Politics Balkanian disagreements.

[Yetos]

As we know Alexander the great was a blond hair man. I read that tracians were blond hair generally either.

you are funny,
Is that a joke like the one with US embassy?How do you know? you spoke to a magician? or you have seen him

can you link me source?

 

[Johannes]

1. Serbs never bragged with massacres on TV, live or not. I know cause I've watched their TV stations from time to time.

I did not say they "bragged." All I remember seeing is taking prisoners and then shooting them. Some video clips showed Muslim soldiers being executed and as well as civilians.

2. No, that was not the reason. NATO started this war, so that it could fight Serbs. If NATO had respected Yugoslav constitution, international law, and democratic choice of the people, there would have been no war.

All I remember is that the Croats and Bosnians chose to separate from the former Yugoslavia (Serbian controlled). I dont remember NATO attacking for no good reason. I also remember Serb forces attacking UN Peacekeeping forces in areas protecting Muslims and Croats. And Serb snipers blowing the heads off innocent Sarajevans on their way to the market or strolling in the park. Or deliberately shelling houses and attacking innocent towns and villages. I am sure Croats and Muslims committed similar crimes but international TV showed it was mostly done by Serbs. Maybe NATO blocked some of the Croat/Muslim atrocities from being shown on TV, but never the less the Serbs did a terrible public relations job.

2. I don't recall Serbs wanting much more, than which was rightfully theirs. All the way throughout the war their troops have been 30-40 km from Zagreb, with rockets and artillery up in the hills (behind Karlovac and Sisak), and Zagreb laying in front of them down in the plains. If they wanted to finish with it, they could have taken Zagreb in the matter of days. Now tell me, why didn't they do it? Same thing with Sarajevo. Do you even know how the sidge of Sarajevo looked like? And don't start with that stories about brave homeland defenders of Croatia and Bosnia. Everyone who has been in the military, knows, that this situation would have been over in less than 2h, if the Serb forces wanted to overtake Sarajevo.

Perhaps the Serbs did not want to take Zagreb because this would have case NATO to invade and attack Serbian forces??? Besides Croatia was not part of Greater Serbia. It was Bosnia and Kosovo.

 

[Johannes]

1. Serbs never bragged with massacres on TV, live or not. I know cause I've watched their TV stations from time to time.

I did not say they "bragged." All I remember seeing is taking prisoners and then shooting them. Some video clips showed Muslim soldiers being executed and others civilians.

 

[Johannes]

1. Serbs never bragged with massacres on TV, live or not. I know cause I've watched their TV stations from time to time.QUOTE]

I did not say they "bragged." All I remember seeing is taking prisoners and then shooting them. Some video clips showed Muslim soldiers being executed and others civilians.

 

[Ike]

@Johannes

1. Serbs never bragged with massacres on TV, live or not. I know cause I've watched their TV stations from time to time.

I did not say they "bragged." All I remember seeing is taking prisoners and then shooting them. Some video clips showed Muslim soldiers being executed and as well as civilians.

Yes, the famous tape leaked out in 2005, about one paramilitary unit killing tied up men. The tape caused an uproar in Serbia and the actions were condemned by many politicians. Several members of the unit were quickly arrested. But that was a lot after, and has nothing to do with NATO attacks on Yugoslavia in 1995. and 1999. Both NATO and Russians must have known everything that happened here, disregarding it being recorded on VHS or not, so I don't take it that Serbs were bombed just because of TV shows.



2. No, that was not the reason. NATO started this war, so that it could fight Serbs. If NATO had respected Yugoslav constitution, international law, and democratic choice of the people, there would have been no war.

All I remember is that the Croats and Bosnians chose to separate from the former Yugoslavia (Serbian controlled). I dont remember NATO attacking for no good reason. I also remember Serb forces attacking UN Peacekeeping forces in areas protecting Muslims and Croats. And Serb snipers blowing the heads off innocent Sarajevans on their way to the market or strolling in the park. Or deliberately shelling houses and attacking innocent towns and villages. I am sure Croats and Muslims committed similar crimes but international TV showed it was mostly done by Serbs. Maybe NATO blocked some of the Croat/Muslim atrocities from being shown on TV, but never the less the Serbs did a terrible public relations job.

No, they did not choose to separate from Yugoslavia. They choose to separate the territory of Socialistic Republic of Croatia and Socialistic Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That was the problem. If the Croats or Bosniaks decided to leave nobody would stop them. Take a good look at this map, and tell me how is it logical for Bosniaks to separate the whole territory of Bosnia, when they were minority in Bosnia? (map)


Maybe the PR job was poorly done by Serbians, but that doesn't give NATO and EU an excuse for the atrocities done. In fact, I don't believe that western politicians knew what the situation was, but were forced to do wrong because of the pressure of the misinformed citizens. I think they encouraged the media spreading misinformations, because it served their goals.



3. I don't recall Serbs wanting much more, than which was rightfully theirs. All the way throughout the war their troops have been 30-40 km from Zagreb, with rockets and artillery up in the hills (behind Karlovac and Sisak), and Zagreb laying in front of them down in the plains. If they wanted to finish with it, they could have taken Zagreb in the matter of days. Now tell me, why didn't they do it? Same thing with Sarajevo. Do you even know how the sidge of Sarajevo looked like? And don't start with that stories about brave homeland defenders of Croatia and Bosnia. Everyone who has been in the military, knows, that this situation would have been over in less than 2h, if the Serb forces wanted to overtake Sarajevo.

Perhaps the Serbs did not want to take Zagreb because this would have case NATO to invade and attack Serbian forces??? Besides Croatia was not part of Greater Serbia. It was Bosnia and Kosovo.

You're misinformed about this one.
a. Serbs didn't want Zagreb because there are no Serbs in that area. If they wanted to control it, they would have done it during Yugoslavia, when they could have legitimately use JNA against Croatian terrorists which were not yet armed good enough. In 1990. Serbians had bigger problems, and they just wanted to get rid of burden of Slovenia and Croatia. Next thing, NATO would certainly not step in. They didn't even have guts to step in 1999. when it was Serbia only. Kissinger is explaining (here and here) that they didn't want to step in with ground forces in Bosnia in 1994, and I'm sure that they would step in against JNA in 1990.

b. No, Kosovo has nothing to do with Greater Serbia, it was integral part of Serbia, even before Yugoslavia, and before Serbia became a kingdom. This war was obviously not about Greater Serbia. There were proponents of that idea, but there were no military acspiration of Serbian forces outside of territories inhabited by Serbs. Large part of Croatia is a part of Greater Serbia. You should listen to that whole Kissinger interviews to get a better grasp of what is going on. It's just 25 mins, but very informative.


P.S. This is getting totally OT, and if you wish to reply it would be better on PM. I should have done that with this message ...

 

[Piro Ilir]

you are funny,
Is that a joke like the one with US embassy?How do you know? you spoke to a magician? or you have seen him

can you link me source?

I read a book about his life. There was clearly described as blonde hair. Likewise the Macedonians. You have his mosaic, and there is in blonde hair. Of course this is not 100% true. We are talking about 2300 years ago.
About US embassy, I was just making sandwiches, as you said firstly.

 

[Yetos]

I read a book about his life. There was clearly described as blonde hair. Likewise the Macedonians. You have his mosaic, and there is in blonde hair. Of course this is not 100% true. We are talking about 2300 years ago.
About US embassy, I was just making sandwiches, as you said firstly.

you read wrong books
only one ancient writer describe Alexandros and he say ΞΑΝΘΙΖΕΙΝ meaning towards blond, not blond,
it the light brown colour

and in mosaic sometimes he is red sometimes dark,

 

[Piro Ilir]

you read wrong books
only one ancient writer describe Alexandros and he say ΞΑΝΘΙΖΕΙΝ meaning towards blond, not blond,
it the light brown colour

and in mosaic sometimes he is red sometimes dark,

Yes I always read wrong books and you read the right books. Between brown and blonde or light brown, means the colour of the dinarics people. But I don't think his hairs proofs anything .

 

[Yetos]

You know that your assertion is partly false. Is coming to be an attitude for you. Albanian language has words with origin by archaic Latin and archaic north West Greek dialect. Romanian has not. Which means the Romanian language was formed later. It was formed by latinized tracians and yllirians. Probably Greeks either. The church Albanian vocabulary also shows a very earlier Christian adherence, prior Byzantine empire.

Blah Blah Blah

Albanian Propaganda, BUT

Big Kossova is coming,
then you will say different things, and change your avatar,

time to drop your mask

 

[Piro Ilir]

Yes,it was connected with the sardinian I2.

How many I2 samples were found on ancient tracian territory? And do we have found any I2 from the modern population throughout Balkans connected with those samples of ancient trace?

 

[Piro Ilir]

Already discussed in #355 and has nothing to do with the subject.

During that period the Serbs were allied of Turks. They already married with them.

 

[Piro Ilir]

E-V13 is a very minor part of illyrians ...less than 10%...................how can you claim anything with less than 10% ?

Vudecol culture is know as proto-illyrian culture and it is in modern Bosnia and since I2a is the bulk of Bosnian people we can assume I2a has far greater chance to be Illyrian than E-v13, don't you agree?

Ev13 is pre illyrian. It's pre IE probably. IE people came to Balkans and after mixing with locals formed the illyrians. The IE came to Balkans during the late neothilic or early bronze age. Ev13 is one of the proofs that Albanians evolved from one of the most ancient people of the Balkans.

 

[Piro Ilir]

But as far as we know Illyrians were probably not in Balkan in times of E-V13. Why do you think that Illyrians who came down to Balkan were also E-V13?
If they were E-V13 and not related to Greeks (as we know from Greek writings), how come we have so much E-V13 in southern Balkan? What happened so that whole Illyrian tribes moved from Dinaric mountains towards Bulgaria, Greece and Crete?

We still don't know who Illyrians were for sure, so guessing about their connection with any of today's nationalities or ethnicities seems futile. Maybe Albanians were here before the Illyrians, maybe they were Illyrians, maybe they came here after Illyrians perished, etc. No point in involving Albanians in this discussion.

Yllirians didn't came from the north. You are completely wrong. They were proto yllirians. Yllirians were formed afterward. Proto yllirians mixed with locals and formed the yllirians. Probably the same happened with the hellenes.
Proto yllirians carried the R1 and I2. The yllirians carried the R1,I2,ev13, J2, etc . But yllirians were spread onto a large area and many tribes. So the percentage of the DNA among them was different.

 

[Piro Ilir]

E-V13 is still a strange story in Balkans,

if we connect with the research of Italians searches,
then is palaiolithic/neolithic >7ky and its primary spot is modern central-west Bulgaria, (combination of E-v13 +PC1)

if we connect it with migrations from levant and minor Asia then is surely shorter than <4ky in Balkans and expand from Greece

we can not connect V-13 with IE,
meaning that true GREEKS THRACIANS ILLYRIANS had no V-13,
but either lived together, either they accept it later,

WE CAN NOT CONNECT ANY IE POPULATIONS WITH E-V13
meaning that E-V13 existed in Balkans before IE arrival,
or E-V13 came at late bronze age, (could be combined with tin bronze)
so E-V13 has nothing to do with proto-Thracians, proto-Greeks, Proto-Illyrians etc
but is a mark of Balkans and around generally,

E-v13 is not a mark of Albanians, neither a mark of Greeks, neither a mark of Bulgarians, neither a mark of Serbs,
all these found V-13 when they came, or accept it when it came,

He is saying that ev13 was part of the yllirian DNA. But of course yllirians didn't carry only Ev13 .

 

[Piro Ilir]

since at this present time ( today ) Harvard univ. is genotyping the R1b found of the Vudecol culture, which is proto-illyrian culture , we can safely say that whatever branch this R1b is , it will be known as an illyrian marker.

Do you listening your self? Illyrians were spread from North Yugoslavia further south throughout the epirus. There was a huge territory with many yllirian tribes, and with many other tribes, non yllirian. There was not only one line of DNA. So you think that all the yllirians were R1b ?

 

[Ike]

Perhaps they were chased by Slavs

If you start with the idea that E-V13 was the major Illyrian marker, and you see the current distribution of E-V13 it looks like there had to be a major Illyrian migration that must have been mentioned by Byzantine historians.

During that period the Serbs were allied of Turks. They already married with them.

I've already explained, but you seem not to understand what I'm saying.

Yllirians didn't came from the north. You are completely wrong. They were proto yllirians. Yllirians were formed afterward. Proto yllirians mixed with locals and formed the yllirians. Probably the same happened with the hellenes.
Proto yllirians carried the R1 and I2. The yllirians carried the R1,I2,ev13, J2, etc . But yllirians were spread onto a large area and many tribes. So the percentage of the DNA among them was different.

Really, completely wrong? OK. Call it what you like, as long as we all know we talk about the same thing.

Ev13 is pre illyrian. It's pre IE probably. IE people came to Balkans and after mixing with locals formed the illyrians. The IE came to Balkans during the late neothilic or early bronze age. Ev13 is one of the proofs that Albanians evolved from one of the most ancient people of the Balkans.

They probably couldn't have evolved from E-V13 because E-V13 was non-IE, unlike Albanians. E-V13 entered Albanian gene pool as an outsider. What was it before - Pelasgian, Illyrian, Thracian, Dorian, Slavic, etc, will be determined in the future, hopefully.

 

[Милан М.]

During that period the Serbs were allied of Turks. They already married with them.

You seem not to distinguish "allies' among other things,some of the Brankovic dynasty indeed fought some battles on their side,why was that cause Hungarians looted his wealth and try to siege control over entire Serbia with the Crusades and papacy,Serbia at that time was despotate enjoying at least some freedom,which could loose it along their culture,some other lords of Serb descend fought on other side,so it's hypothetical,French were "allies" of Ottomans bound by treaty ever since Sultan Suleiman.Britain,French fought against Russia with the Ottomans when Russian empire almost annihilate them and gave rise and help to modern Turkey,in which Crimean war we provided soldiers for the Russians.Germans with Ottomans,numerous other examples.Serbs,Bulgars,Greeks expelled them from Europe in the Balkan wars,while not all were happy about it,speacialy not you Albanians at that time,Byzantines brought them in Europe for first time they step foot in Thrace with their help as "allies" perhaps,everything is hypothetical regardless situation,but you can repeat this over and over if make you happy.Ottomans were empire like any other only with Muslim customs and law nothing weird there,Serbs at least fought battles alone and on Kosovo killed their Sultan,which stop their expansion for a while,but we lacked soldiers unlike Muslims they had them many in Mid East and Anatolia,Kosovo battle which triggered the fall of Serbia; Tactically inconclusive,Mutual heavy losses—devastating for the less numerous Serbs,Casualties and losses,Ottomans;Sultan Murad I and most of the troops.Serbs;Prince Lazar and most of the troops,
Strategic Ottoman victory,among many other Serbo-Turkish wars.

 

[Johannes]

@Johannes

1. Serbs never bragged with massacres on TV, live or not. I know cause I've watched their TV stations from time to time.

I did not say they "bragged." All I remember seeing is taking prisoners and then shooting them. Some video clips showed Muslim soldiers being executed and as well as civilians.

Yes, the famous tape leaked out in 2005, about one paramilitary unit killing tied up men. The tape caused an uproar in Serbia and the actions were condemned by many politicians. Several members of the unit were quickly arrested. But that was a lot after, and has nothing to do with NATO attacks on Yugoslavia in 1995. and 1999. Both NATO and Russians must have known everything that happened here, disregarding it being recorded on VHS or not, so I don't take it that Serbs were bombed just because of TV shows.



2. No, that was not the reason. NATO started this war, so that it could fight Serbs. If NATO had respected Yugoslav constitution, international law, and democratic choice of the people, there would have been no war.

All I remember is that the Croats and Bosnians chose to separate from the former Yugoslavia (Serbian controlled). I dont remember NATO attacking for no good reason. I also remember Serb forces attacking UN Peacekeeping forces in areas protecting Muslims and Croats. And Serb snipers blowing the heads off innocent Sarajevans on their way to the market or strolling in the park. Or deliberately shelling houses and attacking innocent towns and villages. I am sure Croats and Muslims committed similar crimes but international TV showed it was mostly done by Serbs. Maybe NATO blocked some of the Croat/Muslim atrocities from being shown on TV, but never the less the Serbs did a terrible public relations job.

No, they did not choose to separate from Yugoslavia. They choose to separate the territory of Socialistic Republic of Croatia and Socialistic Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That was the problem. If the Croats or Bosniaks decided to leave nobody would stop them. Take a good look at this map, and tell me how is it logical for Bosniaks to separate the whole territory of Bosnia, when they were minority in Bosnia? (map)


Maybe the PR job was poorly done by Serbians, but that doesn't give NATO and EU an excuse for the atrocities done. In fact, I don't believe that western politicians knew what the situation was, but were forced to do wrong because of the pressure of the misinformed citizens. I think they encouraged the media spreading misinformations, because it served their goals.



3. I don't recall Serbs wanting much more, than which was rightfully theirs. All the way throughout the war their troops have been 30-40 km from Zagreb, with rockets and artillery up in the hills (behind Karlovac and Sisak), and Zagreb laying in front of them down in the plains. If they wanted to finish with it, they could have taken Zagreb in the matter of days. Now tell me, why didn't they do it? Same thing with Sarajevo. Do you even know how the sidge of Sarajevo looked like? And don't start with that stories about brave homeland defenders of Croatia and Bosnia. Everyone who has been in the military, knows, that this situation would have been over in less than 2h, if the Serb forces wanted to overtake Sarajevo.

Perhaps the Serbs did not want to take Zagreb because this would have case NATO to invade and attack Serbian forces??? Besides Croatia was not part of Greater Serbia. It was Bosnia and Kosovo.

You're misinformed about this one.
a. Serbs didn't want Zagreb because there are no Serbs in that area. If they wanted to control it, they would have done it during Yugoslavia, when they could have legitimately use JNA against Croatian terrorists which were not yet armed good enough. In 1990. Serbians had bigger problems, and they just wanted to get rid of burden of Slovenia and Croatia. Next thing, NATO would certainly not step in. They didn't even have guts to step in 1999. when it was Serbia only. Kissinger is explaining (here and here) that they didn't want to step in with ground forces in Bosnia in 1994, and I'm sure that they would step in against JNA in 1990.

b. No, Kosovo has nothing to do with Greater Serbia, it was integral part of Serbia, even before Yugoslavia, and before Serbia became a kingdom. This war was obviously not about Greater Serbia. There were proponents of that idea, but there were no military acspiration of Serbian forces outside of territories inhabited by Serbs. Large part of Croatia is a part of Greater Serbia. You should listen to that whole Kissinger interviews to get a better grasp of what is going on. It's just 25 mins, but very informative.


P.S. This is getting totally OT, and if you wish to reply it would be better on PM. I should have done that with this message ...

You are definitely more knowledgeable than me about your history. I only read two books on Balkan History and one on the History of the Serbs (I have always been a supporter of the Serbs because they resisted the Turks). As for the answers:

1. You are right. That video was probably released much later to support the arrests of the Serb generals and politicians. The media almost always distorts reality.

2. I always thought (even when I took a Balkan History class during my graduate studies in the late 1990's) that it would be impossible to separate the Bosniaks (Croats OK) from the Serbs and they were so mixed up! But do you think that Bosnia was/is only Serb territory??? Maybe that is the reason why NATO decided to go against Serbia because they wanted to take the whole area and ethnically cleanse it? No doubt at the beginning the Serbs were looked at as the aggressors. So yes, your PR was messed up and the media took advantage of your country's mistakes. The media is a monster that does not have any morals: It only worships the altar of money.

3. OK but there were very small number of Serbs in Kosovo. So why did the Serbs wanted to ethnically cleanse the territory of Albanians?

 

[Ike]

I always thought (even when I took a Balkan History class during my graduate studies in the late 1990's) that it would be impossible to separate the Bosniaks (Croats OK) from the Serbs and they were so mixed up! But do you think that Bosnia was/is only Serb territory??? Maybe that is the reason why NATO decided to go against Serbia because they wanted to take the whole area and ethnically cleanse it? No doubt at the beginning the Serbs were looked at as the aggressors. So yes, your PR was messed up and the media took advantage of your country's mistakes. The media is a monster that does not have any morals: It only worships the altar of money.

Off course it was not only Serbian territory.

The problem, from the very beginning is that Serbians were by far most numerous ethnicity inside Yugoslavia. In 1943. communists divided the majority of Serb population into 4 republics (and latter added 2 autonomous regions). There are stories that the whole idea behind that was to disunite Serb population, so that new state wouldn't be Serb dominated like Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was. Disregarding motives and if they are true, Serbs ended ethnically divided into many administrative zones. When the Warsaw pact and Soviet Union dissolved, the power balance between East and West (on which Yugoslavia relied) was gone. Some nationalities (Slovenes and Croats for start) started questioning their position, and new parties claimed that they would be better off outside Yugoslavia. On the other hand, Serbs would also be better off outside Yugoslavia, but they were in a stupid position, because if Republic of Serbia separated from Yugoslavia, there would still be a large part of Serbs left inside Yugoslavia. So, Serbia had no national interest to secede from Yugoslavia. That was the main reason why moderate Serbian politicians were favouring Yugoslavia.

Considering Bosnia, if you look at the war maps, you can see that in a small amount of time since the war broke out, the front lines were cemented and the didn't move much until the end of the war. These are the mapes from 1992:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Map_of_war_in_Yugoslavia,_1992.png

And this is the ethnic structure of the region:
http://www.rastko.rs/istorija/srbi-balkan/img/fry4b.jpg

You see that they correlate very well with one another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyoWem9Nvsc


So, if you think there was an aggressive war here, it wasn't. Nobody did conquer much of the "enemy" territory during the whole Yugoslav war. It was just a stalemate, going nowhere from the beginning. Croats and Bosniaks had no power to do it, and Serbs had no interest in Croat and Bosniak territory. Once only peasants (unlike Muslim craftsmen, merchants, officials, penman, etc) Serbs (who were ~40% of population) had in their legal possession <60% of Bosnian territory, while Muslims were mostly populating urban areas. That's why Serbs were pretty much satisfied with what they had even before the was started.

The whole Serbian idea was that Croats and Bosniaks can secede from Yugoslavia, but they cannot drag Serbians with them. If they want to secede they can do it democratically, and they can secede Croatian and Bosniak people, but they cannot secede administrative zones of Socialistic Republic of Croatia and Socialistic Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the other hand Croats and Bosniaks wanted to secede Croatia and Bosnia because that way they'd be getting more than they deserve. And that's how the war broke out. Western countries didn't do any good. They talked Bosnians 2 times into not accepting peace plans, as I've already posted somewhere.

First time in 1992. for Carrington-Cutiliero plan:

"On 18 March 1992, all three sides signed the agreement; Alija Izetbegović for the Bosniaks, Radovan Karadžić for the Serbs and Mate Boban for the Croats.
On 28 March 1992, after a meeting with US ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmermann in Sarajevo, Izetbegović withdrew his signature and declared his opposition to any division of Bosnia."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_...Cutileiro_plan


Second time in 1995, when Owen-Stoltenberg plan was in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUuh...youtu.be&t=25m


Badinter commission concluded they they recognize the borders of republics as state borders. That literally means that they gave advantage to some map lines that 7 communists have drawn in the middle of the winter of 1943. in some Bosnian hut, over democracy and will of the people. The decisions of that commission were illegitimate, illegal, contrary to Yugoslav constitution and international law.

OK but there were very small number of Serbs in Kosovo. So why did the Serbs wanted to ethnically cleanse the territory of Albanians?

They didn't want to cleanse it. If anything, the number of Albanians only rose during while Kosovo was under Serbian government. From ~500.000 in 1948. to ~1.600.000 in 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Kosovo#Ethnic_groups


Some claim that Serbians started ethnic cleansing during the NATO bombing. Serbians themselves claim, that Albanians fled from NATO bombing, for which they have some arguments in the fact that not a small number of Albanians looked for salvation in other parts of Yugoslavia controlled by Serbian army. Nevertheless, ethnic cleansing definitely started after the NATO's war to stop ethnic cleansing.

This is the report of OSCE observer who was on Kosovo:
"With the reversal of power, the 800,000 Kosovar refugees, created by the war, returned, supporting the KLA's policy of reverse intimidation and atrocities. This all but ethnically cleansed the majority of the 270,000 Kosovo Serbs and other minorities from the province."
http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/rkeith.htm


This is what lord Carrington says:
"Nato bombing of Serbia caused, rather than prevented, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, the organisation's former secretary general, Lord Carrington, said today.The bombing "made things very much worse" and the European Union had made "catastrophically stupid decisions" in its dealings with the former Yugoslavia, he added."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/aug/27/balkans

 

[Piro Ilir]

Off course it was not only Serbian territory.

The problem, from the very beginning is that Serbians were by far most numerous ethnicity inside Yugoslavia. In 1943. communists divided the majority of Serb population into 4 republics (and latter added 2 autonomous regions). There are stories that the whole idea behind that was to disunite Serb population, so that new state wouldn't be Serb dominated like Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was. Disregarding motives and if they are true, Serbs ended ethnically divided into many administrative zones. When the Warsaw pact and Soviet Union dissolved, the power balance between East and West (on which Yugoslavia relied) was gone. Some nationalities (Slovenes and Croats for start) started questioning their position, and new parties claimed that they would be better off outside Yugoslavia. On the other hand, Serbs would also be better off outside Yugoslavia, but they were in a stupid position, because if Republic of Serbia separated from Yugoslavia, there would still be a large part of Serbs left inside Yugoslavia. So, Serbia had no national interest to secede from Yugoslavia. That was the main reason why moderate Serbian politicians were favouring Yugoslavia.

Considering Bosnia, if you look at the war maps, you can see that in a small amount of time since the war broke out, the front lines were cemented and the didn't move much until the end of the war. These are the mapes from 1992:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Map_of_war_in_Yugoslavia,_1992.png

And this is the ethnic structure of the region:
http://www.rastko.rs/istorija/srbi-balkan/img/fry4b.jpg

You see that they correlate very well with one another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyoWem9Nvsc


So, if you think there was an aggressive war here, it wasn't. Nobody did conquer much of the "enemy" territory during the whole Yugoslav war. It was just a stalemate, going nowhere from the beginning. Croats and Bosniaks had no power to do it, and Serbs had no interest in Croat and Bosniak territory. Once only peasants (unlike Muslim craftsmen, merchants, officials, penman, etc) Serbs (who were ~40% of population) had in their legal possession <60% of Bosnian territory, while Muslims were mostly populating urban areas. That's why Serbs were pretty much satisfied with what they had even before the was started.

The whole Serbian idea was that Croats and Bosniaks can secede from Yugoslavia, but they cannot drag Serbians with them. If they want to secede they can do it democratically, and they can secede Croatian and Bosniak people, but they cannot secede administrative zones of Socialistic Republic of Croatia and Socialistic Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the other hand Croats and Bosniaks wanted to secede Croatia and Bosnia because that way they'd be getting more than they deserve. And that's how the war broke out. Western countries didn't do any good. They talked Bosnians 2 times into not accepting peace plans, as I've already posted somewhere.

First time in 1992. for Carrington-Cutiliero plan:

"On 18 March 1992, all three sides signed the agreement; Alija Izetbegović for the Bosniaks, Radovan Karadžić for the Serbs and Mate Boban for the Croats.
On 28 March 1992, after a meeting with US ambassador to Yugoslavia Warren Zimmermann in Sarajevo, Izetbegović withdrew his signature and declared his opposition to any division of Bosnia."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_...Cutileiro_plan


Second time in 1995, when Owen-Stoltenberg plan was in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUuh...youtu.be&t=25m


Badinter commission concluded they they recognize the borders of republics as state borders. That literally means that they gave advantage to some map lines that 7 communists have drawn in the middle of the winter of 1943. in some Bosnian hut, over democracy and will of the people. The decisions of that commission were illegitimate, illegal, contrary to Yugoslav constitution and international law.







They didn't want to cleanse it. If anything, the number of Albanians only rose during while Kosovo was under Serbian government. From ~500.000 in 1948. to ~1.600.000 in 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Kosovo#Ethnic_groups


Some claim that Serbians started ethnic cleansing during the NATO bombing. Serbians themselves claim, that Albanians fled from NATO bombing, for which they have some arguments in the fact that not a small number of Albanians looked for salvation in other parts of Yugoslavia controlled by Serbian army. Nevertheless, ethnic cleansing definitely started after the NATO's war to stop ethnic cleansing.

This is the report of OSCE observer who was on Kosovo:
"With the reversal of power, the 800,000 Kosovar refugees, created by the war, returned, supporting the KLA's policy of reverse intimidation and atrocities. This all but ethnically cleansed the majority of the 270,000 Kosovo Serbs and other minorities from the province."
http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/rkeith.htm


This is what lord Carrington says:
"Nato bombing of Serbia caused, rather than prevented, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, the organisation's former secretary general, Lord Carrington, said today.The bombing "made things very much worse" and the European Union had made "catastrophically stupid decisions" in its dealings with the former Yugoslavia, he added."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/aug/27/balkans

What about the massacre of Recak. Or it was a media's fabrication?!