From: josip@eng.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric)
Subject: Re: Croatian dreams
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 02:45:21 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland

In article <1992Dec27.215439.10028@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>Josip Loncaric (josip@eng.umd.edu) writes:
>>If you think that this is THE problem, you are wrong.  If you think that
>>the Croatian leadership, in their struggle to protect Croatia from
>>Milosevic, could have completely avoided alienating Croatian Serbs,
>>you are also wrong.
>
>So Croatia was never meant to be a state for all its citizens?

You should read what I said, not what you imagine I said.  Croatia IS a
state for all of its citizens.  However, no state in the world gives
veto power to a bunch of militant extremists, playing the tune of
another power center.  In the USA, there are all kinds of alienated
fringe groups, but the society as a whole functions reasonably well.

>>You are on a false trail.  Even if the Croatian leadership had done
>>a lot more than they did to get the Serbs in Croatia on their side,
>>Belgrade policy would have been the same, and the outcome would
>>have been the same.
>
>And with no alienated Serbs who would have put up the road blocks in
>Knin? Without any alienated Serbs between who would the army have
>supported?

No -- there would be "alienated Serbs" and Knin roadblocks no matter
what Croatia did, short of prostrating itself before their maximal
demands.  The army/Milosevic could ALWAYS create "alienated Serbs"
no matter what Croatia did.  This is the oldest trick in the book
for any invader: find (or create, or pay off) a group of agitators
who will invite the invader in.  Consider Sudetenland, consider
"alienated Stalinists" of Hungary in 1956, consider "alienated
Communists" of Czeckoslovakia in 1968, etc.

>>>The lamb should have stayed with the flock. Croatia and B-H should have
>>>analysed the consequences of their plans before going ahead.
>>
>>Aha.  So here it is, at last, Erland wants Croatia and B-H to submit
>>to the Milosevic dictatorship.
>
>You should learn reading. I didn't say that. I very most emphatically
>didn't say that.

"say with the flock" = "stay in Yugoslavia".
"stay in Yugoslavia" = "stay where Milosevic is gaining complete control"
===>
"stay with the flock" = "accept Milosevic's dictatorship"

Enough said.

>I said that Croatia and B-H should have made an analysis of their
>plans. The result of the analysis would probably not have been the 
>same.

An analysis was made, not only by Croats and B-H government, but also
by the EC, the UN, the USA, everybody involved.  Serbian attack on B-H
was thought to be unnecessary because B-H was adopting conciliatory
posture and ensuring tolerance.  Whoever thought that Serbs attacked
Croatia because of some lack of tolerance got a rude surprise in B-H.

>>Moreover, it stinks of blaming the victim in order to exculpate
>>those who contributed to this carnage by refusing the victim even
>>the right of self-defense.
>
>Excuse me, I am exculpating no one, least of all the Serbian side.

You are exculpating yourself.  You also refuse to learn that the war
in Croatia had precious little to do with Croatian Serbs, and
everything to do with army/Milosevic/Seselj team carving up the
largest possible domain.  Furthermore, whoever was the bright guy
who refused to let B-H defend itself, is guilty of being an
accomplice in Serbian genocide over B-H Muslims and Croats.  Mind
you, this is not just my view:  there was an Op-Ed piece in the
New York Times to that effect.

>I have to say that your understanding capabilities seems slightly
>limited, since I have been spending just as much times telling what
>I think about the Serbian, and that's not any nice words.

I have to say the same about you.  We've argued about this at
length, and your understanding is very limited when it comes to interpreting
facts.  The war in Croatia was not caused by a group of "alienated
Croatian Serbs" but manufactured by Milosevic & Co., and I have
offered plenty of evidence to support this.  Croatian Serbs were
just a convenient tool for Milosevic & Co., and besides, most of
them supported Croatia before the war started, some of them defended
Croatia during the war, and many know that once this carnage is
over, their future is in Croatia, not Serbia.

>But all faults of Milosevic & co does not exculpate Croatian and
>Bosnian leadership for their mistakes.

I agree 100%.  But you are too dense to understand the difference
between my argument ("alienated Serbs" are NOT the cause of the
war in Croatia) and some kind of unquestioning defense of Croatian and
Bosnian leaderships.  You decided to give undue prominence to one
aspect of Croatian leadership's policy, a part which is simply
a "red herring" and does not have much to do with the war.  This
false trail has led the EC/UN/etc. on a wild goose chase, while
the Serbian leadership continued to advance its REAL objectives.

So, please, think again: consider the evidence, and ask yourself
what has been learned in the past 18 months.

>Sometimes these Serbo-Croats reminds me of kids in the sandbox
>yelling "he started!".

So, pray tell, WHO STARTED?  Tell us the truth!!!  The answer is not
important simply because some kids want to blame another, but because
you learn about REAL goals of actors in this drama.  Only by correctly
diagnosing the situation can you begin to treat it with some success.
I'm trying to point out that your analysis is inconsistent with the
facts; thus, it cannot offer any workable solutions.

Anyway, happy New Year.

Josip

Xref: sparky alt.politics.europe.misc:256 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10267