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?
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
If the UN didn't deny us air support we could have fought, but the UN is the UN. You try taking on tanks with only light weapons, basicly, UN screwed us over. Too bad about the civilians, but I am glad our boys made it back home.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
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.
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.
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.
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?):Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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....
Ahh and I would forgot.
Croats are not afraid of sending their generals to Hague.
Serbs are - something to hide?
Just because something is reported in the media does not mean that it actually happened!
Fallujah;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...&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...ohen051699.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!
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).
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.
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.
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.
*Inserts quote into generic debate on generic war*Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
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.
Well mia muca, that is nice to hear if we ever need bulletmeat, we will go polish. The UN should have given the support that was needed, let's leave charging tanks with cavalry in the old days. There is really nothing that we could do, we had the planes to attack the serb tanks but the UN wouldn't allow it. The UN screwed these people over, and because of their screaming incompetence we could have lost people as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
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…
Perhaps this should be moved to the backroom, since most of the discussion has been more politically charged than objectively historical.
Ajax
Very excellent piece of enlightening information, Brenus. Thank you for sharing. :bow:
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.
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.
Generals
Not only Serbs died into Hague - butcher of Vukovar commit suicide. Actually here I'm not crying on his grave.
Let's finish this topic because it changed into empty words.
To sum up
1)There were massacre.
2)ONZ did nothing.
3)Serbs murdered muslims.
4)Murderers have never been sent to court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
"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."
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.
I sentiment I must echo. Interesting post, Brenus.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
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.
Even Pravda now admits what happened! As to sources they are so numerous that if you wanted to find them you would have!Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsi...r_World_War_II
http://www.meaus.com/Expulsion_of_Germans.html
http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/20...ocide-and.html
http://experts.about.com/e/e/ex/Expu...rld_War_II.htm
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP7.HTM
http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1999/029918.shtml
http://wintersonnenwende.com/scripto...ok/desg26.html
http://www.read-all-about-it.org/gru.../chapter2.html
http://www.globalguide.org/index.htm...r_World_War_II
The Germans didn't construct the buildings in the warsaw ghetto either but they are morally responsible for what they did there!Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
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