Yugoslavia: The Avoidable War. Questions remain.

A blast from the past; the Yugoslav Civil War and how the Clinton Administration parts of the EU made the war not only possible to erupt, but also how they kept it going...

This documentary is a long one, so save it for later if you are at work (even though I managed to watch all of them over two days while "working").

I think it is very important to shed light on this strange and brutal conflict, which is even more strange the more you look into it.

(Don't be scared by the foregin letters, both videos are with English speech)
PART ONE:

Google Video Link

PART TWO:

Google Video Link

So, here are my questions that demand answers;

* Why did this war happen?
What were the motives for the non-Yugoslav praticipants? What were their goal?

* Why did the US supply the muslim militia with not only weapons and ammunition, but also protection and intelligence?

* How the hell could 50% of the victims in Clintons "Bomb War", the second Yugoslav war, be "illegal" and no-one held responsible for it?

* How could the NATO intervention be justified? The standards of NATO is (or more correct; were) to protect their member states from agression from the Warsaw Pact.
If only the UN or EU intervened to stop the war (which they didn't), I could understand it. But what did NATO win from entering the conflict?

More questions will probably arise, but these are what I have for now.
Thank you for reading.

Still no answers?

Just bumpin', that's all...

Guess I'll have to look somewhere else thennn...

Originally posted by Raud
So, here are my questions that demand answers;

* Why did this war happen?
What were the motives for the non-Yugoslav praticipants? What were their goal?

Well, your question is very difficult one, but I will try to answer to the best of my abilities. Apparently, after the death of Tito, nationalist leanings began to take shape among all those involved in the Yugoslav Wars which came later. Under Tito, he was able to keep Yugoslavia together for 30 years following World War II.

For the next three decades, Tito managed to keep Yugoslavia intact, essentially by the force of his own personality.

Tito's new incarnation of Yugoslavia aimed for a more equitable division of powers. It was made up of six republics, each with its own parliament and president: Croatia (mostly Catholic Croats), Slovenia (mostly Catholic Slovenes), Serbia (mostly Orthodox Serbs), Bosnia-Herzegovina (the most diverse — mostly Muslim Bosniaks, but with very large Croat and Serb populations), Montenegro (mostly Serb-like Montenegrins), and Macedonia (with about 25 percent Albanians and 75 percent Macedonians — who are claimed variously by Bulgarians and Serbs). There were also two autonomous provinces, each one dominated by an ethnicity that was a minority in greater Yugoslavia: Albanians in Kosovo (to the south) and Hungarians in Vojvodina (to the north). Tito hoped that by allowing these two provinces some degree of independence — including voting rights — they could balance the political clout of Serbia, preventing a single republic from dominating the union.

Each republic managed its own affairs...but always under the watchful eye of president-for-life Tito, who said that the borders between the republics should be "like white lines in a marble column."

Tito was unquestionably a political genius, carefully crafting a workable union. For example, every Yugoslav had to serve in the National Army, and Tito made sure that each unit was a microcosm of the complete Yugoslavia — with equal representation from each ethnic group. (Allowing an all-Slovene unit, stationed in Slovenia, would be begging for trouble.) There was also a dark side to Tito, who resorted to violent, strong-arming measures to assert his power, especially early in his reign. He staged brutal, Stalin-esque "show trials" to intimidate potential dissidents, and imprisoned church leaders, such as Alojzije Stepinac. Nationalism was strongly discouraged, and this tight control — though sometimes oppressive — kept the country from unraveling. In retrospect, most former Yugoslavs forgive Tito for governing with an iron fist, believing that this was necessary for keeping the country strong and united. Today, most of them consider Tito more of a hero than a villain, and usually speak of him with reverence.

www.ricksteves.com...

The Balkan peninsula is a geopolitical nightmare; different groups living side by side with bitter rivalries for the other. Followed by, dueling of the three major religions for supremacy in the region: Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and Islam, and then; each group has their own idea of what land belongs to them since the fall of the Ottoman Empire or earlier. The history of Balkans spans thousands of years and the "whys," go back as far.

So, to put it simply the entire region is a powder keg waiting to blow at anytime. World War I came out of that region as well with the assassination of archduke Ferdinand. It centers around the fracture relationship each group has for the others and atrocities committed to each other going back all the way to Roman Times. Tito was only able to keep that nightmare together, because of his cult-of-personality, brilliant political maneuvering, and a heavy-handed approach when dealing with dissidents and civil disturbances.

It is widely believed that the Serbian leadership wanted more authority of other SFR member nations, like Croatia and Slovenia. The Serbs were probably using an opportunity to seize greater power and authority to stave off a future massacre as they suffered under the Croatian Ustache, a fascist group aligned with Nazi Germany during World War II. They were implicated in genocide in Balkans along with Nazi Germany. In collusion with the Nazis, the Ustashe operated and administered a concentration camp called Jasenovac.

was the largest extermination camp in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) and occupied Yugoslavia during World War II. The camp was established by the Ustaše (Ustasha) regime in August 1941 and dismantled in April 1945. In Jasenovac, the largest number of victims were ethnic Serbs, whom Ante Pavelic' considered the main opponents of the NDH. The camp also held Jews, Slovenes, Roma, Muslims Bosniaks[1] and Croatian communists[2].

Jasenovac was a complex of five subcamps[3] spread over 240 km2 (93 sq mi) on the banks of the Sava river. The largest camp was at Jasenovac, about 100 km (62 mi) southeast of Zagreb. The complex also included large grounds at Donja Gradina directly across the Sava river, a camp for children in Sisak to the northwest, and a women's camp in Stara Gradiška to the southeast.

. . . Historians have had difficulty calculating and agreeing on the number of victims at Jasenovac. An accurate number might not ever be known but current estimates range between 49,600 to 600,000[131]. The first figures to be offered by the state-commission of Croatia ranged around 500,000 and even 600,000. The official estimate of the number of victims in SFRY was 700,000; however, beginning in the 90s, the Croatian side began suggesting substantially smaller numbers. The exact numbers continue to be a subject of great controversy and hot political dispute, with the Croatian government and institutions pushing for a much lower number even as recently as September 2009.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, that massive blood-letting would bring me to the conclusion, that perhaps, the Serb leadership under Slobodan Milosevic had that in the back of their minds when aspiring to supremacy of SFR among other member nations; and to exact retribution or payback later on. . . Atrocities were committed by all sides in the bitter conflict of the Yugoslav Wars.

Here is how is it possibly got started, and yet is still over-simplified given the complexity of history surrounding that part of the world.

In the years leading up to the Yugoslav wars, relations among the republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had been deteriorating. Slovenia and Croatia desired greater autonomy within a Yugoslav confederation, while Serbia sought to strengthen federal authority. As it became clearer that there was no solution agreeable to all parties, Slovenia and Croatia moved toward secession. By that time there was no effective authority at the federal level. Federal Presidency consisted of the representatives of all 6 republics and 2 provinces and JNA (Yugoslav People's Army). Communist leadership was divided along national lines. The final breakdown occurred at the 14th Congress of the Communist Party when Croat and Slovenian delegates left in protest because the pro-integration majority in the Congress rejected their proposed amendments.

en.wikipedia.org...

The sheer complexity of how divided and fractured that world is just mind-blowing. I am pretty sure historians with Phd. credentials have a hard time compartmentalizing that area, as well as the novice. This is just what I was able to put together to try and answer the point of your first question about why it started, and yes, it is probably over-simplified. The conflict was a long and bloody one, with intricacies greater than both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars combined. It is not so clear cut and dry. At least, in my humble opinion.













[edit on 13-2-2010 by Jakes51]

Yugoslavia was the wake up call the world has ignored.

A microcosm of what is to come, a global conflict where culture rises up against culture and otherwise civilised people find themselves carrying out xenophobic acts upon their neighbours.

Originally posted by Raud
So, here are my questions that demand answers;

* Why did this war happen?
What were the motives for the non-Yugoslav praticipants? What were their goal?

Now, to answer the second segment of your first question concerning non-Yugoslav participants in the Yugoslav Wars? Well, again as complicated as the answer to first question, it is no different here. Perhaps, the Western Powers and Russia, saw the confusions as a means to move in and supplant seeds of influence among the warring factions? Divide and conquer? Before the wars began, the entire Balkan peninsula was unified under the leadership of a political strongman, Joseph Broz Tito. Any power who wanted to do business in the SFR had to go through him. He kept the fragile union together though tough political maneuvers, keeping all sides happy in sense of feeling as equals to the other members, and crushing dissidence with an iron- fist if the need arose.

After the death of Tito, it left a power vacuum in the wake. Each side from each respective region of the SFR had nationalist ambitions of their own with the Serbs gaining the overwhelming authority to conduct business on a Federal level in 1989, thus; lessening Croatian and Slovenian influence over government matters. This led to their succession from Yugoslavia, and what led to war.

Why the foreign involvement in such carnage? Well, everyone has an opinion on that subject. Personally, I believe America, Western Europe, and NATO saw an opportunity to come out leaders in the realm of influence when the guns went silent and the killings stopped.

It is widely known that traditionally the Russians have thought of that region being part of their sphere of influence, at least during the days of the Soviet Union. Tito eventually broke off normal relations after a dispute with Stalin. Fact of the matter, the Russians were still in Yugoslavia and remained an influential neighbor.

Furthermore, with the breakup of the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation in the midst of growth pains. They were in no way shape or form to promulgate a response as was shown by the groups mentioned above. The West saw the carnage and bitter infighting as a means to come out on top and marginalize Russia in the future.

It is all about winning the hearts and minds and to monopolize power and influence, although, that is easier said than done. People are still upset about how NATO, the UN, and the US handled that affair. Personally, I see the involvement of foreign powers, at least in the case of the West during the war as an area of opportunity for influence and power. This is just my perspective, but as from what I have seen or read there is no definitive reason for why the West got involved and what they sought to gain? Possibly, time will tell, and more will come out about this controversial topic?

[edit on 13-2-2010 by Jakes51]

Originally posted by Raud
So, here are my questions that demand answers;

* Why did the US supply the muslim militia with not only weapons and ammunition, but also protection and intelligence?

Apparently, the US supported the Muslim milita, and according to some, they were as vicious as the Serbs during that bitter conflict. As shown on the Global Research website via a Washington Post article published in 1999 as the war in Kosovo was still hot and contested, the US back a shady character and leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army(KLA) with muslim extremist ties.

Some members of the Kosovo Liberation Army [headed by the current Kosovo Prime minister Hashim Thaci] , which has financed its war effort through the sale of heroin, were trained in terrorist camps run by international fugitive Osama bin Laden -- who is wanted in the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 persons, including 12 Americans.

The KLA members, embraced by the Clinton administration in NATO's 41-day bombing campaign to bring Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to the bargaining table, were trained in secret camps in Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina and elsewhere, according to newly obtained intelligence reports.

The reports also show that the KLA has enlisted Islamic terrorists -- members of the Mujahideen --as soldiers in its ongoing conflict against Serbia, and that many already have been smuggled into Kosovo to join the fight. ....

The intelligence reports document what is described as a "link" between bin Laden, the fugitive Saudi millionaire, and the KLA --including a common staging area in Tropoje, Albania, a center for Islamic terrorists. The reports said bin Laden's organization, known as al-Qaeda, has both trained and financially supported the KLA.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Your question is a vary valid one at that, and I would like to know why the Clinton Administration would buddy up with a man who is a drug kingpin and who pals around with individuals who attack the US? To me, it sounds counter productive. However, many things from the Clinton years remain hazy and controversial when attempting to put things into perspective. In a recent update, this character, Hashim Thaci is now Prime Minister of an independent Kosovo, and buddy of anti-terrorism stalwart, former President George W. Bush. See the picture found in the link below.

Hashim Thaçi was designated as the next leader of Kosovo's government on 11 December 2007 by Kosovar President Fatmir Sejdiu and told to form a government "as soon as possible". His Democratic Party of Kosovo began coalition talks with the Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK) as well as the Alliance for New Kosovo. Those parties together control 75 seats of 120 in the assembly.[15] On 9 January 2008, Thaçi was elected as Prime Minister by parliament, with 85 votes in favor and 22 against. On this occasion he stated his intention to achieve independence for Kosovo in the first half of 2008.[16]

On 16 February 2008, Thaçi announced that the next day, 17 February, would be key for "implementing the will of the citizens of Kosovo", strongly implying the province would declare independence from Serbia.[17] On 17 February 2008, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. Thaçi became Prime Minister of the newly independent state.

en.wikipedia.org...-12


So, I have something questions about the dealings with the Muslim militias during the Kosovo apect of the Balkan Wars, because it is against the platform the US has for dealing with terrorism. Plus, the groups being supported by the US have been alleged to have committed atrocities against the civilian population as were the Serbs. So, one side is demonized while the other gets a pass? I still have a lot of questions about the alliances, who was right and who was wrong, and if the war could have been handled differently than it was? Right now, the conflict seems hazy and the motives of all those involved remain unclear.



[edit on 13-2-2010 by Jakes51]

reply to post by Jakes51


Thanks alot for your good input!

But as we can both see, the questionmarks remain.

Living in Sweden, we have a rather large group of people living here who fled the fightings. Some of them tend to blame the EU for the war (especially those from the Serbian Republic and the Macedonians), but without any proper or unified clarifications.

I hope this thread develops more and that the EU/US involvement gets a proper explanation!

Hopefully we can get some Serbian, Bosnian and Croat friends at ATS to join in, as well as Macedonians and Slovenians and those from Montenegro (nearly forgot, sorry!)

Keep up the good work!

Originally posted by Raud
reply to post by Jakes51

 

Thanks alot for your good input!

But as we can both see, the questionmarks remain.

Living in Sweden, we have a rather large group of people living here who fled the fightings. Some of them tend to blame the EU for the war (especially those from the Serbian Republic and the Macedonians), but without any proper or unified clarifications.

I hope this thread develops more and that the EU/US involvement gets a proper explanation!

Hopefully we can get some Serbian, Bosnian and Croat friends at ATS to join in, as well as Macedonians and Slovenians and those from Montenegro (nearly forgot, sorry!)

Keep up the good work!

No problem, and hopefully this controversial topic gets some traction. This topic is near to me because my great-grandfather left Serbia at the onset of WWI with his wife and kids because of the violence and instability. Then, during the war years, my aunt was in contact with some relatives over there, and they said it was getting out of control. This was during the mid 90's. Eventually, they had to leave and live in Germany, because the fighting got dangerously close to home.

Still, I would like to learn more about why the US bombed civilian cities into oblivion and why one group is singled out; while others are given a pass? I have no ill will towards any that were involved, because it was a civil war. War is hell! However, things need to be put into perspective, and for once, we need to look at the conflict with an object eye. Lately, all I have seen is bitter one-sided talk by each side. The place is a mess. Hopefully, as you put, people from the region will join in and discuss the topic with us. Any new thoughts on the topic? Keep up the good work!



[edit on 14-2-2010 by Jakes51]