Srebrenica Massacre [Archive]

[DnC]

09-04-2006, 16:20

I saw a documentary a while ago and although I can't remember much of it, I'd still would like to post the things I do remember.

It was about one guy serving in the Dutchbat.
When trouble started he was at an outpost. Eventually a group of bosnians - he stated some 50+- men - moved towards their outpost and disarmed them and took all their weaponry and other useful things and then left. They were only with 5 men, what are they going to do against such overwhelming odds? I think he also said something along the lines of understanding why the Bosnians did what they did.

After they were disarmed serbian forces eventually came and took them as prisoners. After this part I can't remember what happened next with him in Bosnia.

By the way, he also mentioned that the serbs would lob grenades nearby outposts to spook the UN forces. The UN troops however could not react to it. So I can imagine what kind of stressful situation that can be. My uncle was in Lebanon a long time ago and, I only got this from hear-say, Hezbollah would shoot near the peacekeeping forces with mortars and such also to scare them (offtopic I know, but wanted to mention it).

Later on in the program he went back to Bosnia, because he needed to - emotional-wise - and spoke with a couple of people. Most people weren't very happy with him being there. They were still very angry about what happened. He tried to explain his version, but they didn't what to hear about it.

The guy is from my hometown by the way, although I don't know him.

Too bad I can't remember the whole deal.

GodWillsIt

09-04-2006, 16:45

Any deeper info on that?

Does it count for a massacre, genocide or what?

the region itself was supposed to have 27,000 Muslims...harldy any stayed after the massacre of 8,000 men, women, and children.

Mount Suribachi

09-04-2006, 18:11

I always wonder how differently it would have been spun, how much greater the international outcry would have been, if it was US peacekeepers, and not Dutch, who stood by and let the massacre happen (regardless of the details of the whys and wherefores).

Pannonian

09-04-2006, 20:05

I recommend a BBC drama called Warriors, which dealt with the British experience of Bosnia, which was pretty similar to the Dutch. Several years in planning, it gained a horrible topicality as war broke out in Kosovo as they were filming in the Czech republic.

Google "Operation Rhino Peacekeeper" to check out a diplomatic oddity, and what the locals thought when an armed UN peacekeeping convoy rolled into their country.

LeftEyeNine

09-04-2006, 22:19

I heard that 8000 were raped, tortured and killed. Oh well..I'd like to hear ideas countering Mount Suribachi's question-mark raising statement.

KrooK

09-04-2006, 22:22

With full expect for Dutch batalion - who were they? Dancers or soldiers?
They did nothing and this will be remembered. Serbs definitely wouldn't murder those people if ONZ units had fought. Maybe Dutch batalion was outnumbered but have you seen Black Hawk Down?
Actually they didn't fight which is worst crime for soldier in my opinion.
If you compare behavior of Dutch batalion with polish units on Balkans (like GROM) you can notice that with similar number of men Poles were able to provide peace. Srebrenica and Rwanda were probably worst cards into Dutch army history.

To sum up
1)Srebrenica was place of war crime - crime againt human species.
2)Murders have never been judged, they probably hide under belgrad into place called "underground city" or into mountains of Bosna
3)ONZ soldiers compromitate themselves.

Geoffrey S

09-04-2006, 22:26

Main thing is that the UN put troops in a situation where they could not protect the settlement. I presume, were US troops involved, the main focus would come on that aspect (why weren't the troops adequately supported?) rather than the way it was viewed (why didn't the dutch do anything?); which is a shame, really, because although part of the responsibility lay with the dutch troops and government, in the end it was those parts of the UN in charge that screwed up big time.

Ibn Munqidh

09-05-2006, 01:18

econ21

09-05-2006, 02:23

One question I have is why did the Bosnian Serbs commit the massacre? It seems militarily unnecessarily and arguably lost them the war (provoking the US into working with the Croats in a devastating offensive). But then again, the Bosnian Serb and indeed Serb proper leadership at the time does seem to have had something of a deathwish.

On blaming the Dutch troops, it's a natural reaction but really Srebrenica just shows the limitation of UN peacekeeping. I don't believe they were authorised to fight the Serbs and they certainly weren't equipped to do so (100 lightly armed men versus thousands with tanks and heavy artillery). The UN are similarly impotent in Lebanon. And don't think a blue helmet protects a soldier - combatants seem to think nothing of killing a few UN people. When things turn nasty, the peacekeepers have already failed and are typically little more than observers.

A more musclar intervention is required for peace enforcement. But when you are dealing with outfits as militarily strong as the Bosnia Serbs were (backed by the Yugoslav army) or Hizbollah (who even the IDF can't beat), then you may be talking about intervention almost on the scale of the US/UK invasion of Iraq - which would be politically infeasible. Think about the US intervention in Lebanon in 1983 or Somalia in 1993 for examples of how even muscular interventions can fail.

Romanus

09-05-2006, 10:43

Its not a question of support or not, those dutch soldiers had the obligation of providing peace for the bosniaks, and had FULL UN BACKING! They had an obligation to use their boomsticks to defend those people from the serbs. Had the dutch forces intervened, or even showed and announced that they would stop the serb advance, I doubt if those serbian troops would have done what they have done. This is a black page in the dutch army's history, and cannot be reasoned in any way. Cowardness, carelessness, or lack of respect, thats what they showed over there. Had the serbs attacked the dutch troops, they would have been fought by the entire NATO, something that I do not think that those bastards had the balls to do.

Bosniak fighters used the enclave to raid surrounding serbian villages. They stole weapons and supplies from the dutch. And when the enclave was about to fall they cowardly fled leaving behind woman, children and old men. These in turn all fled to the dutch compound, which was only build to house a batallion. Thousands of refugees in such a small place, and you expect a few hundred lightly armed dutchmen to resist the serbs? I can see it now artillery shells falling amid the refugees while our troops are firing their .50's at approaching serbian tanks. The dutch commander did the right thing.
If somebody failed it was the UN.

econ21

09-05-2006, 11:51

And when the enclave was about to fall they cowardly fled leaving behind woman, children and old men.

Oh come on, given what happened to the "cowards" it was quite prescient to flee and leave behind the dependents. The women, children and old men were fairly safe. Those massacred were the males of combat age. Those who were the real combatants seem to have had a sense of what might happen to them if captured. And if you read about the column that broke out of Srebrenica - e.g. on wikipedia - "cowardly" is not the adjective that springs to mind. IIRC, they caused the Serbs the devil's own job chasing them and many of the fighter did break out.

Vladimir

09-05-2006, 13:12

This isn’t the backroom so I’ll hold my usual commentary. Does anyone have the English version of the UN resolution or mandate for the Dutch troops outlining their rules of engagement? I’m not even sure what number it was.

Peasant Phill

09-05-2006, 13:35

I agree it was a black page in history. But was it the fault of the Dutch? I don't agree. Put any other country in the same situation and the result would've been simular. The peace keeping mandate as used by the UN is simply outdated. What can outnumbered and outgunned soldiers do when they can only fight to defend themselves (not the people in the enclave but only themselves).

Today UN mandates can be more aggressive then in the past, see the peace enforcement mandate. Without them UN military actions would be the laughingstock of the world and tragedies like Srebrenica and Rwanda would happen over and over again.

L'Impresario

09-05-2006, 13:57

You might want to read some relevant UN reports. Here's (http://pbpu.unlb.org/pbpu/library.aspx?id=2&ot=2&scat=16) the link.

Kraxis

09-05-2006, 14:26

Since the Serbs had already in the past used captured UN personell as bombshields (tying them to various locations and equipment), I can wholeheartedly understand the Dutch troops.

The situation would be somethign like them firing on the Serbs, or rather trying to halt them forcibly, getting pasted and the survivors would be stuck to tanks and artillery to stave off the UN bombings. The UN would be split down the middle as to what to do while the Serbs went on an killed the Bosnian men anyway.
The really nasty thing would likely be that the situation with the amount of dead and captured Dutch soldiers would overshadow the more sinister actions. Chances are that we would not get much in the news about that, butthe plight of the Dutch soldiers woul fill thenews for years to come.

And if the Serbs were really smart about it (and they often were), they would use irregulars to wipe out the Dutch, then denounce them officially and claim they were investigating the matter ect ect. That would often be enough to make the people waver as to calling in the bombers. That combined with the living bombshields would put an end to all UN actions for a good lengthy while.

Romanus

09-05-2006, 17:05

Oh come on, given what happened to the "cowards" it was quite prescient to flee and leave behind the dependents. The women, children and old men were fairly safe. Those massacred were the males of combat age. Those who were the real combatants seem to have had a sense of what might happen to them if captured. And if you read about the column that broke out of Srebrenica - e.g. on wikipedia - "cowardly" is not the adjective that springs to mind. IIRC, they caused the Serbs the devil's own job chasing them and many of the fighter did break out.

I cannot really sympathise with the bosniaks, they used the enclave to raid outlying serbian villages. They also killed a lot of civilians. In a way they had it coming...If the UN wanted the dutch troops to protect the civilians they should have given proper support. As far as I can see the dutch are entirely without blame.

econ21

09-05-2006, 19:08

I cannot really sympathise with the bosniaks, they used the enclave to raid outlying serbian villages. They also killed a lot of civilians. In a way they had it coming...

To say the worst massacre in Europe for, what, a quarter of a century or more was just something that the victims "had coming" seems a rather callous stance.

First off, you must distinguish between civilians and combatants. I suspect most of the massacred had no personal involvement with raids on outlying Serbian villages.

Secondly, most of the Bosniak combatants in Srebrenica did not personally kill any Serb civilians. You say they killed "a lot": how many? wikipedia just says "some". By contrast, 8000+ Bosnians were massacred by Serb forces that apparently numbered just a few thousand.

Thirdly, "they had it coming..." implies the Bosnian raids predated Serb attrocities. In fact the Serbs massacred hundreds around Srebrenica before the Bosnians started raiding outlying Serb villages (which were used as bases for attacks on Srebrenica) - indeed, some massacres occurred the first time the Serbs held the town, before the Bosnian fighters captured it.

Undoubtedly, all sides in the Bosnia conflict committed war crimes, but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that in sheer numbers, the Bosnians committed far fewer than the Serbs or the Croats; and moreover seem less responsible for the conflict in the first place (being the underdogs all along).

Wikipedia has a very detailed account of the Srebrenica massacre:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre

One of the things that struck me from a personal point of view, as an observer through the lens of UK TV news at the time, was that the massacre unfolded almost in front of the cameras without us being aware of its importance. With some other big events, like the 1984 Ethiopian famine or 9/11, it is immediately clear what was happening. But I watched those men being loaded into those buses and it was only months later that the horror of what befell them became apparent. There was no Bob Geldoff type figure screaming out the TV for the world to do something about it. And there really should have been.

DukeofSerbia

09-05-2006, 19:34

@econ21

You are almost totally wrong. Wikipedia is not the source for that. Anybody can came and write what he/she want.

About Bosniak's crimes: you forgot that mujahedins fought for their Bosnian Moslems brothers and nobody mention that because those mujahedins came from USA friendly states like Saudi Arabia.

Does it count for a massacre, genocide or what?

Massacre.

LeftEyeNine

09-05-2006, 20:39

@econ21

You are almost totally wrong. Wikipedia is not the source for that. Anybody can came and write what he/she want.

About Bosniak's crimes: you forgot that mujahedins fought for their Bosnian Moslems brothers and nobody mention that because those mujahedins came from USA friendly states like Saudi Arabia.

Massacre.

First of all, I'm only trying to collect opinions and information:

What basis do you depend on claiming it a massacre ?

Kraxis

09-05-2006, 21:31

DukeOfSerbia, instead of just waving the article away you shoul read it.

While wiki lets anyone write articles, this one has a good use of sources, as with many other articles there. I do not deny that the author might be a bit biased, I don't know, he certainly isn't very biased. The last part of teh article is all about clearing up lies and misinformation.

And interestingly he actually gives you a bit of support in regards to determining what it really was.

It's a distasteful point, but it has to be said that, if you're committing genocide, you don't let the women go since they are key to perpetuating the very group you are trying to eliminate.
So do not just ignore wiki articles. At least do not do so without providing other sources. It is particularly bad form to refusing sources and not give your own.
Wiki is more than fools writing some 1337 article they can brag of. Serious scholars write articles there too.

KrooK

09-05-2006, 23:25

As I told, Dutch batalion behaved bad. If you don't want shot, why you are going on war? Same thing was into Rwanda when 2000 Dutch soldiers watched carefully when 500.000 is being murdered by bad armoured militia.

If you don't trust UN, check Kosovo mission and bridge into Mitrovica. Small, but well organised and determined units can hold much bigger ones.
If Serbs attacked UN batalion, air support would be sent there.
You are talking about mighty serbian tanks. Do you know real value of tank into city - 0 with one condition. Defenders must have high morale. If defenders are afraid of opening fire, tank value rises. Check 1st Grozny battle into 1995.

Furthermore air support would hit remaining tanks and trucks.

And someone asked why Serbs attacked Srebrenica. Good question, but anwer..... Easy to understand for someone living on East, hard to someone living on West. They want have nationality clear area. When they killed every man and forced women to rout, they were sure, that nobody return and city will be theirs. Here I might be in mistake, but who lives into Srebrenica now?
Maybe this is most important issue.

econ21

09-06-2006, 01:34

As I told, Dutch batalion behaved bad. If you don't want shot, why you are going on war? Same thing was into Rwanda when 2000 Dutch soldiers watched carefully when 500.000 is being murdered by bad armoured militia.

But the whole point was that UN peacekeepers are not going to war. The Dutch soldiers were deployed in a way that made them very vulnerable to the militias, both in Srebrenica and Rwanda. If 400 Dutch troops had been deployed for war in Srebrenica - dug in, with AT weapons, vehicles, artillery support, good ammo supply etc. then yes, they might have held off the Serbs, Bastogne-style (although they might also have been crushed). But they were not - they were little more than observers or policemen. And for all the rhetoric about protecting the safe areas, I do not think they were authorised to try to shoot up the Serbians advancing on the town. Ditto in Rwanda.

All that said, in both cases, I agree with you in that I would have liked to see the Dutch do more - if only to see how far they could push it before some of them got shot. (Of course, in Rwanda, the first things the militias did was kill about a dozen Dutch bodyguards of the Prime Minister - and the PM as well - in order to terrorise the rest of the contingent and lead them to be withdrawn).

If Serbs attacked UN batalion, air support would be sent there.

That's one of the wierd things about this. Air support was already being used to bomb the Serbs. You had this bizarre situation where soldiers were being put on the ground in a neutral peacekeeping - not war fighting - role and the higher command were then bombing one side in the combat. (I can't recall if the bombing was NATO, rather than UN authorised/run). If you can imagine it, it would be like France, Italy etc putting in peacekeepers in Lebanon and then NATO trying to bomb Hizbollah.

When the enclave was overrun, I think bad weather might have temporarily halted the bombing. Then the Serbs used captured UN soldiers as hostages to deterr further bombing. It's for that reason I suspect the Serbs would have returned fire if the Dutch had fought their advance. The West were bombing them already and if their groundtroops (the Dutch) started shooting at them, surely they were fair game?

You are talking about mighty serbian tanks. Do you know real value of tank into city - 0 with one condition. Defenders must have high morale.

I disagree - look at the role of tanks in the fall of Baghdad or at many other incidents since then in Iraq. Granted, the Iraqi army had poor morale, but a lot of the irregulars and latterly insurgents have been very brave. If one side does not have appropriate AT weapons, I believe tanks can be decisive even in urban areas. IIRC, there was a case of a Challenger 2 tank in southern Iraq being hit by around 80 RPGs in one engagement! I'd be surprised if the Dutch UN soldiers had AT weapons - if they did, then I take it back.

And someone asked why Serbs attacked Srebrenica. Good question, but anwer..... Easy to understand for someone living on East, hard to someone living on West. They want have nationality clear area. When they killed every man and forced women to rout, they were sure, that nobody return and city will be theirs. Here I might be in mistake, but who lives into Srebrenica now?

It's horrible, but I fear you may be quite right there.

Kraxis

09-06-2006, 01:54

The Dutch didn't have AT weapons.

One of the only forces down there that could deal with Serb armour was the Danish tank company in Tuzla. All other forces were considered light in all areas. That means that in general the heaviest weapons carried would be LMGs and in a few cases HMGs (generally on APCs).

The UN mandate in Bosnia was terribly flawed. The poor soldiers down there as Peacekeepers couldn't wouldn't and weren't supposed to do anything. Then the question pops up, what were they doing there? They were further hampered by the lack of will at bombing, this was for a time mostly by faul of a single man, the Japanese special envoy. He held supreme power, but he was a diplomat and didn't know what he had there and considered military force an asset best not used. Time and again he refused air support, even to forces directly under fire. He reasoned the Serbs would only get more violent if attacked.

This was proven highly flawed when Serbian troops actively attacked a Swedish outpost and their APCs. The Swedes then called for all available support. Air support was denied, but the Danish commander ofthe tank company said "to hell with it!" and drove his tanks out into, what has since been known as Operation Bullybeat (though that is directly translated from Danish). The tanks waited for the Serbs to fire first, then they exploded in an inferno of destruction, and protected the Swedes so they could pull back.
It is estimated they killed around 100 Serbian irregulars that day.
After that day the area the company was to patrol suddenly grew very quiet. And it was called out on several other occations to provide the Peacekeepers with a bit of oompf, and a few times more they had to use their guns (they even began to mount cameras on the turret so they could document their actions).

So yes, a properly equipped force could indeed give the Serbs a good kicking, but the Dutch were not such a force. No proper weapons, with a good amount of their own men caught behind Serbian lines (several outposts had been passed when the Serbs halted outside the town) and the lack of a belief that they would recieve the air support they needed, they were hardly better suited to halting the Serbs than the largely demilitarized Bosnians.

Romanus

09-06-2006, 10:21

The dutch commander requested air support but it was refused, there also were two dutch f16's in the area who wanted to support the troops on the ground but permission was also denied to them.

I think most of us can agree that it was gross imcompetence of the UN leadership that caused the massacre and not the dutch troops.

Geoffrey S

09-06-2006, 10:32

As I told, Dutch batalion behaved bad. If you don't want shot, why you are going on war? Same thing was into Rwanda when 2000 Dutch soldiers watched carefully when 500.000 is being murdered by bad armoured militia.
A very easy way out. There's a huge difference between not wanting to be shot, and being put into a position where the necessary firepower and support to take on the enemy is simply unavailable. Not only that, but the bosnians in the enclave were actively going against the wishes of the dutch troops and certainly lowered the wish for those troops to put their necks on the line for them; the dutch troops weren't equipped to either control the local population or to halt the advancing serbs, and ultimately the UN and the dutch government are responsible for putting them in that situation. You can't send troops someplace and expect them to complete the objective with sticks and stones.

Fragony

09-06-2006, 10:33

KrooK

09-06-2006, 11:19

LeftEyeNine

09-06-2006, 11:44

Well I don't know if I'll be able to express this exactly but..

A soldier is a soldier, if they had decided for a defense to protect the civilians, I see no reason that they would not be given support when things would be starting to turn out as a loss for them. At least maybe some actual loss (I know it's so easy to say "loss of a life" but..) would underline the severity of the situation, hence attracting heavier squads and vehicles that could support them. This equals to some kind of humanistic feeling -you know you may not be well enough to counterbalance the assaulters but whom you leave behind were like goldfish thrown in front of sharks.

I may not be right, the psychology of being a soldier is definitely different but well, I still can not walk away saying "oh they couldn't help the situation anyways".

P.S. I'm glad that Dutch troops turned home safe as well, we know how it feels when they don't.

econ21

09-06-2006, 11:48

Tanks into Bagdad - lol m8. THere were no real fight into Bagdad because of poor morale. Iraqui soldier surrendered when they saw tanks. Check russian tanks into Grozny. Dudajev and his soldiers captured or destroyed 60 tanks one day almost without loses. Check tanks into Warsaw Rising 1944. We didn't have ATG's too.

The Chechens apparently had plenty of anti-tank weapons, including RPGs and anti-aircraft guns (which are often particularly lethal vs tanks, the 88mm anyone?):

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF_38/forum38.html

Modern tanks like the Abrams seem pretty much immune to RPGs (the Challenger 2 surviving 80 hits being one illustration of this). Maybe you can immobilise them by going for the tracks, but the main armour is too thick to breach. There's even a story that Saddam fired an RPG at one in a symbolic guesture before leaving Baghdad. I doubt Molotov cocktails etc impede modern tanks then much. IIRC, two Abrams were lost in Baghdad - there was speculation that one was due to some kind of anti-aircraft missile. It's true the Iraqi soldiers often surrendered, but the irregulars (feydaheen?) sometimes fought hard (80 RPG hits on one tank suggests rather intensive combat) - many seem to be still fighting, years after the invasion. But they clearly find tanks too hard targets.

Now, I know the Serb tanks were no Abrams, but then it seems the Dutch lacked even hand-held anti-tank weapons such as RPGs.

Geoffrey S

09-06-2006, 12:39

I'm suprised by your words, Dutch friends. If your soldiers have similar point of view, they can't be send to this kind of mission, because they won't manage. In Poland if only volunteers are being sent to this kind of mission and we are always prepared for unexpected situations. Leaving civilians for death has never been accepted into polish army. If you are telling "we couln't help people because we were not prepared and they could kill us" - sorry but I can't think good about your army.
Soldiers really don't have much to say about the matter. The government and UN send them there, they do what they're told; fact is, protecting the enclave from any kind of attack was impossible, they were only given light weapons and no permission to engage. Only decent chance would have been given by air support, which was requested but not given. If you're willing to send troops to a region without any decent support or equipment, and expect them to hold a location in a suicide defense - well hey, that's your choice, but I suspect most would disagree, particularly the soldiers! This is why the dutch government resigned over the issue, albeit a cowardly number of years too late.

And let's face it, what would you suggest the dutch troops armed with practically nothing would do to resist the serbs and protect Srebrenica? The best you seem to have come up with is that the dutch die in valiant defense of the enclave, achieving sod all.

Redleg

09-06-2006, 13:35

The short answer about this issue is that the United Nations failed to provide the basic military command and control structure so that the various nation commanders could cordinate an effective response to a gross violation by either side to the peace.

Now I personally believe the Dutch Commander should of attempted a defense of the civilians - one must also understand that he was left out on his on, without support.

Its very easy to condemn the Dutch for thier failure to even attempt a defense, but if your going to condemn the Dutch, in the same breath and even more so you should be blaming the United Nations for the Massacre. The Srebrenica Massacer demonstrates very well the major problem with the PeaceKeeping Mission and the various mandates involved.

Its extremely difficult to prevent violence if your not going to use violence to prevent it. Peacekeeping is not peace making.

DukeofSerbia

09-06-2006, 18:03

I don’t have time write more because of exams, but I will write about bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda terrorist in Bosnia who were on side of Bosnian Moslems (Bosniaks).

It is well known that Osama bin Laden was several times in Bosnia and Herzegovina and he had direct contacts with peak of Bosnian Moslems and Alija Izetbegovic himself. He directly financed and organized “El Mujaheddin” brigade.

There were three mujaheddin brigades on Moslem side: El Mujaheddin, Ansar and Kataeb al-Munimin.

Leaders of “El Mujaheddin” brigade:
Sheik Answer Shaban – chief of Shari law in brigade
Emir Abu Elharis El Masry
Mustafa El Festiny
Al Muatezu Bellah El Mery – military commander of brigade
Abul Welled El Messry – administrative leader of brigade*

*source Zoran Petrovic Pirocanac "Sunovrat", Belgrade 2000

There is an amateur video tape of those men with the whole units who sit together with Alija Izetbegovic in Sarajevo. A video tape is made by El Mujaheddin cameraman.

Money and terrorists came via “humanitarian organizations” from Saudi Arabia, who are under control of … (I can’t wrote that in public) Those mujaheddins didn’t murdered only Serbs and wiped out/slaughter only Serbian villages they did the same to the Croats but in lesser degree.
When war ended those mujaheddins settled in Bosnia and married Bosniaks women. There are whole villages in Moslem’s cantons in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina where live those “retired” mujaheddins and wait to be reactivated when time come...

And to mention how Iran help Bosnian Moslems with American bless. Officially it was embargo on exporting weapons to Bosnia. But, Iran without any problems shipped weapons to their Moslem brothers via Croatia. With weapons came also mujaheddins from various Moslem countries like Iran, Sudan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Libya and even from Israel. Sunday Times published inside story about mujaheddins in Bosnia with photographies.
And I almost forgot to mention that some 400 Hezbollah fighters came in Bosnia in summer of 1994 from Lebanon via Iran and Croatia harbors of Rijeka and Split.
I have much more data about mujaheddins and terrorists who fight on Bosnian Moslem side, but I think that’s enough. If somebody wants to know more, please contact me via PM as I will not write about that publicly any more. Yes, I know maybe somebody will say that is all Serbian imagination but it’s not – that what I write can be found even on the internet as that wrote Americans and various Committees in US Congress. And video tapes exist and they were shown in TV stations from Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro and Slovenia this and several last years. Of course Bosniaks say this is not true. We all know why waste majority of Western media refuse to publish that.

Bosnian Serbs fought against Izetbegovic and his try to create Islamic Republic of Bosnia and who wanted to impose Sharia. He had help from Iran and other Moslem states. I know that West will never admit that because West allowed that to happen. Double standards… And ICTY’s greatest donators are Saudi Arabia and… and that’s why there are so little Bosniaks accused for war crimes. Case of Naser Oric showed finally without any doubts double standards of ICTY.

Srebrenica wasn’t greatest massacre in Europe after WWII. Srebrenica is the greatest manipulation and myth after WWII. Crimes were committed but not how Bosniaks present that and Western medias like BBC, CNN and others.
And it’s a far away from genocide. Genocide was what Stalin and his followers did in Soviet Union.

Geoffrey S

09-06-2006, 21:28

DukeofSerbia, yours was an interesting post, and I agree that the Bosnians were no sweeties in the war either, but how does your post relate to the murder of some 8,000, largely completely innocent, males in Srebrenica, which is the topic at hand?

Keba

09-06-2006, 22:08

The fighting in Bosnia ... well, the Serbs were also facing the Croatian armed forces there, not just Bosnian troops. Although, officially, we were never there (thus you get official records of soldiers consisting of 'assigned to base whatever' for several years, despite having been in the war). Most of the Bosnian troops were indeed Muslim, but for a very different reason, consult the paragraph below.

As to the motives behind the whole thing ... well, every other side wanted more territory, Croatia the traditionally Croatian western and southern parts, Serbia the traditionally Serbian eastern and, partly, northern parts. Essentially, the idea was to let Bosnia consist of the strip around Sarajevo (if even that) that was mostly Muslim (and, essentially, the only bunch that fought for Bosnia, and not their respective countries).

Srebrenica and a number of other such events were likely perofmed to re-forge the country according to such conceptions. Whether such acts were commited by state goverments or simply by individual commanders may never be known, after all, the two people who were most likely to know are now dead.

KrooK

09-06-2006, 22:23

Geoffrey - why Duke speaks like that. CHeck his nick - OF SERBIA.
It's a bit hard to tell "yep guys, they homes looked well and we need to settle somewhere after war". Better is telling "some of them might be terrorist and now no terrorist into Srebrenica".

Guys - T72 aren't Abrams. I'm absolutely sure that Serbs didn't have better tanks. During comunism they didn't buy tanks on west, only into other communist countries. And I don't think Russians sold them T90.
T720 can be easy destroyed or damaged by RPGs or anti-tank hand grenades. And remember that most of muslim fanatic never shot with RPG before firing into tank, which I can't tell about regular army.

I must tell that I can't understand your point of view and you can't understand mine, but .....
If there were polish batalion, we wouldn't surrender on tank's view.
Your soldiers had an order - protect civilians. They failed to attempt order.....
Furthermore Dutch soldiers must have been a bit strange if they didn't prepare defense. Actually on every mission Poles are driving (don't care what mission and what mandate), they are always preparing strong, easy to defend camp. Very good example might be Camp Babilon into Iraq - attacked so many times, always without success.

Duke of Serbia - you are speaking like coward. Myth, manipulation - do not lie!!!! Just tell me, why there is so many multiple graves - maybe collective suicide by shot into back of head? Why similar graves had been found in Kosovo? Suicide's plague? Why Mladic has not been sent to Hague - is he so afraid? He is innocent who why he is so scared? And please do not tell about genocide because this is one of the worst lies I have seen on .org.
It was classical genocide - similar both to Stalin and Hitler job. Actually talking about method much more to Stalin.
Serb units murdered muslims because they were muslims and they were majority there. And if there were peace, Srebrenica would be muslim town. Would be....

KrooK

09-06-2006, 22:27

Ahh and I would forgot.
Croats are not afraid of sending their generals to Hague.
Serbs are - something to hide?

sharrukin

09-06-2006, 23:11

Just because something is reported in the media does not mean that it actually happened!

Fallujah;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050727&articleId=740
"From the air and from the grounds, US forces indiscriminately killed civilians holding white flags or white clothes over their heads, murdered the wounded fighters, killed unarmed Iraqis who had been taken prisoner, and destroyed mosques, hospitals, and health centres protected under international law.

All males between the ages of 16 and 60 years old were slaughtered. US forces attacked and occupied the Fallujah Hospitals to prevent the publication and counting of civilian casualties. Patients and doctors in the Hospital were taken hostages and abused by US forces and their Iraqi collaborators. "Staff have been attacked by US marines, doctors have been shot, emergency medicines blocked. Children have been murdered in front of their families."

Did this happen?
Not likely!

Cohen Fears 100,000 Kosovo Men Killed by Serbs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/cohen051699.htm

Did this happen?

The Kosovo "genocide" in fact turns out not to have happened.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0902-02.htm

Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks!
Secretary Rumsfeld; "al-Qaida is operating in Iraq"...that we have "accurate and not debatable" evidence of reportedly the presence of senior members of al-Qaida in Baghdad, and other associations...."
Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa (Niger) for a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons program!
Iraq was trying to import aluminum tubes to develop nuclear weapons!
Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the first Gulf War!
Iraq has mobile labs to build biological weapons!
American troops would be greeted with flowers!

How much of this turned out to be true?

The Srebrenica Massacre?

Retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, commander of the
UN peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo;

"Evidence given at The Hague war crimes tribunal casts serious doubt on the figure of "up to" 8,000 Bosnian Muslims massacred. That figure includes "up to" 5,000 who have been classified as missing. More than 2,000 bodies have been recovered in and around Srebrenica, and they include victims of the three years of intense fighting in the area. The math just doesn't support the scale of 8,000 killed."

http://www.srebrenica-report.com/numbers.htm

Did this happen?
Well, massacres certainly happened on both sides!
Where is the proof of slaughter on this scale?

Need a war? Lie your ass off!
It worked for Clinton and Bush!

Hitler was right!

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. - OSS report page 51

Wag the Dog wasn't a movie it was prophecy!

Keba

09-06-2006, 23:51

Well, the 'need a war' was unnecessary ... there already was a war there. Propaganda reasons? Again, unncesarry ... there was more than enough name-calling, nationalism and will to continue the war (in fact, there were no noticable groups calling for an end to the war present), thereby removing the need for the fabriacation of such evidence or myths.

The thing is, there are a lot of mass graves, and finding such places is notoriously difficult. They tend to be unmarked, you know. Sometimes new ones are found long after the war has been fought ...

Although it is possible that the number is overestimated, I guess. The mass graves in this area rarely held more than a hundred people ... which is still a hundred more than allowed. Numbers are, in the end, not important. Whether it is 8,000 or 2,000 is irrelevant, it happened, it was a crime against humanity ... genocide cannot be applied to a single event, it has to be part of a larger plan (and I am uncertain one existed, although I stand on the position that there likely was one).

sharrukin

09-07-2006, 01:31

Well, Clinton did need to justify an American/NATO intervention.

If it was only 2,000 and from that you remove the Serbian soldiers killed and buried after battle as well as the Bosnian soldiers killed in the fighting. And then you remove the Serbian civilians killed by Bosnian forces and Bosnian civilians killed by Serbian soldiers in three years of warfare you don't end up with a large number. There were atrocities on all sides and without question the Serbs are guilty of their share. The idea of a great massacre doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence I have seen.

In addition I think we need to be less gullible about media driven war drums, from either the left or right of the political spectrum.

Kraxis

09-07-2006, 02:48

No, the bodies have not been found near the Serb villages but rather nearer to Bosnian villages and teh town itself.

Look up the war criminal Naser Oric (Bosnian) from Srebrenica and you will soon understand that his troops comitted the majority of the Bosnian atrocities there, but tended to kill in the region around the targeted villages. So Serbian victims lie around Serbian villages.

AntiochusIII

09-07-2006, 03:09

In a way I terribly hate this series of atrocities in the Balkans.

This thread is an interesting read -- very interesting -- but also very frustrating.

You have these normally really very reasonable people with essentially similar viewpoints in other issues posting extreme stuff calling "the other side" a bunch of liars and genocidal criminals. I can't for the life of me decide for certain what the hell happened there exactly, except for the fact that there are a lot of murderers, a lot of the murdered, and a lot of mass graves left as the legacy of it all.

Kraxis

09-07-2006, 03:29

You have these normally really very reasonable people with essentially similar viewpoints in other issues posting extreme stuff calling "the other side" a bunch of liars and genocidal criminals. I can't for the life of me decide for certain what the hell happened there exactly, except for the fact that there are a lot of murderers, a lot of the murdered, and a lot of mass graves left as the legacy of it all.
*Inserts quote into generic debate on generic war*

The truth of war is that we never really know what happened. Sure we can know the general things, such as strategy, tactics, logistics and economy. But when we get lower and follow the individuals we don't really know. We don't really know what happened in all those cases where soldiers 'didn't tell'.
For the historian war is a conundrum. It is a treasurechest of information, but at the same time it is a black hole of knowledge.

Fragony

09-07-2006, 09:01

Brenus

09-08-2006, 22:20

I didn’t want to, but I will. I will participate in a debate which perhaps shouldn’t be in the History part.
Anyway, I was in Bosnia during the first offensive against Srebrenica and Zepa and a other pocket I forgot the name…

I met Serbian soldiers who told me that they will kill every body because the slaughter by the Muslims from Srebrenica, of some 192 Serbian villages according Lt. Col Karremans … I will not give here the details of what was done against the population. I won’t tell you how the Serbs natives of Srebrenica were treated by the Muslim Commander, Naser Oric… It was not nice…
Gal Morillon's testimony: “Today, there are virtually no Serbs left in the entire Srebrenica municipality. Out of 9300 Serbs who used to live there, less than 900 remain. Out of the 11,500 Serbs who used to live in the Bratunac munipality, more than 6000 have fled. In the Srebrenica municipality, only three Serbian villages remain and around 26 have been destroyed; in the Bratunac municipality, about 24 Serbian villages have been razed. The last major Serbian villages in the vicinity of Bratunac and Skelani were attacked and destroyed on January 7, 1993.”

After Morillon, a knife put on his throat, declared Srebrenica was declared safe area the enclave was supposed to be disarmed… It never happened…

“Halilovic put the number of troops in the 28th division in Srebrenica at 5 803.
In testimony before the War Crimes Tribunal, General Halilovic acknowledges using helicopters to resupply and further militarize the supposed “safe area.” Reminded that the safe area agreement specifically prohibited flights from Tuzla to Srebrenica and Zepa to provide military supplies, Halilovic testified defiantly: “It is correct that I sent eight helicopters with ammunition, and if could have, I would have sent 180.”
“According to British military analyst Tim Ripley, Dutch troops later “saw Bosnian troops escaping from Srebrenica move past their observation points carrying brand new anti-tank weapons, still in their plastic wrappings. This, and other similar reports, made many UN officers and international journalists suspicious.”

We are far from a Safe and disarmed area here…

“Duke of Serbia - you are speaking like coward. Myth, manipulation - do not lie!!!! Just tell me, why there is so many multiple graves - maybe collective suicide by shot into back of head? Why similar graves had been found in Kosovo? Suicide's plague? Why Mladic has not been sent to Hague - is he so afraid? He is innocent who why he is so scared? And please do not tell about genocide because this is one of the worst lies I have seen on .org.
It was classical genocide - similar both to Stalin and Hitler job. Actually talking about method much more to Stalin.
Serb units murdered muslims because they were muslims and they were majority there. And if there were peace, Srebrenica would be muslim town. Would be....”

I am French I will speak for him.
Srebrenica was in majority Muslim because the previous war the Muslims slaughtered the Serbian population. SS division Handzar and Kama did quite a good job. I know that two wrong don’t make one good, but it has to be said.

Actually he didn’t lie. My translator (one of) in Gorazde was in Mudjaidin (sp) Brigade…
You have interesting questions: Where are the graves in Kosovo. Where are the bodies allegedly thrown in the mines? Where are the satellite pictures shown by Madeleine Albright for Srebrenica and Kosovo?
Lies sure but most of them from us, the democracies.…
Not I deny the killing of prisoners and civilians… But, do you know how the number of 8000 (some figures went up to 10000) was reach: based on the number of daily ration from the Red Cross. This ignores the fact that most of the Bosniak troops were withdrawn before the offensive… This makes the number of the victims at between 2000 and 4000, still unacceptable…
The multiple graves can found in every battle field, it not a proof as such… And actually, we have so difficulties to find more bodies, I mean the good ones…
All graves are not of Muslims…
Now, why Mladic is not in The Hague: Two reasons: he is guilty of the massacre, and he has no chance to get a fair trial. Plus 3 Serbs dying in The Hague isn’t a good reason to surrender…
My Grand Father killed Germans because they were Germans and they were occupying France. This doesn’t make him a “genocider”… In all wars you kill your enemy because they from another nationality…

“Croats are not afraid of sending their generals to Hague”: Read newspapers my friend, Gotovina was caught outside Croatia. The Serbs sent their President (after a Revolution). Tudjman and Izetbegovic were supposed to go to The Hague BUT AFTER their death. Joke…
Where is Mate Boban, where is Boro Paravac? Not in The Hague…

ajaxfetish

09-08-2006, 22:57

Perhaps this should be moved to the backroom, since most of the discussion has been more politically charged than objectively historical.

Ajax

LeftEyeNine

09-08-2006, 23:14

Very excellent piece of enlightening information, Brenus. Thank you for sharing. :bow:

KrooK

09-08-2006, 23:26

sharrukin

09-09-2006, 00:40

Poles didn't kill women and children after they were given big part of Germany.
Despite Germans killed 6.000.000 of our citizens.

"Red Army soldiers and Poles would often beat, rape, and rob the Germans of what few possessions they carried; resistance could mean death. Poles did kill thousands of Germans that were awaiting expulsion, and imprisoned many in camps in which conditions "approached those of the murderous Nazi period, in which sadism was given free rein and internees were left to starve slowly to death." Note, for example, that of the 8,064 Germans in Camp Lamsdorf in Upper Silesia, 6,488 (including 628 children) died from starvation, disease, hard labor, and physical maltreatment. No doubt, "tens of thousands" similarly died in other Polish internment camps."

"the estimates among Germans themselves for the human cost of the expulsion from the German eastern territories varies from 800,000 to 3,200,000 dead."

KrooK

09-09-2006, 11:34

Ok Sharrukin. Your statement is so false that I suggest move it to other topic when I will be able to comment it. But before Moderator do it , some suggestions.
1)Use polish names. I don't know what was Camp Lamsdorft, but i might know polish name of that place. If you are talking about Poland please using polish names.
2)Tell your sources. As for now you "...." has same worth like "dogs are definitely female version of cats".

To make your life easier Lamsdorf is called Łambinowice and was heavy prison or camp since war beetwen France and Prussia. During ww2 it was one of the biggest camps for prisoners of war. After ww2 it was camp of work and temporary camp for Germans who were sent back do Germany or for Germans suspected for supporting nazi partizans in Poland.
Quite sad part of our history, because some people died there but generally we didn't build that camp. It has been build by Prussians and renovated by Gestapo.
This camp was declared Place of National Memory and now there is Museum of Prisoners of War.

I don't know where you read about these 800.000 do 3.200.000 Germans killed by Poles but I think into Steinbach's kind book. Please reveal your sources.

Geoffrey S

09-09-2006, 12:02

Very excellent piece of enlightening information, Brenus. Thank you for sharing. :bow:
I sentiment I must echo. Interesting post, Brenus.

Brenus

09-09-2006, 14:13

My french friend. In Kosovo polish soldiers found some multiple graves. There are some movies from journalist who followed soldiers on patrol. During defusing landmines soldiers found bodies. I can't show movie now but there were relation into our tv. Looks like someone killed these people and planted mines as a trap. Furthermore some months ago there was released movie from massacre - Serbs murdered some muslims and smiled to camera.”
Yes, it did happen. Do you want to see the heads of the Serbs killed by Oric? Do you want to see the tape of the Serbian kids killed with hammers, axes and lead pipes at school in Vukovar during the period May-November (date when the JNA started to bomb then take the town) by the Croatian ZNG?
I refused to go in a church in Derventa where the bodies of Serbian teenagers were exposed, because what was done to them can’t be described. What men can do to men...
Don’t misunderstand what I am saying: I don’t deny that the Serbs slaughtered and massacred and deported during the war. What I am saying is every time one side had the opportunity to do so they did it.
But the Serbs are the only one actually blame for it. And this is wrong, if you really want to provide justice, peace and stability to the region.
Exaggeration of figures will just create resentment. Between 3000 and 4000 killed is enough… Why to add figures and bodies?

”Your statement about killing every man who belong to enemy nation is false. As you see here your grandfather was killing Germans (maybe into 1940 :) - you killed many then ) because they were Germans. Ok I understand. So why Germans didn't kill every man into Paris? According to your words, they were absolutely allowed.
Poles didn't kill women and children after they were given big part of Germany.
Despite Germans killed 6.000.000 of our citizens.”
No, what I said is to kill people because they belong to a nationality is not a proof as such of genocide. My grand-Father blew-up Germans trains from 1941 to 1944. He was a partisan.
Mass graves are not a proof of genocide. Verdun is a big mass grave. However it isn’t a genocide.
It isn’t a question to be allowed or not. When the Germans 2nd SS Division Das Reich killed all the population of Oradour Sur Glane, burned alive women and children in the church, it was a war-crime, not genocide.

Generals
Not only Serbs died into Hague - butcher of Vukovar commit suicide. Actually here I'm not crying on his grave.
Butcher of Vukovar? I don’t think he did commit suicide, he had a heart attack if I remember well, and the guard was so slow to react that he died… If he would have been found guilty, it would have been better… The problem is that his Croatian counter-part (Glavac) is actually still free and in the regional government where he carries on the Ethnic Cleansing he started in 1991… The killing of the Serbian POW by the Croats and the disappearance of many of them (they ended most probably in the Danube) don’t bother the International Community…

Again, it is not justice. The Hague tribunal is not a place for justice, but a place of self-justification.

sharrukin

09-09-2006, 19:10

Ok Sharrukin. Your statement is so false that I suggest move it to other topic when I will be able to comment it. But before Moderator do it , some suggestions.

2)Tell your sources. As for now you "...." has same worth like "dogs are definitely female version of cats".

I don't know where you read about these 800.000 do 3.200.000 Germans killed by Poles but I think into Steinbach's kind book. Please reveal your sources.

Even Pravda now admits what happened! As to sources they are so numerous that if you wanted to find them you would have!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II

http://www.meaus.com/Expulsion_of_Germans.html

http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/10/worlds-greatest-unknown-genocide-and.html

http://experts.about.com/e/e/ex/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II.htm

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP7.HTM

http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1999/029918.shtml

http://wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/whitebook/desg26.html

http://www.read-all-about-it.org/gruesome_harvest/chapter2.html

http://www.globalguide.org/index.html?title=Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II

Quite sad part of our history, because some people died there but generally we didn't build that camp. It has been build by Prussians and renovated by Gestapo.

The Germans didn't construct the buildings in the warsaw ghetto either but they are morally responsible for what they did there!

Ser Clegane

09-09-2006, 19:14

http://wintersonnenwende.com/scripto...ok/desg26.html

Oh dear...

Kralizec

09-09-2006, 19:34

If you compare behavior of Dutch batalion with polish units on Balkans (like GROM) you can notice that with similar number of men Poles were able to provide peace. Srebrenica and Rwanda were probably worst cards into Dutch army history.

All that said, in both cases, I agree with you in that I would have liked to see the Dutch do more - if only to see how far they could push it before some of them got shot. (Of course, in Rwanda, the first things the militias did was kill about a dozen Dutch bodyguards of the Prime Minister - and the PM as well - in order to terrorise the rest of the contingent and lead them to be withdrawn).

Thing is, I would concede that the Dutch weren't completely blameless in regards to Sebrenica, but I don't recall a thing about Dutch soldiers screwing up in Rwanda. Terrified that my memory cells were turning to pulp, I looked it up- it did happen, but it was Belgian troops (and a Belgian former PM)

Conradus

09-09-2006, 21:29

I wouldn't really call it a screw-up of the belgian para's in Rwanda, few could foresee such an outbreak of violence. Anyhow that has withheld for many years the deployment of Belgian troops on UN missions, now with Lebanon, they're trying to get rid of that past.

sharrukin

09-09-2006, 21:49

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
http://wintersonnenwende.com/scripto...ok/desg26.html

Oh dear...

There are enough mainline alternative sources to make the point, in any case.

However...

If we can get our sources from murderous regimes like the former Soviet Union, Nazi archives, as well as biased national accounts of historical events, I fail to see why biased accounts of moonbat organizations should be anathema. Often when it is an event that doesn't have a ready-made pressure group to push it they are the only source. The events at Abu Ghraib and Haditha are an example. If we ignore the lunatic fringe too often where will we find out about events that don't conveniently fit into the mainstream media's world view? The mainstream media in recent years has degenerated into being simply a master of ceremonies for government sound bites. The enormous failures to report the truth about Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, and god knows what else does little to recommend them over alternative sources of information.

KrooK

09-09-2006, 22:25

Ok I have read sources from 1 to 3.
1st source seems to be ok. Some small mistakes but generally honest article.
2nd is generally fair but describes situation from 1 side,
3rd is nothing more that LIE

According to 3rd link (blog)

First of all do not mix great evacuation from 1944/1945 with deportations from 1946-1948. Author did.
Great evacution was ordered by Hitler who expected what will be doing Red Army. Red Army is not polish army - there is hardly anything in common. Germans in Russia and Ukraine did so scary things that they expected that Russians will be taking revenge. Furthermore evacuation was obligate.
Poles behaved different than Russians according to many relations. Very interesting might be relation of French SSman, who were saved by Poles. They broke order and didn't kill him immediately only send to HQ.

In 1946-1948 there were obviously not 8.000.000 Germans on polish territory, rather 3-3,5 millions. IF we count minorities who were called Germans by Germans and don't fell (Silesians , Kaschubs, Mazurians) there will be about 4.000.000. To Germany were sent about 2.800.000. It's very hard to check because it was quite hard to check them and decide who were German and who weren't. Silesians and Kaschubs generally stayed where they lived. About 500.000 Germans stayed in Poland.

War crimes (rapes, murderers) were being commitet in absolute majority by Red Army. But if Germans didn't attack Poland, they wouldn't suffered.

Talking about German territory author seems to be strange. During last 700 years Silesia was independent or belonged to Czech, Austria and Germany since 2nd half of XVIII century. Pomorze Zachodnie (german Pommern) was independent, German, Swedish, German and then Polish. Pomorze Gdańskie (Gdansk - Danzig and nearby territory) belonged to Poles beetwen Xth century ( do not mix with Prussians), then starting from 1309 to teutonic order (Germans betrayed Poland). In 1454 people of Pomorze begged polish king for liberation. Really begged. Since 1466 to 1772 that was polish territory. People of Gdański meet prussian army with guns.
Looks like author tells his wishes as truth.

And now last question. Why Poles forced these Germans to leave Poland. Because between ww1 and ww2 german minority did everything to weak Poland. Into 1939 they helped III Reich as much as they could. Soon after campaing finished they began murdering polish neighbours or... Or they forced them to leave Pomorze Gdańskie or Wielkopolska in the middle of cold winter without anything. Do not compare that with deportations from 1946-1948. After war we have problem. Leave Germans or not leave. We choose 1st option into 1919 and what happened. Furthermore German partisans were dangerous for polish civilians at tha territory. So sending Germans to Germany was only option. It was bad for common people but
1)Most nazist has been sent to Germany.
2)German partisans lost support and became easy to destroy.
3)Polish border was secured.

It might be strange now but without deportations into 1946-1948 there would be similar situation to Jugoslavia.

Guys at the end I would like to tell that we are not speaking about Srebrenica. If you want telling about poor Germans who were punished for killing teens of millions of people only into Poland and Russia, start new topic.

econ21

09-11-2006, 02:14

Thing is, I would concede that the Dutch weren't completely blameless in regards to Sebrenica, but I don't recall a thing about Dutch soldiers screwing up in Rwanda. Terrified that my memory cells were turning to pulp, I looked it up- it did happen, but it was Belgian troops (and a Belgian former PM)

You are right - my memory was failing me; they were Belgian although the murdered Prime Minister was Rwandan. Ten Belgians privates were guarding her. When a angry mob gathered, the Belgians surrendered their weapons to the Presidential Guard and were then taken to a military base where they were killed.

I wouldn't really call it a screw-up of the belgian para's in Rwanda, few could foresee such an outbreak of violence.

The genocide was actually very well organised in advance; I don't have time to check sources, but I suspect there were warnings that were ignored. (My main source on the genocide, Prunier's "The Rwanda Crisis", has a whole chapter entitled "Chronicle of a Massacre Foretold"). But that's a matter for the politicians, not the paras tho, I guess.

In strict military terms, I think the situation of the Belgians in Rwanda is rather analogous to that of the Dutch in Srebrenica. The Belgians lacked the equipment, mandate and numbers to intervene effectively. However, in some ways it was more shameful - when the French and Belgians evacuated the whites from Kigali to the airport, Tutsis were often dragged from the convoy vehicles and killed under the noses of the European soldiers.

The UN peacekeepers in both Srebrenica and Bosnia were in almost impossible positions, so I would not condemn them harshly. But I do agree with Krook in that I would have liked the Dutch/Belgians to have done more in Srebrenica/Rwanda. Soldiers should not surrender without a shot being fired and should not let innocents be slaughtered under their noses. The UN soldiers could have at least tried to resist[1]. I'm not optimistic they could have done much at Srebrenica but in Rwanda, who knows? Unlike the Serbs, the militias proved to be a paper tiger and the stakes, in terms of lives, were vastly higher. In both cases, however, I concede, success would have required a political will that was lacking.

[1]My favorite story of a more muscular approach to UN peacekeeping came from a UK general (IIRC, Michael Rose). He recounted how he was being driven through an urban area (Sarajevo?) and a civilian woman crossing a street was shot dead by a sniper. His driver, a British soldier, said "Excuse me, Sir", stopped the car, grabbed his rifle, got out and disappeared. Moments late, he came back, proclaiming "Got the *******!".

Fragony

09-11-2006, 12:59

But I do agree with Krook in that I would have liked the Dutch/Belgians to have done more in Srebrenica/Rwanda. Soldiers should not surrender without a shot being fired and should not let innocents be slaughtered under their noses.

Like what, getting killed as well as a friendly gesture? You shouldn't think in dutch soldiers, but in UN soldiers. The UN send them there to do a job, and they didn't give them the tools to do it, basicly they abandoned us. If they had gotten the air support they needed to take out the tanks and artillery, they could have done something. Actually, we even had the material ourselves but we weren't even allowed to do anything with it.

econ21

09-11-2006, 22:57

Like what, getting killed as well as a friendly gesture? ...we weren't even allowed to do anything with it.

I know, it's easy for me to say.

On the issue of being "allowed", I agree in the case of both Srebrenica and Rwanda, the UN troops believed their rules of engagement restricted them from doing anything. The poor 10 Belgian privates guarding the Rwandan Prime Minister believed the rules required them to surrender their arms to the palace guard who then assassinated the PM before torturing and killing the Belgians! But I suspect in both situations, the soldiers did have more wriggle room than they made out. The Dutch said they would protect the safe haven; the Belgians would have been within their rights to protect their evacuation convoy going to the airport.

On the issue of being killed, yes, it's easy for me to say. But if you are soldier, surely the risk of that goes with the terrain? I'm not saying fight to the last man, but I am saying fight. Otherwise, next time, the UN should just send some civil servants, journalists or other civilian monitors.

There's also a large element of bluff and politics in all this. The Bosnian Serbs and the Rwandan Intrahamwe were ultimately rather weak forces compared to the countries backing the UN force. Serious fighting and loss of UN life might well have triggered diplomatic and other interventions that threw the massacres into reverse. Maybe getting killed would have just been a gesture, maybe it would have been pivotal. In retrospect, it was surely worth trying.

This is all 20:20 hindsight, I agree but it has implications for the future. If I were Italy or some country committing to go to Lebanon under a UN flag, I'd want to make sure my men had the right and means to shoot back if they get mortared or shot at by Hizbollah or even Israel. If they don't, I would not send them.

Sarmatian

09-14-2006, 19:06

It was a massacre, not genocide.
If anyone can come up with a genocide where the army commiting genocide organized bus transportation for women and children, than I will agree that it was a genocide. Only men, men in military age, were killed in srebrenica.

Brennus, great post. You saved me the trouble to write the same things myself.

Krook, you attack Duke's post, simply by saying he is "of serbia"? And a while ago you considered yourself to be totaly objective when you were speaking about Poland. Make up your mind...

DukeofSerbia

09-14-2006, 19:24

Brenus http://www.sk.co.yu/forum/images/smilies/custom1/tapsh.gif

Alexanderofmacedon

09-16-2006, 05:14

Common theme I see here. If the United States is 'helping' someone they are most likely protecting our own interests.

Probably not a new concept and very sad indeed. :shame:

Pontifex Rex

09-24-2006, 05:20

I know, it's easy for me to say.

On the issue of being "allowed", I agree in the case of both Srebrenica and Rwanda, the UN troops believed their rules of engagement restricted them from doing anything. The poor 10 Belgian privates guarding the Rwandan Prime Minister believed the rules required them to surrender their arms to the palace guard who then assassinated the PM before torturing and killing the Belgians! But I suspect in both situations, the soldiers did have more wriggle room than they made out.

No Econ, there was no wiggle room. The ROEs of a chapter six mission are painfully clear and the Dutch had little choice. In Rwanda the mission commander himself ( a Canadian general) was refused permission to avert disaster before the genocide began, he was denied permission from the UN, the Belgian government the French government and all those political bodies in between. Those who state the Dutch soldiers should have fought have no understanding of the UN, peacekeeping, politics or military discipline,...the choice was not his to make, it is that brutally simple. To a soldier from a democracy an order is an order and the units commanders must follow their orders to the letter or they are simply sent home at the request of the political body of the UN. For the Dutch to have fired on the Serbs would simply have allowed the Serbs to launch a full scale attack on the town,...the death toll would have been far higher and the Dutch would have been amongst the dead.

The surrender of the Dutch at least spared the lives of the women and children...a small victory, but...

KrooK

09-24-2006, 16:42

Pontifex Rex

09-24-2006, 17:04

Yes - just like in 1940. When Dutch soldiers surrendered, their women and children were safe. It was just a small victory.....
You have really brave army - I'm sure they are all reading Soldier of Surrender.

How can you possibly condemn the defence put up by the Dutch in 1940? Their 9 divisions fought for 5 days completly unsupported by tanks or aircraft and caused serious casualties to the Germans before events made further resistance futile. Even after the defeat the government, Royal family, the armed forces and many citizens left Holland and continued the fight until liberation in 1945.

Your attitude shows either a distinct lack of maturity or complete lack of understandings of the realities of international politics, the workings of the UN and so on. I suspect you still believe there is honour in war. There is no glory in death, there is only death. I can only suggest that you do some more research on what is and is not allowed on such missions beofre you cast dispersions on other nations.

Strike For The South

09-24-2006, 18:23

KrooK

09-24-2006, 20:28

No - after 5 weeks and Germans lost 25% of their tank divisions.
Maybe I'm showing lack of maturity but you are showing lack of courage :)

Brenus

09-25-2006, 20:11

you are showing lack of courage”: Did he and in doing what? I don’t understand this sentence…:inquisitive:

“The surrender of the Dutch at least spared the lives of the women and children...a small victory, but...” No, the Serbs didn’t want to kill the women and children. The surrender of the Dutch saved nothing. When you surrender (and by the way, they didn’t) they just refuse to fight for a town that its commander just evacuate as the 5000 soldiers of the 18th division (according to Halilovic) just two days before. They wanted the Dutch to do the job. Good politic, they couldn’t loose. If the Serbs and Dutch would fight, NATO will be involved on their side, if the town fall, the blame will be on the Dutch, which was exactly what did happened. That is good politic, directly inspired by the Communist tactic they were few years ago, employed in Vietnam where the politic goals always superior to military goals. Nobody questioned Sarajevo why the hell your division left Srebrenica?

Geoffrey S

09-25-2006, 23:03

Maybe I'm showing lack of maturity but you are showing lack of courage :)
Taking cheap shots at soldiers far braver than you will ever be who were put in a position in which every option lead to tragedy hardly seems like courage to me.

Sarmatian

09-26-2006, 00:43

Maybe I'm showing lack of maturity but you are showing lack of courage :)

A decorated war hero like you must know what courage is.

I think general Morillon said that around 50,000 soldiers would be needed to defend Srebrenica. Dutch soldiers (around 3000, lightly armed) were thousand kilometers away from home, involved in a conflict they didn't understand, supposedly guarding a demilitarised town (which it wasn't), seeing raiding parties leaving town every day, and were probably frightful that they would have to fight (and probably die) because muslim forces are raiding nearby villages. Hit, run back and hide behind the dutch troops. That is cowardly. And most of all, they couldn't have known what is going to happen later. Had they known, maybe they would have reacted differently. You have no right to judge them. They didn't feel like dying protecting a band of (war) criminals from another band of (war) criminals.

Subedei

09-26-2006, 11:24

No - after 5 weeks and Germans lost 25% of their tank divisions.
Maybe I'm showing lack of maturity but you are showing lack of courage :)

Ehmm :inquisitive: So what is your profession, as you know so much about bravery? Superhero? Mercenary? :scared:

KrooK

09-27-2006, 00:51

NO - actually I'm super hero, reicarnated Julius Caesar and you are spectators of my beginnings :)

LeftEyeNine

09-27-2006, 01:28

Folks, please be more polite and drag the discussion as I have always expected and seen it form you -not down, that is.

:bow:

Kraxis

09-29-2006, 03:43

Krook, you will have to shape up!

One more tasteless comment from you...

KrooK

09-29-2006, 18:07

Me?
What's wrong I said?
Who started personal argue?
Why you don't like me so much Kraxis? I don't share your opinion?
Anyway before i wrote my post I asked myself if I could sacrifice my life and...
I replied that I would. I never demand others for things I couldn't do.
Holland simply didn't send enough soldiers and those who had been send were not able to fight. They were bad armed bad commanded but what is most important - simply scared of Serbs. Check battle of Orsza or Battle of Obertyn and you understand how effective are professional soldiers, well commanded and well equipped against militias.

Stig

09-29-2006, 18:47

To know about Hollands way of sending soldiers you have to know about Holland.
If we say we will send 1,000 men we will send 1,000 men and not one men more.

They were armed as paratroopers, lightly.
They weren't bad commanded in the field. They were bad commanded from Holland as we have a normal businessman as minister of Defence.
They weren't scared of the Serbs, the Serbs captured NATO soldiers and said they would kill them if jets would drop bombs, etc

The Dutch have one of the best armies in the world. Our Airborne Regiments are famous. And feared. We now fight in Afghanistan, were American and Afghanistanian(?) troops get casualties we manage to get none and still kill enemies.

Dutch troops in Serbia didn't fail. Western command failed. They weren't able to give air support. Do you know what airbornes can do against tanks, nothing (think of Arnhem, we Dutch know what happened, we Dutch know what will happen if we try it again)
By not giving air support, Dutch troops couldn't do anything. I have read more then one book about this subject and they all give this as the reason for failure. Read these books and start with this one:
http://www.nl.bol.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/nl/-/EUR/BOL_DisplayProductInformation-Start?BOL_OWNER_ID=666839443&Section=BOOK

And if you want to insult Holland, I'd suggest Tarrak to not look at the rules for just once. I'm not patriotic and I would never protect my country, but you clearly don't know what you are talking about

Sarmatian

09-29-2006, 20:09

Dutch troops in Serbia didn't fail.

I have yet to see a dutch soldier in serbia...

Keba

09-29-2006, 21:12

Depends on which Serb you ask ... :laugh4:

Some might call Bosnia as a part of Serbia ... some have, in fact.

Sarmatian

09-30-2006, 02:57

Depends on which Serb you ask ... :laugh4:

Some might call Bosnia as a part of Serbia ... some have, in fact.

Commenting this would take us too much into politics, so I am going to pass. I was merely trying to point out his lack of knowledge on the subject. Or maybe it was just a stupid mistake (in which case I apologize),

Stig

09-30-2006, 13:22

yeah it was a stupid mistake, no need for apologise btw, as it was a stupid mistake

Kraxis

09-30-2006, 14:50

Krook you took a cheap shot at the Dutch. That is something for the Backroom.

Obviously you don't know about the Dutch and their military prowess, so the comment can only have been made out of ignorance. And since this is a place of scholarship you stepped outside that scope.

You have consistently acted in a Backroomish manner here, and I'm extremely tired of it. You could be right for all I know, I would still be tired of your behaviour.

~:angry:

DukeofSerbia

09-30-2006, 19:34

@KrooK,
You sound like Serbs killed your whole family and/or relatives! Or maybe something else is here.

Geoffrey - why Duke speaks like that. CHeck his nick - OF SERBIA.

And that means I am from Serbia. I’ll be glad to change nick into something else but I still live in Serbia.

Duke of Serbia - you are speaking like coward.

You are hear only one who don’t want to discuss. You sound like Bosnian Moslems spokesman. And you look on things black-white.

Myth, manipulation - do not lie!!!! Just tell me, why there is so many multiple graves - maybe collective suicide by shot into back of head?

Enlighten me.

Why similar graves had been found in Kosovo? Suicide's plague?

Prove it!
Graves where found in Serbia (Batajnica and in Danube near Kladovo). Remember that Finnish experts found that in Racak were killed Kosovo Albanian guerrillas (for me and most Serbs terrorists). But West said that they were civilians (manipulation) and then NATO bombarded us over 70 days.

Why Mladic has not been sent to Hague - is he so afraid? He is innocent who why he is so scared?

I am not Mladic spokesman and you sound that you know everything and even that he is scared. Serbian government will imprison him if he is Serbia and send to ICTY in Hague.

And please do not tell about genocide because this is one of the worst lies I have seen on .org.
It was classical genocide - similar both to Stalin and Hitler job. Actually talking about method much more to Stalin.

Now you are proclaimed expert for genocide.

Serb units murdered muslims because they were muslims and they were majority there. And if there were peace, Srebrenica would be muslim town. Would be....

Serbs were in majority around Srebrenica and they will be but Naser Oric and his units burned and slaughtered Serbs and villages were Serbs lived. Bosnian Serbs didn’t kill women and children in Srebrenica. Killed were soldiers who tried to break Serbian blockade in disarmed zone and in typical Moslem manner they left their women, children and relatives as they know that stupid Serbs will help them. And many of them already killed wives, children and relatives of Bosnian Serb soldiers (troops were conscripted and mostly fought locally). The same story was in World War II when Bosnian Moslems were on German side (not extreme as in 90’s).

My french friend. In Kosovo polish soldiers found some multiple graves. There are some movies from journalist who followed soldiers on patrol. During defusing landmines soldiers found bodies. I can't show movie now but there were relation into our tv. Looks like someone killed these people and planted mines as a trap.

Duke will write you story about mines in Kosovo and Metohija, even is that not a topic.
In 1999 NATO in the end of March started aerial bombarding of FR Yugoslavia (mostly Serbia, Montenegro was rare target). The first bomb was fallen in my town in nearby airport where one young lieutenant was killed (first victim). In Kosovo and Metohija Albanians had already organized paramilitary units, so called UCK in Albanian. They were trained in Kosovo but also in Albania in various camps were instructors were former officers from West and from Moslem countries. Those who were trained in Albania had help from their Moslem brothers from various Islamic countries. As NATO increased bombarding they tried to break up Serbian border with invasion from Albania. They lost and NATO wasn’t willing to send their own troops. Generals of Yugoslav army feared that NATO can launch ground invasion from Albania and/or FYRM. So, they ordered that army deploy mines through whole province as much as possible, especially in strategic important places. And what happened – because our army had limited supplies of ammunitions (factories were destroyed by NATO airplanes) we just pushed Albanian terrorists into mine traps and they didn’t know that go into mine field. It was easier than to waste limited ammunition.

Furthermore some months ago there was released movie from massacre - Serbs murdered some muslims and smiled to camera.

That was first shown in one private Serbian television last year. And those who did it where immediately imprisoned and put on trial for war crimes at Special court for war crimes in Belgrade. And they were irregular unit (some Scorpion unit)! Serbia judges its citizens who committed war crimes but I don’t see that Bosnian Moslems (Bosniaks) do the same. Croatia does the same as Serbia but in lesser and different degree.

To sum up
1)There were massacre.
2)ONZ did nothing.
3)Serbs murdered muslims.
4)Murderers have never been sent to court.

1) Now it’s not any more genocide.:idea2:
2) And they couldn’t do anything. You forgot that NATO (USA, UK, France, Spain and Germany) bombarded in August and September 1995 Bosnian Serbs in so called “Deliberated Force” operation. Bosnian Serb’s Anti Air Defense shouted down one Mirage 2000N, one F16C and several A10A was damaged.
3) Killed.
4) You start to imagine… Some not, mostly yes.

Answer me:
Did you know that Serbs were 4th largest Slavic nation in the beginning of 20th century after Russians, Ukrainians and Poles? 100 years later, Serbs are only nation in Balkan which number fell for 10% and everybody else increased (Albanians 600%, Turks 400%, Romanians 45%, Bulgarians 35%, Greeks 30% etc.)! Tell me, why is that?

DukeofSerbia

09-30-2006, 19:38

@Sarmatian,
Samo nastavi tako.

DukeofSerbia, yours was an interesting post, and I agree that the Bosnians were no sweeties in the war either, but how does your post relate to the murder of some 8,000, largely completely innocent, males in Srebrenica, which is the topic at hand?

There weren’t 8 000 killed and they weren’t largely innocent.

For the Dutch to have fired on the Serbs would simply have allowed the Serbs to launch a full scale attack on the town,...the death toll would have been far higher and the Dutch would have been amongst the dead.

If Dutch fired on the Serbs then Serbs will… This is just a speculation.

Dutch troops in Serbia didn't fail.

You mean in Bosnia?

Depends on which Serb you ask ...

Some might call Bosnia as a part of Serbia ... some have, in fact.

We both know that in future Republic of Srpska will became part of Serbia (as over 95% Bosnian Serbs want to unite with Serbia), where Croats live that will became Croatia, and Bosniaks will live in Bosniak Republic.

Stig

09-30-2006, 19:40

You mean in Bosnia?
Yeah I meant Bosnia, Sarmartian already said that, I was typing pretty quickly and couldn't be bothered to reread my post, because someone was clearly out on insulting everyone

Brenus

09-30-2006, 22:15

“Mirage 2000N”: I didn’t know the French intended to NUKE Pale! The N is for “nucleaire”.:laugh4:

Now, the use of force against Serbian Forces in Bosnia was a bad trick and based on false reasons. However, it obliged Mladic and Karadzic to put an end to the conflict. Taking advantage of the operation, the Croats and the Bosniak started their own offensive on Ozren and push back the Serbian forces. However, by chance, they stopped just right on the line of Vance-Owen plan… What a chance…:sweatdrop:
The manipulation during these wars is on of the reasons why I don’t trust any more the media… The Serbs missed to understand the importance of images, pictures and by stupidity or arrogance thought because they were right the world will recognise it. I am still laughing when I think of that. I cry as well. Nothing in the news about the war between Croats and Muslims, nothing about the war between Muslim, every thing was made simple: The Serbs were aggressors and “genocidors”… the will to make a former victim of the Nazi a Nazi himself was very well organised… Over simplification and stretched “evidences”, manipulation of pictures and deliberate lies did good job.~:angry:

“Did you know that Serbs were 4th largest Slavic nation in the beginning of 20th century after Russians, Ukrainians and Poles? 100 years later, Serbs are only nation in Balkan which number fell for 10% and everybody else increased (Albanians 600%, Turks 400%, Romanians 45%, Bulgarians 35%, Greeks 30% etc.)! Tell me, why is that?”
The fact that the Serbs lost 1,500,000 people during WW1 (especially during the retreat to Thessalonica) and were “genocided” (note: on a population of a total of around 8,000,000 Serbs in 1941, 750,000 were slaughtered (shared destiny with the Gypsies and Jews) by Nazi Croats and affiliates in camp like Jasenovac -60,000-80,000-, Stara Gradica, Granik and Gradina) by the Ustase Regime, Rumania, Bulgarian, Albanian and Muslims is NOT a reason to be themselves murderers and “genocidors”.
It is a discussion I had many times during my tour in Serbia, RSK and other Former Yugoslav Republics.

KrooK

10-01-2006, 00:49

Kraxis I'm afraid we won't understand each other :)
But I hope we will.

Serbs fought very well during ww2. Battle of Neretva was proof of bravery. But don't connect ww2 and war in former Yugoslavia. Maybe reasons of war are into ww2 (or even earlier) but let's talk about reasons not behavior.

Talking about human casualties in Serbia into last century is not a point.
I can reply that Czechs lost 75% of population during 30year war. Poles into XVII century lost 25% of population. I don't see any connection with war on Balkans.

When you are talking about Arnhem - hmm Poles were there too. Without Poles british division would be completely destroyed. But I have never heard thay any Dutch regiment was there - write more about that please.

I have nothing to Holland. But I don't think that political correction should shut my mouth. I always speak my mind. Anyway let's finish this discussion or continue it into backroom. Here I must agree with Kraxis that we are not talking about Srebrenica, only about US/NATO politics.

Sarmatian

10-01-2006, 02:00

This is, to put it mildly, a touchy subject. I think brennus summarized it well in his earlier posts. So maybe is time to close this subject. But before we do that I would like to repeat the facts:

1. Casualties - around 2000 bodies have been found. (just how many of those were killed in the 3 years of fighting prior to the massacre is unknown)

2. There were no women and children among the casualties. Just men in military age.

3. Dutch soldiers stationed in srebrenica were there just for show. They were lightly armed and too few to effectively make a difference

4. Srebrenica was not a demilitarized town.

From here everyone can make their own conclusions. I, as a serb, am deeply ashamed of what had happened in srebrenica. It is a tragic day in serbian history. Those men who were killed were not civilians, but prisoners of war. That still doesn't change the fact that they were disarmed when the killing began. So I am not opposed that those responsible should be put to trial (although I would like their trial to be in serbia. I lost all faith in the tribunale in hague). But the real story is that srebrenica (using inflated numbers and false information) was used to finally and irrevocably present one side as the "bad guys" and the other side as the "good guys", in the hollywood manner. It was supposed to "summarize" the entire conflict for mass consumption. I am not going to speak any more on this subject. If anyone wants more information, feel free to pm me...

Stig

10-01-2006, 15:55

When you are talking about Arnhem - hmm Poles were there too. Without Poles british division would be completely destroyed. But I have never heard thay any Dutch regiment was there - write more about that please.
Well saying that without the Poles the British would have been destroyed is saying something that cannot be proved. What we can however say is that the Brits were wrong by blaming the Poles for what happened. Polish soldiers should be considered one of the best in the world and certainly at Arnhem, they fought there, just having heard that they were not going to be dropped over Warschaw, to fight for the freedom of a country they never heard of.
The were Dutch at Arnhem btw, about 12 and a commander. ~D

Anyway what I meant was, that if you know what happened at (for example) Arnhem you know that it is idiocy to take on tanks with rifles.

Fragony

10-02-2006, 10:49

Stig

10-02-2006, 11:39

I was amazed to learn this recently, the polish soldiers were never mentioned for some reason.
Well no, they have been mentioned, but the Brits blamed them for losing, Sosabowski got fired, the brigade disbanded, the soldiers had nowhere to go. In Poland they would be shot, in England they would get jobs as cleaners and such.

They however were recognized as true heroes by all the other soldiers tho. Even tho Sosabowski was fired, he was always invited to the memorials. In Driel there was already a wall with the names of the fallen Poles.
Ryan wrote about them, and how well they did, in A Bridge Too Far.
Sosabowski was asked by Mackenzie (during battle Chief of Operation of the 1st Airborne) to write a special chapter in his book It Was Like This.

The problem was that Sosabowski was the best scapegoat they could find. He was aggresive, didn't like orders, and all sorts of things.
For example this quote (Hibbert C., 1962, Arnhem; pp.206):
Consequently his own attitude, at a conference with Thomas and Horrocks held earlier that day, was not immediatly co-operative. 'I'm General Sosabowski,' he had said,'I command the Polish Parachute Brigade. I do as I like.'
Thomas and Horrocks exchanged glances, and then Horrocks said,'You are under my command. You will do as I bloody well tell you.'
There was a pause.
'All right,' Sosabowski said grimly. 'I command the Polish Parachute Brigade and I do as you bloody well say.'
I would love it, but British High Command obviously thought otherwise.

but we're kinda drifting off topic

The Stranger

10-02-2006, 16:25

I was amazed to learn this recently, the polish soldiers were never mentioned for some reason.

Funny i see this now.

Fragony: Weird that they are never mentioned indeed. I knew they were there because i saw a bridge too far, after that i read some books and stuff though i couldnt find much about it, i for example now read for the first time that the polish were blamed for the defeat. I can only say that i admire those polish soldiers for fighting in a country that actually meant nothing to them and that they could muster such an strong and large fighting force without having a country.

Now back on topic

DukeOfSerbia: I'd like to ask you when Krook said murdered you said it should be killed... as you answered to his 3rd point. What is the difference between murdering and killing. They both result in death... when you are a soldier you know you might end up killing somebody... better, thats part of you training.

for the dutch members around, please take a look at this link (http://www.universelles-leben.org/nl/die_10_gebote_nl.html), and then go to the 5th commandment and read everything it says about the fifth commandment.

sharrukin

10-02-2006, 18:36

DukeOfSerbia: I'd like to ask you when Krook said murdered you said it should be killed... as you answered to his 3rd point. What is the difference between murdering and killing. They both result in death... when you are a soldier you know you might end up killing somebody... better, thats part of you training.

1. Some guy is working on his property digging out his waterline and a neigbours kid falls in and is KILLED. Is that MURDER?

2. Some teenagers out for smoke behind someone's house toss a cigarette that starts a fire, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?

3. Some drunk runs a stop sign and plows into another car, KILLING someone. Is that MURDER?

4. Some woman shoots and KILLS a man attempting to rape her. Is that MURDER?

5. A drafted soldier in Vietnam is in a foxhole and KILLS an enemy soldier coming at him. Is that MURDER?

6. A soldier at the village of My Lai guns down women and children as they try to run, KILLING them. Is that MURDER?

Yes, there is a difference between KILLING and MURDER. Everything eventually ends in death as we are all going to die anyway. The circumstances do matter!

The Stranger

10-02-2006, 18:50

Dude, relax. I was just asking him his oppinion. I also believe there is a difference. But I just wanted to know what he meant with Murder and Killing... as he changed that

5. A drafted soldier in Vietnam is in a foxhole and KILLS an enemy soldier coming at him. Is that MURDER?

6. A soldier at the village of My Lai guns down women and children as they try to run, KILLING them. Is that MURDER?

to this 2 points i want to add, that i think it is Murder, especially the last one.
Soldiers are trained to kill/murder.

Ser Clegane

10-02-2006, 18:52

Soldiers are trained to kill/murder.

They are certainly trained to do the former - if they are specifically trained to do the latter, then something is going awfully wrong.

The Stranger

10-02-2006, 19:01

well... im sorry for the confusion... but today im looking at everything from the True Christian aproach... and I read something, which i linked in my above post, which made me make that post. If you are dutch you can read it and understand or atleast know what i'm talking about.

Tomorrow however, i will be normal again and ill post another crazy story in the frontroom, oke?

sharrukin

10-02-2006, 21:55

to this 2 points i want to add, that i think it is Murder, especially the last one.
Soldiers are trained to kill/murder.

If case number 5. is murder then why isn't case number 4.? Because he wears a uniform? What if he wasn't wearing it? What if he was a civilian cameraman or driver, or a nurse?

4. Some woman shoots and KILLS a man attempting to rape her. Is that MURDER?

5. A drafted soldier in Vietnam is in a foxhole and KILLS an enemy soldier coming at him. Is that MURDER?

My point is that the legality of it matters, or you risk saying that there is no real difference between the concentration camp guards in Soviet Russia and a soldier in the front line.

DukeofSerbia

10-03-2006, 11:28

Stranger,

I don’t know well Dutch as English or German but in Serbian like in English kill and murder don’t have the same meaning.

Cambridge Advanced Learning Dictionary:

kill (death) – to cause someone or something to die.
murder – to commit the crime of intentionally killing a person

Those who tried to break Bosnian Serb’s blockade around Srebrenica were killed and some were imprisoned. And yes, some Bosnian Moslems were murdered by paramilitary unit Scorpion and members of those units are now in court in Special court for war crimes in Belgrade.

DukeofSerbia

10-03-2006, 11:29

Taking advantage of the operation, the Croats and the Bosniak started their own offensive on Ozren and push back the Serbian forces. However, by chance, they stopped just right on the line of Vance-Owen plan… What a chance…

No, in offensive on Ozren were Bosnian Moslems and mujaheddins.

Anyway, is it true that 14th July Mladic’s officers met with French colonel in Bratunac?

The manipulation during these wars is on of the reasons why I don’t trust any more the media… The Serbs missed to understand the importance of images, pictures and by stupidity or arrogance thought because they were right the world will recognise it. I am still laughing when I think of that. I cry as well. Nothing in the news about the war between Croats and Muslims, nothing about the war between Muslim, every thing was made simple: The Serbs were aggressors and “genocidors”… the will to make a former victim of the Nazi a Nazi himself was very well organised… Over simplification and stretched “evidences”, manipulation of pictures and deliberate lies did good job.

The problem was in Slobodan Milosevic. He and his family (Mira Markovic) only thought how to rule forever in Serbia. They didn’t care for Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia. He betrayed Croatian Serbs and he also tried the same in Bosnia but Bosnian Serbs wasn’t fools. Yes, he did everything to weaker Bosnian Serbs (who never liked him, I will not write how he did it) and he almost succeeded. Paradox is that he was accused by Hague Tribunal for what he didn’t do.

DukeofSerbia

10-03-2006, 11:30

Serbs fought very well during ww2. Battle of Neretva was proof of bravery.

It wasn’t bravery. It was Communist’s suicide. Communist party during whole WW2 tried to expose Serbs to German retaliate. Unfortunately, they did it well.

But don't connect ww2 and war in former Yugoslavia. Maybe reasons of war are into ww2 (or even earlier) but let's talk about reasons not behavior.

You are the only one who doesn’t see connection. Serbs this time didn’t wanted to be killed and murdered like was in WW2. Bosnian Serbs didn’t want to see history again. After WW2 Communist Party forced people to forget what happened during WW2.

Stig

10-03-2006, 12:04

About killing and murder, I would say that killing is more "legal", if we even can say that. Killing is shooting (as an example, could be stabbing too) someone who is either armed, or poses a threat. Murdering is shooting someone who can't do anything back.

The Stranger

10-03-2006, 13:40

This is one tough subject... im going to make a new thread about it... now this can get back to topic

LeftEyeNine

10-04-2006, 10:09

The manipulation during these wars is on of the reasons why I don’t trust any more the media… The Serbs missed to understand the importance of images, pictures and by stupidity or arrogance thought because they were right the world will recognise it. I am still laughing when I think of that. I cry as well. Nothing in the news about the war between Croats and Muslims, nothing about the war between Muslim, every thing was made simple: The Serbs were aggressors and “genocidors”… the will to make a former victim of the Nazi a Nazi himself was very well organised… Over simplification and stretched “evidences”, manipulation of pictures and deliberate lies did good job.

This piece of summary reminds me of my very own history. There is nothing you can do when people have already chosen what they want to believe.

Keba

10-04-2006, 10:30

Right, just to mention. Officially, Croatian soldiers were never in Bosnia waging war. Those sent were, if one judges by the records, assigned to various bases. Soldiers weren't issued unit tags and the chain of command was very, very informal. Officially, nothing happened, although it is known that both sides wanted pieces of Bosnia for themselves.

Fragony

10-04-2006, 10:43

This piece of summary reminds me of my very own history. There is nothing you can do when people have already chosen what they want to believe.

That works both ways, but things are always more complicated. We get to hear one side of the story anyway, our oh so independent media that is not biased at all never said a thing about the atrocities committed to the serbs. In the balkans war has always been about numbers, it's a long and sad history.

KrooK

10-04-2006, 21:15

According to theory that Serbs murdered prisoners of war not civilians?
Am I right?
Sorry but you don't know international law or you are lying.

Prisoner of war is someone who was in regular army or irregular but organised army/group. People who belong to opposite nation, who just live in the area of war and not fight, are civilians. If civilians are being killed, it is genocide.

I can't belive that every man in Srebrenica fought with Serbian army. You can't sxcuse Serbs talking that people of Srebrenica were "potential" soldiers.
According to that explanation every man who belong to nation we fought with is "potential soldier" and must be imprisoned. Here I would ask where - maybe into special camp?

Sorry but it is absolutely against international law and is very similar to nazism.

Brenus

10-05-2006, 07:54

“I can't believe that every man in Srebrenica fought with Serbian army”; You probably mean against Serbs.
What you actually believe is wrong. You are confused because we speak about Serbs, Croats and Muslim which give you a wrong impression. It wasn’t a war between 2 or 3 countries, but a CIVIL war. Serbia proper wasn’t DIRECTLY involved. By the way, the Croatian Army officially and openly was involved in Bosnia. I will develop later.
During the war in Bosnia all parts of the male population were at one moment under uniform and arms. The usual ratio was 3 weeks on the front, two weeks at home.
Do you know why the Serbs killed the prisoners in Srebrenica? Except from the pure revenge of atrocities committed by Naser Oric? It is because each time they exchanged prisoners via the International Red Cross, they were sure to find them again and again in front of them… It is not an excuse, it is an explanation.

LeftEyeNine

10-05-2006, 16:19

That works both ways, but things are always more complicated. We get to hear one side of the story anyway, our oh so independent media that is not biased at all never said a thing about the atrocities committed to the serbs. In the balkans war has always been about numbers, it's a long and sad history.

I still hear it..Shhhhh....~:)

Fragony

10-06-2006, 09:09

I still hear it..Shhhhh....~:)

shhhhhhhh is so 1940-45

LeftEyeNine

10-06-2006, 16:39

shhhhhhhh is so 1940-45

um, what's up with that date?

Stig

10-06-2006, 17:10

um, what's up with that date?
ever heard of WW2, yeah I know it's 39-45, but Fragony is Dutch

LeftEyeNine

10-06-2006, 23:03

Yeah I guessed it had something to do with WW2 but I wasn't able to make a connection. Anyways, the Dutch speak wise..

..as long as it's not about religion..ahem..

The Wizard

10-07-2006, 00:11

Always makes you wonder what they were smoking up in the high halls of the honorable United Nations when reviewing matters like this.

KrooK

10-07-2006, 00:18

Brenus - when they exhanged prisoners, didn't they received Serb prisoners instead? Your explanation sounds funny.

Brenus

10-07-2006, 07:27

Yes, they did. The so-called ethnic-cleansing was actively carried on by both side and they exchange not only prisoners but populations.
Working in the area of Brcko, Modrica and Derventa, in 1992, the number of Serbs refugees coming from Tuzla, Zenica, Sarajevo and Orasje (as main land marks) was around 150.000. This is around October-November, so 6 months after the start of the war.
So, FROM THE BEGUINNING, Muslim forces took Serbian prisoners. And they were exchanged.
The main problem the Serbs had to face in Bosnia, and the reason why they never succeeded to take a town after the initial success, like the opening of the corridor of Brcko, was the lack of infantry. They didn’t have enough infantry for a too long front line… So, when they realised they had to fight twice the same soldiers/men, it didn’t feel the heart of joy. But only in Srebrenica this led to a massacre because the particular history of the pocket.

DukeofSerbia

03-13-2007, 19:38

This thread is ready for update as something very important happened. But before that…

@Krook

Last month I had many contacts with Poles, and I finally found reason why you don’t like Serbs (hate would be too much strong).
In Poland ‘90s was spread propaganda about Serbs as only bad boys. And how I forget – Pope Karol Wojtyla was Pole, and he was open enemy of Serbs. That’s the main reason. But things changed, and Poland is now in our side in the case of Kosovo…
*********************

I don’t know do ORG members know, but Bosnia (actually Bosnian Moslems as Republika Srpska and Bosnian Serbs denied it) sued Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro) that my state organized and committed genocide in Bosnia, and they demanded large war reparation (unofficially 100 billions $). They sued us in International Court of Justice. After so many years, process was finally organized last year (2006) where both sides showed arguments.

Two weeks ago (26th February 2007), Court decided.

THE HAGUE, 26 February 2007. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the United Nations, today rendered its Judgment in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro).
In its Judgment, which is final, binding and without appeal, the Court
“(1) by ten votes to five,
Rejects the objections contained in the final submissions made by the Respondent to the effect that the Court has no jurisdiction; and affirms that it has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to adjudicate upon the dispute brought before it on 20 March 1993 by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina;
IN FAVOUR: President Higgins; Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Owada, Simma, Tomka, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna; Judge ad hoc Mahiou;
AGAINST: Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Skotnikov; Judge ad hoc Kreća;
(2) by thirteen votes to two,
Finds that Serbia has not committed genocide, through its organs or persons whose acts engage its responsibility under customary international law, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
IN FAVOUR: President Higgins; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Owada, Simma, Tomka, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov; Judge ad hoc Kreća;
AGAINST: Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judge ad hoc Mahiou;
(3) by thirteen votes to two,
Finds that Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission of genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
IN FAVOUR: President Higgins; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Owada, Simma, Tomka, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov; Judge ad hoc Kreća;
AGAINST: Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judge ad hoc Mahiou;
(4) by eleven votes to four,
Finds that Serbia has not been complicit in genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
IN FAVOUR: President Higgins; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Owada, Simma, Tomka, Abraham, Sepúlveda-Amor, Skotnikov; Judge ad hoc Kreća;
AGAINST: Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Keith, Bennouna; Judge ad hoc Mahiou;

To repeat:
- Finds that Serbia has not committed genocide, through its organs or persons whose acts engage its responsibility under customary international law…
- Finds that Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission of genocide…
- Finds that Serbia has not been complicit in genocide…

Bosnian Moslems and Croats are very disappointed by Court’s decisions. Over 14 years, Serbia and Serbs were accused for genocide, that Serbia made aggression in Bosnia, how Milosevic organized Srebrenica genocide and ordered and etc. Moslem and West lies fell, and who will now apology to Serbia? We don’t expect that, of course, even propaganda caused so much damage to my country. Now Moslems and Croats accuse West that they are on Serbian side! WTF! The same West which bombarded us 1999, is now… (well, watch Bosnian and Croatian state televisions). After all is end, when Court decision is final, Bosnian Moslem and Croatian politicians and their media said ‘that we all know that Serbia committed and organized genocide’. Sad…
But what Bosnian Moslems expected – that Court will accept so many lies in sue? :thumbsdown: Just to mention how they exaggerated numbers of killed people – in Prijedor they claimed how 20 000 Moslems was killed (genocide)! Court, of course rejected that as International organizations found ~1 000 killed. How far they went in propaganda clearly show that they claimed that Serbia committed genocide in their territory over Albanians, and even Hungarians. :dizzy2:

Is Serbia guilty for something? Yes:

The Court finds that Serbia has violated its obligation under the Genocide Convention to prevent genocide in Srebrenica and that it has also violated its obligations under the Convention by having failed fully to co-operate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

Everybody agrees this is political decision to pressure Serbia to finally imprison and send Ratko Mladic to ICTY.

There won’t be any financial compensation by Serbia (and Montenegro) to Bosnia and Herzegovina (I bolded).

 The question of reparation
Having made its findings, the Court turns to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s request for reparation. With respect to the violation of the obligation to prevent genocide, the Court finds that, since it has not been shown that the genocide at Srebrenica would in fact have been averted if the Respondent had attempted to prevent it, financial compensation for the failure to prevent the genocide at Srebrenica is not the appropriate form of reparation. The Court considers that the most appropriate form of satisfaction would be a declaration in the operative clause of the Judgment that the Respondent has failed to comply with the obligation to prevent the crime of genocide.

And Court decided that in Srebrenica was committed genocide, but neither by Serbia nor Republika Srpska. Those who committed where out of control (I bolded):

In the view of the Court, the Applicant has not proved that instructions were issued by the federal authorities in Belgrade, or by any other organ of the FRY, to commit the massacres, still less that any such instructions were given with the specific intent (dolus specialis) characterizing the crime of genocide. All indications are to the contrary: that the decision to kill the adult male population of the Muslim community in Srebrenica was taken by some members of the VRS Main Staff, but without instructions from or effective control by the FRY.

Some members of VRS (Army of Republic of Srpska).

More (whole decision) you can find in ICJ web page: http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icjhome.htm

KrooK

03-13-2007, 22:11

Duke of Serbia - Serbian units commited that crime and we both know that.
Where is Radko Mladic? Actually I believe Mazowiecki. He is not a man that lies.

Srebrenica was a bit similar to Jedwabne - there were no organised Polish/Serbian army, but Poles/Serbs did that. They should be accused of war crimes and It's very sad for me that they aren't.

I don't think John Paul II was open enemy of anyone. He simply was not afraid of telling the truth. Don't tell that MIlosevic or Mladic were happy and honorable persons.

If you are talking about Kosovo, I never thought that it is not part of Serbia.
And situation into todays Kosovo is not ok for me too. It should be autonomical part of Serbia.

BUT
My apologises for mine mistakes. You deserved that.

Sarmatian

03-14-2007, 02:58

Duke of Serbia - Serbian units commited that crime and we both know that.

Exactly. And they are guilty of that. Not Serbia as a country or Serbs as a nation...

DukeofSerbia

03-14-2007, 19:45

@Krook

Duke of Serbia - Serbian units commited that crime and we both know that.

Again:
All indications are to the contrary: that the decision to kill the adult male population of the Muslim community in Srebrenica was taken by some members of the VRS Main Staff, but without instructions from or effective control by the FRY.

VRS is Army of Republic of Srpska. Remember – some members! Serbia has nothing with it. Neither had political leaders of Bosnian Serbs. Read whole decision of Court in their web site. Court found that whole operation was planned very quickly by some members of VRS, just 3-4 days before it happened.

Where is Radko Mladic?

How I know that? :dizzy2:

Actually I believe Mazowiecki. He is not a man that lies.

Who is Mazowiecki? :no:

Srebrenica was a bit similar to Jedwabne - there were no organised Polish/Serbian army, but Poles/Serbs did that.

I don’t know what Jedwabne is :no:, but Army of Republic of Srpska (Bosnian Serbs) was around Srebrenica.

I don't think John Paul II was open enemy of anyone. He simply was not afraid of telling the truth.

Vatican and he was our enemy (like the most in the history of Vatican-Serbian relations). Later, before he died he wanted to come in Serbia to apologies for everything what Roman Catholic Church did in former Yugoslavia in WWII, and for his acting in ‘90s. Some politicians in Serbia wished that he came, but our Church refused that, and until our Church doesn’t bless arrival of any Pope, Pope will never come here. Serbia and Russia are probably the only European states in which Pope never was in history.
I will just mention that Karol Wojtyla beatified Cardinal Aloiz Stepinac in autumn 1998. It is completely unacceptable. :thumbsdown:

That doesn’t mean we have negative relations with Vatican.

Don't tell that MIlosevic or Mladic were happy and honorable persons.

What I personally think about Mladic, I won’t tell you.
But about Milosevic I think everything worst, but he was accused for something he didn’t do. And ICJ proved that he wasn’t guilty (neither Serbia). He mostly damaged to Serbia and our citizens. He was typical communist who pretended as nationalist when elections came. He was nothing more than typical communist and nothing more. :thumbsdown:

If you are talking about Kosovo, I never thought that it is not part of Serbia.
And situation into todays Kosovo is not ok for me too. It should be autonomical part of Serbia.

Nice to hear that especially from you. :2thumbsup:

BUT
My apologises for mine mistakes. You deserved that.

Apologies accepted. You just believed in black-white story of media. :2thumbsup: