From: stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.croatia,soc.culture.bosna-herzgvna
Subject: Re: "please read this carefully...," so I did
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:19:22 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <C007B6.zB@ecf.toronto.edu> blazic@ecf.toronto.edu (BLAZIC Joseph R) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.180416.18872@husc3.harvard.edu> stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic) writes:
>>
>>In article <BzzEt2.4vI@ecf.toronto.edu> Joe Blazic wrote:
>>>In article <1992Dec28.101218.18865@husc3.harvard.edu> stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Direct answer for your standard "argument" is that while 
>>>>Croatia quickly decided to provoke and attack ex-Yu army ( similar
>
>Note the operative word: "quickly".

>
>>>>thing happened in Bosnia )
>>>
>>>Absolutely false Milan.  I'd like to see you *try* to substantiate this
  ------------

Note the operative word: Absolutely.
Problem is that we could go for hours arguing about what was going on 
in what order.  This argument was going on for a while around here.  
I have not seen anything conclusive.  

>>>with reliable references.  You really set yourself up here.  Please do
>>      -------

>
>BTW, Milan, would you care to elaborate on your suggestion that those
>Croats and Czechs massacred in Western Slavonia last year after Serbian
>forces retreated might have been Serbs, i.e. your exact words were 'how
>do you differentiate dead Serbs from dead Croat'?
>

Sure, it happened more then once that Croats were showing dead Serbs or
that they later mutilated bodies of Croats killed in battle and shown them
as massacres committed by Serbs.  The best example is Borovo Selo, where 
killed policemen were handed over by Yu-army to Croats.  Unfortunately for
Croats, Yu-army video taped the event, so later the same bodies, with 
only bullet wounds at the beginning, were shown as massacred on 
Croatian TV.  This was at the very beginning of the "war."  So should 
I trust anything that comes out of Croatian sources? 


>
>Ustashas?  Back to WWII again.  Everyone (except for official Serbian
>sources) reported that the barracks were blockaded by the Croatian National
>Guard.  Their acronym in Croatian is ZNG, which is what was spray-painted
>on the armoured vehicles that they captured.  Perhaps your mind is so
>fixated that when you see "ZNG" you register "U" for "Ustashe".  Spare us.

I have heard this argument by certain Mr. Cicic:"Even those Serbs who
were massacred were not killed by Ustashas, but by ZNG."  I guess it makes
it a big difference how do they call themselves.  And, in Capljina things
were under the control of HOS.

>
>>Was this an act of friendship and love by Croats? And now, Dr. Wickerhauser
>
>No, an act of military desperation.  

The most of what you call the "Croatian territory" was never lost
against Yu-army, but was to begin with in the hands of Serbs.  

Up to that point they were mostly not engaging Yu-army.  Dr. Wickerhauser
posted an article where Yu-army was saving people from irregullars. The 
regular army was mentioned in rather good light in lengthy article about
Vukovar that recently came through Cro-news.
 
Army tried desperately to stay neutral, there were many complains about that
in the Banija operations. Captain Dragan complained about army.  To remind 
you, after that, the most successful operation, Cap was kicked out of 
Krajina, after the request of army. In some cases that neutrality was working
for Serbs, I admit.  Serbs attack, take over (liberate), Croats try to get
back, but army is already there to separate two sides.
Rarely it worked against Serbs - in running away, Serbs would like to deal
a final blow, but there is army to stop them - Glina, Plitvice cases. 

>After some heavy weaponry was seized,
>the only substantial loss incurred by the Croatian side was Vukovar and
>the Dubrovnik hinterland.   

Kupres and whole Posavina except Orasje.  Both things would have not
happened had it been peaceful settlement.  In the case of Kupres it is
beyond doubt that there were regular army units fighting on the Croatian
side - "ants from Vukovar" - to remind you, according to the Cro-news.

>The rest of the 1/3 of Croatia had ALREADY been
>lost, with war raging for months already (and the army hardly standing idly
>by).  

Again, not against army.  But against Serbs who held anyway most of that
exaggerated one third ( actually is it one third?).

And, indeed, army was mostly standing by.  It is true that army helped Serbs 
stabilize lines through stopping Croatian counter-offensives, but army 
did not participate in any of the unprovoked attacks.  BTW - do you know 
that blockade of military installations in Zagreb started during the war
in Slovenia?  Check news from that time.  What happened on the bridge?
The only two examples I know were Erdut and Dalj, where army directly engaged
with ZNG - Ustashe, or however. In both cases army was initially attacked
by ZNG, after army came to stop the fighting. I am talking about initial 
stages.  Sorry - in Dalj there was MUP, not ZNG. 


>
>Milan, something is becoming very very apparent in your postings.  In all
>seriousness, it seems like you have no sense of time.  In this thread
>you neglect the fact that the war in Croatia had been going on for months
>before the Croatian Guard began blockading army barracks.  In other threads
>you drift to and fro 1941 with complete freedom.

War?  Ah, you mean Croats attempting to take over police stations in Glina
(success), Pakrac ( success), Petrinja ( partial success)?  Serbs liberating
Glina, Petrinja ( this only after the help of Yu-army and after the blockade
was put by Croats - intelligent move by them). 
Somehow, you go on forgeting to put that into account.

And I do believe that there is a context of these events which is connected
with Haushofer's work - thus 1941 is equally relevant as 1991. 

>
>>-In Bosnia - who declared Yu army an enemy army and declared state of
>>war against it?  Day after there was an agreement that army should be 
>>pulled out peacefully?  Agreement reached in Macedonia between still 
>
>You write as if the Yu army was a serious and respectable one that
>"plays by the rules" and keeps its word.  The war in Slovenia and Croatia
>(shall we begin to recall what happened?) revealed the Yugoslav "Peoples"
>army for what it really was and was not.
>

Yes?   What happened?  Legal army units were attacked by thugs, who started
the propaganda war to represent it as aggression.
And army kept its word much more that any other side in this war.

>>in power Veljko Kadijevic and Alija Izetbegovic? Should I remind you on 
>>Capljina, Mostar, Travnik bases, that were under siege for some months
>
>Were they?  Can you prove this?  I can send you one article (Jan '92)
>that reported the ex-YU army roaming outside its barracks and causing
>havoc in Mostar.  The war in B-H began months later.
>

Sorry?  You mean according to Croatian sources?  Have you heard
about explosion in "South Base?"  And I should say Novi Travnik, not
Travnik.  
I am not denying the possibility that some reservists behaved badly in 
Mostar, but most sources are based on Izetbegovic government complains,
and we know who is the biggest liar around ( Lewis MacKenzie case ). 

>>before all this started in Bosnia? Ah, yes, that is not B&H...
>>Should I remind you how were soldiers kept in Sarajevo?  Who attacked them
>>after there was an agreement that they should leave? This was described 
>>even in NYT. 
>
>Yes, was this before or after the roadblocks, expulsions of thousands of
>Muslims from suburbs, and shelling of Sarajevo began?  Again, your sense
>of time is (conveniently?) off.  BTW, do you forget about the Yu-army
>tanks in the streets of predominately Serbian suburbs in Sarajevo, as
>seen on many BBC reports at the time (one Martin Bell report in particular
>where he interviewed a mask-clad Serbian volunteer who said "if you want
>to have your own country, your own state, you have to *spill* some blood";
>sorry that's the best exact 'reference' I have for that report).

I have seen the same one.  Barickades after the killing on the Serbian 
wedding.  There was no tank, as far as I remember.  Tanks appeared later.
Again, "expulsions of thousand of Muslims from suburbs" happened much
later, when fight for suburbs started.  When Alija decided to start
attacking the predominantly Serbian suburbs, and Serbs of course did not 
stand idly by. That is when first bombardment happened. Attack on the 
police school, you remember? When two different units of special police
started killing each other?  When some Muslim claimed that he has seen
Vojvoda Djujic in person attacking them. 

The point of discussion was how did it happen that Serbs got most of weapons?
Just to remind you.  If one side decides not to give soldiers to army,
decides not to treat that army as its own, it is quite clear that that
side would not get weapons.

>
>>Or is it possible that you were not actually not interested
>>in documents and truth, but...No, I could not believe that about you 8-).
>
>No I am interested very much in the truth, as are most people, that's why
>I actively read what "independent" reporters and agencies (AI, HW) write.
>I recall you dismissed what is in the human rights reports because they
>are dependent frequently (esp in the case of B-H) on personal interviews
>(you assume they don't cross-interview people, while their executive 

Would you mind quoting me saying that they do not "cross-interview" people.
					  --------------------------------
I said that they base their conclusions on interviews of the "witnesses"
that could be tampered with.  I have also claimed that if two witnesses
have been there at the same time, their story is already 60%+ convergent, 
and they could be easily adjusted by anyone.

>director Luber says they do).
>

>Further to "getting to the truth" I asked you (after you posted an interview
>with someone who spent some time in Jasenovac during WWII) why you accept

"spent some time"??????

Fra Majstorovic spent some time there?  On holiday, I suppose.
That was not an interview, btw.

>(or at least don't question) eye-witness accounts from WWII when you so
>vehemently question eye-witness accounts of Serbian atrocities (documented
>now in AI and HW reports) and go so far as to demand "forensic evidence".
>

Well, you have following things converging together:

- German estimates ( I've posted some of them, and I'll go on )
- Italian estimates
- Railway composition counts 
- Body evidence (like 120 mass graves -on average 1000 bodies- on only
10% of the surface of only Gradina, "hills of ash" - human ash-)
- Accounts of Croats who " spent some time" there, i.e. Boban, Majstorovic
- Documentation gathered by Ustashas themselves - that survived Luburic's
burning documents twice, 1943, 1945. Group on War crimes estimated that 
there is 5-600.000 different cases mentioned in these documents.
- Finally eyewitness accounts of those who survived

The only thing which is working against it are - some demographical stydies and
one phantom - why phantom Mr. Loncaric knows this- count of victims.
As far as I am concerned, mathematical models have to fit real experimental
data, especially if you are dealing with numbers like those in Yugoslavia -
where each census is taken differently and some of them were never published
officially ( 1931 ).  Not to mention 1948 census.


>To this I (anxiously) still await your reply.
>

I hope that you are happy, now.

>Best regards,

Same, have a happy New Year,

>
>Joe Blazic



Milan N. Stojanovic

P.S.  One more thing.  I more protest your conclusions that level of
violence in Ai/HW reports is proportional to the one on actual battle
fields. It more represents the willingness of one side to interact with
HW/AI, and for one or the other reason, and I gave them earlier, 
different Serbian sides were reluctant to do that.  I find it stupid, but
I am not the one making policy there.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.croatia