After German reunification in 1990, the country has somewhere recovered its independance. During the Cold War, the country was divided between a NATO/US guardianship in the West and a USSR occupation in the East. One of the first decision made by "independant" Germany has been to recognize the Independance of Croatia. As a result, it has rushed Yougoslavia into the Civil War we've all heard about. More than 10 years later, can we consider that decision had been really wise ?

Today, Slovenia lives well and will join the EU in few months. Croatia is now a stable country that can decently plan to become a member of the EU in the next decade. However, nothing is really solved. Bosnia-Herzegovina is still strongly divided between serbs, muslims and croats. People don't kill each other anymore thanx to the NATO forces keeping Peace over there. The situation isn't better in the South. The same NATO forces are still protecting the serb minority to not be murdered by albanians. In Macedonia, the situation isn't really better with almost half of the population being albanian. There are even troubles in Vojvodina (Northern Serbia) between the Hungarian minority and the serb population. That is what I call a quagmire !!

The situation can't stay as it is. Nothing is solved and there are few chances to see the things getting stabilized in next years. Of course, I'm not saying Germany is responsible of the mess the Balkans are experiencing right now. However, I'm not sure the Western powers in general had really acted smartly during last decade. What's your point of view about it ? What should be done ?

I don't think German recognisation of Croatian independence caused the war. The war was always going to come and unfortunately the result of any such war would have caused the situation we are currently in. Basically Yugoslavia was a country that never should have existed and was always doomed to destruction.

Originally posted by MrPresident
I don't think German recognisation of Croatian independence caused the war. The war was always going to come and unfortunately the result of any such war would have caused the situation we are currently in. Basically Yugoslavia was a country that never should have existed and was always doomed to destruction. I'm not that sure it's that simple. I still think it has stopped negociations and rushed the war. However, my point wasn't only about Germany but mostly about Western powers in general and how they manage their policy towards the region. I'll explain myself later since I'm really late !

I agree with Marla, but in a broader sense. The German recognition of Croatia was a part of a larger problem that plagued the Yugoslav crisis of the early and mid-1990s chronically; namely, that the West, both the EU (internally and extrernally) and the U.S. utterly failed to coordinate their policies and responses to the unfolding crisis. While much that happened in the Yugoslav "implosion" crisis is still shocking to hear now, in fact many scholars and people familiar with the region were saying this was going to happen. Even I managed to go on the record a few times with predictions that came all too sadly true, not because I was a genius but because the signs were all there and there were many of us shouting and pointing to them. Sadly though, the West as a whole refused to listen and constantly treated the crisis as a political issue that could be dealt with after being strained through the prism of local, domestic political issues.

In short, most of the West had their heads firmly embedded up their butts. The Yugoslav crisis (crises actually) was the first critical test of the West's vision for Europe and the world in a post-Cold War world, and it failed miserably, both Europe and the U.S. The political chaos, inertia and factional infighting that characterized the West's capitals throughout the crisis looks very much like the pain the West just went through with the Iraqi crisis in 2003. The unilateral German move to recognize Croatia stunned everyone. I was living in Hungary (along the Croatian border) at the time, and even in very pro-Croatian Hungary there was a sense that this was not a very well-thought out move. Nonetheless, it started the avalanche and within days Hungary and Italy joined the Germans, giving the Serbs and their supporters in the West some political ammunition as it looked like the old World War II Axis states had re-united to dismember Yugoslavia, something they did together in 1941.

Croatian independence was inevitable by 1991 but the West could have had a much greater presence and control of that process, but that would have required a unity the West just wasn't interested in at that time - and I firmly believe that a lot of the bloodshed of the Yugoslav breakup wars could have been avoided with firm Western action. This is not to excuse the real culprits and murderers on the ground in the former Yugoslavia (or their puppetiers, Milosevic, Tudjman and Izetbegovic) but there are a lot of innocent civilians dead throughout the former Yugoslavia and it could have been stopped.

I admit that my knowledge of the modern Balkans is shamefully low, but it seems to me that the hatreds in that region are rooted so deep and for so long that there really wasn't anything reasonable the West could have done to stop the wars there. Delayed them, perhaps. But not stopped.

How exactly would not recognising Croatia's independence have made things any better? The wheels were already turning since the death of Tito. In my opinion the West should have united against Milosevic's goverment from the moment the ethnic cleansing started (while keeping the Croats in check as well). Taking such a policy throughout the rest of the Balkans would have been the next step.

Originally posted by Loaf Warden
I admit that my knowledge of the modern Balkans is shamefully low, but it seems to me that the hatreds in that region are rooted so deep and for so long that there really wasn't anything reasonable the West could have done to stop the wars there. Delayed them, perhaps. But not stopped.

I strongly disagree. The first phase of the "deep rooted ethnic hatreds" you talk of started only in the 1800's once Serbia declared independence and left Bosniaks feeling isolated from the Ottoman Empire. The 2nd phase was during the 1900's when various groups fought each other during the World Wars, and Bosnian Muslims started getting screwed over. The derogatory names for Serbs and Croats are only 60 years old.

aaminion00 is right; prior to 1918 there was rarely an opportunity, much less a reason, for an independent Serbia or Croatia to exist and have disputes. The last time prior to 1918 both existed simultaneously as states was the 14th century.

In fact, if you were an ethnographer in the 19th century and traveled through the lands of the future Yugoslavia, you would find a huge amount of what we would call "ethnic-blending" going on, or more precisely put the solid lines that today define Serbs and Croats didn't exist yet. If you were in Belgrade or Zagreb the difference was apparent, but there were many regions where the two groups met and mixed freely - Bosnia-Herzegovina, Krajina, Knin, Slavonia - and it became nearly impossible to tell both peoples apart. There are three main dialects of Serbo-Croatian (and most linguists still recognize a single language, though nationalists in Belgrade and Zagreb have been trying for ten years now to claim Serbs and Croats can't understand one another - a load of bullsh*t); "Caj", "Kaj" and "Sta" - all based on what word each dialect uses for the word "What". These three dialects, until the wars that effectively ethnically cleansed many historic Serb, Croat and Bosnian areas, did not conform to Serb or Croat ethnic boundaries - so that in any given region, whatever the local dialect was, both local Serbs and Croats used that dialect. Often in any given region they both used the same alphabet when writing as well. Both Serbian Orthodox and Croat Catholic priests in this era tried to enforce their own church's interests among their defined flocks, but there are reports of locals going to whatever local church was available as a matter of convenience. Only in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as ethnic identity became increasingly important in the region, did these distinctions become identity markers for both and begin to "matter".

Bottom line: There was almost no fighting between Serbs and Croats historically before 1918. The ferocity of their struggles in the 20th century leads many Westerners to conclude that this must be a "centuries old feud", but they're wrong. And more importantly, in being wrong they are also mistaken about the ability of anyone - i.e., the West - to do anything about it now.

I can second that: one of the unusual things about the fighting between Serbs and Croats is that prior to 1918 there was no fighting between them of any significance...

EDIT added:
And I also agree that much earlier, firmer action by the West would have avoided the carnage that happened after 1991/92. Sending in peacekeepers (with a more robust mandate) at the first sign of trouble could have been an option.

What has to be done right now? Wow. Where to start...let's start with creating a civic society, for sure in Bosnia and to a certain extent also in Serbia. This means a crackdown on corruption, maffia-rule, an independent and effective judicial system, an independent parliament, create a sort of "Truth Commission" like has happened in South Africa with good effects. Transparant media and close monitoring by the West, esp the EU, with if need be enforcement, so that the process of building that civic society (crucial for any modern democracy) goes ahead. Good thing is that most of these things are happening, slowly but still.

I agree with Vrylakas. You really seem to know well the region ! :)

I also agree with Pkmink. The "mafias" and the "warlords" over the region share a large responsibility in the current and a strong judiciary system would help a lot to calm everyone... but governments in the region are too weak and not considered as enough legitimate for that. However, can we really consider today's situation as a good balance to start with ? In some way serbs are living today the same kind of things than Hungary at the time of the Treaty of Trianon. Today's borders are a mess and some people are still pressuring to make them evolve. I think mainly of some Albanians who are still dreaming in some way of a greater Albania including Kosovo and the western part of Macedonia. However, moving populations to create homogenous states is almost impossible once you look how mixed are populations in Bosnia, Kosovo or Macedonia. The best solution should be definitly to see people living together but after more than 10 years of war, ressentments became really strong in the region and that can't help. Serbs feel today as the scapegoats of the West. If we don't "make peace" with the serbs, we won't be able to get anywhere. The main difficulty being to make peace with the serbs without alienating the other people.

Was it smart for Germany to recognize so fast the Independence of Croatio?
Apsolutly not smart. By my opinion. Specialy not by Germany first who was guilty indirectly for genocid that Croats comited on Serbs during WWII, which make Serbs (specialy that one who lived in Croatia and Bosnia) very angry and scared. It was like a small but controled flamy and than sudenlly some stupid spill gasoline and made it a huge unstopable fire who spred fast.

Important note. Not to conclude that Germany or West generaly are the main guilt for what happened in former Yugoslavia, but they have good role in that horror movie (as a negative charachter).

There were so many good solution (at that time) for West to do and make better and easier for them and for people in former Yugoslavia but to do such thing what Germany did it was the worst thing to do. Unfortunetly that was just the first mystake in a line of many more to come (like they were try to win the race in stupidity with nacionalist in former Yu.) I must state Vrylakas word also that there is no excuse for so call nacional leaders (truely evil) who force the people (using theres patriotic feelings and fear of other natonalty or religion) in murdering and histeria all over the country.

In this moment there is not much to do from west, they now do some thing that they shoud did long ago (like forcing Montenegro not to leave Serbia with excuse that both will become part of EU).

As for the language. It is a ONE language with several dialects. It's funny for me when someone said that speak Montenegrian or Bosnacian language. For example Croat from Slavonia and Serb from Belgrade understand each other much better and speak very simular dialect than the same Croat with his countryman from south- Dalmatia or same Serb with his countreyman from South Morava region.

As for the future of this region I hope it will be more peacfull than it was or it is now but I'm not that optimistic partly becouse of unpreadictical behavoure of west (for example, they try so much to punish Serbs becouse of etnic cleansning in some parts of former Yu /apsolutly justifie/, but on the other hand they are very generous and in some cases rewardness for some other nations like Croats who expel almost half million Serbs from there teritory without consecvence, oposite. If they continue with that kind of politic (never mind what happened but who I like more or don't like- like Germany in the first sentence of this thread) the future is not good for people here no matter what nation.

But citizens of Europe don't be afraid, it will not afect your lifes at all, you will continue to wach TV to find out what happens there like untill now.

Though one other member of this site put a little hope in me that not everyone have a picture in black and white whats happened here. Thats TATHLUM :) .Hi Tathy!
And also I'm surpriced that there is a people like Marla that also think about that (and think seriously and with concern).

Sorry for spelling.
D.J.

Originally posted by MrPresident
I don't think German recognisation of Croatian independence caused the war.

I agree partially with MrPresident, as I also don't think that Germany's speedy recognition caused the war or even had a small influence in the war. I believe that people felt oppressed and deeply desired independence.

I am not sure about the validity of this parallel, but no country recognized Chechenya an yet a bloody war erupted there as well. The same with the Curds, although that was a terror campaign, I belive.

It is hard to believe that they would give up of fighting for there independence just because no country recognized it.

I don't understand this human urge to subdivide itself to infinity, it seems that anything can be used to make ourselves different from one another, to the point that we divide ourselves based on religion, nationality, language, race, ethnic group, and the list goes on an on.
Nevermind that we all belong to the same species, and share 99% of DNA. It is just silly, to say the least.

I'll have to rethink my answer now actually. I'll come back when I have a bit of a better idea on what exactly I think about the situation. I agree with most of what Alone said. One of the big reasons Croatia has managed to get ahead is because it no longer has a significant minority due to what Alone mentioned.

As for the language, it is just one language, but the problem is nobody has a good name for it.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
However, can we really consider today's situation as a good balance to start with ? In some way serbs are living today the same kind of things than Hungary at the time of the Treaty of Trianon. Today's borders are a mess and some people are still pressuring to make them evolve.

I really hope you're not reffering to the so called Republic of Serbia.

Originally posted by marshal zhukov
Nevermind that we all belong to the same species, and share 99% of DNA. It is just silly, to say the least.Nationalist feelings have no link with DNA. It's scientifically proven we can't divide people according to their genes. Actually, we share 99% of our genes with chimps. ;)

Well anyway, I understand what was your feeling about it. What to do next is another issue... especially when serbs are electing Milosevic to their parliament to put a big finger in the arse of the Western powers.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Well anyway, I understand what was your feeling about it. What to do next is another issue... especially when serbs are electing Milosevic to their parliament to put a big finger in the arse of the Western world.

Alone would be able to explain this a lot better than me, I'm sure. But from what I understand, although radicals hold the major offices, the combined other parties would be able to stop them from doing anything truly stupid in the legislative branches and such.



I'd also like to say that the major borders of the countries are just fine as they are. The only thing that needs to be done is eventually get rid of the inner boundaries imposed by a decade of ethnic warfare.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Nationalist feelings have no link with DNA. It's scientifically proven we can't divide people according to their genes. Actually, we share 99% of our genes with chimps.



Exactly, people all over the world should recognize that we are equal almost 100%, and stop trying to subdivide ourselves into groups. I believe that one day we will all live under one flag, that is why I don't agree with any separatist movement. Nationalistic feellings have nothing to do with DNA, just like religion, race and ethnic groups, that is why it doesn't make sense to divide ourselves based on that.

I believe that in the long run, Croatians, Serbians and so on would be better of if they had managed to stay as a union under the Yugoslavian flag, I base that statement on better logistics and reduced bureaucracy, that a bigger country has. Just like some of those Baltic states, less than a decade of independence and they are off to become part of another union. They are simply too small to be truly independent. Too many small states generates wastage of resources and that is unacceptable.

Originally posted by marshal zhukov
Exactly, people all over the world should recognize that we are equal almost 100%, and stop trying to subdivide ourselves into groups. I believe that one day we will all live under one flag, that is why I don't agree with any separatist movement. Nationalistic feellings have nothing to do with DNA, just like religion, race and ethnic groups, that is why it doesn't make sense to divide ourselves based on that.I totally agree with you.

Message Edited : I removed the second paragraph since I still have to think about it (I agree it's better for people to live in a larger country but I'm not sure it was still possible for people to live together in Yougoslavia).

Disagree. Only two things I miss about Yugoslavia are the soccer and the music.

Originally posted by Loaf Warden
but it seems to me that the hatreds in that region are rooted so deep and for so long that there really wasn't anything reasonable the West could have done to stop the wars there.

That's mainly a wrong perception, but well-spread in Western Europe and US I feel ... :(

In 1980's Sarajevo was described "as a model of inter-ethnical peacefull city". Until the mid 1980 the economy of Yugoslavia was the most opened to West and in many aspects the most prosper in Eastern Europe ...
I'm from the Romanian border with Serbia ( a place where the people usually had very strong pro-Serbs feelings ;) - and look at this events with great emotion ) and during the all Ceausescu regime the people from this hoped that Romania will follow the "Yugoslavian way to socialism" - which was from far ( IMHO ) the best one in Eastern Europe.

And yes - I belive ( as a personal opinion of course ) the Germany and its puppets are directely responsable for encouraging a conflict which run out of control ... and present only the Serbs as guilty for this. :mad:
This was part of a "peacefull" attempt to create a "german-sphera" in Eastern Europe. But in this part failed miserable ...

Regards,

P.S. : I had more comments, but probably would not be "correct" to tell them ... :rolleyes:

Agree with aaminion00, the borders should stay like they are now but it will be very hard to explane that to some regional factor like Albanians at Kosovo (couse west have to explane that to thereselfs first -what I mean they are more to take a side that in that case ONLY will be exuse - which point my previous post and lead in what hapened at last election in Serbia).

About election, I will try to explane my wiew on that issue if you are interested to hear from someone who didn't even vote at all (last time I voted in october 2000 when we finaly succeed to beat that bloody spoon Milosevic -finaly becouse one of the reason were support that west continue to give that man even if he didn't have support of majority of serbian citizens. Yes, true. In the election in1996 when he also lost election and steel votes and were huge demonstration all over state I remmember well how Italian and some other ambassadors from west come to "president" to give him support. Why? Beat me? But after 4 years from that same people drop the bombs on my head with excuse that "president" should be punish?)

Anyway - first to say Milosevic will not be in parlament. For two reason. One is obvious;) and also Socialist didn't put him on the final list. Together with Serbs Radicals they have 1/3 of the voice and rest was for Reforms parties (but due to election system wich still it's not changed from Milosevic's time not all aremanaged to come to parlament even they have more than 4% of total votes and most of that place in parlament go to Radicals who have most vote as individuall party).

Peple who voted for Radicals were usualy simply peasents MOSTLY refugies from Croatia, Kosovo...Who see nothing but misery in there lifes(they lost homes and maybe some relatives) and yet not able to see that those people (Radical) were in good part guilty for that, they just see unjustic that some other do to them and voted to one who in there statments blame the west for all (and have a good point in Western politician behavour as I mentioned early).

Reforms, democratic parties will form the goverment, no doubt about it, but maybe will be not all parties envolved in it(I don't know English name for that) due to some economic big diferences and personal unlikeness due 'couse they want to form position and oposition from democratic parties only and to exclude Radicals and Socialist or make them change. It will be like that in the future (if something wrong not hapened at Kosovo).

I want to state Ioan that it was not that bad situation in late 80s or early 90s, problematic but still possible to control untill the recognize uniteral to some republic.

And also for the record Chechenia or Curd issue and situation in former Yugoslavia have nothing incomon, so Zhukov (leader of army who helped to free Belgrade inWWII ;) ) you have no idea what you speak off.

@aaminion - well name still stay open for language. Mozda je najbolje da se zove srpskohrvatski makar za spoljnu upotrebu. Mada ja volim da ga zovem "nas jezik" al' plasim se ako ostavimo da se politicari dogovore bicemo svi Crnogorci;) :D

Originally posted by Alone
I want to state Ioan that it was not that bad situation in late 80s or early 90s, problematic but still possible to control untill the recognize uniteral to some republic.


Hmmm ... probably.
Anyway - it was worse that in previous decade - isn't it ? :(

Is true or not that for the workers from Yugoslavia became increasing difficult to find ( temporary ) jobs in Western Europe during mid '80 ? AFAIK this was a major source of money - especially for usual citizen ... I see long time before a statistics which said that the number of Yugoslavian working in Germany dropped around 20-25% those years ... :rolleyes:

Please confirm/reject my assumption ... you're anyway more informed than me.

Regards

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan


Hmmm ... probably.
Anyway - it was worse that in previous decade - isn't it ? :(

Is true or not that for the workers from Yugoslavia became increasing difficult to find ( temporary ) jobs in Western Europe during mid '80 ? AFAIK this was a major source of money - especially for usual citizen ... I see long time before a statistics which said that the number of Yugoslavian working in Germany dropped around 20-25% those years ... :rolleyes:

Please confirm/reject my assumption ... you're anyway more informed than me.

Regards

As for situation it become worster than it was but still not owfl that will be with things mention in title of this thread.

Second answer should be No and Yes. It was harder to find a job for newcomers in west europe from former Yu, (I was to young at that time to work as that , so it's not for sure), but dropping the number of citizens who already have working licence there, speak only that more of them (no matter of nation) become citizens of that states which mean they are no longer foreighn worker but domestic.

I think.

Regards to you my friend:)

PS I like your sentence from your PS in your post above.

One "person" here on site call me mentaly retard idiot when I said my opinion on Kosovo issue month ago in OT thread which means that you are right about it (in PS) that is highly risk to have a comment that are not usual or "correct".. :(

I personally believe the war is behind us. After WW2, people talked immediately about how to organize the new European peace. In early 1947 (two years after Berlin being taken by the russians), the Marshall plan was already in action to help western european countries to recover... and that including Germany (Well BRD). In 1951, 7 years after the liberation of France from the Nazis, Germany and France were already signing the Treaty of Paris that have lead afterwards to the European Union.

The reason why it's been so fast is because people wanted to work together. If they wanted to work together, it's because they got hope in the future. The future will be better for the Balkans. The only thing Serbs or Albanians need is H.O.P.E. France, the UK and Germany should normalize even more their relations with Serbia than they are now and I think we should already plan today when Serbia will join the EU. Maybe I'm wrong, but the EU is to me the best hope for the people of the region.

I know people don't want to talk about Serbia or Albania in the EU before the situation will get stabilized... However, talking concretely about it will help things to get stabilized. We accept better the injustice of the past once we're sure we'll have a better future. :)

PS : How should we call Serbia today ? Is it Yugoslavia or Serbia-and-Montenegro ?

Originally posted by Marla_Singer

PS : How should we call Serbia today ? Is it Yugoslavia or Serbia-and-Montenegro ? [/B]

Only Serbia, Montenegro is a different country.:D

SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO is official name now. But also simply Serbia suit just fine for me.

I also hope that thing will go better and better in this region enclude not only former Yugoslavia country but whole Balkan :)
but as I said I'm not that optimistic for final result, but thats just me maybe.

PS Outside is heavy Snow storm in Belgrade. I like when it snowy and all white. Let's that be a good sign for the future!

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
I know people don't want to talk about Serbia or Albania in the EU before the situation will get stabilized... However, talking concretely about it will help things to get stabilized.

Stabilization ??? :eek:

In Europe there are some "black holes" of drug smmuglers, slaves and weapons and so on - and Kossovo is one of that !! :mad:

Sorry - but I really don't belive that the <beep> <BEEEP> leaders of EU and other countries involved are capable to deal with such kind of problems ... maybe a "metapsihical ( and useless ) international seminar about protecting wild curcubicodates" better fit to their "abilities". :D :D

Regards,

P.S. : Alone - seems that the sympathy is in both sides. ;)

@Ioan - you're always welcome friend:goodjob:

@Srdjan - još mi dodješ ono piæe;)

Originally posted by Alone

@Srdjan - još mi dodješ ono piæe;)

True. What about next week? I'm quite busy now. :cool:

Ioan:

Cool down, man. It could be worse.:D

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan
Sorry - but I really don't belive that the <beep> <BEEEP> leaders of EU and other countries involved are capable to deal with such kind of problems ... maybe a "metapsihical ( and useless ) international seminar about protecting wild curcubicodates" better fit to their "abilities". :D :DMîtiu Ioan, my concerns are only about finding a way to make things better. You don't have to start with name callings. After all, I have no relations with the region and I could really don't care about it.

Best regards. :)

PS : Just to warn you Alone. It's forbidden to use another language than english in this forum. It's not a problem to me, I just warn you so cause I've alredy got trouble with moderation because we talked to me in french. :)

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan

Stabilization ??? :eek:

In Europe there are some "black holes" of drug smmuglers, slaves and weapons and so on - and Kossovo is one of that !! :mad:

Sorry - but I really don't belive that the <beep> <BEEEP> leaders of EU and other countries involved are capable to deal with such kind of problems ... maybe a "metapsihical ( and useless ) international seminar about protecting wild curcubicodates" better fit to their "abilities". :D :D

While it's true that the foreign policy of the EU has generally sucked throughout it's existence, the EU itself is a great succes in promoting peace and democracy within it's borders. Spain, Greece and Portugal were all dictatorships with troubled pasts before joining the EU and look how far they have come?
The same is possible for the former Yugoslav countries.

The answer to the thread's question itself depends alot on the angle from which you look at it. The main question behind that is the one about the actual motive of it.
Germany's post-unification foreign policy in the Balkans has been very "strange", to say the least. While Germany only slowly moved towards taking a lead in almost any kind of international issues and rather stayed within the old customs of the original Federal Republic (negotiating with partners like the US, France and the UK, not pushing it) its foreign policy in the Balkans could maybe even be described as aggressive, still at least as determined.
And it can be described as anti-Serbian, though the government probably wouldn't like to hear that.
The recognization of Croatia is just one aspect in that, the Kosovo War is probably the most important.

It does indeed seem like there has been some kind of plan to gain influence in the region while destroying the traditionally unliked Yugoslavian state under at least percieved Serbian leadership. This is however a quite unsettling idea, as it would very much constitute either a subtle backlash to the policies of the early 20th century or even some odd kind of economical and political imperialism. The unsettling part about it is that the hostile policy towards Yugoslavia / Serbia has been pursued by different German governments that encompassed practically the whole mainstream political spectrum.

It is not true that the Serbs are solely responsible for what happened in the Balkans in the 90s. But still that is what the government (and the media) in Germany and probably all of the West have said all the time and still do, with little exceptions.

Originally posted by Hitro

(...)
It is not true that the Serbs are solely responsible for what happened in the Balkans in the 90s. But still that is what the government (and the media) in Germany and probably all of the West have said all the time and still do, with little exceptions.
Ofcourse it's not true that the Serbs (extreme nationalist ones) are solely responsible, the Croat and Bosnian-Muslim extreme nationalists are equally responsible.

I strongly disagree however with the notion that I've seen in this thread and that I heard countless times during other discussions about this subject, namely: the notion that the media in the West solely blames the Serbs for what happened. The serious media (I've been following the situation in former Yugoslavia since the late 1980's) have often reported of atrocities commited by the other parties in the war, esp. the ethnic cleansing of Krajina by Croatia in the beginning of the war. The serious media (BBC amongst others) have been very objective about this and other atrocities committed by the different sides in former Yugo.

This is one of the reasons why I think it would be very helpful to setup a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, like it was done in South Africa, with transparent, independent and respected by everyone, Yugoslavs who will research, interview key people, and find out what happened in all those years and publicly report their findings. This way, every side will have it's say and at least the facts will be clear.

Pozdrawiam,
Patryk

EDIT Added a link for South Africa's Truth Commission:
http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/
it's worth a read

Hitro, first I have to agree that German policy was not very clever in recognizing Croatia. However the tensions were too strong. The war would have come without the recognition as well- and then? How much pressure could be made then? I don´t think the Serbs have ALONE started the war but they have a big part made. In 1988 or 89 Milosevic talked in the Kosovo about ethnical cleanings and something like this. This was the prelude. The recognition of Croatia was neccessary, but we can debate about the time.
Indeed the west should have made peace there from the beginning. Many problems would have been solved much earlier. This would have meant under circumstances also bombing in 1991 and not 1999. But the western policy was not a masterpiece concerning the Balcan in that times.
To the Kosovo. It was the Wednesday before my first A- level test, it was in history, when I heard allied planes including German ECR Tornados were lifting off to bomb Serbia. In that time we had discussions in the school about that, mostly in my history course after the written tests before the oral one. We all agreed, only one classmate was strict pacifistic, that this war was neccessary. Why? I know there are many who had to live in the bombing runs of the NATO or who were fleeing from Serbian Chetniks, but the Serbian government, not people, prepared and partly executed a genocide in the Kosovo. This was made because only wars could secure the might of Milosevic. Or he had to resign, like he finally did. Milosevic is the main person, who has the main guilt in all wars.
Nevertheless the German and all western governments had not done the best possible. They had to invent much earlier.
Today the borders shoud remain like they are now. A Great Albania is as worse as a Great Serbia. The west must now help these people to find a peacefull way of coexistance. Perhaps all states can be friends like Germany and France are today. Both "brother" nations had quarrel for nearly half a millenium, with big victories and big catastrophies. But that´s all history now. And this example should be used by all Balcan nations now. Or the balcan will remain the powder ton of Europe.

Adler

Originally posted by pkmink
I strongly disagree however with the notion that I've seen in this thread and that I heard countless times during other discussions about this subject, namely: the notion that the media in the West solely blames the Serbs for what happened. The serious media (I've been following the situation in former Yugoslavia since the late 1980's) have often reported of atrocities commited by the other parties in the war, esp. the ethnic cleansing of Krajina by Croatia in the beginning of the war. The serious media (BBC amongst others) have been very objective about this and other atrocities committed by the different sides in former Yugo.
I don't say it hasn't been reported at all, after all some of my own views are formed by things I've read and seen in the media.
But those are sidenotes, facts that only reach those that really care about it. The things that got (and get) reported in a big way, especially also by the not-so-serious media (the information source of the majority) is "Serbs commit all kinds of crimes", "Serbs build Concentration Camps", "Serbs are Nazis reincarnated and Milosevic is a new Hitler", basically "Croats and Bosnians = Victims" and "Serbs = Perpetrators". Don't forget that most people think in black and white and when they get fed such things it is obvious what will be painted in which colour.

And on the political level it has been even more so, which is also reflected by this thread's topic.

Originally posted by Adler17
Hitro, first I have to agree that German policy was not very clever in recognizing Croatia. However the tensions were too strong. The war would have come without the recognition as well- and then? How much pressure could be made then?
I didn't say Germany is responsible for the war, I do agree with what you say there. My post was directed at German foreign policy in the Balkans in the wider sense, and though the recognization certainly wasn't the reason for the war it was still definetely not necessary. And that simply raises the question of why it was done. Just a lack of cleverness or a calculated move?
And to me the policies of the following years hint at the second.
Indeed the west should have made peace there from the beginning. Many problems would have been solved much earlier. This would have meant under circumstances also bombing in 1991 and not 1999.
Bombing whom? The Serbs? Or everyone? The first would only add to my point.
To the Kosovo. It was the Wednesday before my first A-level test, it was in history, when I heard allied planes including German ECR Tornados were lifting off to bomb Serbia.
Hehe, the day the war started was more or less my last real school day as well. Though SH seems to get to the exams earlier. Damn that. :p ;)
We all agreed, only one classmate was strict pacifistic, that this war was neccessary. Why? [...] the Serbian government, not people, prepared and partly executed a genocide in the Kosovo.
Unproven allegations made by the German (and other) government(s) and vigorously advocated by the media here. That you portrait it as solid facts illustrates what I was getting at in my post.

Fact is that the actual victims of the ethnic cleansing that actually did take place were not the Albanians, but the Serbs. And "we" made it possible.
Nevertheless the German and all western governments had not done the best possible. They had to invent much earlier.
Today the borders shoud remain like they are now. A Great Albania is as worse as a Great Serbia. The west must now help these people to find a peacefull way of coexistance. Perhaps all states can be friends like Germany and France are today. Both "brother" nations had quarrel for nearly half a millenium, with big victories and big catastrophies. But that´s all history now. And this example should be used by all Balcan nations now. Or the balcan will remain the powder ton of Europe.

On this I certainly agree. But I already had that view in 1999 and earlier. And I don't think what the West did (under massive German participation in political terms) helped that goal.
After the freedom fighters / terrorists saw that they seemingly had Western support, they tried the same in Macedonia, creating the next powder keg. The hatred in the region will not subcede anytime soon and we shouldn't forget that NATO's completely partial actions humiliated one of the involved parties. That has never in history been a good move...

Hitro: Sure, the not-so-serious media is rather more black and white but I think the general tendency of reporting was pretty correct, with a slight bias towards the Bosnian Muslims (probably because of the siege of Sarajevo and the Srebrenica massacre). But, again I have to say, also the general media reported atrocities against the Serbs.
Couldn't this mean, simply, that there are quantative differences between the scale/amount of known atrocities committed by the different sides?

Originally posted by pkmink
Hitro: Sure, the not-so-serious media is rather more black and white but I think the general tendency of reporting was pretty correct, with a slight bias towards the Bosnian Muslims (probably because of the siege of Sarajevo and the Srebrenica massacre). But, again I have to say, also the general media reported atrocities against the Serbs.
Couldn't this mean, simply, that there are quantative differences between the scale/amount of known atrocities committed by the different sides? Maybe it depends on the country. Actually, I do remember that during the War of Kosovo TV News were showing the UCK albanian fundamentalists as "hero rebelling against the evil occupant". Well, of course, it's partly true since serbs were getting albanians out of Kosovo, however I've read afterwards in a newspaper that the UCK had strong links with Al Qaeda and that it was financed thanx to money coming from the Gulf.

My point isn't to say it was white and black instead of black and white, my point was just to say that TV News (more than the written press or radio I must admit) are always turning things into black and white. The story of the UCK rebels is a good example of it.

Though I agree that all 3 sides are responsible for the bloodshed that occured, and that there were horrible people on all 3 sides (goverments though... careful not to put it all on peoples), to say that the blame should be equally shared among all 3 parties would be nonsense.

however I've read afterwards in a newspaper that the UCK had strong links with Al Qaeda and that it was financed thanx to money coming from the Gulf.

I do not trust any reports of Islamic Terrorism regarding the balkans.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Maybe it depends on the country. Actually, I do remember that during the War of Kosovo TV News were showing the UCK albanian fundamentalists as "hero rebelling against the evil occupant". Well, of course, it's partly true since serbs were getting albanians out of Kosovo, however I've read afterwards in a newspaper that the UCK had strong links with Al Qaeda and that it was financed thanx to money coming from the Gulf.

My point isn't to say it was white and black instead of black and white, my point was just to say that TV News (more than the written press or radio I must admit) are always turning things into black and white. The story of the UCK rebels is a good example of it.

I also remember very well the UCK rebel against evil occupant part, and it was annoying and slightly misleading. But the massive forced migration of Albanians in pretty appalling conditions, like you said, was for everybody to see.

The media in Holland was showing clearly both sides of the story and the BBC (which we can receive here in Holland, the standard BBC stations like they have in the UK, not BBC World) has an excellent current affairs program called Newsnight, they always had representatives of the Serb side giving their opinions, plus independent experts (usually a professor of Balkan Studies or something).

Greeting,
Patryk

Well Hitro, it is true that all three parties are guilty to start this war/ these wars. But in my opinion the serbian government was the first one and had the most part. I read many articles mostly in serious magazines like Der Spiegel. Although I know they might be wrong, I think they were very objective, critizing the German secretary of Defence, Rudolf "Bin Baden ;)" Scharping, for his stupid tries to blame the serbs (Hufeisenplan) and the UCK as terrorists. Many of them were terrorists indeed and each kind of alliance was very dangerous, but some of them wanted only to defend their homes. Yes indeed I believe that Milosevic was planing a genocide or at least an expelling of the albans from the Kosovo. He wasn´t willing to agree to a peacefull solution in the Rambouillet talks. The Albans agreed (mostly due to big western pressure, but they agreed). So the time for negotiations was over. There was no other possibility than war.
Yes some gazettes like Bild were trying to compare Milosevic with Hitler. All historic comparisons lacks. BUT if you say Milosevic was a potentat with Hitlerean thoughts they were right. I think he is a kind of Mini Hitler, who had to be stopped.
That´s why the Kosovo war was justified, although too many innocent people died, but that´s in each war.

Adler

I definitly agree with Adler17, western powers had to intervene to avoid another war to start in the Kosovo. I'm pretty sure there would still be a war between Albanians and Serbs there if we haven't intervene.

The main problem in such a war is to intervene without turning one side as a scapegoat. I think personally that's impossible. Because Western governments didn't want to be too much against one side, they've sent blue helmets in Bosnia when they should have found a better way to stop the war. There's no clear solution. It's really not easy. I would just want to say that when Serbs see destroyed buildings in Belgrade, instead of directly blaming Western powers, they should blame the nationalists and their stupid policy of ethnic cleansing.

Well, this being said, nothing is solved. :(

Adler17
I agree with You in some points, but... You must be careful with this issue. Milosevic family suffer very much during nazi occupation in WW2. Milosevic is many things, but h is not mini Hitler. This man desire only power.

Marla

We did blame west in some points, but Serbian people also blame Milosevic and "nationalists" and there policy.

For Kosovo I can say only this. War for Kosovo isn't over, in fact, it will never ends.

I didn't mean to participate anymore in this discusion but I just must said this also:
Sorry Marla but the only persons who were responsibile for bombarding Belgrade, Nis, Novi Sad etc (and is not only buildigs but lifes of civilians) were the one who give the order for bombarding. You want Serbs to take responsibility for bombarding places in Bosnia, thats true, but it'll be like that they say "well, what a hack, they kill so many Serbs so they are guilty that we must bombarding them actualy" and thats wrong, even if the first part of sentence is true. So you see what I mean, you (USA n EU) try to completly denie your responsibility and try to inplement that to others, and this double standard make a situation worster and worster not better.

Originally posted by Alone
I didn't mean to participate anymore in this discusion but I just must said this also:
Sorry Marla but the only persons who were responsibile for bombarding Belgrade, Nis, Novi Sad etc (and is not only buildigs but lifes of civilians) were the one who give the order for bombarding. You want Serbs to take responsibility for bombarding places in Bosnia, thats true, but it'll be like that they say "well, what a hack, they kill so many Serbs so they are guilty that we must bombarding them actualy" and thats wrong, even if the first part of sentence is true. So you see what I mean, you (USA n EU) try to completly denie your responsibility and try to inplement that to others, and this double standard make a situation worster and worster not better. Do you really thing that if I've started that thread it was to say Western Powers acted perfectly in the conflict ? Well, if that's what you got, I just want to tell you that's not what I meant. :(

SORRY, it was not my attention to ofend you. We, who pass that here, are all too much touchy about that issue, i think.

I'll finished again with the sentence of good hope for all in this region in future.

Originally posted by Adler17
Well Hitro, it is true that all three parties are guilty to start this war/ these wars.
Yes, and certainly not to exactly the same degree (discussion about precise percentages of guilt is pointless anyway). My point just is that here in Germany at least, but probably also in other parts of the West, this thread seems to confirm that once more, it was simply portraied as "Serbs = 100% guilty, others = 100% victims". And that leads to the question of why that was done. Added with the very partial politics of especially our government during the 90s I think it is very justified to at least consider a strategy behind it.
Many of them were terrorists indeed and each kind of alliance was very dangerous, but some of them wanted only to defend their homes.
Certainly true. And my point is not to completely exchange the above simplification to "Serbs = good, others = bad", far from that. Also the point is not to defend Milosevic. The point is that it has to be acknowledged that Nationalism and ruthless measures were present in the Balkans all over the place, through pretty much all ethnic groups. That are objective facts. Now the question is why Germany's government and the parts of the media that are allied with at least some circles of it took such a one-sided view.
I think only after answering that question we can answer the thread's question, because the answer to that depends very much on the actual objective of German foreign policy.

Originally posted by Hitro

Yes, and certainly not to exactly the same degree (discussion about precise percentages of guilt is pointless anyway). My point just is that here in Germany at least, but probably also in other parts of the West, this thread seems to confirm that once more, it was simply portraied as "Serbs = 100% guilty, others = 100% victims". And that leads to the question of why that was done. Added with the very partial politics of especially our government during the 90s I think it is very justified to at least consider a strategy behind it.

I don't think this thread "seems to confirm once more" that "Serbs=100% guilty, other=100% victims". Most posts on this thread are pretty objective, not particularly biased for or against anybody. That seems a bit paranoia to me, coupled with your statement that there might be a strategy behind the supposed "very partial politics of esp. our government during the 90s".

Originally posted by Alone
I didn't mean to participate anymore in this discusion but I just must said this also:
Sorry Marla but the only persons who were responsibile for bombarding Belgrade, Nis, Novi Sad etc (and is not only buildigs but lifes of civilians) were the one who give the order for bombarding. You want Serbs to take responsibility for bombarding places in Bosnia, thats true, but it'll be like that they say "well, what a hack, they kill so many Serbs so they are guilty that we must bombarding them actualy" and thats wrong, even if the first part of sentence is true. So you see what I mean, you (USA n EU) try to completly denie your responsibility and try to inplement that to others, and this double standard make a situation worster and worster not better.

The problem with the West was that they were always reacting to the events rather than being pro-active. As Vrylakas said in another post in this thread, the signs were very obvious from the beginning (I'm 33 so I remember it well, I started studying Slavistics at the Uni. when Slovenia broke away and the first small skirmishes happened) that things were going to be very bad. It is the lack of robust action on the part of the West/UN that is a big factor why things got out of hand.
But the main responsibility lies squarely at all those people in the former Yugoslavia who were staunch supporters of the extreme nationalists for such a long time. Milosevic was an old-fashioned communist apparatschik who was pro-Yugoslavia until he noticed while visiting Kosovo in 1987 that being nationalist could make you very popular..literally from one day to another he became a fervent Serbian nationalist, gaining big popular support in the years after that. The same can be said about Izetbegovic and Tudjman. In other words, Milosevic and the others were also reacting to slumbering nationalist feelings that were already present!

Patryk

Oops, can't link that. Oh, well.

http://www.hausarbeiten.de/rd/faecher/hausarbeit/poj/918.html

Yago the link leads to a dead page.
I think Milosevic is a kind of Hitler because he is a totalitarist as well as Hitler and Stalin. He couldn´t get the power both had so his deeds are much smaller. But he would have done much more if he could. So as totalitarist he is in the same order like Hitler and Stalin but not playing on the same level.

Adler

P.S. Sorry if someone feels offended by my posts, but that´s not my intention. Milosevic is exepted.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Croatian independence was inevitable by 1991 but the West could have had a much greater presence and control of that process, but that would have required a unity the West just wasn't interested in at that time - and I firmly believe that a lot of the bloodshed of the Yugoslav breakup wars could have been avoided with firm Western action.

I agree with that, the western european nations had a slow and chaotic foreign policy in this (and other) case. although the problem runs deeper, after Titos death and the fall of the Soviet Union there was no way to prevent Yugoslavia splitting.

Originally posted by pkmink
I don't think this thread "seems to confirm once more" that "Serbs=100% guilty, other=100% victims". Most posts on this thread are pretty objective, not particularly biased for or against anybody.
I was referring to the following, posted by Marla:

Maybe it depends on the country. Actually, I do remember that during the War of Kosovo TV News were showing the UCK albanian fundamentalists as "hero rebelling against the evil occupant".

As I said I made the same experience here. And in my post that you quoted I said:

My point just is that here in Germany at least, but probably also in other parts of the West, this thread seems to confirm that once more, it was simply portraied as "Serbs = 100% guilty, others = 100% victims".

I did not say that it was done so everywhere, I can't know that. But as it has been so in Germany, apparently also in France and from my own experience certainly also in international English TV news media (CNN, BBC) the thing is not completely made up.

I also didn't say that all people here believe that, they obviously don't...

Oh, I see, sorry if I attributed any quotes to you that were somebody elses, I didn't check enough this time. Anyway, anything I say on this forum is never meant personally :), nor do I intend to offend anybody. But returning to my notion: I think overall the serious media in the West have been fair in the way the conflict and history in the Balkans were portrayed. The BBC and Dutch media I know from personal experience, and I have also seen programs on ARD, ZDF and WDR which had very objective programs about the Yugoslav crisis.

Regards,
Patryk

I think Vrylakas was right when put this question in a broader perspective. The EU big dogs were equally responsible for this bloodshed. And of course looking for the "diplomatic solution" while mass murdering was on was a stupid (but not surprising) way to handle this conflict.
Yugoslavia had no other outcome but to break-up, it was too artificial, another good example of flawed power politics from the "great powers". But the farewell could have been much less violent.


@Marla: Sorry, but the contemporary Serbian and the 1920s (post-Trianon) Hungarian situation has no similarity at all.

So does everyone agree that No, it wasn't a smart move.

One or two things. Is the EU any less artificial that Yugoslavia? Great Britain for that matter? This was a Sophisticated, educated, modern, European nation that failed with tragic results. It needs to be looked at in depth for the complicated causes not to be chalked up to "failures of the West" or "Balkan hatreds". After WW2 Europe tried to addopt a new philosophy in international relations. While an improvement, the breakup of Yugoslavia showed we have a long way to go. Like with WW2 we have to take a long hard look at what happened and at ourselves, to prevent this happening again. And it wasn't only Germany that messed up. Didn't Britain refere to Bosnia as a crisis on the "doorstep" of Europe. Its not on the doorstep its in the Heart.

Good to see intelligent discussionand not name calling. Fair-Play to all conserned.

PS Hi Alone.

I am just sorry that I noticed this post today and not before, but I have to make a few points. Germany`s acts were smart, since war couldn`t be avoided. For the most part foreign policies enormously helped war - I will now mention the weapons embargo put on Yugoslavia - basically all members of SFRJ.
What does this achieve - JNA fourth or fifth army in Europe by its strength.
Slovenia and Croatia (later on Bosnia and Herzegovina) - unarmed.
Oh no - JNA is under heavy Serbian influence and war is helped heavily by their troops.
What will we do - I know, lets buy weapons and fight back.
Oh we have an embargo on weapons - so will defend with spoons.
Great work international community.
We had to buy weapons on black market or from Slovenia (check the map if don`t know why). It was a terrible situation for us - we actually had to capture JNA barracks to get weapons. After thet we buyed en masse weapons on black markets.
If NATO acted 1991. things would be very different - Milosevic would be out of power. Without Serb threat, power of Tudjman would dwindle and the damage that bastard made to us with his rule would be minimalised. No war in Croatia, no war in Bosnia, no war in Kosovo. But I can`t speak what would happen with Albanian question.

Without Tito who basically keep the state apart, Yugoslavia was quickly falling prey to GreatSerbian ideas.

"People don't kill each other anymore thanx to the NATO forces keeping Peace over there. "

They still kill each other, but not enmasse.

"I'm not that sure it's that simple. I still think it has stopped negociations and rushed the war. "

What negotiations - we and Slovenians offered confederacy - Serbs refused. Last president of Yugoslavia (who is Croat and our current president) was rejected as such and they clearly wanted war.
As for negotiations - when we got democracy we did not automaticly leave SFRJ - it is in our constitution - for the parliament to decide about Croatia being indenpendent.
Even when we voted indenpendence from SFRJ we had to delay it three months because of foreign pressure.

"The unilateral German move to recognize Croatia stunned everyone. "

We were stunned too, but shocked with USA opinion on that which was the only one important. - they denounced seccesion of us and Slovenians. What should we do - in USA opinion - do a mass suicide so everybody si happy.








"Croatian independence was inevitable by 1991 but the West could have had a much greater presence and control of that process, but that would have required a unity the West just wasn't interested in at that time - and I firmly believe that a lot of the bloodshed of the Yugoslav breakup wars could have been avoided with firm Western action. This is not to excuse the real culprits and murderers on the ground in the former Yugoslavia (or their puppetiers, Milosevic, Tudjman and Izetbegovic) but there are a lot of innocent civilians dead throughout the former Yugoslavia and it could have been stopped."

Fully agree.

"I strongly disagree. The first phase of the "deep rooted ethnic hatreds" you talk of started only in the 1800's once Serbia declared independence and left Bosniaks feeling isolated from the Ottoman Empire. The 2nd phase was during the 1900's when various groups fought each other during the World Wars, and Bosnian Muslims started getting screwed over. The derogatory names for Serbs and Croats are only 60 years old."

Good point. Most of hatred belongs to time from around 1825. - 1908.
Hatred between us "generally" and Serbs has many causes, and most of them are because of foreign meddling.

"There are three main dialects of Serbo-Croatian (and most linguists still recognize a single language, though nationalists in Belgrade and Zagreb have been trying for ten years now to claim Serbs and Croats can't understand one another - a load of bullsh*t); "Caj", "Kaj" and "Sta" - all based on what word each dialect uses for the word "What". "

Wrong all three dialects are for CROATIAN LANGUAGE. Serb have one dialect similar to "Sta" dialect as you call it, but it is different in "speeches" - basically they are "je" "ije" "e" "speeches" - Serbs use "e" speech - this is the main difference between Serbian and Croatian - gramatics are almost 90 percent identical. Croats use latinic letter - Serbs chyrillic - we can understand each other because somehow 90 percent of Croatians knows chryllic alphabet. Vocally , I can understand Serb language 85 percent of the time - judging the meaning of unknown words from context.

"Often in any given region they both used the same alphabet when writing as well. Both Serbian Orthodox and Croat Catholic priests in this era tried to enforce their own church's interests among their defined flocks, but there are reports of locals going to whatever local church was available as a matter of convenience. Only in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as ethnic identity became increasingly important in the region, did these distinctions become identity markers for both and begin to "matter". "

Totally true.

"Bottom line: There was almost no fighting between Serbs and Croats historically before 1918. The ferocity of their struggles in the 20th century leads many Westerners to conclude that this must be a "centuries old feud", but they're wrong. "

There were fighting between Serbs and Croatians in 19 th century - althrough no wars (which weren`t possible since we were in Habsburg Moinarchy) - Austrians and Hungarians constantly used hatred for Serbs to avert attention of disunited Croatia (parts odf it were under different managment - Hungarian or Austrian) from uniting all South Slavs (including Slovenians and Serbs in Croatia) and requesting a triarchy later. This was especially true for the rule of Ban Khuen Herdervary 1888.-1908. - one of the longest ruling times as ban in 19. th century) whose rule especially focused on that. Other point was making of Great Serb idea in mid 19th century - which will be the core for later nationalism.

"And more importantly, in being wrong they are also mistaken about the ability of anyone - i.e., the West - to do anything about it now."

This is true - foreign powers were always wrong.

"What has to be done right now? Wow. Where to start...let's start with creating a civic society, for sure in Bosnia and to a certain extent also in Serbia. This means a crackdown on corruption, maffia-rule, an independent and effective judicial system, an independent parliament, create a sort of "Truth Commission" like has happened in South Africa with good effects. Transparant media and close monitoring by the West, esp the EU, with if need be enforcement, so that the process of building that civic society (crucial for any modern democracy) goes ahead. Good thing is that most of these things are happening, slowly but still."

True. Both Serbian and Croatian economies were destroyed in the '90s, and both Tudjman and Milosevic were bastards.

"If we don't "make peace" with the serbs, we won't be able to get anywhere. "
How about making peace with Croats?

"Specialy not by Germany first who was guilty indirectly for genocid that Croats comited on Serbs during WWII"
What about Bleiburg? - 500000 Croats killed by Allied forces etc. Serbs - etc chetniks. And 500000 is not exagerrated number - this was only partially soldiers since Croats run to surrender to British in Austria. You see chetniks have a strange habit of erradicating Croat villages as a revenge against commited atrocities against them. And Croats revenged in WW2 for 20 years of Serb terror in Kingdom Yugoslavia.
Pleading for revenges is pointless since every atrocity is a revenge for the other sides atrocities.

"but on the other hand they are very generous and in some cases rewardness for some other nations like Croats who expel almost half million Serbs from there teritory without consecvence, oposite."
Generous? Foreign community threats us with sanction meaning starvation to death every once in while! At least until the last year when frequency lessened. Serbs have got far much money support than us not mentioning buying the extradiction of Milosevic.
We did not expel half milion. Tudjmans paramilitary forces are responsible for less than half of that number which is 400000 of whom 100000 have already returned. Others fled fearing retribution for crimes made by Serbs or just assimilated - living whole life in Croatia and feeling Croatian.

"As for the language, it is just one language, but the problem is nobody has a good name for it."
There is now but in twenty years there won`t be one since we are finally returning to our roots.


"I'd also like to say that the major borders of the countries are just fine as they are. The only thing that needs to be done is eventually get rid of the inner boundaries imposed by a decade of ethnic warfare."
Are you bloody insane!?! Boundaries are stupid? We cannot connect our countries east and south? Slocvenians cannot get to international waters because of ours territorial sea! Three nations are living in a state which no one wants! Albanians want to join their own coun try!I could count this forever!

"I believe that in the long run, Croatians, Serbians and so on would be better of if they had managed to stay as a union under the Yugoslavian flag, I base that statement on better logistics and reduced bureaucracy, that a bigger country has. "

If Serb tendancies for expansion were overcome, and confederacy achieved there would be no war and we would all live happily ever after, in peace and prosperity. One nationalism led to another. If only could agree to confederative agreement.

"In 1980's Sarajevo was described "as a model of inter-ethnical peacefull city". Until the mid 1980 the economy of Yugoslavia was the most opened to West and in many aspects the most prosper in Eastern Europe ..."
All was ruined.

"And yes - I belive ( as a personal opinion of course ) the Germany and its puppets are directely responsable for encouraging a conflict which run out of control ... "

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha oh what stupidities.

"Peple who voted for Radicals were usualy simply peasents MOSTLY refugies from Croatia, Kosovo...Who see nothing but misery in there lifes(they lost homes and maybe some relatives) and yet not able to see that those people (Radical) were in good part guilty for that, they just see unjustic that some other do to them and voted to one who in there statments blame the west for all (and have a good point in Western politician behavour as I mentioned early)."

These are not radicals. They are ULTRARADICALS. 28 percent of Serbs voted for Party who had two paroles "Great Serbia" and "klat cemo Hrvate zarðalim kašikama=we will butcher Croatians with rusted spoons" Croatina RADICALS are a group almost meaningless in parliament and there is no ULTRARADICALS
in Croatia that make a difference. But 28 percent in Serbia. How come our peasants and refugges from Bosnia and Serbia and Montenegro didn`t vote for ultraradicals - oh they voted for conservatives.

"SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO is official name now. But also simply Serbia suit just fine for me."
Two Serbs have already disregarded will of Montenegrians for indenpendance - they also call them Serbs. Great work!

"Ofcourse it's not true that the Serbs (extreme nationalist ones) are solely responsible, the Croat and Bosnian-Muslim extreme nationalists are equally responsible. "
Totally true. But without Serb nationalism there would be no Croatian or Moslem nationalism, so Serb nationalism is the most responsible, then our own, and then Moslem.

"But those are sidenotes, facts that only reach those that really care about it. The things that got (and get) reported in a big way, especially also by the not-so-serious media (the information source of the majority) is "Serbs commit all kinds of crimes", "Serbs build Concentration Camps", "Serbs are Nazis reincarnated and Milosevic is a new Hitler", basically "Croats and Bosnians = Victims" and "Serbs = Perpetrators". Don't forget that most people think in black and white and when they get fed such things it is obvious what will be painted in which colour."

What! The whole worlds acts as we are equally responsible ? They are accusing US for starting the war. And you claim Serbs are in abad position. They equal Croatia and Serbai while it should be C=#5percent and Serbia=65 percent

"Though I agree that all 3 sides are responsible for the bloodshed that occured, and that there were horrible people on all 3 sides (goverments though... careful not to put it all on peoples), to say that the blame should be equally shared among all 3 parties would be nonsense."

BRAVOOOO! The best post here.

"I do not trust any reports of Islamic Terrorism regarding the balkans."
You should. Just check some of moslem organisations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

"Milosevic is many things, but h is not mini Hitler. This man desire only power."
True. Just like Tudjman.

"But the main responsibility lies squarely at all those people in the former Yugoslavia who were staunch supporters of the extreme nationalists for such a long time. Milosevic was an old-fashioned communist apparatschik who was pro-Yugoslavia until he noticed while visiting Kosovo in 1987 that being nationalist could make you very popular..literally from one day to another he became a fervent Serbian nationalist, gaining big popular support in the years after that. The same can be said about Izetbegovic and Tudjman. In other words, Milosevic and the others were also reacting to slumbering nationalist feelings that were already present!"
Mostly true.

"agree with that, the western european nations had a slow and chaotic foreign policy in this (and other) case. although the problem runs deeper, after Titos death and the fall of the Soviet Union there was no way to prevent Yugoslavia splitting."
Yes, yes true.

To conclude, I apologize for furious tone this is writen, some people may be offended, but some things insult Croatians so much. Serbs and Croats are basically nations that think the same way - but where pushed into conflict through centuries of foreign meddling.

Are you bloody insane!?! Boundaries are stupid? We cannot connect our countries east and south? Slocvenians cannot get to international waters because of ours territorial sea! Three nations are living in a state which no one wants! Albanians want to join their own coun try!I could count this forever!

Calm down. I was talking about the so called Republic of Serbia.

There is now but in twenty years there won`t be one since we are finally returning to our roots.

Is that what you call replacing borrowed words with Slavic alternatives? There are significant differences in the spelling and various words but the language has been practically the same for centuries, although yes, more different before Austrio-Hungary came over. The main difference in the "words" is that Croatian retained it's Slavic root words (tisuca) while the East Orthodox Serbs borrowed heavily from the Greeks and other nations (Hiljada). Considering how close the Croats and Serbs were throughout history, I would think that they would've understood each other just fine ever since they were pagans. As for you understanding of 85% of Serbian, I find that hard to believe. I can undertand Serbian quite easily, the main obstacle being the accent.

You should. Just check some of moslem organisations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

That's exactly why I don't trust them. Saudi Wahhabists have tried to impose their extremist Islam in Bosnia following the war, but for the most part have failed miserably. Any attempt to make Bosnia seem as a safe-haven for terrorists is a mix of conservative hysteria and nationalist propaganda.

Originally posted by pkmink
Oh, I see, sorry if I attributed any quotes to you that were somebody elses, I didn't check enough this time. Anyway, anything I say on this forum is never meant personally :), nor do I intend to offend anybody.
I don't take things said here personally, and certainly not your post. And your opinion is a valid one, but my experience and "research", if you wanna call it that, lead me to a different view on it.
Note though that I never said I was sure there was some strategy behind it, I just won't rule out the possibility.

I don't understand why they hate each other so badly, ignorance?
One thousands years socially backward people?

Originally posted by sebanaj
I don't understand why they hate each other so badly, ignorance?
One thousands years socially backward people?

Genocide, Nationalism, and Foreign Powers, and this current conflict only originated in the last, let's say, 150 years.

First Hitro, the German press was quiete objective. There was no 100% blaming of the serbs. They were blamed for this what they did. Remember Srebrenica. So they had to stopped. As I said this had to be done in 1991 already. Obstructor is right when he said Serbian nationalism was one of the main reasons of the wars. This had to be stopped in 1991 and not 8 years later. But many seemed to be the opinion of negotiating. True, this is the first which MUST be done, but also in 1991 it was clear Serbia wouldn´t agree. Perhaps big NATO forces would have convinced them, but I doubt that. So only a war would have brought Serbia to stop the wars. Unfortunately the western governments were not able to cope with that situation in the best way.
In my opinion Germany made a mistake to regognize SO FAST the Croatian independence. The time is the only question. This should have done with the other Western powers and not alone. But I don´t know the exact reasons why Germany recognized them so fast. Perhaps the other states were in a kind of agony not able to react until a certain event. Nevertheless the recognition itself was not a mistake.

Adler

Dam, my link that doesn't work leads to a homework paper of a polticial student about the rationale for the Germans to recognise Croatia so fast. It says, that the European community was divided in the way to act. The Germans wanted to intervene, as the thought that the developement grew more dangerous and more dangerous. As means to internationalize the conflict, i.e. more then only boycotts, the proposed to recognise Croatia to the other EC-members. They agreed to do it. Then the Germans said, that they would do it as fast as possible. That's an excerpt from a protocoll in the paper:

Twice Genscher asked wether his colleagues would regard this as a violation of the consensus that had been reached. (...) no one opposed the German foreign minister on this issue. Thus the unity of the Twelve was preserved, albeit in a rather tenuous and to the and to the
outside not completely transparent way.

The problem was, that it was a bluff from the Germans. The Germans where for intervention, but were the lame duck, as they did not have the military power to back it up alone. They recognised Croatia, the Serbs said, you bluff and acted. Some of the other EC members didn't recognise as said they'll do. Bum, the whole **** blew in the German face and they kept out of Yugoslavia the whole next year. So, the recognision through German was a political move which ended in a complete failure.

Hitro, it also has an interesting part about geopolitical interests in the region. It say that the German had no special interest, but a high interest in no conflict in Yugoslavia, as it would hurt the EC/EU to have a conflict in south-eastern Europe. It does not say, they are no geopolitical interests in the region. It just says, the German have no more then all other Europeans, which is having no conflict.

stabiler Balkan ist für die EG essentiell- darin unterscheidet sich die europäische Perspektive von der amerikanischen! Die Europäische Einigung ist schlichtweg undenkbar, solange ein akuter Krisenherd mitten in Europa besteht.

Das Scheitern der EG an der Konfliktregulierung in Jugoslawien fügte der EG erhebliche Einbußen an Kredibilität und Handlungsmöglichkeiten für die Zukunft ein. Diese Schwächung der EG lief den deutschen Interessen- gerade durch den multilateralen Schwerpunkt Deutschlands- zuwider, und wahrscheinlich war dies ab einem bestimmten Punkt das primäre Interesse Deutschlands.


Interestingly too, it speaks about a FAZ campaign.

Thanks for the info, Yago. This declares indeed much. The Germany of today would have been in thep position to act, but not in that days. Many thought after the reunification everyone loves on the world everyone (more or less). So the SPD and the Greens would have made a bid trouble if German soldiers went to war in that days. Until Srebrenica. Then only some hardliner are strict pacifist even today. In 1991 Germany might have been able to repell a Soviet attack in Germany but not to intervene alone. But the other allies were in a situation of being not able/ not willing to react. That´s why the bluff. Hoping the Serbs will not recognize it. But the plan was seen as bluff. That´s why another plan would have to be made: Intervene with the allies. But that was not possible and so the whole **** happened.
Germany sent weapons like MiG 21, Kalaschnikows and so on to Croatia (not directly of course) hoping they can hold until the allies were able to intervene. Than Bosnia seperated and the Serbian army concentrated on Bosnia mainly (East Slavonia was alos occupied). Then Srebrenica and the bombing of the NATO together with a Croatian/ Bosnian offense, forcing Milosevic to make peace and blaming Karadcic for all the mess. So in Dayton he looked like a peacemaker. But then he was forced to start a new war to ensure his power. Similar to Napoleon. He made a new battlefield: Kosovo. But now the patience of the west was over. When Rambouillet was over without any success the generals Clark (USA) and Naumann (Germany) flew to Belgrade for a last time. But Milosevic thought it was nothing more than a mere bluff again, like 1991. But now he was wrong. The Kosovo war started forcing the Serbs out of the Kosovo- with all known problems.
Then I have to consider my thoughts about recognizing Croatia: It was the only and best thing the Germans could do in that time to prevent bigger evil things. The only thing why this plan was doomed, Germany didn´t have the abilities to intervene. The others who had this didn´t see the neccesarity of interveneing.
An attack in 1991 would have stopped everything before thousands of humans died. Mais c´est la vie!

Adler

I don't understand why they hate each other so badly, ignorance?

Stop thinking in terms of 'They'. This was a modern european nation. Things can slide quickly. Before september 11 could you imagine the US government having enough support to invade Afganistan and Iraq so quickly? We have to look at how to prevent this anywhere, and you have to have a realisticand objective view of those involved. Ethnic hatreds are used as a tool to drum up support for whatever psycho is trying to manipulate them, THEY NEVER INEVITABLY LEAD TO WAR. There are the same ethnic and religious make-ups in the North and Republic of Ireland,the same bloody past. One had decades of sectarian violence, the other did not. In the North bastards like the IRA and UDA twisting history and religion to push everyone into camps, polarising society and kicking off a self perpetuating cycle of violence and recrimination. Throw in a lot of scared, young British soldiers who have know idea what is going and you get a disaster. The same people living south of the border experienced nothing like this. Look at the Republic in isolation and it shows that Irish Protestants and Catholics live perfectly happy beside each other. Look at the North during the Troubles, in Isolation and you will learn a different story, and think "well this was bound to happen, just look at the History of these people". Dont look at Yugoslavia as "them" or "over there" but think what if this was Britain, Canada, Brazil, whoever your neighbours are. And learn from it, so others don't have to suffer the same.

Adler17; your right an attack in 91 might have stoped things sooner. But trying to bluff Serbia was not a carefully thought out plan. By acknowledging Croatian independance, Germany made things worse. It officialy killed Yugoslavia and made Germany look arbitrarilly anti-Serb from the start. The EU had two choices. Back up Germany or look weak and divided ( which we where but were embarased to admit). But they certainly were not supportive enough to comit troops (or any serious co-ordinated effort) to something they saw as a unilateral German attitude. If Germany had of discussed things with the other members, I dont know jumped up and down on a table untill the rest of the members took it as seriously as they did and hammered out a plan them somethingcould have been done. It was patronising to think the Serbs/Yugoslavia wouldn't see through this bluff. By now Germany while meaning well has taken an ill thought out plan and polarised everybody into the same stupid auto-pilot mentality that caused World War 1. No-body understood each other enough to try and find common ground and were to afraid to back down. The EU was paralysed, by fear and disbelief. Post-war Europe wasn't supposed to work like this, and they had no plan to deal with it. By the time fighting reached Bosnia there was still no plan. And no real understanding of the situation on the ground or the powers at work. Even aid convoys the EU sent were a mistake. Parts of supply convoys to Besieged towns were taken by the be-seigers in return for free passage. Extending the seiges and the war. But they continued because people had to seen to do something. Again feebly reacting instead of acting according to a plan. The reason why I want everyone to think what if this was my neighbour is because WE STILL NEED A PLAN. It is the 21st Century and we realy should be able to help or prevent such situations. The EU, USA, UN, the Arab League should all have the information, plans and will to act in situations affecting them and their neighbours. Remember Germany TRIED to Help, but I feel made things worse, while others simply didnt know what to do. Lacking any hope or strong leadership that could of helped the scared people on the ground reacted or simply followed the only ones willing to lead, like Milosevic, Izetbegovic or Tudjmen. Don't fool yourself, when things break down, most people, not just stupid people, everyone is inclined to follow someone with a plan, a vision, failing an alternative, ANY vision. I assume you've all seen film of Hitlers speeches.

obstuctor; the "but they started it" schoolyard mentality is perfectly natural, everyone does it. But it doesn't help. Its the tool some magalonamic will try and use against you. For the purposes of prevention we should find out what happened and why. But blanketly apportioning blame drives others away and that neverhelps. I care less about whose fault it was than I care about preventing it from happening again. This isnt blind ideolistic nonsence. And I know its easier to blame former enemies than take a risk and trust them, work with them. In the last Century my country has fought a war of independance against Britain, a civil war caused by them, have secretly sent Rangers across the border and they have sent SAS across ours, had a former Tioseacht (Prime minister) sell weapons to the IRA, and Canadian Judges have recently found evidence of collusion between both police services and respective Terrorists (ie Guarda with IRA and RUC with UDA). Our history of violence goes back a lot further than Serb/Croat. We have 2 choices. Hatred is the easy, cowardly route or take a leap of faith, trust and work with former "enemies", turn them into friends. Today Britain and Ireland are firm friends and EU partners . Sure we slag each other and go for each others throats in Rugby and Soccer, but we have far too much in common and much to gain from each other. As do Serbia and Croatia.

Your choice.

Originally posted by Adler17
First Hitro, the German press was quiete objective.
Adler

:confused: In my experience I can only back up the things stated before, the serbs were always portrayed as evil in german media, while the UCK e. g., backed by saudi money were the good guys. I didn't get that, maybe because may gf is serbian...

btw, she is a good example. although she is catholic she was born in Serbia and doesn't understand at all the fighting between serbs and croats.

Many interesting comments had been posted by Tathlum. I'll try to highlight those I consider as the smartest and try to make comment about them :Ethnic hatreds are used as a tool to drum up support for whatever psycho is trying to manipulate them, THEY NEVER INEVITABLY LEAD TO WAR. There are the same ethnic and religious make-ups in the North and Republic of Ireland,the same bloody past.I agree with that. Actually, the hatred could disappear slowly if politicians act smartly and, at the opposite, it could become even stronger if people are starting to commit crimes in both sides. I'm not sure a croatian who walked in the streets of Belgrade in 1988 wanted to kill all serbs around and didn't only thanx to the cops. It's obvious there had been a mismanagement between politicians, Croatia wanted independance when Serbia wanted to own Yugoslavia (to summarize).

We had in theory all tools (EU, NATO, Council of Europe) to create an international involvement making pressure on both sides to find an agreement (Confederacy for example). However, the crisis occured in 1991 when all powers were completely lost about what was happening around. There was the fall of Berlin, then the fall of the Soviet Union, then the first Gulf War... and suddenly Croatia was claiming its independance. Things became so fast our old leaders (I think especially of the elder we had in France) couldn't manage everything in the same time.your right an attack in 91 might have stoped things sooner. But trying to bluff Serbia was not a carefully thought out plan. By acknowledging Croatian independance, Germany made things worse. It officialy killed Yugoslavia and made Germany look arbitrarilly anti-Serb from the start. The EU had two choices. Back up Germany or look weak and divided ( which we where but were embarased to admit).Exactly. I just want to add that according to me, it's truely hard for a foreign country to do a wise mediation between two parties in such a conflict. Usually, the mediator always tends to be seen as supporting a side more than the other. A good example of that would be Near East were Americans are considered to support Israel more than Palestine. Another one would be the French mediation in Ivory Coast were people are claiming France is supporting the rebels. One side will always feel as a scape-goat in such a thing, and that's what make the exercise so hard.The reason why I want everyone to think what if this was my neighbour is because WE STILL NEED A PLAN. It is the 21st Century and we realy should be able to help or prevent such situations. The EU, USA, UN, the Arab League should all have the information, plans and will to act in situations affecting them and their neighbours.Well Tathlum, that was actually the point I wanted to make with that thread. Such crisis will certainly happen again in the future and it's truely hard to prevent them. Mostly for the reasons I've given above.Today Britain and Ireland are firm friends and EU partners . Sure we slag each other and go for each others throats in Rugby and Soccer, but we have far too much in common and much to gain from each other. As do Serbia and Croatia.I totally agree with that too. That's actually the reason why I thought we should find a way to open new opportunities for the people of the region. Once people have something good to imagine in their future, they care less about the past. That's the reason why I was proposing to start today to talk about the joining of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia in the EU. Talking about it doesn't mean they are prepared to be in it tomorrow, but at least they will think about the future instead of keeping in mind the past. A good idea could also be to create a free trade area between former yugoslavian countries that also include Albania. :)

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
...That's the reason why I was proposing to start today to talk about the joining of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia in the EU. Talking about it doesn't mean they are prepared to be in it tomorrow, but at least they will think about the future instead of keeping in mind the past.

Speaking of Bosnia, if you guys want to read something worthy about the Bosnian conflict, I'd suggest to read Susan Woodward's piece ("Bosnia and Herzegovina: How Not to End a Civil War") in: "Civil Wars, Insecurity and Intervention", Columbia, 1999; B. Walter and Jack Snyder (eds.).
This is really good one from a neutral perspective focusing on how the EU and the other external parties made their political choices among the alternatives.
A part of her argument is that the political fragmentation in Bosnia by ethnic parties is one of the major problems as there is no cross-voting that could ease the ethnic-based conflicts. The institutions created for Bosnia by the western powers are basically unable to cross the ethnic lines, therefore solve the problem.
And this is in a country that was a model in Europe for how different ethnic groups can live together in peace... [so much for the ancient ethnic hatred theory]

I know this thread is over for nearly 8 months, but there is a good report in the Spiegel magazine about this topic. Milosevic accuses Genscher, former German foreign minister, to be guilty for the start of the war. There was a good report whether it was good or not. First Genscher was undecided. Many politicians from all parties (except PDS) told him to act. But several especially left politicians warned from this action. He spoke to them, he spoke with Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Both Genscher and Chancellor Kohl agreed in mid 1991 that a state can not be held together with violence. So they started an offensive. Because of old relations Britain and France were supporting the Serbs. Due to German diplomacy and Serbian terror both switched the sides. Germany was first able to stop a pro Serbian UN council decision and indeed making a decision to send UN troops. Due to the Serbian agression and the fact that no Croat or Slovene was supporting Yugoslavia anymore, Germany made a diploamtic offensive in the EU to recognize both nations. In the night to the 17th december 1991, Genscher was able to make an EU resolution allowing the members to recognize both until January 15th 1992. Genscher himself spoke twice with his colleagues that night if they have any concerns. Nobody denied this decision. A week later Germany recognized Croatia and Slovenia. Then the Brits and French accused the Germans to break out of the formation. But under this circumstances Germany was not breaking out...
Nevertheless most of the critics switched the side in the last decade. Now only a few left politicians are remaining at this position.

Adler

I know this thread is over for nearly 8 months, but there is a good report in the Spiegel magazine about this topic. Milosevic accuses Genscher, former German foreign minister, to be guilty for the start of the war. There was a good report whether it was good or not. First Genscher was undecided. Many politicians from all parties (except PDS) told him to act. But several especially left politicians warned from this action. He spoke to them, he spoke with Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Both Genscher and Chancellor Kohl agreed in mid 1991 that a state can not be held together with violence. So they started an offensive. Because of old relations Britain and France were supporting the Serbs. Due to German diplomacy and Serbian terror both switched the sides. Germany was first able to stop a pro Serbian UN council decision and indeed making a decision to send UN troops. Due to the Serbian agression and the fact that no Croat or Slovene was supporting Yugoslavia anymore, Germany made a diploamtic offensive in the EU to recognize both nations. In the night to the 17th december 1991, Genscher was able to make an EU resolution allowing the members to recognize both until January 15th 1992. Genscher himself spoke twice with his colleagues that night if they have any concerns. Nobody denied this decision. A week later Germany recognized Croatia and Slovenia. Then the Brits and French accused the Germans to break out of the formation. But under this circumstances Germany was not breaking out...
Nevertheless most of the critics switched the side in the last decade. Now only a few left politicians are remaining at this position.

Adler


Real civil war in Yu has began after recogition of Croatia and Slovenia. War crimes and mass killings appears later. This is a "subtitute thesis".

The recognition of both states was necessary to stop the terror from the Serbs in both parts. However the way Europe acted was not the best I admit but if Germany and the US would have had free hand a catastrophy might have been avoided as Clinton wrote in his book.

Adler

The recognition of both states was necessary to stop the terror from the Serbs in both parts. However the way Europe acted was not the best I admit but if Germany and the US would have had free hand a catastrophy might have been avoided as Clinton wrote in his book.

Adler
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You know Adler, my SCHWAGER is Prussian also, so I always have some simphaty for you. But you are realy over the line now.

Your ignorance, your stumber and your unknowledge at the end of that issue is so BIIIIG, that your post in whole this thread have no sence at all.

Maybe you shoud start other one that you can be REALLY good at it, with the title: HOW WE KISS **S to SOVIET UNION FOR SO MANY YEARS AND LIKED IT SO MUCH ...

Okay I will explain my position:
In 1991 Milosevic´s policy of terror lead to first fights with Croats and Slovenes. At this point no European nation recognized the new states. UK and France had ties to Serbia while Germany had ties to Croatia and Slovenia, so the position was in the EU not clear. Genscher was undecided what to do and did the best: He spoke to all parties in Germany and in the other nations. It came clear that the majority of Slovenes and Croats were supporting independence. Perhaps an independence could have been avoided but the terror of the Serbian forces increased. So the point of no return was taken as Germany recognized Croatia and Slovenia. I admit the fightings increased at this point but the terror of the Serbian forces to the civil population declined. Now it could have been a time to go back to the table and negotiate a peace treaty, which finally happened in 1995, but not in 1992. Until Srebrenica there were only UN soldiers in the Balcan to protect some zones, but other military missions like bombing Serbian forces to start negotiations did not happen because of the resistance of the UK and France. Only after Srebrenica the allies started attacks forcing the Serbs to negotiate a peace. This should have done earlier, but it was not possible. Such an action in 1992 might have lead to a peace with thousnads of less deads and million less refugees.
Clinton and Kohl saw this and tried to convince the French and Brits, but invain. It was also for both impossible to act without a common sense with the allies due to interior problems with the oppositions. This lasted until Srebrenica when all opposition was broken and a quick end of hostilities was achieved. This wrote at least Clinton in his book. And it is not unbelieveable if you know the European politic in the 1990s. Alone, this is not whithout sense as you wrote. The historic ties of France and the UK to Serbia are fact. Also the opposition Clinton had against the use of US soldiers in a war the US were not involved in. As well as the fact that the German opposition wanted partly to abandon the whole Bundeswehr (PDS and some of the Greens) as well as there were constitutional debates whether a use of German soldiers was allowed or not. Until the Bundesverfassungsgericht gave the okay in 1994 (Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts Bd. 90, S. 286 ff.), this was debated strongly. These oppositions had to be stopped. So unfortuantely an earlier intervention was not possible.

Adler

[lurk]
The country some refer to as "Macedonia" doesn't officially exist in our modern world, so I'd like to inform that if you refer to the Yugoslavian part of the *Macedonian Area*, it's called FYROM.
Thank you
[/delurk]

Okay I will explain my position:
In 1991 Milosevic´s policy of terror lead to first fights with Croats and Slovenes. At this point no European nation recognized the new states. UK and France had ties to Serbia while Germany had ties to Croatia and Slovenia, so the position was in the EU not clear. Genscher was undecided what to do and did the best: He spoke to all parties in Germany and in the other nations. It came clear that the majority of Slovenes and Croats were supporting independence. Perhaps an independence could have been avoided but the terror of the Serbian forces increased. So the point of no return was taken as Germany recognized Croatia and Slovenia. I admit the fightings increased at this point but the terror of the Serbian forces to the civil population declined. Now it could have been a time to go back to the table and negotiate a peace treaty, which finally happened in 1995, but not in 1992. Until Srebrenica there were only UN soldiers in the Balcan to protect some zones, but other military missions like bombing Serbian forces to start negotiations did not happen because of the resistance of the UK and France. Only after Srebrenica the allies started attacks forcing the Serbs to negotiate a peace. This should have done earlier, but it was not possible. Such an action in 1992 might have lead to a peace with thousnads of less deads and million less refugees.
Clinton and Kohl saw this and tried to convince the French and Brits, but invain. It was also for both impossible to act without a common sense with the allies due to interior problems with the oppositions. This lasted until Srebrenica when all opposition was broken and a quick end of hostilities was achieved. This wrote at least Clinton in his book. And it is not unbelieveable if you know the European politic in the 1990s. Alone, this is not whithout sense as you wrote. The historic ties of France and the UK to Serbia are fact. Also the opposition Clinton had against the use of US soldiers in a war the US were not involved in. As well as the fact that the German opposition wanted partly to abandon the whole Bundeswehr (PDS and some of the Greens) as well as there were constitutional debates whether a use of German soldiers was allowed or not. Until the Bundesverfassungsgericht gave the okay in 1994 (Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts Bd. 90, S. 286 ff.), this was debated strongly. These oppositions had to be stopped. So unfortuantely an earlier intervention was not possible.

Adler

Situation in Croatia become very ugly when Ustasa emigrants returned from Argentina and Australia. Terror was not one sided like You want to show. First wave of refuges from Croatia in Serbia was in 91, after that conflikt escalate. Srebrenica is another story.

I know about the Serbian refugees out of Croatia and Bosnia. But it wasn´t the Coratian or Slovenes to start this war but a nationalistic despot named Milosevic. Nevertheless also these deportations are illegal and IIRC to have heard Serbians can return to Croatia and Bosnia, although there are diificulties. Nevertheless the Serbians started this facistoid war. This is what I said. That there were also crimes on Serbs by Croats and Bosniaks (sp?) I never denied.
All in all it was inevitable to recognize Croatia and Slovenia to stop the war.

Adler

So. You want to say that, we Serbs first fired in federal army, we are the one who illegaly import arms, we are the one who obstruct federal goverment, we are the one in which contitution says "Serbia is for the Serbs only" etc. OK, You are right.

[lurk]
The country some refer to as "Macedonia" doesn't officially exist in our modern world, so I'd like to inform that if you refer to the Yugoslavian part of the *Macedonian Area*, it's called FYROM.
Thank you
[/delurk]
lol. I simply admire the motivation behind a post like this. The connection it has with the topic and the open-mindness in it are simply amazing.
The one time when they mentioned Macedonia was about a year ago.
btw, Macedonia does exist as independent country, its territory part of the broader Macedonian area.

on the topic though. Adler, I have a problem with two of the theses you claim.
First, it was a huge mistake for Germany to recognize Croatian independence so quickly. There were initiatives for a loose confederation even before all the fighting started, and many believe that if the pressure from the EU on both sides had been stronger, the bloodshed could have been prevented. However, Europe acted so uncoordinated and disoriented, that they couldnt agree on a common position, hence no meaningful action was taken.
If there was a confederation, then it could have either dissolved peacefully later or continue to exist as one country.
Now you see why it was a rushed step for Germany.
on the other hand, we, as Yugoslavs, bear a huge part of the guilt since these initiatives (led by Macedonian and Bosnian leaders - Gligorov and Izetbegovic) didnt come to a good approval, especially in Serbia, but also Croatia where independence was already a completed mental project.

And the second point I have a problem with is the "blame it on the fascistic serbs" which is a product of the propaganda you people get.
Milosevic was far from both Hitler and Stalin, and not as totalitarian as many people think. All sides took a portion of the guilt. It's not something to be quantitatively measured.

[lurk]

lol. I simply admire the motivation behind a post like this.
The connection it has with the topic and the open-mindness in it are simply amazing.

If you're not a newbie in these forums, you certainly noticed the [lurk][/delurk]: that means that I wanted to interve and tell something that maybe/maybe not would have anything to do with the topic.
As for the motivation, maybe it's that people here feel annoyed, for obvious reasons?

The one time when they mentioned Macedonia was about a year ago.
btw, Macedonia does exist as independent country, its territory part of the broader Macedonian area.

Don't you know your country's official name? :confused: F.Y.R.O.M., sounds familiar?
Didn't you ever noticed how your country is represented in the national political meetings/sport events?
If you even want to short the name to Yugoslavian Macedonia, it's fine with me.

Of course it's a territory part that belongs to the broader Macedonian area, I didn't say anything else.

It happens that I live in Macedonia, Greek part. It's not a country, but a part of Greece's territory(like a state of the U.S/Germany, for those that don't get it), so maybe could anyone think what bothers me when I see the word "Macedonia", (which is a Greek name, btw, since a few thousand years ago, and has it's own culture/history, like the other ancient-states of Greece ) and most connect it to the Yugoslavian part by default?

Doesn't anyone know that the 2 different nations that share the Macedonian territory, have not a race-connection with each other?
Doesn't anyone know what could be the future possible consequenses of things like these(maybe a future war from stupid goverments of each side)?

I certainly don't want to intentionally offend other countries, so I wouldn't like others to do it; if they simply were ignorant, now they've been informed; if they already know/knew the history of the modern Macedonian territory, then, excuse my intervation).

And for the mods: I don't want to mess with your job or critisize you in any way with the comment that follows:
This is not a nation bashing, quite the opposite. I just wanted to put things straight, with correcting the neighboorhood-country's name.
[/delurk]

EDIT: Look Companiero, let's stop it here: I don't consider your people as enemies and I really want us to be friends, and we certainly(both sides) have to respect each other, don't you think?

First, it was a huge mistake for Germany to recognize Croatian independence so quickly. There were initiatives for a loose confederation even before all the fighting started, and many believe that if the pressure from the EU on both sides had been stronger, the bloodshed could have been prevented.

Exactly: most of EU's countries at the time, didn't care much about the possible consequenses of their actions, towards a country that, after some years, could become a member of the Union, or, better, were acting as to "remind" who *should* be in charge in the EU.
The bloodshed could have been prevented, and let's not forget the propaganda from some Western countries, that resulted in deep hate/anger between the (then united) Yugoslavians.

However, Europe acted so uncoordinated and disoriented, that they couldnt agree on a common position, hence no meaningful action was taken.

I won't say much, except: does anyone see any similarities with the Iraq crisis(???) and the reasons why the EU's countries acted as they did?(I'm reffering on ALL sides and their TRUE reasons).
What role did the U.S played at the situation from the beginning?

If there was a confederation, then it could have either dissolved peacefully later or continue to exist as one country.

Yes, for your country and the whole Yugoslavia in general, it would be MUCH better if all OUTSIDERS let you solve your differences and mess up with your internal problems: the people there knew and understood much better than anyone else, their situation and their problems, but for outsiders, a war is the only solution.
btw: for those that didn't understood my thesis up to now, YES, I was against the NATO intervation in Yugoslavia(as much as 99% of the people here).

on the other hand, we, as Yugoslavs, bear a huge part of the guilt since these initiatives (led by Macedonian and Bosnian leaders - Gligorov and Izetbegovic) didnt come to a good approval, especially in Serbia, but also Croatia where independence was already a completed mental project.

Yes, you made your mistakes, but that didn't justifies NATO's intervation(think of it, WHAT NATO had to gain from this war). - oh, I'm not against NATO, but it's usage, which has lost it's purpose by miles, and I think that it should be revised simply as a general-mutual-protecting pact.

And the second point I have a problem with is the "blame it on the fascistic serbs" which is a product of the propaganda you people get.
Milosevic was far from both Hitler and Stalin, and not as totalitarian as many people think. All sides took a portion of the guilt. It's not something to be quantitatively measured.
Yes, isn't it ironic that the Western world thinks of Milosevic as Hitler/Stalin?
Well, justice is blind/illegal for the weak-in-military, I guess......

First of all I said facistoid meaning LIKE facistic but not the very same. IMO Milosevic was compareable with Hitler but only to a certain degree. Nevertheless also a confederation could be the wrong solution. After both world wars Croatia was forced to join Yugoslavia. After the death of Tito the tensions grew and with Milosevic as leader there was a majority of Croats which didn´t want even a confederation. Also this didn´t grant the end of the terror of the Serbians. So the independence was the only way. After it was clear that this was impossible (mid/ end of 1991) Germany recognized Croatia and Slovenia. A solution with a confederation was possible but Milosevic refused that. Although I admit the Croats were also not agreeing the real problem was the Serbian government.
To Kosovo: The Serbians tried to do the same as they did in Bosnia. Although the UCK is part of the problem the deportations of the Serbs caused finally the war when Rambouillet failed due