Oh dear...Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Printable View
Oh dear...Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
http://wintersonnenwende.com/scripto...ok/desg26.html
There are enough mainline alternative sources to make the point, in any case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conradus
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 *******!".
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I know, it's easy for me to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.
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...
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
The surrender of the Dutch at least spared the lives of the women and children...a small victory, but...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
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.
IIRC Poland was the first country to fall, wasnt it? After like 2 weeks right?Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
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 :)
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
A decorated war hero like you must know what courage is.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
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.
Ehmm :inquisitive: So what is your profession, as you know so much about bravery? Superhero? Mercenary? :scared:Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
NO - actually I'm super hero, reicarnated Julius Caesar and you are spectators of my beginnings :)
Folks, please be more polite and drag the discussion as I have always expected and seen it form you -not down, that is.
:bow:
Krook, you will have to shape up!
One more tasteless comment from you...
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.
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/INTERSH...3&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
I have yet to see a dutch soldier in serbia...Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig
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),Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
yeah it was a stupid mistake, no need for apologise btw, as it was a stupid mistake
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: