Any deeper info on that?
Does it count for a massacre, genocide or what?
Printable View
Any deeper info on that?
Does it count for a massacre, genocide or what?
If I mention it well, it was 11.07.1995 during civil war in Bosnia.
Serbs entered city Srebrenica -neutral zone controlled by ONZ.
ONZ units did nothing and let Serbs take men and boys. Soon they were all murdered by troops lead by Ratko Mladic.
It was classical genocide, planned and executed by Serbs. Sadly Dutch soldiers (part of ONZ units) didn't protect civilians.
Some background ino seen sometime ago on TV (maybe not the truth)
There was an embargo for weapons, controlled by the NATO. When the US was on duty, they secretly shipped weapons to the army of Bosnia, to strengthen their position. When the Bosnians had enough, they started an offensive operation to drive back the Serbs. However, they were still too weak and the Serbs drove them back. During this operation they took Srebrenica. A sad chapter for the NATO.
However, once more, this info may not be true!
A classic case of poorly motivated and badly supported troops being told to hold an undefendable location. The dutchbat troops didn't get along well with the locals, were undermanned, and were not given the support (particularly air support) to deter serbian forces from approaching; there was no way anyone could realistically expect them to (even want to) protect the civilians.
I think, if the NATO soldiers would have intervened Mladic would have given a 2nd thought on slaughtering all these people. I know there are a lot of restrictions when it comes to UN mandats, but why the heck would the soldiers be there, but to protect civilians? It was a shame....
Dutchbat was abondoned by the UN. Also the fact that they were used by the bosnians as shields to hide behind didn't create much sympathy....
There was a Dutch battalion in the town itself, but they were not allowed to intervene as they were operating under a UN Chapter Six mandate, which is peacekeeping, not peace enforcement mandate. They are not allowed to take any action unless invited to do so by both sides. I also believe that they are only allowed to carry three magazines that contain 3 bullets each (at least that's what they were allowed to carry back in the early 90's in Lebanon).
You can't stop tanks and artillery when the heaviest weapons you have are .50's. With all the civilians that were hidding in the dutch commander did the right thing. The serbian artillery would have caused a massacre, not only the men would have died but also women and children...
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.
the region itself was supposed to have 27,000 Muslims...harldy any stayed after the massacre of 8,000 men, women, and children.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Munqidh
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Romanus
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.
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.
You might want to read some relevant UN reports. Here's the link.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Romanus
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.
@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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
First of all, I'm only trying to collect opinions and information:Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia
What basis do you depend on claiming it a massacre ?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gen. Lewis MacKenzie
Wiki is more than fools writing some 1337 article they can brag of. Serious scholars write articles there too.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
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).
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.Quote:
If Serbs attacked UN batalion, air support would be sent there.
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?
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.Quote:
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.
It's horrible, but I fear you may be quite right there.Quote:
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?