are put in prison they will recieve light prison sentence.

On other side right wing supporters in both coutries are claiming that ICTY is POV. This is very good evidence that ICTY is NPOV

In the end I have heard Serbian statements that United Nations General Assembly is POV.

Because we need to have NPOV sources we must choose or we must agree what sources are NPOV. Maybe I am mistaking but best NPOV sources for Yugoslav war are ICTY and United Nations General Assembly !

Because our discussion must end and we have not discussed any problematic statement I am calling Civilaffairs to write on talk page which statements in the text are in his thinking problem so that we can solve problems (if it is possible)--Rjecina (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There may be some less ambitious but still useful source, that have a POV on some things and not others. For example, thinking about some completely different pages, there are some sources that are total propaganda as far as anything they say about the "rebel" side in an (ongoing) civil war, but are quite valid when identifying who, at the moment, is the official government spokesmen; who commands various units; what deals the government has made with other countries. There are other sources that will only have propaganda about the "government" side, but are accurate about a specific local situation about the rebel policies and personnel.

Now, in what I'm going to describe, I recognize it would be OR if it ware done only for Wikipedia, and that it is less plausible for a specific event in history, such as Operation Storm, than a continuing process. Still, I suspect that if some university affiliated editors were to create a research project in which they did such "content analysis", they might have publishable results.

If you are right that it is impossible to solve this area, let's decide that so we can all go work on other things where we can make more progress. If not, don't ignore that a source may be predictably POV on some things, but not on others.

Long ago (during the Vietnam War), I had a job in which I surveyed, each month, Nhan Dan, the North Vietnamese party journal. Looking at any one issue, it would seem to be all propaganda. When we started comparing such things as the number of mentions of an official and how it changed from month to month, it started showing a pattern of the status of that official. Sometimes, and I recognize this would be OR if someone simply started doing such things in Wikipedia only, there is still material to be gained from a biased source. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are having "problems" because of words revolt/rebel I will be interested to see legal source from time of SFRY which is saying that Serbs from Krajina are having right to proclaim autonomy and independence. If this legal source exist then Serbs from Krajina are not rebels. If this legal source do not exist then they are rebels. Situation is very simple --Rjecina (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that there is no universally accepted legal code and court system for the world, I don't see who could issue such a statement of "rights"--unless they are successful rebels, who then become a national government. After all, who established a legal source for some rabble of rebels writing the silly statements that follow?Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Maybe I am mistaking but people which has writen that has been rebels ? Can you please explain signification of this words for our discussion ?--Rjecina (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

King George III certainly thought they were rebels, although the idea of revolution was new at the time. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for rating sources

I had hoped this section could provide a place for fruitful discussion on using a system of rating sources as to POV similar to that of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. I respect your experience, Rjecina, and share your frustration, however this particular approach has not yet been tried. I would like to try, at least.

You have nominated ICTY and the UN General Assembly as NPOV sources. This is very helpful. As you earlier noted that you considered statements of defense attourneys at ICTY proceedings as POV, I take it you mean ICTY indictments and ICTY decisions. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you. Perhaps I did not word my position clearly enough, but I see no reason to introduce discussion of any controversy surrounding ICTY indictments and decisions raised by fringe elements in an article.

By "UN General Assembly" do you mean statements of the Secretary General to the General Assembly, but not statements made by delegates? (Delegates have the opportunity to express their governments' POVs to the GA and their statements are recorded and often available on the web.) I agree that Statements of the Secretary General could be considered NPOV. Statements of delegates could be POV, but accurate in describing their respective governments' positions.

I would include Statements of the Secretary General to the Security Council as an NPOV source. Does anyone agree or disagree?

United Nations Security Council Resolutions are facts, and the obvious NPOV source is the UNSCR itself. Sometimes there may be criticism of a UNSCR which does not come from fringe elements, and this could be noted in an article where applicable. An example would be criticism of how the "Safe Areas" in BiH were set up without being given adequate forces. The Secretary General himself commented on this. Does anyone agree or disagree?

I would consider a letter from a government representative to any UN body as POV, but an accurate source for stating that government's position. As I have noted before, such a reference must be clearly labeled as to who is writing the letter so it does not appear to be a UN report. Does anyone agree or disagree?

As for national courts, indictments and decisions are facts. If there is consensus to include national court decisions in an article, but these are considered POV by other than fringe elements, could this handled by simply noting the controversy? For example, if UNHCHR (or other respected international organisation) report states that only a small fraction of cases were ever brought to trial, or that sentences were light, this could be noted in the article. It looks like this has been done in this article. I see no problem with it. I would like to see a source for the numbers provided, however. With no source, it is impossible to check that the numbers match. If a vandal changes the numbers and this is not caught right away, a source is needed to restore the correct information.

I would prefer to limit discussion in this section to sources. Your question concerning what statements in the article I disagreed with is answered in my last reply to you in the section headed "Nationalistic SPA accounts." At this point, I believe it better to agree on sources before trying to proceed further on discussion of content.Civilaffairs (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Forgive me for asking what may be a simple question, but can this conflict be characterized as having two sides, or does it need more? Where do NATO and the UN fit? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In my thinking NPOV sources are ICTY court decisions and General Assembly of United Nations.

I think that there is no need to say why ICTY court decisions are NPOV

Fact that General Assembly of United Nations is NPOV source has been accepted even by Slobodan Milošević so nobody can question that !

Today will be my last day in this discussion. I will call somebody else to continue this discussion. In my thinking Civilaffairs is fishing in the dark becase he/she has not declared what statements are wrong in article. Because of that I am deleting tags from article page.--Rjecina (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are not going to continue in the discussion, please do not delete tags and then leave. It is not only Civilaffairs that believes that quite a few statements should be tagged. Tags aren't precisely what WP:BRD describes as a process, but I believe the spirit of that policy means that if one deletes a change, one should stay for the discussion. An editor putting {{fact}} or {{huh}} tags on material without a source does not have to prove them wrong; at the very least, there needs to be a discussion on why sourcing is not needed.

While the ICTY may indeed be NPOV, the UN charter is such that the actual power is in the SC, not the GA. Any number of GA resolutions have been passed that are not considered part of customar international law. Assume, however, that the UN and ICTY are NPOV. That still doesn't establish if there are any sources that are accurate for the side with which they are associated, but POV for the other side(s). Making such a distinction has worked quite well for the Sri Lanka project, which is an example of consensus and civility. Again, please do not delete tags and leave; they will be reverted and administrator assistance requested if a 3RR situation threatens.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, Civilaffairs has been asking some very reasonable questions about source reliability. As you suggest,

About Serbian exodus we are having very good movie. Serbian name of this youtube movie is:"Training of civilian evacuation from village Tržić in Kordun region (july 1995). It is important to notice that this has been 15 - 30 days before Operation Storm.--Rjecina (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Youtube, to the best of my knowledge, is considered self-published and thus does not meet WP:RS. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

From the best of my knowledge this movie has been made by Republic of Serbian Krajina government. If somebody will write in article that Serbs has been making preparations to leave Krajina before Operation Storm I am sure that you or Civilaffairs will put tag about source. Then when somebody write that source is Republic of Serbian Krajina state movie then there will be new tag where is internet source. Now when you have movie on internet problems is that movie is on youtube. Even if somebody put this movie on wikipedia problem will be neutrality of that user. Can you please explain how this problem can be solved ? --Rjecina (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quite simple. Individual blogs and YouTube and anything else self-published, without independent content review fail WP:RS, and, to the best of my knowledge, YouTube doesn't check identity so the movie fails WP:V.

If the Republic of Serbian Krajina submitted exactly the same material to a news organization known to check facts, and verify the source, that would not be self-publishing and would meet WP:V. If the Republic of Serbian Krajina submitted exactly the same material to a diplomatic venue, a court, etc., it would not be self-publishing and would be considered, after verification, to meet WP:RS about its own position.

The problem is YouTube and blogs, not the material itself. To be cited on Wikipedia, material has to be sourced in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policy, including, at the least, WP:RS and WP:V. Neither one of us, unless we published the statement in something independently reviewed, can have "the best of [our] knowledge" justified as a source. If we were talking about computer networking, I could cite things I've written in peer-reviewed public forums (e.g., the Internet Engineering Task Force), or published by reputable publishers (e.g., Wiley, Macmillan), but we aren't discussing such publications.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Serb artillery missions on August 5

I have tagged, for sourcing and clarification, the entry from August 5 that says "Serb forces launched artillery attacks on Dubrovnik in the far south and Vinkovci in the far east of Croatia, without any specific military purpose."

Artillery has to be aimed at something. It has to have some purpose. If "without any specific military purpose" means that the artillery was intended to intimidate civilians, say so, and source it. Otherwise, "...without any specific military purpose" should be deleted. What were the apparent targets, and what did it actually hit, according to WP:RS. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This are Croatian news on english language from August 1995 .[14] [15] [16] [17]

When we have questions like this it is possible to have discussion :)--Rjecina (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And each of these links point to an event where one or more shells hit. I don't doubt that artillery was used. Really, I have no opinion on why the Serbs were doing it. In the case where only one shell was observed, that could have been a mistake. OTOH, unless the Serbs had very little artillery or ammunition -- and this might be the case -- can anyone explain what they were trying to accomplish? Encourage refugees to leave?

Artillery isn't always a good idea for military forces that expect to fight where it lands, if it's a built-up area. The classic example of that was the Battle of Monte Cassino, where the Germans actually did respect a monastery and had their troops just outside it. The Allies attacked and destroyed the monastery, which just provided lots of places for Germans to hide. I don't discount that the Serbian commanders had no good reason, but the event seems a little mysterious without more information. Was there, perhaps, any testimony on the shelling during later trials? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe answer is in SUMMARY OF JUDGEMENT FOR MILAN MARTIĆ . In this summary you need to look for May 1995 events and shelling of Zagreb during Operation Flash .In this court decision we are having official policy of Serbian Krajina to attack with shells Croatian towns if Krajina towns are attacked.--Rjecina (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Howard C. Berkowitz,the Krajina Serb Army (ARSK/VRSK) inside Sectors North and South were the defenders in this scenario. With the exception of Vinkovci, these Croatian newspaper accounts indicate the shelling was from points occupied by BSA/VRS (Bosnian Serb Army) in BiH, not by ARSK (Krajina Serb Army) inside the Sectors in Croatia. The shells which landed in the Dubrovnik area (not the Old City of Dubrovnik, so no comparison with Monte Cassino) came from Trebinje in BiH, for example, not from ARSK/VRSK positions in Croatia. There was a huge military buildup of CA/HV (Croatian Army) around Sectors North and South on this date of course, but I can't tell from these newspaper reports whether the area hit was a staging area for the buildup. Also, see Operation Summer '95 for the successful joint HV (Croatian) and HVO (Bosnian Croat) offensive in BiH in July which set the stage for Op Storm.

Vinkovci is situated near the border of former Sector East (see maps in earlier section), far from the action in Op Storm. ARSK/VRSK was worried that Sector East would be attacked as well, and tensions were high, but they may well have shelled Vinkovci in retaliation for the Croatian attack on Sectors North and South, as Rijecina said, rather than as a defensive measure. I'll see if I can find any reports filed by UN Military Observers or ECMM, which naturally tend to be more precise from a military standpoint than press accounts.Civilaffairs (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Reality check on this question

In reading about warfare, I try to understand why things were done, even if the reasons might seem evil from my POV. If, for example, one or both sides retaliates by attacking civilian areas, it's not unlikely that a continuing escalation will come as everyone involved becomes angrier. If the artillery units were incompetent enough, they might not have hit their targets. Does this seem useful information for a good article?

The whole area of holding civilian populations hostage is very blurred in international law. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention does say "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited." If one or both sides did this, and subsequently were brought to trial, it speaks to the legitimacy of the process if this was, or was not addressed. Population bombing carefully was not brought up at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, as it was something routinely done by the Western Allies. As an aside, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Surveys showed bombing with WWII technology made civilian populations miserable, but didn't break morale.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a Serbian-Croat documentary about the Serbian attack on Vukovar and whole east-Slavonija.

The main question of the documentary was Why was Vukvoar attacked?

It was a mixed population city,1/3 of the defenders were not Croatian.The were Hungarian,Slovak,Czech and German.Old settlers who lived there for 800 years.

When the Serb army tried to enter the city the first time the lost 35 tenks and 33 APC's.

After that the just pounded the city with airplanes,ho witzers,cannons,rockets until the whole city was wiped of the map and few thousand civilians lost their lives. Hospital was bombed by an airplane. Two 500kg bombs were dropped on the building just in one attack.Battle of Vukovar.The purpose of that "strategy" was to destroy everything and just walk in.

The city was taken after 87 days.And the Serb army executed 264 civilians and POW that were taken from the hospital.

In the city itself few other massacres occured.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that this didn't happen. Unless the makers of the documentary were able to interview the Serb commanders, had access to Serb planning documents either through their own efforts or from a court, etc., it's NPOV to say this happened. It is not, however, WP:V that the "The purpose of that "strategy" was to destroy everything and just walk in." At best, this can be stated as the opinion of the documentary makers, which should include the context of their military knowledge. Believe me, U.S. reporters routinely make incredibly stupid mistakes in describing warfare -- but there are some with extensive knowledge and experience. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Serb commanders were all in jail(The Hague) or they fled to Russia(serbian criminal safe-haven).They interviewed lots of serbian journalists that were there at the time and serbian volunteers who fought there.Some Serbian politicians were also involved in the making of this documentary.On the Croat side.they interviwed the Mladi Jastreb(commander of Vukovar defence after Gen. Blago Zadro was killed),the staff from the hospital from which the wounded were taken and the refugees who were caught by TV cameras back then as they were leaving their homes.I was a great documentary that showed how pointless the war actually is but with respect to the people who died during the siege and those who were executed afterwards.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting less emphasis on the documentary, unless there is a way to source it. If they didn't print the interviews, I don't think a documentary easily meets WP:V. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Battle of Vukovar was in 1991 in Eastern Slavonia, just across the Danube from Serbia, on the opposite side of Croatia from where Op Storm took place. It really does not have to do with a discussion of Op Storm: it was four years earlier, the JNA provided the main brunt of the attacking force, and it was in an entirely different area. The whole story is much more complicated than the documentary portrays (from what I can gather) but what is the point of discussing Vukovar on the Op Storm talk page?

As for the Zagreb rocket attack in retaliation for Op Flash in May of 1995, I can see the point of some discussion on that. It shows Martic was capable of doing some very stupid and brutal things. It was a PR disaster for RSK. Although far fewer civilians were killed in the Zagreb rocket attack than in Op Flash, the international press were all in Zagreb and the rocket attack received more attention and its victims cast in a more sympathetic light in the international press. As there was no apparent military justification for the rocket attack, it was naturally all the more condemned.

The Zagreb attack is probably one of the real reasons the US Navy jet took out those two SAMs just as Op Storm commenced -- to prevent a possible similar attack on a Croatian coastal city such as Split. I certainly cannot read the mind of a criminal like Milan Martic, but the general feeling among the Krajina Serb leadership at the time appeared to be that that the media was biased against them anyway, the "international community" was against them anyway, they had nothing to lose, and they were frustrated and angry. Civilaffairs (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Back to your original question and the shelling of Croatian cities during Op Storm. I have found some info about the shelling in the Sector East area (again, Vinkovci is a border town on the "Croatian side" in this area) in paragraph 20 of the Secretary-General's Report to the Security Council of 23 October 1995. The local Serb force and Croatian Army exchanged artillery, mortar and small arms fire and elements from both sides deployed into the ZOS. The Serb leadership in Sector East became increasingly tense and uncertain as events in Sectors North and South unfolded. I'll see what I can find on the other two, which originated from Bosnian Serb positions in BiH. Civilaffairs (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Should we include something about this into the article???

Canadian Gen. Andrew Leslie's batteling for his reputation - Canadian CTV News

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/ctv-national-news/ctv-national-news-april-23/#clip48233

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Reason: WP:LIVING "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page." Further, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims."

The only source here is a defense attourney. Defense attourneys are in the business of discrediting witnesses for the prosecution, even honourable people. Look at all the witnesses whose reputations were attacked by Milosevic's attourneys, for example. In addition, General Leslie is under a gag order and not allowed to defend himself. Civilaffairs (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs