Talk:Croatian War of Independence/Archive 2

Yugoslav Civil War
Hello people. I don't edit articles much here, but I have a proposal to make. Please dont dismiss it or ignore it idmediatly, I believe it is a logical idea. When the SFRJ broke up, a lot of the successor states had been fighting eathother at simultaneous times. The war for independence in Croatia happened at the same time during the war in Bosnia, both took place at least 3-4 years simultaneously. In the real world, many people consider the wars in the former SFRJ as a single, Yugoslav Civil War; which contained its important parts, like the Croatian war of independence, the Bosnian war, and the war in Slovenia. However, at the moment, Wikipedia does not offer a good, single, organized page on the whole, Yugoslav civil war in which all the events that took place in the SFRJ from 1991-1995 would be listed. The page Yugoslav wars is too chronogically broad in my opinion; it basically combines several wars from 1991 to 2001 (in which some were very different) and considered it one, single war. Violence wasn't continous in the 1990s, it was on-and-off; that era should not be considered as the times of a single war. At the same time, these articles like Slovenian War of Independence, Croatian war of independence, and the Bosnian war all happened in the same era of violence in the same dissolution of the same former state. In my opinion, all of those "wars" make up what was the Yugoslav Civil War, not seperate wars. I believe that these articles should either be merged or be connected to some sort of new article that explains the happenings of the Yugoslav Civil War. That war cannot go ignored and be seperated into other wars and wars from the wrong eras. Opinions are welcome, reply to me when you can. Zastavafan76 20:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these wars were known as Serbian aggression (on Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina). That wasn't civil war. That was Serbia's military attempt to conquer and annex the whole territories of republics that declared independence. Later those goals decreased a little, because of unexpected unsuccesful turn of events on the battlefield: weakly armed countries somehow defended parts of their countries, so GreaterSerbianists have adjusted their appetites on the controlled/conquered territory of neighbouring countries. Kubura 18:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well....doesn't that mean it should be classified as a single war then? My point was that there should be a single, large article about the war from 1991-1995 because the violence in the different successor states happened at the same time. Because at the moment, wiki only offers articles about the war of independence in croatia, then in slovenia, the war in bosnia....but there is no good article that combines those happenings in to what was the war. Without that, it would be like classifying World War 2 as The War in Europe, the War in Africa, The War in Asia and so on....to me it doesn't make much sense to seperate the fightings in the Yugoslav wars from 1991-1995. Since you say yourself, it was a single war, so there should be a single article that covers it, not like 5 or something. And when that happens, the name of the article would be determined by those who know how to classify which types of war would be appropriate to call the war tha happened. Zastavafan76 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree they should all be written about in "yugoslav civil wars". Whether to merge these articles with "yugoslav civil wars" though, I don't know. 89.172.15.15 13:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think your most recent edit is "NPOV TRUTH", then you either have some serious issues or are simply trolling. // Laughing Man 21:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not "trying to say" anything. You are the one that is trying to change war to greater Serbian aggression.  Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia article not a soapbox, and this change in no way even resembles an attempt at a more neutral point of view, and actually is just the opposite.  // Laughing Man 15:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think it should say "war" instead of "greater Serbian aggression". The reason it should say "war" is because the introduction is supposed to sum up the whole article, so that part definitely should state that this was a war - since that's what is was, a war (pretty simple). Also, if you state it was an "aggression" that leaves it quite ambiguous, because states can show aggression without actually having a war. Also, "greater Serbian aggression" is POV because those words seem to say that it was every Serb that started the war and every Serb took part in the war. I'd suggest re-wording it into something like "a war to create a greater Serbia", but I don't think that's necessary because I think the last version by Laughing Man is right, as "war" seems very appropriate for the intro. - Ivan K 08:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Modified Intro
Changed

The Croatian side aimed to establish sovereignty for the Republic of Croatia, previously a socialist republic in Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, while Serbs wanted to stay in Yugoslavia, effectively seeking new boundaries in parts of Croatia with a Serb majority or with influential Serbian minority. The war was striking for its brutality in a relatively developed society in Europe, and in modern times.

to

The Croatian side aimed to establish sovereignty for the Republic of Croatia, previously a socialist republic in Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, ''while Serbs did not want to stay in an independent Croatia, effectively seeking new boundaries in parts of Croatia with a Serb majority or with influential Serbian minority. This view reflected the desire of the Serb elite to unite all Serbs on the territory of the former Yugoslavia into one state, effectively creating a Greater Serbia, an objective consistent with the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.'' The war was striking for its brutality in a relatively developed society in Europe, and in modern times.

because the Badinter Arbitration Committee had found that Yugoslavia had effectively ceased to exist by virtue of the federal institutions no longer functioning, thus it is difficult for the Serbs to stay in a country that effectively no longer existed. This is particularly so when it is considered that the SFRJ was a country was defined by it's federalist structure and the attempt to redraw Republic boundaries went against the very reason for the country's initial existence.

As such, I have redefined the Serbs aim as not staying in an independent Croatia and added a couple wikipedia links that are relevant. iruka 07:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it's not NPOV. First, the Memorandum is more a semi-mythic accusation of "new Serbian version of Mein Kampf" than a document of profound political weight; it's too undue weight to be put in the intro and I doubt any of the rebel Croatian Serbs even read it. Second, and more important, the entire change is the classic example of poisoning the well: you put the POV-reasoning for the war into Serbs' mouths en general, while in reality their motives ranged from genuine concerns for their status change in independent Croatia to chauvinistic calls for Greater Serbia and ethnic cleansing for Croats. Duja ► 10:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Legitimate point about the avg Croat Serb not necessarily reading the document, but there are two parralel streams at work here. One is the loss of privelage of many Serbs in the civil service where communist party members (many Serbs) were replaced with HDZ apparatchiks (both dissidents and converted Socialists) which has more to do with consolidating power than with any anti-Serb animus.


 * The other is the memorandum, the underlying political views (Serbs status of oppressed in Yugoslavia, implied redrawing of Republic boundaries etc) were adopted by Milosevic (most famously reflected in his speech at Kosovo polje) and implemented by his cronies among the Croatian Serbs, most notably Babic and Hadzic, and inculcated into the Croatian Serbs leading to seeking solutions outside the framework of the Croatian republic including force and the use of the JNA, versus negotiations with the newly elected Croatian govt that Pupovac, and to a lesser degree Raskovic seemed to prefer.


 * The memorandum was signifcant in propogating the myth that the Serbs were victims of Yugoslavia and treated badly in SR Croatia (ignoring their privelaged position by virtue of communist party membership). The memorandum quantified the prevaling policy goal of the Serb elite for much of Serbia's existence since it's reinstatement as a state in the 19th century?(all Serbs in one state) and is a view which still prevails today aong sections of the Serb state elite - just the means to achieving it has changed; its core principles was adopted by Milosevic, a key player in the Balkans during the 1990's. In this context, the memorandum carrys alot of weight as it codified one of the most significant forces driving the conflicts.  This does not deflect the legitimate concerns of Croatian Serbs at the time, but in the world of real politik, the memorandum's text was of greater significance and influence. iruka 00:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps rewrite:


 * The Croatian side aimed to establish sovereignty for the Republic of Croatia, previously a socialist republic in Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, while Serbs did not want to stay in an independent Croatia, effectively seeking new boundaries in parts of Croatia with a Serb majority or with influential Serbian minority. This view reflected the desire of the Serb elite to unite all Serbs on the territory of the former Yugoslavia into one state, effectively creating a Greater Serbia, an objective consistent with the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. The war was striking for its brutality in a relatively developed society in Europe, and in modern times.


 * to


 * The Croatian side aimed to establish sovereignty for the Republic of Croatia, previously a socialist republic in Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, while Serbs did not want to stay in an independent Croatia, effectively seeking new boundaries in parts of Croatia with a Serb majority or with influential Serbian minority. Whilst many Croatian Serbs expressed legitimate concerns over loss of status as part of the fallout from moves by the newly elected governments attenpt to replace communist party appointees with their own party loyalists in the civil service; the approach to seek solutions outside the Croatian state was driven by local leaders heavily influenced by a policy goal of the Serb Republic elite to unite all Serbs on the territory of the former Yugoslavia into one state, effectively creating a Greater Serbia, an objective consistent with the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. The war was striking for its brutality in a relatively developed society in Europe, and in modern times. ??
 * iruka 00:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is, the memorandum has nothing to do in the intro at all. It's scope, intent and consequences are controversial at best and mostly irrelevant to the subject of this article. "An objective consistent with the memorandum" is an original research at best. I maintain that consequences of the memorandum were later overblown to mythical dimensions. While I don't endorse its contents, any neutral reader of it would conclude that it's a nationalistic document expressing somewhat overblown concerns for the position of Serbs in former Yugoslavia, and it doesn't even hint at the creation of Greater Serbia. In my opinion, it was more the product of the nationalist atmosphere that was "being cooked" in Serbia, with academics being first to openly speak on what was on many people's minds, rather than the cause of such atmosphere. It was abused later in a similar way as Zion Protocols. Duja ► 15:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Duja, appreciate the response. I see a number of different issues with the intro and will address under separate headings:

Reference to Yugoslavia
The intro as it stands is disingenuos because as explained in previous post, Yugoslavia ceased to exist according to the Badinter Arbitration Committee and the very notion of SFRJ (a federation of equal nations) would not exist under the Serb elites proposal. Hence I suggest that the intro be reworded to state that the Serbs wanted to live in a Serbian state or the Serbs did not want to live in Croatia. I think the latter reference is more appropriate. iruka 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Greater Serbia or United Serb States
I think that there should be mention of this because the current intro does not capture the main thematic that has plagued Croat-Serb relations for approximately last 100 years, and that is disparate notions of territorial delineation. It has always been a policy goal of Serbia since it overthrew Turkish rule to expand it's boundaries to include the "western territories". This policy is most visible in the platform of groups like the Black Hand, the negotiations for the spoils of war after WW1 and the lead up to the first Yugoslavia. It was also a source of the tension with Austria Hungary that had annexed BiH. This policy is captured by various documents from Ilija Garašanin's Načertanije (1844)) to the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and the plans differed ranging from Milosevic's plan of utilising the guise of ensuring "Yugoslav's territorial integrity" to the more transparent plans of Draskovic and Seselj with the notion of a Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag border. Even the indictment of the ICTY against Milan Babic [] talks of a joint criminal enterprise was the permanent forcible removal of the majority of the Croat and other non-Serb population from approximately one-third of the territory of the Republic of Croatia ("Croatia"), in order to make them part of a new Serb-dominated state. I think there should be a reference to the policy goal of "Uniting all Serbs in one State". iruka 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of Memorandum
I agree the memorandum captured the thinking of the Serb political elite at the time and that is why it is important to mention it. It is this notion of persecution and disparate concepts of each others states captured in the document that underlied the conflict. The inflammatory language was merely a means to an end.

I also don't see how the Zion Protocols is related which is a hoax and is essentially anti-semitic. The Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts actually exists and is not Serbophobic - but it is rather isolationist, ethnocentric in it's assesments, and almost paranoid in the manner it ascribes political motives and causality to certain statistics. As such, the memorandum was not open to abuse, but helped create a framework for funnelling grievances (imagined and real) and propagating such abuse. It did this by promoting a victim complex among Serbs, and demonising the Croats (by ascribing unfavourble demographic changes as a a sophisticated and quite effective policy of assimilation) and labelling Kosovar Albanian politics as chauvanistic. Finally it makes many references to how many Serbs live outside of Serbia proper (why? to what end?) and concludes the need to have decisively implemented reform of the entire governmental structure and social organization of the Yugoslav community of nations. I think there should be some reference, if not to the memorandum, then to the prevaling political paradim dominating the Serb elites. iruka 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're addressing a series of fairly complex questions. Some of those are covered in this article; others are in Slobodan Milošević, Yugoslav wars, Greater Serbia and Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (somewhat oddly, Greater Serbia contains more info about Memorandum than the last article, so perhaps those should be backmerged). Not all are covered in satisfactory manner, I agree. But I still think that the intro of this article is not the place for such elaboration; many aspects of it are already covered (while some tweaking is called for, like "Uniting all Serbs in one State" policy you refer to). Look, what if the intro sounded like:
 * ...the war was caused by the Croatian attempt at secession from Yugoslavia and outlawing all Croatian Serbs' constitutional rights. The Croatian politicians attempted to revive the spirit of the nazi-puppet Independent State of Croatia, stating that it was the "expression of thousand-years wishes of Croatian people"&lt;ref Tuđman's speech>, which was profoundly feared by Serbs, who were mass-executed in concentration camps like Jasenovac during World War II.
 * (I'm just hypothesizing, I don't think it should be in the intro). Oh, I got an idea... checking... yes, something very similar to that, of course, is in sr wiki article. Something similar to your version is, of course as well, in hr wiki article. Let's keep it NPOV as possible and stick to the facts, OK? Duja ► 13:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your example but I think it lacks relevance to the changes I propose and is somewhat of a red herring because what I am advocating shouldn't be construed as POV. How is it POV to state that the underlying tension is over overlapping concepts of territorial delineation? - this is backed up by policy documents(nacrtanje etc), court decisons (ICTY indictments), speeches explicitly outlining policy goals (Vuk Draskovic, Tomislav Nikolic, Vojislav Seslj) with it possible for the roles of the individuals giving these speeches to be cross-referenced to where they sat in the 'food chain' at the time - all things that can be scrutinised.


 * The notions you have given in your example on the other hand, involves an interpretation of the constitution, an assumption of the Croat government's policy goals and imputing it's motives, and selective use of history.


 * As the article stands, the conflict is reduced to a battle between those wanting to preserve the federal state versus a region that wants to seccede. This should be changed to reflect that the federation disintegrated because of competing republic interests (and the loss of balance between unitarists and federalists which were really proxies for the autonomy vs united serb state positions) with differing concepts of delineation leading to conflict.
 * Supporting this notion is the federal nature of SFRJ, the history of Croatia as a crown land, the conclusions of the bandinter commission. The fact that only Montenegro was willing to stay in a modified union with Serbia (with Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, BiH the republics that succeded and the SR Serbia autonomous province of Kosovo also secceding) also signifies the fear of Serbian dominance in any modified union without the federal framework of the then defunct SFRJ.


 * Thus I propose that in the intro be reworded to state that the the Serbs did not want to stay in an newly independent Croatia. There should also be mention of the United Serb States idea being the dominant political paradigm in neighbouring SR Serbia which would require a redrawing of republican boundaries and that it was a platform that was adopted by Croatian Serb institutions as a result of pro-Milosevic leader being installed. (akin to the installation of Boban in Herceg-Bosnia).  Do you consider this NPOV/POV and why?  iruka 01:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're slightly wrong - it depends. Not all of Croatia wanted to secede, a large portion of its population didn't want to. Also, Macedonia's original desire wasn't to secede either (it generally supported Milosevic), while Montenegro's original desire was independence, for example. Also, the factual notion of Bosnia and Herzegovina's secession could also be easily discussed - constitutionally, the referendum for independence failed, and a very large of the Bosnian populace didn't want independence of the Republic. I also see absolutely no visible relevance of Nacertanije with the 1991-1995 Croatian War of Independence :D. Also, even though Vuk Draskovic himself was/could be one of those persons like Seselj, Moljevic or Jovic, he surely does not belong to the same category. Presenting "Kosovo seceding" makes the way like everyone was running from Belgrade - but they weren't. The Croats of Herzeg-Bosnia wanted their own country away from Sarajevo, so did the Serbs. The Croatian Serbs wanted to be free of Zagreb. The Bosnian western Muslims opposed the Bosniac extremist authorities in Sarajevo. The Albanians of Macedonia didn't want to be in Skopje... other notions are there - Sanjak from Podgorica/Belgrade... it's all separatism caused by the disappearing of Tito. "United Serb States" would be Original research and the key fact is that Serbs wanted to stay in Yugoslavia, and not stay in Croatia. --PaxEquilibrium 17:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are using are few weasal words there aren't you? ;) Re Croatian independence, of course not all (implying 100%) will be in favour.  And a large portion of the population - what does this mean? 20% 30%.  If we look at the statistics then we will know that 83.56 percent of the electorate had taken part in the referendum and out of that number 94.17 percent were in favour of a sovereign and independent Croatia [].  Considering the number of areas that were blockaded by local Serb militias & JNA preventing affected Serbs & Croats from voting (covering roughly 14% of the population), this is almost close to a full turnout.  What is also significant is that from the precentages, we know alot Serbs in Croatian cities not under the JNA'S control would have voted for independence as well.  Thus we have the statistic that approx 94% of those that voted, voted for independence translating into 79% of eligible voters voting for independence - a resounding result by any benchmark - stronger than the 55% in Montenegro and 66% in BiH.
 * Note also, in most of the referendums for the republics and autonomous provinces - Croatia, BiH, Montenegro, Kosovo, it is the Serb minority that is the dominant group that voted against independence. This is fundamental to the notion of the problem that x million Serbs live outside Serbia representing the fragmentation of the Serb nation (as per the memorandum) which in turn leads to the solution of uniting Serbs in one state. iruka 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Weasel words? Where? Please point out. Fifteen percent opposing might be a small percentage, but not so for a population territorially living on thirty percent of the whole state. And was I denying that the Croatian independence referendum failed? No. I said that the referendum for independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina failed (and thus, to my opinion, Serbia, Montenegro & BH could've really kept a little Yugoslavia themselves), but due to declared dissolution of SFRY after one half had already seceded, it became "illegally & unconstitutionally" independent. It was below 66% in BH.
 * Why are you generalizing about the Serbs. Actually, what's the point of that notion in the first place? --PaxEquilibrium 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Vis a vie Draskovic, he may or may not be in the same category (on economic/social issues) as the other politicians named, but on the issue of expanding Serbia's borders westward to incorporate BiH & most of Croatia, his positions were virtually the same as Seselj, Milosevic et al. His Serbian Renewal Party, like the Serbian Radicals etc had it's own militia. Refer to the following ICTY evidence which covers not just Draskovic's role but includes an analysis of Moljevic's and Nedic's plans from 1941 for a Greater Serbia and Jovan Raskovic's (leader of Croatian Serbs) support for such plans, as well as analysis of different political parties and their geographical distribution - [] iruka 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is true that he dispatched units to fight, but did they go for an evil cause? No. They went to defend Serb civilians from ethnic cleansing and discrimination. Fighting for one's rights can hardly be called mean. The Democratic Party of Serbia abandoned the Democratic Party plainly because it was for an establishment of a different Yugoslav, possibly Serb-dominated state (and of course, even it dispatched volunteers). The DSS leader is the today's Premier of Serbia (Vojislav Kostunica). Compare his speech in eastern Republika Srpska 1992 alluding to a Greater Serbian state to Stjepan Mesic's fascist speeches from 1991. It would be foolish not to claim that the other peoples (most notably Croats) have had similar sympathies (Herzeg-Bosnian Croats, "Greater Croatia"). And lastly, even you'll agree to this: in 1991, no one expected that there will be a time (like after June of 2006) that all republics of Yugoslavia would be independent countries - back to Vlk - the only actually bad thing that I see in him is that he said to the international media in the late 1990s that that no organized genocide was being committed against the Albanians (despite the possibility that he perhaps might've been even correct at that one) - he indeed stated subsequently after Milosevic's fall that atrocities were committed against the Albanians. All in all, Vuk Draskovic was compared to Slobodan Milosevic, a symbol of democracy and the leader of the opposition, and as such - despite the fact that he himself is a Serbian (positive?) nationalist - I think that he cannot be tagged simply "bad". Stipe, the President of Croatia, could've been/could be stiled as ultra-nationalist/racist even, as he even now alluded to a Greater Croat state. Note that Stipe I greatly admire (in many ways). The (ruling) Croatian Democratic Union might be styled as an ultra-nationalist and is quite possibly an irredentist one - imagine if the Socialist Party of Serbia and the Serbian Radical Party returned to power in Serbia - that would be (almost) the same. --PaxEquilibrium 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The HDZ was initally a movement, a coalition of different factions. It was nationalist b/c it need to be for the Republic to survive the war & mobilise relevant resources to counter the threat from Serbia.  Now that the war is over & indpendence assured, the HDZ has become a regular political party, of the Christian Democrat/ Conservative persuasion, with it's headline policy EU Integration and macroeconomic management (actually not too bad in the later).  Compare this to the Radicals & their nationalist campaigns centred on Kosovo. Your analogy is thus an erroneous one as you are comparing apples and oranges.
 * When did Mesic make a fascist speech? You are not referring to one where he refers to Croatia winning twice - one with recognition of the NDH, & then again with the victory of the anti-fascists and the formation of SR Croatia. All he is referring to it global dipplomatic recognition from both Axis & Allies for disparate iterations of the Croat state @ the start & end of WW2.  Certainly a novel interpretation if you see that as fascist - I think you maybe seeing things which aren't there.  Mesic is the anti-thesis of a nationalist - he has appeared @ the ICTY as a witness; retired nationalist generals; reciprocated Marovic?'s apology in his historic state visit to Serbia (note he made the effort to visit Serbia to break the ice).  If anything, Mesic is pro-Serb minority and an internationalist, with a strong Partisan heritage.  iruka 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The smaller seccessionist/autonomist movements did exist, but you miss the overall picture. That is, with Slovenia and Croatia leaving the now defunct federation, the other republics like Macedonia and BiH (backed by an absolute majority of the voting population) chose not to stay in a revised union with Serbia.  And those seccessionist/autonomist movements like Herceg Bosnia, Fikret Abdic's Western Bosnia, Macedonia's Albanians did not envisage "staying in Yugoslavia" but either going alone, existing as an autonomous entity within BiH or joining compatriots in Croatia and Albania respectively.  It should also be remembered that most of these movements had two or more streams of thought ranging from militant seccession to autonomy within the state structure. iruka 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Defunct"? The Federation became defunct only after Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia seceded. Even as a "rump" one, it was very much functioning. I already said that the referendum in BH failed. What do you mean by "revised". And it was not choice "with Serbia", but "together". It's not a union of "Serbia and the rest", but of six equal constituent republics. --PaxEquilibrium 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The federation became defunct as soon as Milosevic usurped the autonomy of Vojvodina & Kosovo, deadlocking federal institutions that ceased to function. Also raiding the federal treasury also didn't help, given Markovac's success in stabilising inflation.
 * By what criteria did the BH referendum failed - the turnout in the referendum was 64-67% and the vote was 99.43% in favor of independence. iruka 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As for United Serb States being original research, consider the following reputable media and international criminal court sources:
 * From Institute for War & Peace Reporting - Tieger also presented Krajisnik with an interview that he gave to the Srpsko Oslobodjenje newspaper during the war, in which he spoke of a future in which united Serb states would have Belgrade as their capital. []
 * Article by Vreme News Digest the war option had priority and the dream of the "United Serb States" was within reach, so that all sufferings could be borne and all means justified. None asked why Serbs across the Drina River were fighting and leaving their homes in order to come to Serbia [] & It was thus made clear to disoriented people of Krajina that the official Belgrade does not intend to abandon the concept of the United Serb States []
 * The term Greater Serbia which alludes to the same result of uniting Serbs in one country is covered in the following media -
 * pbs []
 * BBC (Djukanovic speech) [] & (Seselj speech) [] & (Nikolic statement) [] & (Yugoslavia timeline) []
 * IWPR []
 * From the ICTY [], transcript from ICTY session discussing whether Greater Serbia implies ethnic cleansing [], & The Reports of Mr Mazowiecki give a clear account of the policy of the so-called "ethnic cleansing" consistently employed by the FRY for the purpose of creating a Greater Serbia by the forceful incorporation of the parts of territory of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina into a Greater Serbia. For instance, his third Report of November 1992 further describes the methods used for "ethnic cleansing" and states: "This lends credence to the fear that the ultimate goal may be to incorporate Serbian-occupied areas of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina into a ‘Greater Serbia’." (UN Doc. A/47/666, para. 13.) []. iruka 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Still, there's no plan for a country called "United Serb states" (alluding to the United States of America). --PaxEquilibrium 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever the tag - Greater Serbia, United Serb States, "Preserving Yugoslavia" - it all amounted to the same outcome -> territorial expansion of the Socialist Republic of Serbia. iruka 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Serbs wanting to stay in Yugoslavia, this is disingenuoous because it was only Serbs that wanted to "stay in Yugoslavia" without defining what that Yugoslavia meant and how it had changed. The statement does not reflect that the underlying policy objective was to unite Serbs in one state.  Note also, that Yugoslavia ceased to exist i.e. the federation that was SFRJ no longer functioned (as indicated by the EU's Bandinter commission; by Mesic's non-election as the President of the presidency of Yugoslavia; and the revoking of autonomy of Vojvodina and Kosovo) and the Yugoslavia that the Serbs wanted to stay in was in effect an enlarged Serb state, a fact acknowledged in the media sources supplied, by the ICTY, and Serb politicians such as Seselj, Draskovic et al.  This is not in question - what differs is the legitimacy of such a political venture and the reasons for it's inception.  iruka 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's something like words-tricking. :) There was no need to create a Serb unified state, ("Greater Serbia"), because such a state already existed - SFRY was this "Greater Serbia". The Croatian Serbs wanted to remain in this state, rather than "transfer" to a newly-created one (an independent Republic of Croatia). --PaxEquilibrium 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting view & would be supported by some. But there is one fallacy - Yugoslavia could not be a Greater Serbia b/c it was a federation of autonomous republics & the Croatian Serbs were part of the Croatian republic, just as the had been part of the NDH, the Banovina Hrvatska before it & the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia/Triune kingdom before that.  The socialist republics had there own symbols, parliaments, and had considerable sway over economic management.
 * There certainly was a unitarist faction (nominally Serbian), that intially was led by Rankovic. Milosevic was just the latest in a line of unsuccessful unitarists that wanted to rollback the federal foundation of the state. Why unsuccessful, b/c w/o the federal model, no nation wanted to be in a joint state with Serbia b/c of it's Greater Serbia politics - as it was poignantly demonstarted with the republics voting with their feet - first Slovenia, Croatia, then BiH, Macedonia, then CG then finally the quasi-republic Kosovo. iruka 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

700,000?
The article has over 700,000 displaced by 1991 on the Croatian side. This seems somewhat overestimating. As far as I recall over 200,000 Croats had to flee and were subject to brutal ethnic cleansing in 1991-1992 according to most sources (including the UN). The Croatian overestimate (I believe mainly because of nationalism) is over half a million, tops 550,000; but that had been refuted because it counted all citizens of Croatia displaced and it counted refugees that came to Croatia (mostly from BH). After all that 700,000 seems a bit... odd; as far as I remember the Serbian nationalistic overestimate was - exactly that (for Serbs ethnically cleansed) - but considering that the Croatian highest claim is 500,000-550,000 - this breaches the roof. No offense intended to the victims, I just think that we should have sources - as the source given bears no reference to this figure at all. --PaxEquilibrium 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete it. Reference is broken. I guess I added the number (since I created the infobox) and I really can't remember where I got that number from and why I put this link as source. Sorry for inconvenience. --Dijxtra 18:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Eeh.. I'm not sure I'm going to tag it false since you're the one who added it... --PaxEquilibrium 22:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Man, you really should be WP:BOLDer. --Dijxtra 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will, when it's needed to. --PaxEquilibrium 13:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I found one serbian propagandist site where they say that 800.000 Serbs had been exiled from Croatia. By the population register from 1991 there were 585.000 of Serbs in Croatia. There are now 250.000 Serbs that still live in Croatia. Somehow Serbian mathematics are different from the rest of the world.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert war
Look Kubura, you may have some points but the methods you emply are unacceptable. You're blindly reverting to an old version while many things are changed in the meantime, and do too much collateral damage. As much as the previous insistence on the term "Krajina Serbs" (which I cleaned up) is unacceptable, so is your insistence on "rebel Serbs". The figure of 700,000 refugees is disputed and dismissed right above in this talk. If you want to contest that, you're welcome, but articles have talk pages to discuss changes. Plus, your edit summaries are misleading: "(Sources removed? "Unsuccesful operation"?)" for a total revert. Duja ► 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It'll take more than few lines to put all reasons into a summary. Medak Pocket is an "unsuccesful operation"? Really? Or someone here can't live with the defeat? Removing of sources that I put there? I won't tolerate that. Proper word is "rebelled Serbs". "Krajina Serbs"? No. Krajina is a name of bunch of Croatian areas (Imotska, Cetinska, Sinjska, Drniška, Vrgoračka...). Rebel Serb-controlled areas encompassed more regions of Croatia, not only one. Kubura 10:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Or someone here can't live with defeat"? Thanks for an ad hominem attack.
 * I don't care whether Operation Medak pocket is successful or not, but it did damage to Croatia's reputation. If you disagree with the assessment, rephrase or remove. That doesn't mean you should revert entire article.
 * Removing on which sources? If you mean this one, it doesn't contain the number (anymore), and it was apparently malformed, not pointing to any specific page. If you take a look at discussion above, you'll see it's dismissed.
 * The proper word is not "rebelled Serbs", as it was not "Krajina Serbs" either, which I cleared up but you reverted anyway. Duja ► 10:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The official Croatian expression is "rebelled Serbs". Kubura 10:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Successful or not? Well, to shorten: who gives a damn about the opinion of the rest of the world, when you've liberated your country and beaten your enemy. At least, that should be clear to you. After the Operation Medak pocket, Gospić was relieved from pressure, and there weren't artillery attacks as it was before the Operation. And that's a lot. Simple, isn't it? Kubura 16:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose, Wikipedia gives a damn about the opinion of the rest of the world, rather than The Truth. "The threshold is verifiability, not truth", but you've probably heard that litany before. Duja ► 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If it was an usuccessful operation, we, Croats, wouldn't boast about it. Da nije uspila, ne bismo se hvalili. Kubura 10:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed
This should be referenced:
 * Also the logistical support from Serbia and Yugoslav Army was building up during this period.Organization of Guerilla force was led by Petar Gracanin as experianced II World War General and later the KOS(Army Contra Espionage Organization)general.

Duja ► 13:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Terminology of for the war
Why is the war in Croatia titled "Croatian war of independence"? I just find the term to be somewhat misleading, especially considering the fact that the war in Slovenia only lasted for 10 day and that Macedonia left the federation without any response from the JNA, while the Croatian war raged for months into 1992, or '95. Pluse for me, it's has too much of an American connotation. It gives the impression that the whole conflict started, or revolved around the issue of Croatia's constitutional right in theory, (as enshrined in the 1974 SFRJ constituion) to withdraw from the Yugoslav federation. Does the Serbs' territorial pretentions towards Croatia, or "uniting all Serbs into one state" depending one one's POV another factor to be considered? I propose for a NPOV terminology of either "Croatian war", or "Serb-Croat war" that i consider to be more accurate terms that better reflect how the conflict started, what it was all about etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.167.83 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, we were there before (and then some) -- check out the archive link at the top. Basically, it was raised before in a good faith, but then the roof collapsed after partisan opinions from both sides; result: no consensus. I'm afraid that the history would repeat if the issue is raised again. Duja ► 11:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Homeland war
Why isn't this article called Homeland War, which is its REAL name? The current name is wrong and misleading. I trying to do/edit it myself, but somehow cant do it. --CroDome 13:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * because only Croats call it by that name. So it is real, but only among Croats. + read WP:NPOV --TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 22:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Commented part
Duja, all, please read. I've put one unsufficiently defined part into comment, because it wasn't completely correct. Some descriptions aren't in English, but in Croatian. I know about Wiki policy, but this is the only way to present to "interested persons" what I've wanted to say. Some sections are hard to translate, because of specific historical situations. "Mitinzi Srba i Crnogoraca sa Kosova" don't have good translation with "meetings...", etc.. Na engleskom se možemo objašnjavat i pripucavat 20 dana na 20 strana, nitko neće shvatit. Nićemo se "nać". Ovako, na hrvatskom će ić puno brže. Kubura 10:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "mitinzi Srba i Crnogoraca, s Kosova, demonstracije diljem Srbije, traži se minjanje rukovodstava i dovođenje tada nepoznatog Miloševića Slobodan dolazi na vlast mitinzi Srba i Crnogoraca s Kosova, sa ikonografijama koja je bivala sve drskija - počelo se nekažnjeno mahat sa znakovljem koje bi se u ondašnjem sustavu smatralo ekstremnije nacionalističkin i kažnjivin - nacionalni znakovi bez zvizde, slike Karađorđevića, klicanja Rankoviću (o ovome je pisao i Tijanić još onda ), sve otvorenije kritizirat Tita - za isto znakovlje bez socij. oznaka je milicija poj. Hrvatima u to isto vrime doslovno izbila bubrige, primlaćivanja su bila obvezna, jogurt-revolucija u Vojvodini, tek nakon nekoliko godina dolazi do izbora u Hrvatskoj i otvorene nacionalističke retorike Borisav Jović se čak pritia (bilo je na TV-u) da bi tribalo zabranit te pokušaje izbora, odnosno proglasit ništavnim slobodne izbore u Hrvatskoj" moved by Duja ► 14:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was about to say that those late 1990 events are not sufficiently covered in wikipedia, as you said; hovewer, much to my surprise, I discovered the existence of fairly extensive Breakup of Yugoslavia article, but it's barely wikilinked. I'd like to keep the articles of individual wars more succinct and of narrower scope, and the events preceding it described more thoroughly there. I'd like to move most of the debate about those events there, and add that article to several navigation templates, making it in fact part of History of Croatia and History of Serbia series. Duja ► 15:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)== ARTICLE NAME and Unobjectivity of Term Independence ==

The name of the article, with no doubt, gives SUBJECTIVE (Croatian war side) name to the complex nature of the article contents. NEUTRALITY OF NAME (one of main Wikipedia postulates for war conflict themes) is here therefore DISPUTED AS UNOBJECTIVE. Reasons: 1. All similar war conflicts (Balkan examples: Bosnia, Slovenia, Kosovo...) could be named for independence by one side in conflict. Neutrality is in that case compleatly lost. As a leading Wikimedia project, English Wikipedia is a place for neutrality and objectivity more than any other one. (in Serbian, in Croatian or in any other language which are de facto less neutral) 2. Previously mentioned conflicts are of reasons of neutrality named only by their territorial determinants and terms like war or conflict, battle etc. Example: Slovenian war. I do not see any difference between Slovenian or Croatian war aims in thoose two formally and historical similar conflicts. (there is no doubt that the aim is - independence). 3. THERE IS ALWAYS ANOTHER SIDE IN WAR. WITH ITS REASONS FOR TAKING PART IN CONFLICT. 4. Proper article title could be therefore also named Croatian war for independance and Serbian war against it. Or maybe Croatian war for independance (from Yugoslavia) and Serbian war for independence (from Croatia). ... 5. Solution: renaming War in Croatia,or Croatian war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.137.121.235 (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

In your second point you say that it is obviously the aim of both for independance, you admit to that- well you just pointed out yourself what the name is, the name should reflect the main idea or aim is, in this case the independance of Croatia, if the Slovenian war article is that similar, as you yourself stated then perhaps it also should be changed to War of Independance. Yes there is always two sides to every story but stil, no Serb can argue that the main purpose of the war was to defend Croatia- I mean if Croatia fell, it would have no independance, since it defended itself it defended its already proclaimed independance, which was immeadiately and directly being threatened.

I do not understand why the title of this article is under dispute, war of independece is exactly what it was, anyone who takes the time to read this article, or any history book on the topic will see it there in black and white, a war where a nation fought for its independance. No matter how much we dispute the issue, the fact remains it was and will always be remembered as a war of independence. The suggestion "Serbian war for independence (from Croatia)" is ridiculous to say the least, i don't think it should even be dignified with a responce.

Relatively developed?
I'm having some trouble with the part of the article which claims that the war was striking because of brutality in a relatively developed society. If "relatively developed" isn't referring to, for example, finances or infrastructure (in which case it would be correct, but I fail to see how those things could influence the amount of brutality), it sounds kind of offensive. In the context of the sentence, "relatively developed society" seems to be in reference to mentality or worldview, and that would not only be incorrect but also unacceptable for Wikipedia. Could someone please explain?--Blancodio 00:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. It seems to imply that brutal warfare is a condition only of "primitive" societies, but a glance at 20th century European history will show that just isn't so. -- ChrisO 08:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence (after 1991?)?
Croatia became an independent state in 1991, after braking out from (SFR) Yugoslavia during that year. Thus, during the 1992-1995 period, Croatia was a fully independent and internationally recognized state (a UN member and so forth). In the light of all this, calling the conflict in Croatia after 1991 "Croatian War of Independence" (I am referring to 1992-1995 period) is simply a misnomer (independence from whom?). 'Homeland War' is fine, but the present title is simply a wrong one.--FreedonNadd 02:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I placed the 'disputed factual accuracy' label because the "Croatian war of independence" makes sense as a title only for the first (1991) phase of the war (when Croatian forces were fighting against the Yugoslav army and when Croatia was breaking out of Yugoslavia). Later phases of the war, from 1992 to 1995, cannot be called "war of independence" because Croatia was already an independent state at the time, and that independence was recognized internationally. The 1992-1995 phase of the war was essentially Croatia vs. Serbs in Croatia, or rather Croatian state against its rebellious break-away Serb minority. Calling this phase "war of independence" makes no sense at all (actually, it would make sense for the Serbs in Croatia to call it that, because they were trying to achieve independence from Croatia at the time).--FreedonNadd 20:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed over and over again. Have a read through the archives. It was settled to leave it at this title. 124.186.182.246 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It will have to be discussed once again, I'm afraid. The present title of the article does not look right, and I am not convinced that it is an appropriate one. Feel free to present your arguments as to why this article should keep its present title.--FreedonNadd 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The present title looks to me like original research. Where is the title "Croatian War of Independence" coming from in the first place? According to the article itself, Croatians are calling the conflict 'Homeland War'; Serbs are calling it 'War in Croatia'; well, who is calling it "Croatian War of Independence" then? I don't recall this name from either western media or history books - I even heard 'Serbo-Croatian War' but never 'Croatian War of Independence'. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of facts.--FreedonNadd 17:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Croatia's independence was endangered till the end of the war; you might think what could happen if the sanctions against Croatia had been imposed in all areas (besides the arms embargo and the "quiet sanctions" in 1993). The level of the endangeredness significantly fell after operation Maslenica (1992), more after operation Bljesak (1995), and even more after the capture of Grahovo and Glamoč field. Still, the danger existed. Imagine what might have been. What if the sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro were lifted? And what if they received help of pro-Serb oriented governments? It ain't over till it's over.Kubura 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * the name should not reflect the "WHAT IF" thing. --TheFE  ARgod  (Ч) 21:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The independence of Croatia was threatened to the very end of the war. If you're "playing dumb" or ignoring facts, then I don't know what to say anymore. It's not "what if", it was the fact. If you're going to use "names used in literature", and other realities, then why do we have "Croatian War of Independence" together with battles between rebelled Albanians and Macedonian Government in the same article, with the war, that Croatian one has nothing in common (in the article "Yugoslav Wars"). But interesting, no article "Serbian aggression on Slovenia, Croatia and B&H", that would encompass the wars that do have thing in common - Serbian military attempt to concquer the territory of neighbouring republics. And the term "Serbian aggression" isn't unknown term in English literature. Kubura 05:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing the article's title back to 'War in Croatia'
I propose changing the present title (Croatian war of Independence) back to its original form War in Croatia. Perhaps War in Croatia, 1991-1995 would be even better, because historically speaking this was clearly not the only war in Croatia. I find the present title simply factually inaccurate, because it does not capture the totality of the 1991-1995 conflict: only one phase of the described conflict was actually the Croatian war of independence (from SFR Yugoslavia, in 1991), but not the entire conflict. Moreover, it is not clear at all where is this particular title actually coming from, because the article itself states that Croats refer to this conflict as 'the Homeland War' (?). Finally, I find the article's statement that the Serbs call the conflict 'War in Croatia' utter nonsense. There is nothing 'Serbian' about the name 'War in Croatia'...--FreedonNadd 00:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it seems to me that we have several different potential choices, all of which I've seen in print:


 * Croatian War of Independence
 * Croatian War of Secession
 * Homeland War
 * Serbo-Croatian War
 * War in Croatia


 * Of these four options, I'd have to say that "Croatian War" is the most common in English. "Croatian War of Independence" is almost never used and "Homeland War" is too vague. Unfortunately "Croatian War" is also rather vague given the number of conflicts fought on Croatian soil (as is "War in Croatia"). I'm also uncomfortable with the fact that we've chosen one side's preferred name, which seems very arbitrary and not entirely compatible with NPOV; it should surely reflect the predominate usage among English-speakers. I believe the best way forward would be to retitle it "Serbo-Croatian War". -- ChrisO 01:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll first point to the archive Talk:Croatian_War_of_Independence/Archive_1
 * so that we establish some context. (This was supposed to have been obvious and easy to find, but hey...)


 * The phrase 'war of independence' (or 'independence war') wasn't supposed to have been contentious in English. Sure, the country became formally independent sooner rather than later, but the new country's independence was at stake in the war, it was one of the primary issues, if not the primary issue.


 * I can't imagine how 'Serbo-Croatian War' would be good... it sounds almost like a flame-bait! I see at least three major reasons against it. Firstly, there is little precedent for it, certainly not in the local resources, nobody calls it hrvatsko-srpski rat here. Secondly, it's not clear from that title whether it was a war of nations as in peoples or nations as in states. If one argues that it was a war of peoples, there are numerous exceptions, as I'm sure other people will point out, the delineation between warring parties wasn't entirely ethnic. If one argues that it was a war of states, then there's the issue of one never having declared war against the other, and indeed the unresolved lawsuit at the Hague tribunal as to whether it was Serbia who attacked Croatia and committed genocide. Finally, the third issue is that it is an unnecessary simplification that can unnecessarily rile up various trolls - I'm guessing that they'll first start with a move war, arguing whether it's Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian. All in all I think that if we use such a name, the prospect is very gloomy...


 * If the phrase war of independence/independence war really needs to go, I'd first look towards the simple option like "War in Croatia", or "War in Croatia (1990s)", or something like that (bearing in mind that setting those years in the title has its own pitfalls). --Joy &#91;shallot] 00:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * for War in Croatia (1991-1995), descrptive, exact and NPOV --TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 20:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This whole debate is a claytons one that seems politically motivated. Repeatedly trying to change the title is a sign of persistence, not validity of one's arguments.  There is no issue with the "war of independence" title.  It accurately describes the nature of the conflict - establishing an independent state over it's legally defined national space, namely the AVNOJ boundaries that were internationally recognised (this last point is important).  IMO the current title more than adequately describes the core element of the conflict.


 * The primary objection come from some Serb wikipedians b/c that argue that the war of Independence title implies that the self-proclaimed Krajina entity was part of Croatia, although dejure this was always the case. Thus any change to the title is an exercise in trying to manufacture a view political legitimacy for an entity that otherwise is not associated with it.  (See Serbs of Dubrovnik discussion page).


 * Further, to change the article's title would be somewhat discriminatory & w/o precedent considering that this type of title applies to other independence struggles . Leave the title as is. iruka 23:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The difference is that many of the names you quote are long-standing established ones in English-language historical works. I don't believe "Croatian War of Independence" is in the same category; if you check Google Books you'll find only a handful of uses of that name. It's noteworthy that only one of the non-English Wikipedias uses a comparable title: "Guerra de la independència croata" in Catalan. All of the others save Japanese and Croatian use equivalents of "War in Croatia" or "Croatian War". (Japanese, bizarrely, uses "The Croatia dispute"!) I find it particularly striking that even the Croatian Wikipedia doesn't use "Croatian War of Independence", instead using "Domovinski rat" (Homeland War). Where does the name of this article come from in the first place? -- ChrisO 23:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Domovinski Rat transliterated is Homeland War but has the same meaning as the "War of Independence".
 * The google books search result is misleading b/c "Croatian war" is a descriptor in general language use eg: "croatian war victims"; "croatian war orphans"; "croatian war reparations"; "serbo-croatian war"; "bosnian-croatian war" etc so the search result will be inflated. The name I suspect is derived from the naming convention/precedent for similar such conflicts - just need to look @ the list I posted above of the various independence conflicts.  iruka 06:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Chris, this was my initial question as well: where is the title Croatian War of Independence coming from? Who retitled the article and why? This seems to be a mystery


 * There is no mystery; you're only apparenly being lazy to read what is written above. Let's repeat once again:


 * Talk:Croatian_War_of_Independence/Archive_1


 * Please click the link, and read some of that. --Joy &#91;shallot] 15:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * - clearly Croatian War of Independence is not an established English language term referring to this particular ex-Yugoslav conflict. I propose returning the original name, with years inserted for clarity: War in Croatia (1991-1995). This is very simple, straight-forwards, NPOV title. Croatian War of Independence is, on the other hand, problematic to say the least. I have no problem calling a part of the conflict (the 1991 phase) 'Croatian War of Independence', but the 1992-1995 phase of the conflict was something different (1992-1995 phase was in essence Croatia vs. break-away Serbs in Croatia, not a Croatian war of independence against Yugoslavia) '--FreedonNadd 04:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

FreedonNadd, you're not getting it, do you? Yugoslavia has dissoluted in 1991, the partnership was dissolved. But if some (Serbia and Montenegro) of the partners wants forcefully to keep the territory of other partners (Slovenia, Croatia, B&H) in some kind of "union" (and openly helping the annexation of the territories of those republics), than it's aggression. So the attacked sides had to defend theirs independence. Does this makes it clear to you? Kubura 05:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * FreedonNadd, why is it probelmatic? The war was still against Serbia & her proxies (rebadged as Yugoslavia)- as was the proxy conflict in Bosnia. I mean these areas were part of the territorial expansion plans of Serbia (rebadged as the new Jugoslavija).  Whether you believe in the the pretension that the 1991-1995 conflict was to preserve Yugoslavia, or to create a new reality of "Greater Serbia", the effect was the same. Yugoslavia (Serbia) was still knee deep in both conflicts in supply of men, arms & logistics.  Who represented the parties on the ground in peace deals if not Milosevic.  Serbia (not the Croatian or Bosnian Serb self-proclaimed entities) was found to have contravened the genocide convention.  So lets discard this myth/masquerade of the conflict not involving Yugoslavia in 1992-1995 & just being a case of breakaway Serbs. The whole thing was orchestrated from Belgrade (see Milosevic/ Milan Babic trial @ ICTY). I propose we leave the article title as is.  iruka 06:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, consider these points:
 * The notion of independence applies to a national space - usually legally defined - in this case the AVNOJ boundaries. The 1991 conflict was mere survival (Kadijevic's plan was to go all the way to Zagreb), the 1992-1995 portion of the independence war was restoring control over national space.
 * The distinction b/w Serb rebels & the army of Serbia proper is artificial. There is enough evidence from the ICTY to show that the Units were integrated - they were that way before the war started - it was the JNA remember.  So you had the Zagreb corps which moved to border regions, & they worked in conjunction with the Banja Luka (Bosnia) corps. The tanks from Belgrade went for Eastern Slavonija.  The Podgorica corpus (Montenegro, Yugoslavia) went for Dubrovnik & Dalmatia via Herzegovina.
 * The supply in men, weapons, logistics all came from Serbia. Mladic was commander in bothe th Croatian Serb & Bosnian Serb units, & before that the JNA.
 * Another flaw in that notion that 1992-1995 part of the conflict didn't involve the JNA is that there was still conflict around Dubrovnik & Eastern Herzegovina involving the corps from Montenegro (i.e. Yugoslavia). And the main planner of the campaign was Adzic situated in Belgrade. iruka 06:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. A war of independence is about the state of independence! Calling the 1992-1995 phase of the conflict in Croatia the War of Independence would automatically imply that Croatian state independence was somehow in jeopardy of being 'undone' during the 1992-1995 period (undone how? by 'rolling back' Croatia into dead Yugoslavia? Or perhaps into Serbia?!?). This was clearly not the case - the Croatian state independence was not in jeopardy of being 'undone' in any way after Yugoslavia exploded in 1991. The state from which Croatia seceded was irreversibly dead. Thus, calling the whole war "the Croatian War of Independence" is clearly a misnomer because it does not reflect the historical facts. The war with the Yugoslav army in 1991 was indeed the Croatian war of independence - that is not in dispute, and it should be in the article. However, the 1992-1995 phase of the conflict was a war between Croatia and its break-away Serb minority which proclaimed its own (para)state on the Croatian state territory; thus, the 1992-1995 phase of the war could be called "Serbo-Croatian war (in Croatia)" (since the Serbs and Croats were also at war with each other in Bosnia and Herzegovina during this time).--FreedonNadd 07:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Three points in response:
 * Independence from what - not Yugoslavia as this is a misnomer. It was from Serbian hegemony & it's territorial expansion.  The fact that the JNA (which had been increasingly Serbianised over a number of years pre-outbreak of conflict) was supposed to be the tool of hegemony (just as the navy was for Brittania & the carrier fleet for the US) doesn't diminish this fact.  The way you are discussing the issue, it sounds as though you are treating Yugoslavia & it's military forces & Serb forces in Croatia & Bosnia as different entities which is an erroneous assumption to make.  I need you to understand that they were the one & same force - the JNA (minus the non-Serb elements that had either defected or been purged) with some Serb paramilitary additions.  It isn't like hey magic presto, they suddenly became different armies.  They were one army (JNA) before the war, & they were one army during the war, with the same goal - the incorporation of parts of Croatia & BiH into an enlarged ("united") Serb state.
 * Independence over what exactly? Independence requires a territorial definition otherwise the independence is meaningless. It always requires an absence of as much as possible of external hegemony.  Thus with a third of it's territory occupied, with an occupying army itermittently shelling cities & the capital, frontlines that need to be manned, & a proxy conflict with strategic significance in the neighbouring republic, independence was very much threatened.  No world power intervened in 1991, & they weren't going to intervene from 1992-1995.
 * Croatia's independence was not secured in 1991, as the state (or what was left of it) was always under threat (see Zagreb rocket attack), and in a state of flux. The issue of independence was only resolved in 1995 when dejure recognition matched defacto facts on the ground. iruka 09:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Marinko, I'm afraid that's not really relevant to the issue at hand. The naming of this article isn't a question of which name we personally prefer, or which one we think is the most accurate. As Naming conventions says, "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Unfortunately last year's discussion of the article's name was fatally flawed because it didn't take this principle into account. It also relied exclusively on an indiscriminate Google search which inevitably counted many unreliable sources, rather than a more focused search confined to reliable sources. The task before us is to determine what the majority of reliable English-language sources call the Croatian conflict, not which name we personally prefer. That's the exam question. Now let's find some data. :-) -- ChrisO 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The current title fullfils the naming convention requirements.
 * War of Independence is easily recognised & lacks ambiguity - why b/c the conflict resembles most other national struggles in the mimicing the phases of gaining international recognition & securing control over ones national space;
 * If one looks at the naming convention adopted for similar conflicts, War of Independence seems to be the precedent - surely I would have thought this alone would be enough;
 * Linking the article is not an issue;
 * The previous discussion bore the numbers out with a google search which is only now being called into question. Can you pls explain how the previous search results are filled with unreliable sources?  Because I have shown the search result put forward in this current discussion in favor of changing the name to be of flawed methodology.  iruka 09:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Some research & assesment of results: Results 1 - 10 of about 37,600 for "Homeland War" Unique id - but doesn't carry same meaning as the Croatian transliterated title - hence "war of independence"'' is better option.
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 9,980 for "Croatian War of Independence" Unique id - follows naming convention for similar conflicts, decent # of hits.
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 196 for "Croatian War of Secession" Unique id - low # of hits.
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 2,990 for "Serbo-Croatian War" Generic-id - can refer to 1918, 1941, even medieval times. Avg # of hits.
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 67,800 for "War in Croatia" Generic id - too general. This particular search criteria flawed because can refer to any war in Croatia, in the past or metaphorical.
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 180 for "War in Croatia (1991-1995)" Unique id - low # of hits.

Conclusion, War of independence is best option in looking @ naming convention for similar conflitcs, # of conflicts & specificity of title. Keep current title as is. Second best option is "Homeland War". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinko (talk • contribs)


 * the fact said here, that Croatia's independence was in danger until 1995 is an unsourced claim, probably original research. Peripheral areas only were in danger, the Krajina Forces weren't threathening Zagreb with invasion. If that matter isn't solved the NPOV tag can stay forever.... --TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 18:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As always, this discussion degenerates into [accusations of] POV exchange from (pro-)Serbian and (pro-)Croatian side; it's tough to comment sensibly and have good faith assumed. I'll try to simply comment on the policy aspect, specifically WP:NC(CN). Marinko's own Google research indicates that "War in Croatia" is the most common term in English; he further comments that "This particular search criteria flawed because can refer to any war in Croatia, in the past or metaphorical". Now, what other war in Croatia is unambigously called like that? Which other war the Ghits refer to? Apart from the 1990s one, there were WWII and WWI, which are called by those respective names. Before that, the wars on the territory of Croatia were waged between European Empires, and are not referred by the term "Croatia" in any case. The article on the war on BiH territory is called War in Bosnia and Herzegovina or Bosnian war, as everyone knows which war it refers to. God save if we'd have to disambiguate "War in Croatia"... Duja ► 07:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * FearGod, rebelled Serb forces (so-called RSK) were not the only forces that threatened Croatia's sovereignty. You've forgotten that Serbian forces were involved whole the time, as well as Bosnian Serbs' forces. Do you remember the pictures from TV Beograd (shown also on HRT, Croatian national TV)? When Serbian TV-news reported about volunteers from Belgrade for war in Croatia? What about southernmost parts of Croatia?
 * You've forgotten the situation from January 1994, when tide of the war almost turned. The sides have almost changed.
 * Are you pushing original research by saying that independence of Croatia wasn't endangered?
 * When all has ended, it's easy to say: "Its independence wasn't endangered.". It ain't over till' it's over. I still believe, and I'm convinced that Operation "Storm" was a big gamble; the attack could turn into an insuccessfull operation, according to the forces ratios (Croatian admiral Domazet-Lošo has explained that in his book).
 * Still, Croatia had to take that risk, because some unwanted outcomes due to some UN rules could be applied (Croatian politician Šime Đodan warned about that). The fall of Bihać pocket area, which might worsen the situation for Croatia and Bosnian Muslims and Croats, was only one of reasons. Kubura 07:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I support Homeland war (despite how POV it may seem), because this article is factually inaccurate and even not applied in this subject. --PaxEquilibrium 17:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I support the current title - the “Croatian War of Independence”. The only NPOV alternative would be “Croatian-Serbian War”.--MaGioZal 19:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the discarding of 'War in Croatia' as too generic. If considered as a part of a sentence and without a capitalized W, it may be just a generic term, but as a phrase and with capitalization, this does seem to be a sufficiently clear reference. --Joy &#91;shallot] 23:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

About those Google searches... here are a couple a bit more indicative ones: That should be a bit more enlightening. One can also tack on (as a separate search term) the year 1998, to see numbers scaled down. --Joy &#91;shallot] 23:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Croatian War of Independence" -wikipedia 1991 1995
 * "Croatia" "War of Independence" -wikipedia 1991 1995
 * "War in Croatia" -wikipedia 1991 1995


 * As I said before, "War in Croatia (1991-1995)" is a straight forward and NPOV title. I don't see what the problem is with that one. On the other hand, it is still unclear where the (new) title "Croatian War of Independence" actually comes from - as far as I can see, nobody is able to explain that...Personally, I saw this particular name for the conflict for the first time here on Wikipedia in May 2007 - I never saw it before, not in the media or in the books written about the conflict. I would love the see a name of one established historian who actually uses this term in his/her work. With regards to the naming conventions, it seems to me that this is an attempt to establish a name rather than to use an already established name for the conflict (and Wikipedia article) which is the norm.--FreedonNadd 00:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, the original discussion is here. Duja ► 06:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * War in Croatia can be attributed to almost any conflict that occurred on the territory of Croatia, from the Turkish wars, to WW1, WW2, & finally the war of independence. Capitalised/Italicised or not, this point isn't going to change.  Apart from being too generic,  War in Croatia is not an NPOV title, b/c it removes reference to the core issue of the struggle - independence - & would be a POV course of action which is argued for by those opposing the name and seeking to reframe the conflict as s/t other than independence.  It would also be POV b/c it would be denying a title that applies to many other similar conflicts.  Given these points, & the fact that War of Independence scores a high number of hits, we should leave the name as is.  The only alternative that would carry any weight is "Homeland War". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marinko (talk • contribs) 13:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC).


 * You again assert but still fail to demonstrate the ambiguity. We have Vietnam War, Korean War, War in Bosnia and Herzegovina which would ostensibly be equally ambiguous. Again, which other war in Croatia might be conceivably located under that title? We also have Balkan Wars, which is ostensibly yet more ambigous, but everyone knows which wars are referred to. Your own Google search indicates that War in Croatia is the most common term, ergo it satisfies our policy. Duja ► 15:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll just comment on this part: it seems to me that this is an attempt to establish a name rather than to use an already established name for the conflict (and Wikipedia article) - I don't think that is the case. The phrase "war in Croatia" is simply the simplest possible way that the press has used to refer to the war (they actually started that trend off with "war in former Yugoslavia"). I don't believe that such a phrase is particularly established in the English-speaking world - at least until we see a relevant number of uses by English-speaking historians. Since it's a relatively recent event, it sounds like there's barely quorum in that field so far. (If not, we'd need some references to the contrary.)
 * On related note, some of those historians will be browsing the Internet and also maybe reading these discussions, which may help them make up their mind about how to best call that war. :) --Joy &#91;shallot] 16:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Conversely you are yet to convincingly demonstrate the issue with the current title - the Croatian War of Independence. As indicated by the following examples, it is the most common naming convention for wars of national liberation & asserting control over national space. The Vietnam & Korean wars are the exception rather than the rule & are the euphemistic terms that veil the USs role as an outside & even as an invading force. The Vietnamese themselves refer to it as an independence struggle. But the war in Croatia really didn't see significant direct American involvement, thus the reason why Croatian war of Independence & Homeland War are more common & appropriate descriptors. It also is the reason why interested Serb wikipedians tend to opt for the War in Croatia title:

To address your question (which was already covered in prev post), the ambiguity is two fold:
 * the war can refer to the Turkish wars, to WW1, WW2, & finally the war of independence.


 * I do not believe that I have ever seen historical works that referred to the Ottoman or World wars on Croatian territory as simply "war in Croatia". Yes, these were each a war in Croatia, but they weren't referred to like that. Only the war of independence has been referred to as the "war in Croatia", and fairly often. --Joy &#91;shallot] 16:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * the title "War in Croatia", is generic & used in general english expressions once the context has been framed (ususally by a title like Homeland war, war of independence, the 1990's war etc.)

Note that the result I put forward for "War in Croatia" isn't the most common b/c that result returns an enormous number of false positives - take out the false positives, & I'm sure it would be lower down on the list. Even though I capitalised the search criteria, it returned lower case examples that represent false positives such as the following:
 * KBR – Recruiting for the Iraq War in Croatia
 * The War in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina
 * The role of JNA and Serbian troops in the war in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * The war in Croatia thus sprang from the fears of the local Serb populations
 * The war in Croatia has caused very significant damage to chemical and allied industries.
 * Chemical hazards during the recent war in Croatia
 * After war in Slovenia, a war in Croatia ensued.
 * explores the causes of the war in Croatia.
 * But, we need to be aware of the migrations that took place during the last war in Croatia.

All these reference point to the recent war, but once it has been contextualised by a different title/background briefing etc. As a title in & of itself, it lacks specificity & is ambiguous. The current title, "The Croatian War of Independence" does not suffer from these issues & thus should remain. The only credible alternative is "Homeland War". iruka 22:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the usage of the term above is OK. If we keep the current name, it could bear a template like the current on top of it forever --TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 10:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * factual accuracy is still breached. war of independence was only through 1991. --TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 10:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This surgically clear delineation between for-independence and after-independence is not automatically convincing to me in a historical article such as this one. The issue is simply not as clear-cut as such an interpretation would imply, there are several years worth of gray area there. --Joy &#91;shallot] 16:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting point about Vietnam and Korea (American slant), but still, it stands to reason that the English-speaking world is authoritative for titles in the English Wikipedia - for better or for worse.
 * As far as those false positive are concerned, I disagree with the interpretation. In the above examples, only the first example is a clear false positive. The number 7 is almost, but not quite (the syntax is "a", but at the same time it's reference to the same thing). All the others are fairly clear references to this particular war, even if they are lowercase.
 * The phrase "War in Croatia" will become ambiguous if in the future there is another general war on Croatian territory under that name. Right now, it's not ambiguous, because there has only been one such war.
 * The case against "War in Croatia" on grounds of ambiguity is rather weak, IMO. That's not necessarily a reason to switch to that name, but still. --Joy &#91;shallot] 15:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree - the point is the phrase war in Croatia is general English & not a title. In the cited examples of false positives, #6 & 9 allude the 1990s war through the additional words of 'recent' & 'last' w/o which it would be ambiguous IMO. The same applies to #3 where it mentions the JNA.
 * Thus we have the existing title which has no ambiguity - but is contested on the interpretation that the latter part of the war was not for independence, which in turn is countered by the notion that independence involves establishing control over national space. Then of the alternatives, war in Croatia is too generic/ambiguous, war in Croatia (1991-1995) doesn't score many hits, but "Homeland War" seems viable. iruka 00:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding years to the title (i.e. "War in Croatia (1991-1995)") elegantly solves any "ambiguity" issues (although I don't really see that there is such an issue at all, as I never heard of any other war in Croatia except this one in the 1990s...)--FreedonNadd 20:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding years to the title makes it a title that scores very few hits. There are many things I'm sure you haven't heard of, but would have an encyclopeadic entry - thus whether one has heard of it or not is hardly the best measure of a title's validity.  As an encyclopeadic entry, it should be unambiguous & account for other similar events on the historical timeline.  The current title "Croatian War of Independence" is unambigous & covers the main dynamic of the conflict, indpendence from institutional Serb hegemony & control over (internationally recognised) national space.  iruka 04:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * still, independence was achieved in 1991, and what with 1992-1995? So 2 main dynamics of the conflict. --TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 13:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Marinko you are arguing that "War in Croatia (1991-1995)" scores very few hits online (because of the added years part?), but you still fail to explain where the present title "Croatian War of Independence" actually comes from, or to demonstrate that established sources (major English-language media, historians etc.) actually use the present name of the article to refer to this particular conflict. You are missing the whole point about naming conventions at Wikipedia, and I suggest you read again what ChrisO posted about it.--FreedonNadd 19:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes to your question - Croatian War of Independence scores very highly on the number of hits in a search relative to other titles & doesn't have issues with false positives that the suggested alternative can have.
 * Re naming conventions:
 * "Wikipedia:Naming conventions says, 'Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.'"
 * Thus Croatian War of Indpendence w.r.t the naming conventions:
 * the majority of English would most easily recognise it - are you suggesting otherwise?
 * there is min ambiguity to what conflict the Croatian War of Indpendence refers to & the main thematic in the conflict;
 * no issue with linking to other article.
 * Thus far, the only arguments against CWOI is the notion that the latter part of the conflict did not deal with independence & on the basis of frequency of use. But those notions are countered by the notion that independence conflicts require establishing control over national space, & that the fledging state was under constant threat (as indicated by the rocketing of Zagreb & the fact that economically & logistically it was not functional - see Zagreb-Belgrade hwy example) until resolution of the conflict either politically or militarily.  And a search shows that CWOI scores very highly on " of hits.  Thus I am perplexed at the request for the change as present title appears consitent with naming guidelines & consistent with the titling of similar struggles of national liberation.
 * Examples of journals that use the title the "Croatian War of Independence" include:
 * http://ijrl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/7/3/407
 * http://www.maic.jmu.edu/Journal/10.2/focus/simunovic/simunovic.htm
 * http://www.landminesurvivors.org/documents/indicator_croatia.pdf
 * iruka 06:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you honestly believe that these sources demonstrate that the name "Croatian War of independence" is an established mainstream English-language term? Bosnian Croat author? You just proved my case, not yours.--FreedonNadd 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You quote Drazen Simunovic, but ignore ERIN D. MOONEY & the international NGO sources. These sources prove two things - it's a mainstream English term & that it is used in the field of academia. iruka 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out something here. Although I agree "War in Croatia" seems like a more neutral point of view and lack of sources otherwise support that, "War of Independence" seems to be appropriate enough for several reasons. Possibly the strongest argument FOR the Indepedence title is the fact that Federal Yugoslavia (FRY) - recognized Croatia and Bosnia only in 1996. Therefore, the country disputed their legality until then. In the eyes of Belgrade, which some would argue must have had significant influence over the Serb forces in Croatia, Croatia became independant in 1996. Hence - independence war. The Spanish Inquisitor 09:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As an example supporting this, lots of independence wars (notably the American War of Independence) are considered to have "ended" only when the opposing party (the British) recognized their independence, irrespective of the fact that some countries in the world (notably France) already recognized it as a new state much earlier. The Spanish Inquisitor 09:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the circumstances here are different - at the end of the American War of Independence there was still the original state around to legally challenge the American independence (the British Empire). With regards to the war in Croatia, the overall state (SFR Yugoslavia) essentially disappeared by December 1991. There was nowhere to 'roll back' Croatia into. The reminder of the war in Croatia (after 1991) was essentially Croatia vs. Serbs in Croatia (who wanted to create their own state and break out of Croatia, thus 'reversing the tables'). There were 'two wars in one' in Croatia from 1991 to 1995, two distinguishable phases. "Croatian War of Independence" is fine for the 1991 war with the Yugoslav federal forces, but the rest of the conflict was something else.--FreedonNadd 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Croatia War of Indpenedence was largely fought between Croatia & Serbia. The other peoples in Yugoslavia did not have a major role.  Despite Serbia carrying the name of Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia ceased to exist before outbreak of hostilities, indeed it was the federal institutions ceasing to function that prompted Croat & Slovene communists to organise referendums then declare independence.
 * Note also, Serbia was legally (for most things) the successor state to Yugoslavia, for example the recent ICJ decision on genocide brought against Yugoslavia, then novated to Serbia. International institutions have shown that despite the exercise in branding & rebranding, Yugoslavia (1990 ->) = Serbia.iruka 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

By December 1991? FreedonNadd, do you live on Mars, Venus or what? You obviously don't know about the Serbian strike wave from 1992, when large numbers of volunteers (don't think that you can organize that much people, arm them and send them to the battlefield in other country, without knowledge and support from the "giving" country). That was obvious during Operation Maslenica. Documented on TV. Not to mention when Serbia-Montenegro sent regular forces on the southern battlefield, as well as on occupied Croatian areas (southern Konavle, Prevlaka), preventing possible Croatian attempt to liberate southernmost Konavle area and Prevlaka. 1993 was hell of the year, because there were turn of events, as well as infos that there was insinuated joint attack of Bos. Muslim forces and Bos. Serb forces against Bos. Croats and charge towards the sea along the Neretva valley (Operation Neretva), with Serb attack along on southern flank (Dubrovnik area). You've forgotten all those Bos.Muslim and Serbian territorial requests at the expense of Croatia ("izlaz na more", corridor towards the sea). Once the dogs began to dismember you, they don't stop. In fact, that year Slovenia started with its territorial claims against Croatian territory (unilateral declaration of Slovenian parliament from 7 Apr, when they declared whole bay, Savudrijska vala, as "Slovenian", although Slovenia has a right to only a part of it). Have you forgotten when international community threatened Croatia with sanctions ("the quiet sanctions" were already in action)? Do you have any idea what might have been then? FreedonNadd, you're speaking ex-post, when all events have passed, and when you know the outcome. But you have to think as you were in those times in Croatia. Kubura 07:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed references
I think that someone has moved my references, and left "international" fourteenth-hand references. Kubura 06:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've restored them. Kubura 06:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

JNA as Serbia's arm
April 29 1991, in presidency of Yugoslavia, there was a voting on proposal of Borisav Jović, in which he required that JNA intervenes against Croatian police forces (ministry of internal affairs, MUP). Kubura 20:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Serbia's Involvement Incorrect
-The article states that Republic of Serbia was involved in the war as well as that Slobodan Milosevic was a commander?! Where is the proof for these statements ? Milosevic was not involved in that war in any sense and neither was Serbia. Give proof if he was ! JNA was involved and that was an army of Yugoslavia not Serbia and its task was to prevent any violence. War Criminal Tribunal in hague has not proven Serbias nor Milosevic's invovement and no other indpendent organisation has done it, so please change that. Its more of a CNN, BBC propaganda that has made those vague and untrue statements.

Croatia's referendum
Referendum was held on May 19 1991. Voters voted on two ballots: red one and the blue one. On the blue one was the question "Jeste li za to da Republika Hrvatska, kao suverena i samostalna država koja jamči kulturnu autonomiju i sva građanska prava Srbima i pripadnicima drugih nacionalnosti u Hrvatskoj, može stupiti u savez s drugim republikama (prema prijedlogu Republike Hrvatske i Republike Slovenije za rješenje državne krize u SFRJ)?". 94.17% chose "yes", 1.2% chose "no". On the red one was the question "Jeste li za to da Republika Hrvatska ostane u Jugoslaviji kao jedinstvenoj saveznoj državi (prema prijedlogu Republike Srbije i Crne Gore)?". 5.44% chose "yes", 91.97% chose "no". "Not valid" were 2.06%. Kubura 06:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Holding of referendum was prevented by rebel Serb authorities. Croatian authorities couldn't walk in rebel areas in the times of referendum. That's why it's not just: "called for boycott". Kubura 06:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Duja, why have you removed the reference and the text lines about referendum? There is a reason why I wrote "Croatian authorities held a referendum on Croatian independence . " That is the point. It is only "referendum on independence" (referendum o samostalnosti)... it doesn't mention "from". The legal acts that followed after the referendum were: May 25, 1991: Ustavna odluka o suverenosti i samostalnosti Republike Hrvatske. The activation of this act was cancelled for 3 months on the basis of Brijuni Declaration from July 7th, on the basis of the request of EEC, in order to try to solve the Yugoslav crisis in peaceful way. . October 8, 1991: Odluka o raskidu državno-pravne sveze sa ostalim republikama i pokrajinama SFRJ The 3-month moratorium has ended the day before, the same day Croatian presidential buildings were bombed by JNA (...JRV). Kubura 08:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term rebel
Duja,

The term 'rebel' does not imply anything with regard to why they were rebelling, it merely describes the act of not recognising the otherwise internationally recognised authority in the region, thus it is a NPOV term and describes the status of those Serbs that did not recognise Zagreb's jurisdiction, versus those that did (loyalists). I don't think the majority of sources would dispute that the Croatian Serbs were rebelling against the Croatian state / Tudjman govt, which were internationally recognised & thus the legal authority.

The term is quite common - can you pls explain your objection to the use of the term.

Cheers, iruka 07:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Point is, there were villages and towns, inhabited with Serbs (not necessarily with majority), that didn't rebel, despite the fact that greaterserbianist...agents... worked on inciting the rebellion. The term "pobunjeni Srbi" (rebel Serbs) is officially used in Croatian sources. At last, wasn't the Jovan Rašković the one who said "this is the rebellion of Serb people!" ("ovo je pobuna srpskog naroda!")? So, that's why we insist on the term "rebel Serbs". Using just the term "Croatian Serbs" for the rebels isn't fair towards the Serbs who stayed loyal to Croatia whole the time. Kubura 07:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't NPOV - check the articles on Albanians in Kosovo, you won't see rebelling anywhere. Also it would mean that we have to add "Rebel Croats" everywhere too for the 1991-1992 period. The Serbs' rebellion, with its roots in 1990, was conducted in 1991 - and turned into a secession in 1992. --PaxEquilibrium 15:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1)Of course there wasn't rebelling on Kosovo. Rugova kept Kosovo calm for Milošević (and tried to buy friendship with Serbia over Croatia's back). So Milošević had free hands at home, so he could send more forces against Croatia and B&H, instead being busy with "rebellion" on Kosovo. 2)What "rebel Croats"? Croats haven't rebelled against themselves. Whome has Croatia rebelled against? How can you compare Croatia with some tumor-formation? Croatia was legal entity in Yugoslavia. There was no Croatian rebellion. 3)Croatian Serbs' rebellion began in August 1990, with the "log-revolution". 4)What do you want to say by "1991-1992" period? What was then, and wasn't later? Don't push your original works here. Kubura 15:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist activities
"On occasion, the JNA sided with the local Croat Serb forces, intervening against the Croatian paramilitary police units and preventing it in its action against Serb terrorist activities." The better text would be: "...sided with rebel Serbs' forces, ..., preventing the Croatian police in its action against rebel Serbs' terrorist activities". Kubura 08:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hammering out a few facts (Re: "Croatian War of Independence" title for the entire article)
Let's get to real business by using a credible source: "Balkan Battlegrounds: A Military History of the Yugoslav Conflict, 1990-1995. Volume I. Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Russian and European Analysis, Washington, DC 20505. May 2002." (ISBN-10: 0756729300); (ISBN-13: 978-0756729301)'''.

Some of the maps already in this article come from the map case that accompanies this book, by the way.

Here is a direct quote from Section II: Croatia 1990-1991, Chapter 12: Ending the War: The Vence Plan:


 * Serbia Moves To End the War (subtitle; all on page 106):
 * "Real progress toward ending the fighting came only after the Serbian political leaders concluded their war aims of achieving military control over Serb areas in Croatia had been fulfilled. Uninterested in the JNA's aim of a defeated and subdued Croatia, they were more willing than the JNA commanders to consider moving to a negotiated solution once their own objectives had been attained. By early November [1991], Milosevic and Jovic had concluded the time was ripe to lock in the federal and Serb gains by requesting deployment of UN peacekeeping troops to halt and prevent further fighting pending the achievement of a general political settlement"

From this chapter (and others which I will mention as I go along), the following can be concluded:


 * 1. The source clearly distinguishes between two general phases of the war in Croatia; the first phase lasted from June 25, 1991 to January 3, 1992 (from the Croatian declaration of independence to the general armistice and signing of the Vence Plan). At the end of the first phase of the conflict, SFR Yugoslavia was dead. Only this first phase of the conflict saw direct participation of JNA in the fighting (soon after, there was no JNA at all).


 * 2. Goals of the Yugoslav federal forces (Yugoslav People's Army - JNA) and those of the Serbian/Croatian Serb politicians and paramilitaries were similar but they were not identical. According to the source, JNA's primary aim was to gain control of entire Croatia in order to force its leadership to renegotiate the Yugoslav federation (p. 98). This was the main goal of Veljko Kadijevic's "Strategic Offensive" (map is in the article) in the fall of 1991 (September to December). Veljko Kadijevic (Yugoslav minister of defense, i.e. JNA's top commander) was a real Yugoslav of a Titoist kind (in national and ideological terms); he was a child from a mixed marriage (half-Croat half-Serb), born in western Herzegovina (Imotski), he fought in the Partisans during WW2, and he had the same general dislike for both Croatian and Serbian nationalists. His only interest was in preserving Yugoslavia; he cared little if Croatia would retain its borders or if the Croatian Serbs would achieve their own secession from Croatia if there was no Yugoslavia. Goals of the Serbian/Croatian Serb political leadership (and paramilitaries under their direct control) on the other hand were different. They were only interested in retaining control of Serb-populated areas of Croatia (25-30% of Croatia), and for them the rest of Croatia could go down Slovenia's road of independence. A very similar story will repeat itself in Bosnia in 1992. All of this is explained in detail in Annex 15: Mobilization and the JNA-Serbian Political-Military Conflict.


 * 3. The source never calls the conflict in Croatia "Croatian War of Independence". It refers to the conflict as either "war in Croatia" or "conflict in Croatia". There is one spot in the text where the source states that the Croats were fighting JNA to get their independence, which is a true statement with regards to what was happening in 1991.

From all of this, the article should recognize the following facts:


 * A) "Croatian War of Independence", as a newly established term, could in fact refer only to the first phase of the conflict (June 25, 1991 to January 3, 1992). As long as the effort of Yugoslav federal forces (JNA) was on the menu, Croatia was fighting for its independence (from SFR Yugoslavia), because the ultimate goal of Kadijevic's JNA was to undo/annul Croatian independence and preserve/reestablish federal Yugoslavia. Once the JNA quit the field, this phase was over.


 * B) Croatian Serbs, acting as Milosevic's proxies, were not interested in 'keeping' entire Croatia in Yugoslavia. They were only interested in Serb-populated areas of Croatia, amounting to some 25-30% of the territory of Croatia. The source calls the Croatian Serb effort 'secession within secession' a number of times: as Croatia was trying to secede from Yugoslavia, Croatian Serbs were trying to secede from Croatia itself. The federal and Croatian Serb story run a parallel course during 1991, but the later stages of the conflict - from 1992 to 1995 - were only Croatian Serb effort to secede from Croatia. Yes, they were getting logistical help from Serbia from 1992 to 1995 (although never direct help along the lines of regular army conscripts from Serbia), but only in support of this particular (limited) goal. Thus, calling the 1992-1995 phase of the war "Croatian War of Independence" is clearly a historical misnomer, because even if Croatian Serbs were somehow ultimately successful in their secession from Croatia, the rest of Croatia (75-70% of territory) would remain an independent state (something it already was since 1992 - Croatia became a full member of the UN on May 15, 1992). Calling the 1992-1995 phase of the conflict "Croatian War of Independence" is as exotic as calling the JNA war effort in 1991 "Yugoslav War of Independence" because SFRY forces were trying to prevent Slovenian and Croatian secession and preserve Yugoslav state territory (?).


 * C) Taking all of the above into account, I would once again suggest changing the article's present title. If it were an established term, it would have been used in the 500+ pages long CIA report about the war, published in 2002. It was not used even once. With regards to the meaning of "Croatian War of Independence" itself, it could be a part of the article, referring to a particular phase of the conflict. I have no problem even with a separate article just on that, as long as the article was dealing with the events from June 25, 1991 to January 3, 1992.--FreedonNadd 23:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
For the beginning: 1) Imotski is not in western Herzegovina, it's in Zagora, southern Croatian hinterland. 2) "he fought in the Partisans during WW2". Kadijević has deserted before first action; he's a deserteur. There was a testimony of an former partisan; it was in newspapers few months ago. Here's the Google result for "Kadijević dezertirao". [http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/20070403/novosti04.asp Veljko Kadijević je 1943. dezertirao iz partizana]. 3) About other lines: you haven't had opportunity to read Serbian and Montenegrin newspapers, neither to hear their radio and TV. Do you know for their words "they may leave, but without the territory"? There's more to tell, but this is "for the first hand"... Kubura 06:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll wait for that, because so far your comments are non-essential. I am not too sure where Imotski is, on a quick glance at the map it seemed to be a small town in Herzegovina. Also, who cares what Kadijevic did in 1943 (?), even if it were true that he was a deserter - so what? With regards to your last comment, it all seems very cryptic to me, and I'll just leave it at that...--FreedonNadd 07:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Non-essential?". "...on a quick glance...small town in Herzegovina...". Yes, FreedonNadd, you made such glances on other things here also. That's why your ideas and sources are wrong/based on the wrong premises. About war aims... General Mladić spoke on TV about "drinking coffee in Split" (the charge of tank divisions towards the Split was imminent; the charge on Šibenik already was). Users from former Yugoslavia know very well what I'm speaking about. FreedonNadd, have in mind that many of those books published in West, and written by western analysts are: 1) built on stereotypes 2) built on clairvoyancy - in 1991 they spoke about total defeat of Croatia; Serbs had passed me that information (western estimate from 1991 about "100.000 dead Serbs and all Croats"), I haven't get that info from Cro. media 3) written ex-post - when everything had happened, and the outcome is known, then they speak about something, so "they are always wright, they never can be wrong". Dear FreedonNadd, we had in Croatia, during whole time of the war, a TV-show on national TV ("Slikom na sliku"), that showed what's been told/shown about the Croatian war of Independence on Serbian, Montenegrin, Bosnian, Slovenian TV-stations (the important ones), as well as the American, English, Italian, German, Austrian and French TV-stations. Also, our printed media (newpapers and magazines) regularly covered what's been written in printed media in abovementioned countries (and more). Kubura 12:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And, can you refute FreedonNadd's research by something other than handwaving, and nit-picking on the issue where is Imotski? I don't think that Wikipedia is a place to fix historical injustices or propagate The Truth. For Christ's sake, he's citing an extensive CIA publication, which is supposedly "built on stereotypes, clairvoyancy, written ex-post"? Yeah, right. The article in Croatian Wikipedia is titled Domovinski rat, I guess per Croatian equivalents of WP:NC(CN) and WP:UE. We're talking about English here, and relevant pages are WP:NC(CN) and WP:UE. And WP:SOAP, if you like. Duja ► 12:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Duja, možeš mislit koliko su duboko išli u tom svom istraživanju, kada su Imotski smistili u zapadnu Hercegovinu. Duja, you may think how deep they've gone in their exploration when they haven't watched on such things (when they placed Imotski in W Herzegovina). Ako se misle baviti nečim, onda triba ić temeljito, a ne površno. If they want to deal with something (or analize something), they should do it thoroughly, not superficially. ''Naizgled sitnica, ali san mu pokaza di su već pogrišili. Tako da si ne umišlja da je to točno ka' da je od Božjeg groma urezano u stinu.'' At first sight, it seems small and irrelevant, but I've shown him where they've made a mistake. So he won't be in ilusion that the content of that book is accurate as it has been carved from the allmighty God's thunder into the stone. Duja, CIA je, nažalost, pogrišila u svezi s puno stvari ovdi. U priveć tega. Duja, CIA had, unfortunately, made many misestimates regarding the things over here. In too many things. I'll put my sources here later. Don't expect anything over night. Kubura 13:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion 2
Here are a few more quotes from the same CIA source (by the way, look at the name of the conflict in the subtitle):


 * Chapter 11: The JNA, Serbia, and the Croatia War, Fall-Winter 1991 (pages 96-97):
 * “Croatia’s attack on the JNA barracks brought to a head the differences between Serbian and JNA leaders over Belgrade’s objectives but failed to resolve them…The JNA senior leadership, in particular General Kadijevic, still balked at Milosevic’s pragmatically limited political objective – the creation of a Serbian-controlled Yugoslavia of the willing, including the Serb Autonomous Regions in Croatia [after the outbreak of hostilities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, this plan would be further modified to include only Serb regions in that republic as well]. The JNA generals still believed that the defeat of the Croatian Government would enable the preservation of some form of confederal Yugoslavia…Instead of merely defending the Serb regions of Croatia, as Milosevic and Jovic wanted, Kadijevic and the JNA high command were set to embark on a full-scale strategic offensive to defeat Croatia militarily and force its capitulation…Kadijevic would continue to raise the question of restorative military offensive and the general mobilization required to sustain it, much to the dismay and displeasure of Milosevic and Jovic”

More from the source, page 97:


 * JNA War Planning
 * “Kadijevic and the JNA General Staff’s strategic offensive plan – probably planned in the spring of 1991 and actually launched in September – called for slicing up Croatia and defeating it militarily to compel the surrender of the Croatian political leadership and the renegotiation of a Yugoslav confederation…As noted earlier, the aims of the strategic plan exceeded and conflicted with Milosevic’s war aim of a rump Serbian-led Yugoslavia. Milosevic wanted the JNA to implement a simpler strategy that included an immediate withdrawal from its exposed positions throughout the Croatian Republic to defend only the Serb regions, rather than launching a strategic offensive to achieve a political objective he did not want and believed infeasible”

I rest my case. As for Kubura’s comments: the source stated that Kadijevic was born in the Imotski area – I glanced at the map and made an assumption that this was a small town in Herzegovina (not the CIA source). With regards to the rest: dismissing something like the CIA war report as “wrong” simply because you don't like it is a tall order indeed; No passeran, I’m afraid. Before you accuse the entire CIA for “built on stereotypes, clairvoyance, written ex-post” approach, I suggest you examine your own views a bit first. If something like the CIA report is not good enough for individuals like Kubura, I am sure nothing else ever will be. I would really recommend to all to get a hold of this publication and read it – most of the present article could be rewritten based on it (starting with the equating of JNA and Serbian leadership), let alone changing its erroneous title. We have two choices at this point – either we leave the “dispute” tag for good because we cannot agree on anything, starting with changing the present title “Croatian War of Independence” (i.e. leaving the resolution for other people and some “better times” perhaps), or we invite a non-affiliate Wikipedia moderator to break a tie and impose a solution based on the evidence. The choice is yours.--FreedonNadd 18:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, FreedonNadd, buth I was here at that time, and I had first hand information. The info that CIA had wasn't. "Kadijević and the JNA General Staff’s strategic offensive plan... compel the surrender of the Croatian political leadership and the renegotiation of a Yugoslav confederation ...". Wrong. JNA had official policy, which was against confederation. On the classes of "moral-political education" (moralno-političko vaspitanje), that were part of military training of the persons who served the regular army, the soldiers were taught against any kind of confederation ("it's no good", "no confederation ever worked", etc.). Any person that served the Yugoslav army in 1990 and 1991 can confirm you that. Kubura 07:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, your personal experiences and first-hand information are fine, but you certainly know that Wikipedia relies on "reliable sources", which, unfortunately, may not reflect The Truth. Duja ► 09:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Than, don't mention some CIA's book as background for some of your claims. Further, if Kadijević was a "Titoist", he wouldn't agree with any Serb national extremism. Instead of it, he sided with rebelled Serbs in Croatia and with the paramilitars from Serbia that helped anti-Croatia action. Kubura 07:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is that contradictory that Kadijević was both a Titoist and that he sided with Serbs in Croatia? I can't enter his mind, but it's quite logical that you ally with the forces that have the same goal as you, i.e. prevent Croatia from seceding. Duja ► 09:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) JNA has crossed its authorization. It had no legal right to interfere with internal things of the republics (in this case Croatia); police deals with that. Police tries to suppress armed rebellion, tried to stop terrorist activities and restore constitutional orderand then, and then, JNA, prevents the regular police forces in performing its legal obligations??!!. What have they (JNA) allowed themselves? 2) Then, when Croatian police intervened, it had nothing with Croatian independence. At that time, there was no talk about independence; Croatia spoke about confederation. Untolerable situation forced Croatia to think about independence. 3) Again, Croatia hasn't seceded, it dissolved its "partnership" with other Yugoslav republics. Kubura 08:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Duja, the CIA report actually talks about this particular issue in some length. JNA in Croatia was under general orders to snuff out ethnic conflict there by separating Croat and Serb police/territorial defence/paramilitary forces as late as September 14th, 1991; JNA was trying to achieve this goal by putting its own units in between as a buffer where needed, with varying degrees of success. Once the Croats attacked JNA directly (“Battle of the Barracks”, starting on September 14th), Kadijevic gave the order (on September 16th) for the implementation of his “Strategic Offensive” in Croatia that I mentioned earlier. Once JNA was in open war with the Croats, its co-operation with local Croatian Serbs was logical for the following reasons: a) JNA and Croatian Serbs now shared a common enemy; cooperation on a local level was a given, despite the fact that the ultimate goal of JNA was quite different from the one Croatian Serbs had; b) areas controlled by Croatian Serbs were now the only areas of Croatia where JNA was not being shot at; in the eyes of JNA, this made Croatian Serb-held areas a logical staging ground for further military operations; c) strategically speaking, Croatian Serb-held areas were well positioned for “chopping up” Croatia into 4-5 disconnected regions in order to force its capitulation, something that JNA’s “Strategic Offensive” called for. For example, Kadijevic planned to use Serb-held western Slavonia to launch an operation aiming at capturing Virovitica and reaching the Hungarian border north of it (this would sever all links between Slavonia and Zagreb). A similar operation was planned with regards to Karlovac (to separate Zagreb from Dalmatia), in the vicinity of Zadar (to cut Dalmatia into two) and so on (the map of Kadijevic’s “Strategic Offensive” – that comes from this CIA source, by the way – is already in the article). All that said, it is clear that in 1991 JNA was fighting its own war with its own goals, rather that fighting for the establishment of a Croatian Serb (para)state at the expense of Croatia’s borders. Sure, Croatian Serbs benefited from many JNA military actions (but not all of them – JNA’s Dubrovnik operation, aimed at chopping up Dalmatia into even more pieces in an area where there were no Croatian Serbs, is an example of this); I would even acknowledge that to the Croats, it most likely seemed that there was no difference between JNA and Croatian Serb forces at all (although – arguably – the Croats were facing a much more serious peril from JNA given its main goal, especially if Kadijevic had his way with Milosevic). But the fact of the matter is that JNA was fighting for the goals spelled out in Kadijevic’s “Strategic Offensive", not for Croatian Serb 'Krajina'. Turning now to Kadijevic: he had many faults indeed, but accusing him of being one of the architects of “Greater Serbia” is ridiculous. This conclusion is going against his personal background, against his ideological background and (most importantly) against his actions at the time. His interest was only in preserving Titoist-style Yugoslavia (or some version of it), and there is nothing in the source to indicate that he cared about “Croatian Serb state” at all. Kadijevic resigned on January 8th, 1992, and his letter of resignation tells a lot: he said that “…my country [Yugoslavia] is dead, my position and my office are meaningless”. Such a resignation could have come only from a genuine Yugoslav, not a “Greater Serb". With regards to the rest of your comments, I have nothing to add - you said it all.--FreedonNadd 23:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Secession within secession". First, Croatia hasn't seceded. The term "razdruženje" is used, meaning something like "departnerising", "dissolving the partnership". Second, use the term " rebelled Croatian Serbs", not just "Croatian Serbs", it's not fair towards the loyal Serbs. Rebelled Serbs had interest in more than Serb-populated areas of Croatia (though, not the whole territory of Croatia). Yes, the rebels didn't want to be in Croatia. Serbian leadership had their plans for the remains of Croatia. Over the course of time, due to military unsuccesful campaigns, they've reduced their appetites. Still, it ain't over till it's over. Prigode beru jagode. If opportunity arose (as it was many times during the war), the military goals have augmented (remember 1993 and the request for the corridors towards the sea, Hungary, southern Croatian territories, not to mention all Martić's and Karadžić's requests for the corridors). Remember, when we speak about "what ifs", think as you were in 1993, 1994, not as you think now in this position. What if UN-sanctions against Croatia were imposed? What if those against Serbia were lifted or significantly weakened? What if Milošević, Karadžić and Izetbegović signed a peace treaty, not to mention alliance? It was bloody close to that in 1993 (some plans were already in action, "Neretva 93"). "...because SFRY forces were trying to prevent Slovenian and Croatian secession and preserve Yugoslav state territory". You've said it yourself. Preventing the indepenence of Cro and Slo. Kubura 08:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Razdruženje" was a newfangled euphemism which came into brief use in late 1980s, apparently as an attempt of then still-ruling Croatian and Slovenian communists to create a more "politically correct" and "user-friendly" word for "independence". No one sane used it in normal speech, and no one uses it today anymore. I don't mind if you do find a better word than secession, (although I don't see what's wrong with it in English, quote, "Secession is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or political entity"), but please spare us from "razdruženje". Duja ► 09:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

At last, you've forgotten what ideology was propagated in those times in Serbia. National-expansionist ideology that was the "ideological justification" for the expansionist military campaign against Croatia. You don't know about the greaterserbianist delusions/stories about "Croats of Serbian origin", "catholicized Serbs", "catholic Serbs... (you have such Serb ultranationalist material as much as you want on en.wiki), "Croats in those areas like Yugoslavia", "they don't feel as Croats, but as special nation".... Do you get now what Serbian military and academical leadership meant when they spoke about "the territories where Serbs live''"? Kubura 08:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, I agree, but you're really doing the tactics roda davi žabu now. What's the point of the exercise? I thought we were discussing the article title, as per WP:NC(CN) and blah blah. FreedonNadd doesn't have to be a local or have a first-hand experience about the War to argue what reliable sources say. Duja ► 09:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion 3
"Razdruženje" has different meaning of "independence". Independence is a consequence of "razdruženje". "Razdruženje" has the other meaning of "secession". I'll provide you the proper iuristic term in English here, as soon as I get it. "No one sane used it in normal speech, and no one uses it today anymore ." This is your personal point of view, Duja. Duja, where did you get that from? Who "noone"? Maybe in Serbia, because there say that Croatia and other republics have seceded. But in Croatia say the other thing, and Badinteur's Committee has confirmed that. "No one sane"? Duja, are you trying to insult those who use such expressions? You don't need this. Kubura 07:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion 4
V. Kadijević in his book "Moje viđenje raspada" (Belgrade, 1993.), on the pages 134 and 135 wrote: (the text is in Croatian translation) "Zadatke izvršavati u dvije etape. Prvoj, pretežno sa kontra udarima taktičkog značaja, dok se potpuno ne ispolji agresija Hrvatske, uz intenzivno organiziranje i pripremanje srpskih ustanika u Hrvatskoj, i drugoj, jedinstvenom operativno strategijskom napadnom operacijom poraziti hrvatsku vojsku i izvršiti postavljene zadatke..." Naglasio je kako je trebalo "poraziti hrvatsku vojsku potpuno ako situacija dozvoli... ostvariti zajedničko djelovanje sa srpskim ustanicima u Srpskoj Krajini; omogućiti dovršenje izvlačenja preostalih djelova JNA iz Slovenije". ''Po planu operacije, naglasio je Kadijević, uz već angažirane snage JNA, dodati još 15 do 18 oklopnih, mehaniziranih i pješačkih brigada kopnene vojske. "...Ideja manevra sadržavala je slijedeće osnovne elemente: blokirati Hrvatsku iz zraka i sa mora; pravce napada glavnih snaga što neposrednije vezivati za oslobađanje srpskih krajeva u Hrvatskoj i garnizona JNA u dubini hrvatske teritorije. U tom cilju isprecijecati Hrvatsku na pravcima Gradiška-Virovitica, Bihać-Karlovac-Zagreb, Knin-Zadar, Mostar-Split. ...jakim snagama iz rejona Herceg Novi-Trebinje, blokirati Dubrovnik sa kopna i izbiti u dolinu Neretve i na taj način zajednički djelovati sa snagama koje nastupaju na pravcu Mostar-Split.; nakon dostizanja određenih objekata, osigurati i držati granicu Srpske Krajine u Hrvatskoj. Najjačom grupacijom oklopno-mehaniziranih snaga osloboditi istočnu Slavoniju, a zatim brzo nastaviti djelovanje na zapad, spojiti se sa snagama u zapadnoj Slavoniji i produžiti ka Zagrebu i Varaždinu, odnosno ka granici Slovenije ." I'll translate you the text in the English later. Greetings, Kubura 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion 5
Momir Bulatović said on one occasion (I read that in my papers few days ago): "We (Montenegrins )have to continue forward and take nothing less than western border on Neretva". I owe you the source here (and where and when was that "occasion"). Kubura 14:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion 6
Attitudes of official Serbian leadership (Croatia and Slovenia were already internationally recognised countries at the time when these statements were said): On 4th March 1992, in the talks with Cyrus Vance, Blagoje Adžić has introduced himself as "federal minister of defense of SFRY". On 5th of March 1992, minister of defense of Serbia, general Marko Negovanović has said on the session of National assembly of Serbia (Narodna skupština Srbije): "''JNA has withdrawn from some territories, redislocated in some other areas. If in solving of crisis some other solutions follow, JNA can return on that areas." On the same session, Negovanović has told the deputies that "Yugoslavia is still internationally recognised subject" and "because of that, JNA can use whole territory as maneuvre area (JNA može da koristi celokupni teritorij kao manevarski prostor)". Kubura 08:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion 7
Jovan Opačić said for newspaper Oslobođenje (from Sarajevo), in Oct 21, 1990: "Ukoliko se Hrvatska izdvoji iz Jugoslavije, tada će Srbi pristupiti stvaranju integralne srpske države, koja bi obuhvatila sav srpski narod i sve srpske pokrajine na Balkanu - od Gorskog kotara do Timočke krajine i od Subotice do Nevesinja.". Translation: "If Croatia separates from Yugoslavia, Serbs'll approach to the project of creation of integral Serb country, that'd encompass all Serb people and all Serb provinces on Balkans - from Gorski kotar to Timočka krajina and from Subotica to Nevesinje.". For those uninformed, Gorski kotar is a far west region of Croatia. No Serb politician from Croatia reacted to that. Nor Pupovac, nor Stanimirović nor any Serb politician from Croatia nor any other ex-YU republic. Kubura (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Crawling aggression on Croatia
There were few phases of the aggression on Croatia; there was "crawling", slow part and "regular speed" part. Kubura 06:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Title
I just have a quick question... can't we just call this the Homeland War? Since (a) it's what Croatians call it, and (b) the title isn't used for anything else (in fact, it redirects into this title right now). No one in Croatia or Serbia uses the term "Croation War of Independence". --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 12:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, this is not about who uses the term. The reason why "Homeland War" isn't used for anything else is the same reason why we shouldn't use it here. You can't title an encyclopedic article about a specific war "Homeland War", because it refers to the conception of the word, not a specific war. &mdash; Luka Krstulović 11:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Invalid. While I argued for the move myself earlier, the poll was spoiled by aggressive canvassing by, now blocked. I don't mind restarting the poll from a clean slate.Duja ► 14:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Current title is misleading, inaccurate and presents heavy Croatian POV - it just cannot stand. The problem are as follows:


 * Croatia was independent since early 92; The war (92-95), after Croatia was a fully recognized state, member of UN, it can hardly be described as "War of Independence" - it would be akin of calling war in Kosovo "Serbian war of Independence" - a plain nonsense.


 * It was not independant. It was recognized by the UN, true, but 1/3 of it's internationally recognized territory was occupied by a hostile foreign force. It can be argued that it only achieved full independance with the reintegration of Eastern Slavonia. --Dr.Gonzo 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Krajina was not a "hostile foreign force" and had support in majority provinces in Croatia, although there's practically no doubt that the Serbian military was involved in a less direct way in funding the troubles. The situation is akin to that of Transnistria. Zivko85 05:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

in expulsion of entire Krajina population.
 * The period (92-95) would much more accurately be described as "Serb Krajina War of Independence" which ended


 * It would not. It would be more accurately described as a Serb Krajina War of Aggresion. --Dr.Gonzo 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

is misleading and POV to the utmost. The essence of this war was Croatian wish to destroy Krajina and get rid of Serbs, and the problems there can be only described as conflict between local Serbs and Croatian government. Parallels with Kosovo are obvious. The result - ethnic cleansing of entire Krajina population - part of Mile Budak type Croatian national plan, genocidial policies towards ethnic Serbs, speak for themself what this war was all about.
 * The name, as pointed many times (this is not the first time this heavy pro-Croatian POV name is being changed)


 * No, the point of the war was to carve out a piece of Croatia (from it's internationally recognized borders) and to unite that carved out part with Serbia proper. This has been established through a number of ICTY cases against convicted war criminals Milan Martić, Milan Babić and others. --Dr.Gonzo 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not true at all. The Krajina was established befor Croatia's international recognition. The point of the war was to carve out Croatia in its AVNOJ borders from Yugoslavia. Nikola 21:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * While Croats will no doubt deny the genocidial nature of the 92-95 campagn to the UN protected Zones, what is at least clear is that there is controversy sparked by the title. Titles should be neutral, not controversial and should not serve to push one POV.


 * The community consensus is that this is the most NPOV and appropriate title for the article, confirmed in many previous RfM-s. --Dr.Gonzo 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What community consensus? It seems there is no consensus in any direction at all, which is a worrying thing. This should not be a polarised debate per WP:ILIKEIT - we should be deciding the proper, encyclopaedic name to use. A similar conflict in Russia in 1917-1920 is described as the Russian Civil War, and it would seem that a similar name would be appropriate here - either Croatian War (e.g. Gulf War, Korean War, Vietnam War), Krajina War (less acceptable although still correct) or Croatian Civil War (e.g. American Civil War, Russian Civil War). It is a matter of determining what encyclopaedic references refer to it as, and using that to inform us here. A quick search of Factiva suggests the former is the most appropriate. Zivko85 05:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The name is not used - Croatian War is the english name, and to avoid ambiguity, (1991-95) should be added.There is no basis for this title in general english language, as already discussed. In English, Croatian War or War in Croatia is what is commonly used.


 * Incorrect. The only other suitable name would be Homeland War, but the community voted against it more than a few previous occasions. --Dr.Gonzo 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The other similar conflict - Bosnian War - is not named Bosnian War of Independence. The obvious discrepancy is a strong argument and explains why this Croatian POV name cannot stand.


 * I don't see how the name of the war in another country is relevant to the name of this war. They are clearly completely different. --Dr.Gonzo


 * The war is called "Domovinski Rat" in Croatia, which roughly translates as "Homeland War" or "Patriotic War". Obviously, this is from Croatian POV, but I would even less object to this name (it is not used in the West at all), as it at least has some basis in reality. For Krajina Serbs, who fought for their existence, and were mercileslly purged out of Croatia, this was merely a struggle for survival, especially in the light of what happened in WWII. For them, the title is insulting. Wikipedia as such should not offend any group by using a controversial and POV titles. The nature of the war is disputed between Serbs and Croats, and wikipedia should not, on its own, push one side.

and similarly, Croatia was, despite the name, country of 2 nations, Serbs and Croats. This was due to genocide in WWII NDH against the Serbs. The Croatian state was as much country of Serbs as it was of Croats - both were constitutive nations, until Tudjman threw Serbs out of constitution. Thus, the internal nature of this conflict is evident.
 * The war is seen as civil war in the west, just as the Bosnian War is. Both Bosnia and Croatia had Serbs as constitutive nations. In Bosnia, Serbs menaged to get their entity, in Croatia they were purged in genocidial campagn of ethnic cleansing. In SFRY, Bosnia was defined as country of 3 nations - Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks (called Muslims),


 * The Croats were 78% majority, Serbs were 11% minority. The Constitution of 1990 recognized this fact. The rest is malicious lies. The true nature of the conflict was fueled by Greater Serbian tendencies, as recognized by the ICTY. The part about "genocidal campaign" is beyond reprimand. You present your views as "moderate", "NPOV", etc.? I LOL-ed. --Dr.Gonzo 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Both Serbs and Croats were constitutive nations, despite difference in numbers. Serbs were not a minority. As for 1990 constitution, let's just say that one of constitutive nations didn't acknowledge it. Claim that some Greater Serbian tendencies existed is pure conspiracy theory. Nikola 21:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As seen on this page, the name is pushed by a cabal of Croatian users. Their agenda is obvious - to spin the true nature of this war, most part of which was simply a comflict between autochtone Serbs and Zagreb, ending in a merciless genocidial purge. By using a POV title, they wish to hide the fact that the Serbs were true victims there, which is even recognized by ICTY, just as Albanians were in Kosovo during Milosevic era, indeed more so - as trully horrible crimes comitted in WWII cannot be excluded from the picture.


 * I find this comment insulting. Check the history of this page and you'll see that users of many nationalities voted to keep the current name. Furthermore, your assertion that the "Serbs were true victims there, which is even recognized by ICTY" is pure bullshit and you know it. --Dr.Gonzo 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely, there are lot of problems with the current title, which serves only Croatian agenda. As it is now, it cannot stand. The Bosnian War and Croatian War in the period of 92-95 were sister wars, in which nations who once lived on theritory of NDH struggled to define their future. Described as civil war by the west, its nature is hotly disputed between the factions. Wikipedia should not accept Croatian POV, be in discordance with the name for Bosnian War, use name not common in English, when a more neutral name - Croatian War or War in Croatia is obvious solution, with addition of the period to avoid ambiguity. Hvarako 17:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the type of fudging of the facts you Serbs thrive on. There is nothing disputable about the facts. And this encyclopedia is here to present FACTS not OPINIONS. Therefore, this kind of BIASED bullshit cannot stand. --Dr.Gonzo 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note WP:AGF and WP:NPA - this sort of racial labelling is entirely unacceptable on Wikipedia. Zivko85 05:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There have been many, many, MANY requests for move in the past and each and every one failed. When are you people going to stop? If you wish - post a RfM and see how far you get... --Dr.Gonzo 22:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * fully support Hvarako's ideas, but please note per WP:MILHIST guidelines the title should be War in Croatia (1991-1995), not 1991-95. --TheFE  ARgod  (Ч) 22:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No doubt, someone who moved Operation Storm to "Oluja Genocide" is qualified to speak about neutral POV... The Spanish Inquisitor 06:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out... Really, in light of this, it seems that Hvarako is yet another sockpuppet of some of the previously blocked users. It's really quite disturbing. I propose this RfM be closed immediately since it's clear it hasn't been started in good faith. --Dr.Gonzo 13:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Gonzo, you don't have to waste your energy, just because Hvarako isn't reading the arguments above. He has to obey the rules. Shall we start rewriting the whole Bible again every time a new parachutist appear here with his childish "only I am wright, you are not"? Hvarako is trying to make fools out of all us, of us that are trying to discuss something here. Mi svi ovdi nešto pokušavamo objasnit jedni drugima, a onda taj lik upada ka padobranac i kao razmaženo derle (like a spoiled brat) ''minja na oblik kako on hoće, ignorirajuć sve što smo svi mi drugi napisali? Sad svi mi ostali ispadamo budale.'' He has to read following sections "Croatian War of Independence (after 1991?)?", "Changing the article's title back to 'War in Croatia' ", "Hammering out a few facts (Re: "Croatian War of Independence" title for the entire article)". But, instead of it, he just proposes "name change", without beating the arguments given above (that are enriched from time to time with new data). We don't have to react on this childish gunmen-requests for move. Some of us spent a lot of time (that means, our personal free time, svoje slobodno vrime) collecting data and writing it here on this talkpage. Work is harder, because many times, we don't put our hypothesis, but we are searching for proper answers. Nismo mi bili nešto napisali u stilu, kao da si prepričao školsku lekciju. Ovdi smo morali dati odgovore na konkretna pitanja. A naslovi od poglavlja nisu naslovljeni prema tim pitanjima, nego moraš tražit podatke, koji često nisu indeksirani na kraju knjige, nego moraš rovat po knjizi od 400 strana. A sad se ovaj nađe pravit pametan i kaubojski počne minjat po članku, naslovu, onda još i sa zahtivima, bez išta raspravit su nami. I sad smo mi ispali budale što se držimo pravila i taremo se oko podataka i gubimo (svoje slobodno) vrime ovdi, a on je sad ka' ispa pametan, sad je on ka' neka faca što se ne drži pravila. Zlouporabljiva naše strpljenje i suradnju. I da ćemo ga sad obadavat? Ma dajte.Kubura 08:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Htio ti ili ne htio, tako to mora bit. We have to adhere to Wikipedia procedure, and since there is so much sourced material in this article already, this should be easy. The burden of proof for his statements is on him. --Dr.Gonzo 15:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely support for the move! The majority of users (ChrisO, TheFearGod etc) who are not Croatian nationalists were for more neutral title, and there were Serbs as well as non-Serbs there. The old title should be restored, and Croatian cabal should really count as one (very POV) group. Hence, original title restoration has full support! Perroot 23:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I call foul! This user is WP:Canvassing, and clearly acting in bad faith. Also, I suspect it is a sockpuppet of another user since he/she has less than 50 edits before these, also involving heavy canvassing . I call for the immediate dismissal of RfM! Also, the insinuation that there is some kind of croatian cabal acting to stack votes against NPOV is ridiculous, and very insulting. --Dr.Gonzo 01:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There's way too many accusations going both ways, and you're hardly innocent of this - e.g. suggesting "(fudged facts) you Serbs thrive on" is entirely unacceptable and offensive. Zivko85 05:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Move - As stated by many other editors, based upon precent set by other wars in the former Yugoslavia, the NPOV title should be used either Croatian War or War in Croatia. // laughing man 23:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I support returning the title to "War in Croatia" as the Serbs of Croatia opposed independence during the war and the Serbs were one of the two constitutional peoples and not a minority. Therefore this was a civil war, a War in Croatia, not a war of independence per say. Certainly the Civil War goin on in Iraq now is not the Sunni or Shi'ia war of independence. --Revolucija 02:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the move. It is both more neutral and more accurate. Nikola 21:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Move to Croatian War (or War in Croatia) or, perhaps as a compromise, Croatian Civil War. The current title must be abandoned as fallacious, but any of the above would more correctly characterise the conflict in Krajina. Zivko85 05:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Zivko, laughinman, Revolucija ("red link", are you one of purposed registered usernames, just to troll around?), you're all playing dumb. Aren't you reading the materials above? And there's more. Even after Croatia became member of UN, Serbian ministers spoke about their rights to act on territory of Yugoslavia, although such Yugoslavia wasn't existing at all. Kubura 09:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Move Per Gonzo's reasoning using the titles proposed by Zivko. This is a joke, seriously. Lets build an encyclopedia. Twenty Years 13:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Move to Croatian War (or reordering of such as suggested) as the most logical and neutral title. It is a war which occurred within Croatia between two opposing parties, one of which had foreign help - not really that different to most wars around the world, but certainly not a war of independence. The song which charted around the world (including here in Australia) by Tomislav Ivčić (1991) was entitled "Stop The War In Croatia". Looking to news services - Deutsche-Welle, Associated Press and The Irish Times amongst many others, fairly neutral news sources, refer to it as the Croatian War and to its veterans as Croatian War veterans, Agence France-Presse and Washington Post (1995 and 1993 respectively) called it the "Serbo-Croatian war" and Croatian sources (eg HINA Zagreb) refer to it as Croatian Homeland War or the 1991-1995 Homeland War, which still doesn't reference "of Independence". The only reference I can find to this on newswires were by a number of small US and Canadian newspapers and never as a title (i.e. "the Croatian war of independence"). Nearly all of those references were contemporary to the conflict and do not reflect present usage (only three were after 1995). Orderinchaos 13:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reopening the discussion
I see that discussion is closed though it only started, and it showed that many users are for the move. I hereby reopen the discussion as proposed by Asterion closing discussion in this hasty way will NOT solve the problem. Hvarako


 * I believe we do need to have a fresh discussion, this time based on Wikipedia's policies rather than on personal or political sentiment. I would like to propose a move based on specific policy grounds, so that we can have a more focused discussion. However, it can wait a couple of days - I'll need a little more time to marshal my arguments before posting them here. -- ChrisO 22:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read through all of the discussion, and have done some research for myself since i didnt use to know about this topic, however, i found it intresting even though i am not an European, i find it necessary to comment on the accuracy of the facts, and that reopening the discussion is not a good idea since nothing will be achieved. As the person above me stated, Croatia never had total control of it's land in 1992, and Yugoslavia was always a threat, and i believe the name of the article should not be changed since it describes the struggle of the independence the Croatians faced.

Professor Marco

Asm ccc 09:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

POV edits
I had to make one or two changes. Firstly, with the whole affair being as complicated as it is, terms such as "rebel" and "offensive" should not be used. Such was the dispute that both sides saw the opponents actions as an offensive, and both sides viewed the other as a rebel. A rebel is one who is opposed to the authority. In the case of the Serb-populated regions of Croatia: the pro-Zagreb pre-war lobby is justified in its territorial integrity in that Croatia is controlled by a Croatian government even though it has not split from Yugoslavia yet, that government is an authorty; Belgrade is seeing the territory as part of a rump-but-existing federal country, another authority. If the house is filled with Serbs because non-Serbs have abandoned it, unhappy with its pro-Serb direction, it still does not automaticly mean that federal interests have been replaced by Serbian beaurocracy. If Serb officials forced out its non-Serbs from office, then there is no further requirement to play on the federal claim, nor to name yourself Yugoslavia. Furthermore, there is no claim on the territory which composed Slovenia and saw the 10-day war. It would have been a no-day-war; and deep-seated Serbian nationalists - neither in 1990 nor 1850 - favoured a unified Slav state. They did however invisage a Serbian kingdom which controlled parts of todays Croatia. And even though it was always accepted that a Serbian kingdom would have non-Serbs living there, there was no plan to make any part of the non-Serb population a constituent nation, nor give them autonomy, or a vote of any kind. So whilst an opportunity arose in which Serbs could remain in a single country, the JNA did not use this to switch into a new Serbia. Even if it did, the tables could easily have turned: Serbs were a relative majority, military bases were across the land, and a multi-ethnic government with rotating leadership ruled and was present in Belgrade even as late as 1991. The point I am making is that had Slovenia and Croatia and the other republics minus Montenegro acted together, even just to create the "loose federation", they ought to have used the JNA uniforms whilst the already unified Serb population "rebelled" (in its true sense) to split Serb lands off from the rest of the country. What would it matter to this government if Slovenia split off from the remainder of Croatia? Surely to a new Serbian authority operating from Belgrade which has isolated itself from that region, it wouldn't matter if Slovenes and Croats built a frontier between themselves. Until the day which never came, was to come: Yugoslavia renaming itself as Serbia, the Belgrade government cannot be described as offensive for any operation within its perceived border. Likewise, no Serb may call Croatian dissidents from the region "rebels" either. Their government was selected and it performed what instinct led it to carry out. The simple scenario is: Zagreb declared independence, nothing wrong with that. Belgrade rejects it, nothing wrong with that either. Anything else involving "legal conditions" is technical jargon and has counter-claim after counter-claim from both sides, but if anyone were soley "correct", then by now - the remnants of the former regimes will have surrendered - not by admitting defeat, but by accepting that they were wrong in their claims. However, remnants of the RSK authorities still believe that they are the government in exile: their reasons for doing so with regards "international legality" as well as its morals and other feats such as the irregularities among the early croatian parliament (from the pronominal period, 1990-onward) are as long as their right arms. Articles are not written to support claims that one party is right in its thoughts and another is wrong, we simply state "what happened". This is why I am opposed to the use of terms "defend", "offensive", or "rebel". When a military jumps over its frontier and kills locals under instruction from its ruler on the grounds that the territory is righfully the ruler's land, supporters of that ruler from both sides of the border will never accept that he is an invader. In this world there are two times you have the undesputed right to call something an offensive attack: when it is carried out by the USA and puppet governments (knowing that once they've achieved their ambitions, they will leave, ie. their plan is not to stay), or when the country involved is Israel - don't even take me there. Those are the two times when military attacks against members of the local population - on what is not their land - is an offensive. The Balkan issue was a dispute. Golan heights is not. Then there are aspects of the article which did not make any sense. You'll find that this is often the case when a political organisation tries so hard to discredit its opposition that it feeds its people an overload of propaganda, more than it can swallow: but when the people are on side, anything from their crerics tickles their ear and they accept "flying pig theories" when it suits them. By contrast to Slovenia and Croatia opting for democracy and decentralisation, Milošević was said on the article to have maintained the values of one-party rule, and also that he planned to expand Serbia's borders. Now which one of these is correct? Think before answering. One-party rule=no democracy, no democracy=no benefits for ordinary individuals. Serbs were at the time already united in a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia; there was no early pre-animosity intention by Milosevic to split the Republic of Serbia off from Yugoslavia - so just supposing Croatia & Slovenia sat back and let Milosevic do as he wished: sure there would be no war, but if that statement is correct that he would have expanded Serbia's internal borders (presumably Knin would be in the new SR Serbia), then you would have been left with a country called Yugoslavia ruled by one party, with one leader at the top, the lion's share of the country being called Serbia - but what is the use? How does an ordinary individual from Knin who is Serbian benefit from his town being inside SR Serbia when the whole country is under a one-party system? What special benefits would ordinary Croats maintain for living in areas within Yugoslavia but outside Serbia's expanded internal borders? Now I am not standing here saying that Milosevic was a fantastic man, but one needs to establish the facts: either he wished for a Yugoslavia in which he was sole dictator, or he planned to cede Serbia & Serb populated regions from Yugoslavia regardless of whether Slovenia and Croatia were planning on going independent or opting to remain within. But an expanded Serbia inside an authoritarian regime is neither here nor there. Similarly, another thing was not clear, Milosevic removed the autonomy of Vojvodina and Kosovo to influence 2 out of the 8 votes. With Montenegro onside that was three, and Bosnia's vote occasionally made it four (that is what the article said). What exactly did Milosevic do in Kosovo and Vojvodina? Yes there existed a local authority but that was no more elected than Tito went to the polls every four years. So, Albanian or not, when Milosevic upset the Kosovar Albanians, what exactly did he do? Most reports say that he cancelled the autonomy completely. But if he still has influence in Kosovo and Vojvodina with regards national voting, it would appear that all he did was devolve power from ethnic-Albanians to ethnic-Serbs with Kosovo still being an autonomous province. If their autonomies were revoked, what "vote" originated from there? If there is a logical answer to this (for this, I don't ask for sources), then it certainly needs to be explained on the article. I maintain that I do not promote Pro-serb sentiment, but elements of this article need to be made clearer. Please respond. Evlekis 11:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Croatian referendum for indipendence was also unrecotnised by federal authority.Also,in Maximir the croatian fans tried to cross on the other side of stadium (which they succseeded) and then Crvena Zvezda fans started to throw chairs.Zagreb police reacted on Dinamo fans because they were allready on the other part of stadium (if you REALLY believe that croatian police would attack fans from their own city just because communism is still on power you are ridicilous).--91.150.79.176 01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Other federative units never had right to mess into the internal affairs of another federal unit. So, the criticism "Cro.referendum was unrecognised by fed. authority" doesn't stand. Otherwise, in theory, other ("underdeveloped") federal units could eternally draw money from "developed" republics (Croatia and Slovenia) that wanted different organisation of Yugoslavia (decentralisation, later confederation, and when that failed, they proclaimed independence). As you know, the developed republics from ex-YU regularly contributed to federal Yugoslav funds (funds for "underdeveloped republics"). They had to, although in theory they could opt out. That lasted for decades, and those underdeveloped areas "never developed", but they learned to live that way, to regularly get money transfers (they developed their eco. structure, that regularly required support). A whole culture was built in underdeveloped republics, "way of thinking" (način razmišljanja) was developed: "you MUST give us means (money) because we're poor" (?!?). At the same, time, Croatia had heavily underdeveloped areas (terrible traffic infrastructure, terrible paved roads, w/o electrification, w/o phone connection, no state enterprises and companies with well-payed jobs and sinecures to employ workforce, all that just few miles from famous touristical areas, while "underdeveloped republics" had these problems solved). Any attempt from Cro and Slo to end that (so they can use that money for themselves) was treated as "antiyugoslavism, hatred towards other republics, contrarevolutionarism, reactionarism". Already in 60's, those questions were being posed more and more. During Croatian spring those questions and requirements were loudly told. However, whole leadership was removed, and many ended in prison. With the growth of the ex-YU eco. crisis in 80's, these questions became more and more posed again. That way, if others could decide about one republic, in theory, "underdeveloped" republics could live on the back of "developed" republics indefinitely. Then, why this whole tirade? The opinion of other republics what'll Croatia and Slovenia do with themselves, means nothing. That was Cro and Slo's own business. Kubura (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding football stuff and mess done, go on other site, on football forum. Kubura (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Casus belli

 * I don't like either version. Please see the definition of casus belli: "justification for acts of war". Now, Serb rebellion (a word which I wouldn't use in the context of the article, but a ) was not a cause, but a consequence. In a hypothetical scenario where Croatia already had been independent, Serbs rebelled for whatever reason, Croatian forces came to crush the mutiny, and Serbian armed forced intervened, "Serb rebellion" would be appropriate. "Serb rebellion" was a casus belli for e.g. Operation Storm, but not the entire war. I think that the wording "Serb(ian) opposition to the [proclaimed] independence of Croatia" was a definition that had stood in the article for a long time, and it better describes the actual roots. Duja ► 10:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why were the refrence about planned Serb evacuation from so-called RSK and the video link deleted???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYjh3aAvczc —Preceding unsigned comment added by GriffinSB (talk • contribs) 20:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Some estimates include 220,000 Croats and 300,000 Serbs were internally displaced for the duration of the war in Croatia
This is a global view in the aftermath of the war.The people who read it will get the sentiment that all sides ethincly cleansed at the beginning of the war.It should be pointed out that Croats were the first to be ethnicly cleansed. It's important because that segment is about year 1991. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GriffinSB (talk • contribs) 21:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hrvatska srbi.jpg
Image:Hrvatska srbi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg
Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Croats vs Serbs only?
Did the Croats ally with the Bosnian (Muslim) population? Or did they have conflicts with them as well? It seems to me that Serbia seemed to be the cause of the war. And that they did most of the damage... LOTRrules (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There weren't many Bosniaks in Krajina, afaik. In Bosnia they were allies and enemies at the different stages of the conflict. Alæxis¿question? 07:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * During war Croats supplied Bosniaks with weapon. In the beginning they were allies, however conflicts between Croats and Muslims in Bosnia occured during 1993 for several reasons which are not all clear. According to some testimonies Serbs arranged these conflicts between allies from the opposite side, second reason could be arrival of Muslim soldiers from the east - Mujahideen - for them all Christians were enemies, also allegedly there was some kind of agreement between Croat Tuđman and Serb Milošević concerning the territory of Bosnia, Bosnian leader A. Izetbegović agreed in the beginning that Croatia can get Herzegovina, but it was changed very soon. Whatever there were also conflicts between different groups of Bosniaks (Muslims). Even there was some conflict with Bosniaks, Croats didn't stop to supply them, so at the end of war they were on the same side against Serbs who were actually the only real agressors in whole story. Zenanarh (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. But are the incidents recorded here? I would be grateful if you pointed this out. And did Osama bin Laden fight there?  Since he wasn't classed as a terrorist then (I assume)?  I mean the CIA did train him... LOTRrules (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mujahedeens in Bosnia were used by the USA just like in Afganistan against the Soviet Union.That was befor terrorism. Serb like to mention that Bosnian Muslims were extremists,but that is very untrue.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up. LOTRrules (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is Croatian War of Independence, or precisely about war in Croatian territory, where there were just 2 sides: Croats and Serbs. Bosniaks in Croatia were fighting for (defending) Croatian side, as well as Albanians and others. In Bosnia it was a kind of mess. Before the war there were 3 etnicities: Muslims, Croats and Serbs. Muslims in Yu were ethnicity by constitution. So there was a tampone between Croats and Serbs in Bosnia and easily resolved question of Muslim ancestry, Croatian, Serbian or Turkish. There was already this war in Croatia when Bosnia started to boil. Generally it was Serbs vs others, conflicts between Bosniaks and Croats in central Bosnia and Herzegovina didn't outgrow regional character, the same was with 2 Bosnian groups on the opposite sides around Bihać. See Bosnian War. Zenanarh (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop putting False quotes and other unsourced propanganda in this article unless you can present evidence otherwise!
This continual bullshit about Tudjman saying that he was glad that he neither had a Serb or a Jewish wife WITHOUT putting into context which render's him completely innocent has to STOP! It is quite clear when he is quoted FULLY that its non-controversial and actual makes sense!!!! "Since many government-paid propagandists insinuate we (HDZ/CDU) are in fact agents of UDBA and KOS (Yugoslav political police), and point out that many of our founding members have Serbian and Jewish wives, I am very happy that my wife is neither Serbian nor Jewish, so they cannot question my credentials with regard to that matter."

Unless you can actually present evidence to support this quote>

"Additionally, the flood of nationalist iconography, some of it drawn directly from the World War II Croatian nationalist movement responsible for the demise of probably more than 100,000 Serbs did little to ease the tensions"

And REMEMBER that the Croatian Grb/flag and kuna are things which predate WW2 and the Grb was actually used in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Communist Yugoslavia and if that is all you mean then that is false! Unless you can provide a video or picture which shows HDZ leadership actually promoting distinctly Ustasa symbols (i.e =U= etc) then I will rightfully delete your propaganda! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective Truth (talk • contribs) 11:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
Are grahic pictures acceptable? I want to show to Croatian and Serbs that both sides killed civilians because i think this way the truth will come out. So should we post pictures of the dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 22:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Picture of dead people will not be allowed. On other side pictures of destroyed houses or prisoners are OK.--Rjecina (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Franjo Tudjman quote
This sentiment was further fuelled by some HDZ members' controversial statements and careless rhetoric that was anything but peaceful. For example, one of the most quoted Tuđman's public statements was that "he was glad that his wife was neither Serb nor Jewish".

This is a clear case of propagnda.

Franjo Tudjman said that in a joke ,because Ante Pavelic's wife was Jewish (NDH) and Josip Broz Tito's wife was Serbian. By that joke he meant that he was glad not to carry any historical weight from the past.Ante Pavelic's fascism and Tito's cummunism. The only problem is that the quote has been used a zillion times in the Serb media and is still used today to get jewish support for the Serbs.After that joke incident Franjo Tudjman explained what he meant and apoligized.So,i think that the qoute should stand in the Franjo Tudjman article with explenation,but not in the article about Croatian war,because it's irrelevant.These kind of misquotes are still used for propagandic means by serbian ultra-nationalists.BTW. Both of Tudjman's kids were and are still married to Serbs.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Withing the article, the quote is spoken of in the context of the way it was interpreted by the Serbian population and the sentiment that was felt by them at that time. The article clearly calls the statement controversial which serves to explain the possibility of more than one interpretation of the statement. The quote by Tudjman might have been misunderstood but is seen as a catalyst for increased ethnic tension which, in as of itself, is very important to this articl. The quote should stay. SWik78 (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

when was the exact quote made??? can you please provide the date. i will ad my explainatory to the article then.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a half of the chapter about some silly joke as a catalyst of Serbian sentiment, after their aggression on neighbour's territory?! Let's here jokes from massive war pumping "yogurt meetings" in late 80's in Serbian cities. Replace both to new chapter "War propaganda" Zenanarh (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you.Nobody even paid attention to that during the war.Not even the Serbs.After the war it has become a classic serb propagandist qoute/argument.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not nice to hear those words, as a Serb. when "Srbe Na Vrbe" is written it usually doesnt mean that the person actually wants to hang serbs from the trees. but that is what serbs feel when they read such words. thus, both arguments hold weight. They say that there is truth behind every joke. Thus Tudjiman was clearly glad that his wife was not a Serb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 19:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What has Srbe na Vrbe/hang Serbs from the trees(ww2) has to do with late president Franjo Tudjman's joke/incident??? What a hell are you talking about?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He wants to say that he's very familiar with F.Tudjman's psychiatrist (he knows when Tudjman was glad and why), he wants to say that a joke is a good reason for killing tens of thousands of people, destroying hundreds of thousands of homes etc... He wants to describe how Serbs felt after all, because their feelings were the most important. It seems that a joke was one of the top reasons why to drive all that huge war machinery accross Bosnia and Croatia. Zenanarh (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

lol!Yeah,but they always forget Vojislav Seselj and his hate speeches and insaults towards non-Serbs.They foget that he carried a gun to the parlament and was threatening with the gun on more ocasions. Serb propagandists work very closely with Serbian Unity Congress(SUC).SUC payed a few misguided "intelectuals" to get them on some poor TV shows and then used those people and shows as refferences.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

An important factor in Croatia's preservation of its pre-war borders was donations from members of the Croatian diaspora?
Like in every country diaspora from USA and EU is important because of the money.Money that is needed to buy weapons and defend yourself. But i don't understand this "preservation of it's borders thing?!?!? According to the Yugoslav constitution change in 1974. Every republic inside the Yugoslav federation had the right to become independant. It's the constitution law which was important and had to be respected by the international law.Four of six Yugoslav republic's voted for independance.Krajina never existed,it was a name for a region inside Croatia.Please fix that or I'll delete it.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC) And why is there no mentioning of Serbian nationalist diaspora??? For example Vojislav Seselj went to the USA in 1989 and was awarded the voivodship of Chetniks by a former chetnik leader.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This again leeds the readers of serbian propagandist website Srpska Mreza to think that Croatian diaspora(Srpska Mreza calles them Ustase and NAZIs) is responsible for the "new" borders inside Yugoslavia.A "fact" to mislead the unaware readers.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This sentiment was further fuelled by some HDZ members' controversial statements and careless rhetoric that was anything but peaceful.
This is also a uncareful remark.Sentiment was fuelled by both sides.Vojislav Seselj of Serbian Radical Party hosted a TV show where he said he'll slaughter Croats with rusty spoons.He was the most aggresive politician in the Balkans.Even Slobodan Milosevic himself described him as a personification of violence and primitivsm.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of rubbish and propaganda here. It's totaly inappropriate to explain agression by any kind of sentiment built on the politician's words in the morning of upcoming war. The real reason and motivation was subgradation of western Yu republics economy: Slovenia and Croatia were good rich fat cows with a lot of milk for other poorer regions of Yu federation. With Slovenia and Croatia's indenpendence, Serbs were losing their money, ex-Yu was financially centrelized. All money was sent to Belgrade. That was the real Serbian sentiment - a train (Yugoslavia) lost its locomotives (Slo and Cro). Just example: in late 60's money was collected by Croatian citizens in Croatia for building a modern highway south-north in Croatia (such money collecting was called "samodoprinos"). This money was "stolen" by Belgrade authorities and used for building the highway in Serbia. Slovenian and Croatian politicians were trying to establish some kind of financial and political autonomy in several attempts. The most known was that in 1971 in Croatia, which ended with massive persecutions and arresting of Croats. After Tito's death (1980) it was already obvious that Yugoslavia has no future. In the same time Serbian problems in Kosovo just started to escalate. Through all second half of the 80's there was war pumping atmosphere in Serbia against their neighbours. It was just a part of Milošević's long term planning ("how to become a Yu imperator") and the most important part was mobilisation of Serbian nationalistic movements. Rhetorics quoted here were just results and reactions on already awaken monstrous Serbian "sentiment" and not contrary. Zenanarh (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is full of propaganda. This rhetoric and revisionism is exactly as taken from a serbian propagandist and racist website srpska mreza. The arguments and "facts" are based on things which cen't be denyed or proven.Mostly they are urban-legends and wide-spread rumors. I already asked for someone to provide the date of that Tudjman's quote because the reference is titled as "Franjo Tudjman 1992-1999",but but in that sub-article we are talking about the year 1990.I ask for an explenation again.

That Serbian propaganda hate website deliberatly misuses the facts always puts them in the wrong chronological order so it can buld-up a story to get simpathy for rebellion in Croatia and terrorism.For example that website says that "Franjo Tudjman went to USA,Australia and Europe to meet fascist Ustase's and Nazis.Which is very wrong.Because all enemies of the communist system were labeled as that.Democrats,religious officials..you name it.But by putting it on wikipedia as his visits to Croatian diaspora they get a half-truth/which they need so Srpska Mreza can say see wikipedia;) Every politician in Eastern-Europe traveled internationaly to get support before and after the fall of cummunism.It's a way to get some power or contacts so you can effectivly run the state.The same was happening in Czech Republic,Slovakia,Poland,Romania,Hungary.The whole eastern block.

They are attempting to get that hate website on wikipedia so the "arguments" that srpska mreza is using can be "verified".A encyclopedia should be based of real facts in chronological order. Milosevic would acctually be the good guy if we were looking from 2005 to 1987! lol--(GriffinSB) (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

At least 1/3 of this article is taken from Srpska Mreza.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the last set of edits
The last set of edits by GriffinSB was added to this article not for any clarification purposes but to balance some kind of a perceived POV violation. Let me state something for the record before I get accused of any kind of a nationalistic agenda: the Serbian side was the major aggressor and the major party at fault in this war. Even though I'm Serbian, I will be the first one to admit that his is 100% true and I do believe it. Having said that, this article speaks of what the Serbian side did that makes it responsible for the war. Granted, in a discussion between Serbs and Croats there will never be a clear agreement on exactly what happend and who did what to whom, but this article has been fairly accurate. Once we start inserting statements about who said what and who did what with the sole purpose of laying blame against the side that we feel did something wrong to us, this article is quickly going downhill. The Serbs started the war and they were in the wrong. For that reason, it is singularly important to clearly spell out all the reasons why they did what they did. Whether they were right or wrong (and the world community has generally agreed that they were wrong), they believed that they had good reasons to do what they did. Believing that you have a good reason to do something will never make you right in itself but your belief in what your're doing, especially when it is of the magnitude that this war was, needs to be clearly stated in this article. This article need to spell out the reasons why Serbs overreacted the way they did and those reasons must be kept clear and not muddled out of context by adding an example of a Serbian wrongdoing alongside every single sentence that explains the Serbian sentiment leading up to the hostilities. Nobody is justifying anything that they did because nobody is taking sides, all that's being said is what the Serbs felt was being done. So please, don't pollute the section that deals with the very important causes of the war by inserting statements that describe the effects of the war that are described elswhere anyways. I am deleting the last set of edits to the previous version that has been fairly stable for several months now. Please let me know if you disagree. I also promise that I will delete any Serbian propaganda inserted into this article as well in order to keep it accurate. Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree on most of what you are saying.I'd like if Croats and Serbs can make a nice truthfull article without any blaming.I really do!!! we should just use the chronological order of events.I only oppose the use of Srpska Mreza as a source or a theory.Becuause that is a hate website.A site that starts it's articles as "Only a Croat sick mind..." "Croat Nazi syndrom" etc.You probably know what i mean. It is important to picture the role of Milosevic and his partners and the idea of Great Serbia,so it doesn't seem that Croatian Serbs are only guilty of firing the first shot.There was much more ther.Milosevic's hate propaganda and the awakening of serbian national victimization because of the ww2 memories.For example,during that time Serbian TV continuesly showed documentaries about ww2 ti incite the population.I oppose relativism and a kind history revisionism that "studies" the events in order to disproove them and not to make them more accurate or richer.btw. Thanks for responding.

One more thing,I can't find the date of that Tudjman quote myself.Have you had any luck?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't been able to find the exact date of the quote although I haven't really spent a whole lot of time Googling it, to be honest. I agree that nothing that labels Croats as sick or Nazi should be included as a reliable source or a reference and should be removed from the article with extreme prejudice. What is Srpska Mreza used as a reference for in this article? I wasn't able to find it. SWik78 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This story line is exactly as form that hate website. I think that my edits are important as it goves a clearer picture.of politicical bashing and misused quotes for political purposses. In this artice only the croatian nationalistic sentiment has been described.Not the extremism on Serbian side.there for it's not NPOV and doesn't give the readers the clear picture. It doesn't mention Milosevic and the strategic plan to make Greater Serbia,It doesn't mention Vojislav Seselj's nazilike hate speeches and inflamable rhetoric.The constant TV abuse on Serbian side by propaganda spreading and preparing serbian people to war. Croatian Serbs are not onlt guilty for the first shot. Serbian TV constantly repeated ww2 documentaries in order to bring the ww2 sentiment and to incite people. I think the article with my edits was more fair.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To understand what i'm talking about read this if you have time. http://www.freeserbia.net/Documents/Lobby.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by GriffinSB (talk • contribs) 13:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll delete that Franjo Tudjman quote because there is no refference to that.The title of the refference provided is "Franjo Tudjman 1992-1999" But the qoute is used in a subarticle about 1990.Ok?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC) And as i said Croatian Diaspora wasn't important for the "pre-war" borders.It was the Yugoslav constitution change in 1974.So Croatian Diaspora and borders which were made in 1945 on bases of AVNOJ has absolutley nothing to do with that.To me this is a clear case of propaganda.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I welcome your discussion and I thank you that you've decided to discuss it civilly since we both know that it can be hard for a lot of people to do so. I do, however, disagree with you on the purpose and context of your edits as well as what they contribute to the article. The circumstances which brought about all the many different conflicts in the Yugoslav wars (a very broad term in itself) are historically, politicaly, religiously and nationalisticaly very complex that it would be very inaccurate, although very simple, to paint everything with a broad brush of Belgrade is guilty for everything. The truth of the matter is that even we, the people from that area, don't fully grasp how deeply complicated the situation was because it is always easier to think of it in the simplest terms of whoever is ultimately found guilty should be blamed for everything but that's not always the case. And it's not very informative to say that the Serbian propaganda machine is responsible for every attrocity ever commited by Serbs in those conflicts because that says nothing about regional conflicts outside of Serbia. In this article, the section on dissent throughout Yugoslavia as well as the section on the rise of Serbian nationalism in the late 1980's does actually set the stage on which all of this was played out. There is a whole article on Greater Serbia in which it is clearly explained what Vojislav Šešelj was suggesting Serbia's borders should be. Maybe there should be more information on the causes for dissent and how Serbia's domination caused Croatia to decide to separate. However, my point is that these things should be kept separate from each other in order to paint a clear picture of each step that led to the ultimate result. The article should look like this in sections:
 * rise of Serbian nationalism and dominance withing Yugoslavia
 * Croatian process of separating and becoming self-governed
 * Serbian population's sentiment with regards to Croatia's independence
 * the armed conflict
 * Everything the Serbs did wrong should be in the article but each one of these sections should be clearly defined as a related but separate development. They should stand as sections of their own! Mixing them all together and mentioning Belgrade's involvement in every single section of the article in order to diminish the importance of the Serbian population's sentiment works against the neutrality and clarity of the article. SWik78 (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What your saying is called relativism.We're all guilty for wars.Offcourse that is true,but you cannot base a prelude to war with some hippie statement.Germany started the war in 1939,but other countiers are also guilty for getting involved in that war according to you. That's called relativism. It's like when serbian nationalists compare Slovenia's and Croatia's recognition by Germany with the same weight as 4 year besiegment of Sarajevo and shelling and sniping of civlilans by Serbian Army.DO you understand what i'm saying?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"We were exiled and bombed just because of that first shot" etc. It is very important to describe the whole picture of pre-war situation>If the readers conclude that Serbs are only guilty of firing the first shot i a few years it will become a serbian ultranationalist "truth" and they will use that as an argument.That is called a abuse of media and information in vunrable societies.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The old version of the article clearly describes Croats as very ultra-nationalist and very anti-serb.while that may be what the Serbs thought it's not true.The truth is that every wide-spread rumor was shown on Sebian TV to promote hatred against Croats.Just as coordinated attacks on jewish property and shootings by Serbian intelligence agents at JNA(Yugoslav People's Army) so they would return fire on Croats. Check out the Serbian Documentay B92- Rukopisi ne Gore.I't on youtube.The whole serbian inteligence activites are explained there by SERBS themselfs--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC).

Savo Srbac...

Are you relying on international support?

ŠTRBAC: We already have the support of western countries. We are lobbying and with lobbying anything can be achieved, you can even buy the truth. With strong a lobby, you can create a truth from an untruth and the Serbs need to understand this: through our lobbying circles, we will obtain what we are searching for.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is called relativism??? Let's get something straight here. My exact words here were the Serbian side was the major aggressor and the major party at fault in this war. Nowhere did I once assign any blame to Croatia for this war. I was trying to be as clear as possible to say that one of the catalysts for the conflict was the sentiment of the Serbian population in Croatia and more than once I clearly stated that the sentiment was an overreaction. All I was trying to convey is that this very sentiment of which I speak was a key component in starting the war and although the Serbs overreacted, that sentiment is of historical significance. And again, the historical significance lies in not in the accuracy of what they believed at the time but at the outcome of the Serbian reaction to their sentiment. To conclude, their sentiment was an overreaction but it was historically significant, therefore, the straight facts of the causes leading up to the conflict should not be muddled by its eventual consequences. Is that still relativism? SWik78 (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Off course the Serb overreaction is a historical fact.It also had a historical ground.That is undisputable.But that was coordinated from Belgrade.That is what i am talking about.As you probalby know yourself we all lived in peace for 50 years.Noone blamed the otherone. I really think that democratic Serbs are really great and honest people.my only problem is the Serb ultranationalists and their hatred towards everything non-Serb and that still exists today in great numbers. I'd love if we could write a 5* article with both points of view,actions and concequences. If you write an article like this through serbian POV it doesn't represent the other side.And that side is Croatia where the war occured.

Imagine if I was to do the 9-11 article through "The Loose Charge" POV.LOL!hahaha

Anyway i think the people would get more sence from reading our conversation today than reading some of the articles.:)))))--(GriffinSB) (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentiment of Serbs living in Croatia was not coordinated from Belgrade. It was a regional series of events. SWik78 (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am happy to see serious editors which are having discussion about changes in article :)) After seeing many SPA accounts it is real pleasure to see that !!
 * I am interested before everything else to know if we can agree about timeline because this is always must important thing in controversial article and events. Serbian revolt has not started because constitutional changes or because Franjo Tudman has won elections. Like evidence of that I will use events of 14 March 1990 on Kordun (in Croatia) when during election campaign Serbs from Croatia and other parts of Yugoslavia are screaming: "Tudman is Ustaša, Račan is Ustaša" (source on Croatian). Because of that it has not been important who will win because Serbs and Serbia has been ready for war.
 * Second important event is so-called log revolution when Serbs of Croatia has revolted in summer 1990. During that time Croatia has been "loyal" member of Yugoslavia and it has not changed constitution. In Serbian war mythology Croatia has deleted Serbs from constitution and they have revolted. It is interesting how this deleting which has happened in December 1990 has been before summer 1990 but this is mythology!
 * For you discussion about influence of Serbia on Serbs in Croatia my only comment is that they have been under Serbia spell. Croatian Serbs from Krajina and before everything else Slavonia has looked Serbian television (in that time it has been called Television Belgrade) and has been reading Serbian newspapers. After saying that it is not possible to say that they have not fallen under Milošević influence--Rjecina (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You can confidently say that Croatia's civilian Serbian population had no thoughts of their own that were not influenced by Belgrade? If that is what you're saying, can you then also say that this is a neutral point of view? SWik78 (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Many of them have lived during WWII and NDH so they have been little afraid of what will happen in future. Serbian propaganda has played on that sentiment to make this fears hundred times stronger.
 * I do not see difference between this fears and Serbian fears in Bosnia. Serbs there has been little afraid of possibility to live in country with muslim majority. Serbian propaganda has played on this fears in Bosnia.
 * My point is 99 % of people are having fears of something. We all think how we are not having xenophobia but.... Serbian propaganda has played on xenophobia (Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians hate as and want to kill us). Will we for all this wars say that Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians are guilty and not Serbia and Serbs which has falled to this propaganda ?--Rjecina (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have a hard time getting my point across of Serbian population's sentiment being an overreaction but being real nontheless. Maybe I'm the one being blind to something obvious but I find it futile to continue this discussion if I say the Serbian side was the major aggressor and the major party at fault in this war and I keep getting asked questions like (I'm paraphrasing) "is Croatia to blame and not Serbia". Maybe I'm being unreasonable to think that what's being said here is that if Serbia is to blame for the end result of the war than the Serbian population in Croatia really didn't have any fears about their situation rather it was all a carefully orchestrated show by Belgrade in which the Serbian civillian population was (willingly or unwillingly) a fully knowledgeable participant. I disagree with such a conclusion and at the same time it would seem that I'm disagreeing with the other 2 editors promoting such a point of view. I don't know what else to say to explain to you that, yes, the Serbian population was afraid and that, no, it wasn't orchestrated by Belgrade and, yes, the fears were exaggerated and, yes, the fears played a major role in what happened afterwards and, no, the importance of those fears (not what was behind them but the fears themselves) should not be played down within the historical context of the end result of the war. Feel free to disagree with me but please don't waste my time again by asking me if I blame Croatia and exonerate Serbia and then proceed to call me a revisionist or a relativist based on that. Redundancy is not a well respected nor effective intellectual tool to use if you're trying to get the other side to slip up and slightly change their answer when the question is paraphrased for the umpteenth time. SWik78 (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbs naturally had their thoughts about Ustasa's and let me make myself clear,i can't blame them for that.It's understandable. But the memories were inflamed by constant accusations of Serbian media.""Ustasa's are coming and don't let Ustasa Tudjman win elections"". When Croatian police changed it's name from SUP to MUP,police officers in Croatia were described as "fasisticki mupovci" "fascist MUP-thugs" MUP meaning Ministry of Internal Affairs.lol

But Sebrbian media wrote that the name MUP was a fascist one.When Radio Television Zagreb changed it's name to Croatian Television,it was also called fascistic. Croatian democraty was dismmised by Serbian media because Adolf Hitler came to power trough multi-party electional system.

You must understand that we lived in communism for such a long time,majority of Serbs in Croatia lived in small villages and information was limited.That and Belgrade's targeted propaganda caused serbian extremism.Biljana PlavsicBosnian Serb politician said it her self..."in bilief not to be killed we commited genocide" I think this article should be as long as possible,because this is an encyclopedia and not a Short Message Service(SMS).--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Between Serbs of Croatia there has been 2 realistic sentiments. First is wish to live with other Serbs in 1 state and other has been thinking of WW II event. In reality I, you or nobody else can't know which reason has been stronger but Serbian state propaganda has worked on second and what has happened has become history--Rjecina (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and on top of thet not only HDZ was described as fascist but all Croats.Like in one day people forgot croatian partizans and antifascists.Muslims have been described as extremists and Albanians as thiefs,criminals and extremists by OFFICIAL media!

Have you seen that Vojislav Seselj clip where one of his party members while standing next to him at a Serb rally says "anyone who says this is not serbian land and doesn't racognize OUR borders you have tha right to kill him"??--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never wanted to live in Serbia nor was I born during WWII to have any opinion of it therefore all of your suggested scenarios fail to describe my sentiments during the early 1990's. I find this simplification of events false and unreasonable and I conclude that it will be impossible for you to stay neutral if you view things in such a way. Tell me if I'm wrong but I'm getting the feeling that neither of you would like to get another perspective on this issue as much as you'd like someone to agree with you. Your debates seem to be suggestive of the opinion that you truly do know everything there is to know about this subject. Myself, I readily admit I don't have all the answers to such a singularly complex issue. I'm done with this portion of the debate. SWik78 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I also never planed to live outside of Croatia and now i live in Holland.I was born in Slavonija and i've seen the hapennings there with my own eyes.I too had to go but in my case because of the Serbs.In an encyclopedia unfortunatly we can't write our own pesonal expiriences.I can't speak for Rjecina but my views are confimed by academic/universatory studies.I don't know how old you were when it all happened,but i remember almost every detail of Croatian and Serbian media. Every detail that i provide i can verify it by an international source.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I just have a hard time understanding why do you refuse to make this article as accurate and detailed as possible.But all sources and references have to be strictly international and NOPV. You said that it's irrelevant because in wars both sides are wrong.It doesn't make sence to write an article about a war without details. Then we could just delete the whole article and put a statistic list of losses and evicted people and that's it:D For example in WW2 there were more German casualties that USA casualties.If you look only at statictics the you would get a totaly different picture of that war. In this war Croatia was the good guy because Croatia was attacked and oly defended itself.Serbia got punished.80% of the people in The Hague prison are Serbs.Bosnian Serbs and Serbia herself got bombed by the whole civilised world.

I find it very strange that the Tudjman quote has been so abused and mentioned a zillion times with intention to "proove" that all Croats are Nazi's.And it was put in this article just to portray a different and more sinister picture of Tudjan.A joke/incident witout any explainatory and mentioning that he was misunderstood and still apologized for it. But then I add Seselj's remarks which really were hate propaganda and his speeches were nazi-like,suddenly that is irrelevant. You sad the Tudjman joke was there to show people how Serbs felt.Well in al truthnes that joke was made way later then it said in the article.Seselj made his fascist speeches during 1990.That show where he said "We'll slaughter Croats with rusty spoons" was made in 1991.Well how do you think Croats felt after that??? Seselj still continues with his hate propaganda even today while he is in prison.

Therefore i think this whole article should be re-written by actual information based on the events as they happened. I tried to provide a more cleared picture,but....--(GriffinSB) (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why is the course of war not shown in this article. this for example...There is evidence of extreme hardship imposed on the population at the time.[6] Some estimates include 220,000 Croats and 300,000 Serbs were internally displaced for the duration of the war in Croatia.

This totaly hides the course of the war because Croats were the firt to get evicted and murdered.It should stand that in 1991-1992 190.000 Croats got evicted from their homes.And then 1995 when during Operation Storm 200000-250000 Serbs got evicted/evacuated(still waiting for the court dicision)--(GriffinSB) (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbian loss of jobs refference
The refference says nothing about losing thier govenment jobs in the early stage of the conflict. It a HRW rapport from 1999(few years after the war) and it deals with certain problems of Serbs in Croatia in areas with high unemployment.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC) And the lack of will of Croatian government to deal with this problem,which is now 9 years later a bit improved.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)