Talk:Operation Flash/Archive 1

Transcript
Here is the most relevant excerpt from the transcript involving the Croatian government's involvement in the highway attack, all of which can be read here:


 * I see that there was a discussion about faking an attack, but I really can't find the part where Sarinic admitted that they really did that. As far as I can see, the attack was real, and croatian side never had to fake an attack, because. I might be wrong, but I really can't find the part of tex where Sarinic said that Croats really fakes an attack. Could you please show it to me? --Ante Perkovic 13:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * He says, "Now, as that is in the transcript, I cannot deny the authenticity of it." So, prior to this, he had denied that the highway incident was staged (I have added this to the transcript below), calling it "flagrant untruths." He is then forced to recant it. Also, "Now, I'd like to focus on the important points. The incident is not the important point. We were the victims on our own territory, and I think that that was military tactics along those lines." So he clearly says that the "incident" was real, but it is not important, as the action is somehow to be construed as defensive; it was "military tactics along those lines." Furthermore, later in the transcript he says, referring to the highway incident, "It's not a trick. It was military tactics." Milosevic replies, "Oh, I see, military tactics. Yes, absolutely" (Page 31360). So, he accepts the premise that it was staged, but tries to justify it. But even ignoring that, what are the odds that that a planned fake attack would be so closely duplicated by a "real" one later in the same day? After Milosevic reads the part of the minutes I posted below (starting at line 21), there is no debate between the two that the highway incident that actually occurred and the one planned just prior are anything but one and the same. They agree on this premise. Hope this makes everything clear.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do wish to answer, Your Honour,

7 because these are flagrant untruths by the accused. This incident

8 was -- didn't need to be provoked. I personally drove in a car with my

9 bodyguards two days prior to this along the highway. They wouldn't let me

10 pass. There were soldiers of the so-called RSK there. They wouldn't let

11 me pass. They used derogatory terms in addressing me, et cetera. I don't

12 want to repeat them. It is not true that the highway was open. Some

13 people passed at their own risk, but I claim formally that the highway was

14 not functioning. So no incident was necessary, because there were

15 incidents every day, every hour. And on the other hand, now, whether it

16 was the MUP, that is the police forces or the army, I think that is quite

17 irrelevant.

18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. You are turning things upside down. I am saying that you rigged

20 the incident to have an alibi for such an extensive operation. On page

21 714, the president says: "At 6:00, once they start, the following should

22 be done - the Serb forces have again provoked an incident, and I told the

23 ministers two or three cars should go there and then let them shoot at

24 them."

25 And then Susak says: "We will do everything in our power."

Page 31355

1 The president says: "That means a new incident and that the

2 forces of law and order were going to establish control on the motorway."

3 Then Susak speaks: "President, Mr. President, the worst option

4 would be for us to go with two cars, two vans, to leave them there, to

5 riddle them with bullets, to film this for television if there is no other

6 option."

7 A. Now, as that is in the transcript, I cannot deny the authenticity

8 of it. However, I should like to repeat that I am very astonished that

9 any incident was needed, because it was quite legitimate to free part of

10 the country that had been occupied.

11 Q. Now, Jarnjak, was that the Minister of the Interior?

12 A. Yes, he was.

13 Q. He says, "Mr. President, the provoking of this incident, Gojko,

14 let's agree upon this and Gojko was the Defence Minister of course. I'm

15 going to agree with the police Cis leadership and they'll do what's

16 necessary. And it will be so -- it will seem to be the real thing, that

17 nobody will be able to doubt it."

18 The president says: "So on the motorway. Now, if the motorway

19 does not work, then at the entrance."

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Hrvoje Sarinic goes on to say, this is what you say:

22 "Mr. President, we oughtn't to be surprised by one thing. I think all of

23 them will insist upon it, even UNCRO, that the motorway be opened from

24 6:00 in the morning to 6:00 in the evening. We want it to be opened all

25 the time. If that is not sufficient, then the incident should be provoked

Page 31356

1 outside."

2 So you say that this incident should be provoked. And the

3 president said at the entrance to it. And Susak says: "Mr. President,

4 what Nikica is a warning us of, we should like to tell him we are in

5 favour of having the motorway open, but the complete motorway opening so

6 we can not be accused of not want to go open it."

7 So you are discussing the incident?

8 A. Yes, we're still discussing the incident, but let me say once

9 again that I don't want it to end there, and I repeat the legitimacy of

10 our defence there to liberate the occupied territories. So we did this on

11 time, regardless of the incident, and -- or, rather, we informed UNCRO on

12 time, and General Crabbe that the Croatian forces were moving to liberate

13 Western Slavonia.

14 Q. And this is what Jarnjak says. I haven't got time, I have to get

15 through this quickly. He says: "I think that two matters are concerned

16 here. If they leave it open" - and he's referring to the motorway - "we

17 will cause an incident. If they don't open the motorway then that will be

18 the reason. The reason that it isn't open means you will have to

19 intervene."

20 The president says: "However, with an incident again to provoke

21 an incident. And I said that Croatia as we were not satisfied," et

22 cetera, et cetera. He is encouraging the local Serbs at this point, et

23 cetera. I'll skip over that section. It's not an important passage. But

24 he is encouraging the local Serbs to create, to provoke an incident. "And

25 I said we are dissatisfied and asking our friends the Americans to see

Page 31357

1 that the agreement in Copenhagen and Washington and the United Nations is

2 respected."

3 And then Jarnjak says: "I should like to receive maps to show me

4 where that incident is going -- is happening. You will receive

5 information on that, and the government is going to meet for 45 minutes to

6 have a brief report presented." So you're already preparing a statement

7 for the incident that you are supposed to rig, and stage there.

8 A. I don't know what the accused means by what he's saying. Now, I'd

9 like to focus on the important points. The incident is not the important

10 point. We were the victims on our own territory, and I think that that

11 was military tactics along those lines. However, the essential thing is

12 something that the accused omitted to mention. There was no genocide, but

13 that what there was, was the legitimate desire to control and liberate the

14 territory, which undoubtedly belong to the Republic of Croatia.

Incident ?
1. to rely on the transcipts talk with the aim of establishing the truth about some historical events is example of the tabloid mentality. Must I repeat: any transcripts are, at best, interesting-but not the final proof of anything.

2. even if we take them into account, all that can be culled from them is that Serbian paramilitaries actually did attack Croatian civilians and gave the formal reason for the Operation Flash. The only possible debatable point could be how Croatian civilians got there-but there is no doubt who had been shooting at whom in the first place. Mir Harven 00:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. "Tabloid mentality"? This coming from a man who uses the phony "Auschwitz Gambit" to reduce the number of Jewish holocaust dead. Anyway, I don't think utilizing the testimony of a player and participant in these events, as well as the stenographic notes which are uncontested and which he admits are authentic, is an example of "tabloid mentality." It is what I would call a primary source. Nor is it the only one. RSK foreign minister Slobodan Jarcevic’s testimony, for instance, further confirms this:


 * 24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]


 * 25 Q. Mr. Jarcevic, later on was it uncovered and found that this


 * Page 49087


 * 1 Operation Flash was launched because of a staged attack which was not


 * 2 perpetrated by the Serbs, but it was staged by the Croatian services as a


 * 3 pretext for an alleged police operation?


 * 4 A. Even small children in the former Yugoslavia know that to be a


 * 5 fact.


 * 2. You are incorrect. First of all, there is nothing "debatable" at all about how they got there. The minutes make it 100% clear. Secondly, there is indeed quite a bit of doubt about whether "Serbian paramilitaries" did the attack. First of all, Jarcevic confirms that it was the Croatians and not the Serbs who did it. Second, this is born out *completely* by the Sarinic transcript. I will quote three relevant extracts from the Sarinic transcript I quoted previously to Ante to prove that it was the Croats who carried it out.


 * The first, and most damning, from page 31355


 * 11 Q. Now, Jarnjak, was that the Minister of the Interior?


 * 12 A. Yes, he was.


 * 13 Q. He says, "Mr. President, the provoking of this incident, Gojko,


 * 14 let's agree upon this and Gojko was the Defence Minister of course. I'm


 * 15 going to agree with the '''police Cis leadership and they'll do what's


 * 16 '''necessary. And it will be so -- it will seem to be the real thing, that


 * 17 nobody will be able to doubt it."


 * 18 The president says: "So on the motorway. Now, if the motorway


 * 19 does not work, then at the entrance."


 * ''This one is from page 31356

''
 * 14 Q. And this is what Jarnjak says. I haven't got time, I have to get


 * 15 through this quickly. He says: "I think that two matters are concerned


 * 16 here. If they leave it open" - and he's referring to the motorway - "we


 * 17 will cause an incident. If they don't open the motorway then that will be


 * 18 the reason. The reason that it isn't open means you will have to


 * 19 intervene."


 * Here's the third one, from page 31357, from which we can see that Tudjman and his cronies were already in the process of preparing a statement for it:


 * 3 And then Jarnjak says: "I should like to receive maps to show me


 * 4 where that incident is going -- is happening. You will receive


 * 5 information on that, and the government is going to meet for 45 minutes to


 * 6 have a brief report presented." So you're already preparing a statement


 * 7 for the incident that you are supposed to rig, and stage there.


 * Enden 19:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You will have to excuse me for my inadvertant breaking of the rules by treating my talk page comments as a work in progress. :P I won't repeat it. Nevertheless, I would appreciate you address the evidence, rather than waving your hands in the hopes that it will go away. The excerpts quoted, which I bolded to make sure you wouldn't somehow miss it, quite clearly show that Tudjman's regime pulled off this crime. When Jarnjak says, "we will cause an incident" and that "I'm going to agree with the police Cis leadership and they'll do what's necessary. And it will be so -- it will seem to be the real thing, that nobody will be able to doubt it," it quite clearly means that this "Serb" attack that they are mapping out is not in actuality going to *be* a Serb attack. This is clearly how both Milosevic and Sarinic understand it, and is how a plain sense reading would go. Add to that the testimony of Jarcevic and there really should be no debate. Nevertheless, if you can rebut this, by all means do so. Enden 01:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Origins - rework final paragraph
Reworked final paragraph in Origins section:

from

''In late April 1995 an ethnic Serb from the so-called SAO Western Slavonia visiting Croatian territory was murdered by ethnic Croats. A number of Croatian motorists on the Motorway were attacked by "ethnic Serb mobs," supposedly in retaliation. However, Hrvoje Sarinic, Franjo Tudjman's former Cabinet Chief, subsequently admitted under cross-examination at the Milosevic trial that the Croatian side staged this attack. This was the pretext used by the Croatian government to launch the offensive on May 1st.''

to

''In late April 1995 there was an inter-ethnic incident which resulted in the deaths of a number of Croats and Serbs and in the disruption of the motorway. Hrvoje Sarinic, Franjo Tudjman's former Cabinet Chief, confirmed under cross-examination at the Milosevic trial a transcript detailing the then Croatian leadership's plan to stage an incident as a pretext for the offensive on May 1st, although no linkage was shown to the abovementioned incident. Hrvoje Sarinic, as a witness at the same trial, downplayed the significance of such a plan, pointing out there were many incidents daily, and to his own exepriences at being refused entry on the motorway, problems with reopening the oil pipeline, and finally stating that he was "very astonished that any incident was needed, because it was quite legitimate to free part of the country that had been occupied".''

The source gives conflicting accounts as to who started what in the incident and who dies, so have amended to reflect this ambiguity.

Also reworded the context re the plan for incident as it is not shown that the incident that transpired was a result of the Croatian govt. Changed wording to reflect that there was a plan w/o necessarily inferring that the two are connected by adding Sarenic's repudiation of it's significance. I have included relevant excerpts from the ICTY source (link included in article) below. iruka 05:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A. Mr. Milosevic, what are you talking about, that there was no

''17 pretext? Wasn't it enough that we spend three months negotiating about''

''18 this -- these jeeps and establishing communication along those roads? And''

''19 you were there, and this was impossible to put into practice. We talked''

''20 about the pipeline, the oil pipeline, too. We insisted upon that and were''

''21 able to get nowhere. We made no headway with that either. You told me,''

22 "Use Boro Mikelic's trump card. He is a strong man. The rest are

23 madmen." That's what you said to me.

Q. It is true then that I was naive enough to believe that an

''7 incident had actually occurred at the time. However, from the stenogram''

8 that I received from the opposite side while spending my time here, we can

9 see quite clearly that it wasn't the case of an incident but an intention

10 prepared in advance on the part of the leadership of Croatia.

''11 A. Well, that's your own tendentious interpretation. What I can tell''

12 you is this: I can give you a fact, and I'm sure you will remember this

''13 very well. What happened was this: There was an incident that broke out''

''14 one evening in a coffee bar on the motorway. Somebody had a fight, a''

''15 Croat entered into a brawl with a Serb. And on the occasion I think seven''

''16 Croats were killed over there. So I had an information from our services''

''17 about that. Then you talked to Boro Mikelic and you said, "Well, have you''

18 spoken to Sarinic?" And he said, "Yes, I have." Well, they were very

19 cultivated in their response and conduct, whereas our men, our people,

''20 they should all be arrested. They were terrible. So what more do you''

''21 want? What other incident do you need?''

''A. Not quite. This is my second or maybe the first conversation with''

''7 this general. The second was in the early morning at 5.00 to tell him to''

''8 remove his soldiers because there would be a military campaign. But I'm''

9 once again underlining the legitimacy of that operation, because everyone

10 is entitled to liberate a part of its territory that has been occupied.

''A. Listen, you're simply formalising things. It doesn't matter''

''21 whether these were police forces or the army. Western Slavonia was''

22 occupied, and it is an integral part of the territory of Croatia and,

23 therefore, Croatia was entitled to use its forces to liberate its

24 territory, and that's as simple as that]

7 A. Now, as that is in the transcript, I cannot deny the authenticity

''8 of it. However, I should like to repeat that I am very astonished that''

9 any incident was needed, because it was quite legitimate to free part of

10 the country that had been occupied.

With regards the "incident", if serb sources are to be believed, then Croatian forces travelled up the motorway into occupied areas, attacked and killed their own citizens and German tourists, not once, but twice, once in the late afternoon, then again in the morning when the UN declared the motorway safe. They managed to do this despite the fact that serb Militia were posted on the motorway every few hundred metres. This is of course, an unworkable fantasy. The facts are that the UN are completely to blame; they lit the fuse to the powder keg by insisting on being "balanced" and that if Croatians could pass through the occupied areas, then serbs should be allowed free access into Croatia without let or hindrance. The serbs from the region flocked to the nearest petrol station on the motorway (Slaven, Nova Gradiska), and blocked it completely as they bought all the petrol they could, siphoned it into drums, then transported it back home. Police prescence at this station, following the UN guidelines, was minimal. it was only a matter of time before something happened and the stabbing of a serb there was the start of the shooting incidents that took place over a 12 hour period in the serb-occupied areas. Steve Gaunt, journalist. 83.131.227.78 16:28, 19 March 2007 (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) 11:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ICTY
Here's ICTY's site, cases by region. Does anybody see any case dealing with Operation Flash ? Kubura (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Federal government in Belgrade just after 1995 gave a huge estimate of 3,000-4,000 killed, most of whom were civilians.
This is stupid. The Milosevic Federal Government at the time also concluded that the Serbian army shot down 61 NATO aircrafts durin the NATO bombardment opf Serbia,while actually they shot one plane down and one fell due to mailfunction.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

ICTY statements and conclusions.

8 Show 23A, please.

9 In the Martic case, the Prosecution submitted both pre-trial and

10 final trial briefs and here are some of the excerpts of the Prosecution's

11 position as recently as 14 months ago in the Martic case. I quote: "The

12 implementation of this plan (referring to Martic's joint criminal

13 enterprise) took several forms. An intense media campaign directed by

14 members of the Martic JCE in Belgrade began to portray Serbs in Croatia

15 as being discriminated against and victimised by the Croat majority and

16 imminently threatened with genocide by the latter.

17 "This threat, which was repeatedly echoed by Martic and other

18 Serb nationalist leaders in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Belgrade,

19 instilled fear and resentment in the Serb population and eliminated the

20 possibility of co-existence between the ethnic groups.

21 "As a result of the implementation of this criminal plan, Serbs

22 living in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina were made to believe that

23 they could only feel safe in a homogeneous Serbian state."

24 And then in the final trial brief --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Misetic, I hear the French interpreters

Page 548

1 struggling with your speed of speech. Please proceed.

2 MR. MISETIC: Sorry.

3 The Prosecution 14 months ago told the Trial Chamber in the

4 Martic case: "There is no evidence that Croatian leaders or the Croatian

5 media were actually threatening the Serbs with genocide, as claimed by

6 Serb leaders at the time."

7 This was the Prosecution's case in Martic.

8 The Prosecution said Martic's intense propaganda over four years

9 had "eliminated the possibility of co-existence with the Croats." That

10 the Serbs were made by Martic to believe that they could "only feel safe

11 in a homogeneous Serbian state." That the Croatian government -- there

12 is no evidence that the Croatian government was actually threatening the

13 Serbs with genocide.

14 President Tudjman, in planning Operation Storm understood that

15 Serb civilians had become victims of Milan Martic's propaganda campaign

16 for four years and that they had been made to believe that they could not

17 live in a Croatian state. As a result, prior to Operation Storm, it was

18 understood not only by President Tudjman but by the entire international

19 community that if Croatia were compelled by Milan Martic to use force to

20 retake its occupied territories, many Serb civilians would flee as a

21 result of the fear of Croatia that had been ingrained in them by Martic.

22 What is the evidence for what I have just told you? Well, the

23 evidence, Your Honours, is as the Prosecution made reference yesterday to

24 an operation of the Croatian army known as Operation Flash in May of

25 1995. During Operation Flash, Croatia recovered its territory in

Page 549

1 Western Slavonia. Many Serbs fled Western Slavonia when the Croatian

2 forces launched the operation. However, some Serbs stayed behind.

3 At the insistence of Mr. Martic, the United Nations organised a

4 programme to take out the remaining Serbs from Western Slavonia and to

5 move them to Banja Luka. The UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights

6 submitted a report on this topic in July -- 5 July 1995, which is on your

7 screens, and he wrote, paragraph 29 -- sorry, paragraph 28, please.

8 "During the first two days of the military operation, as many as

9 10.000 people fled from the Serb-held area of Western Slavonia, mostly

10 from the Okucani area, across the Sava River bridge into northern

11 Bosnia ... the RSK authorities had previously held regular evacuation

12 drills, and there were reports that some of the refugees may have been

13 forced into leaving against their will. Subsequently, in negotiations

14 with the United Nations Protection Force and Croatian authorities, the

15 leaders of the RSK insisted that the persons left behind, estimated at 3

16 to 4.000, be given the opportunity to leave Western Slavonia and join the

17 other refugees in the Serb-held territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The

18 United Nations acceded to this demand and initiated the programme known

19 as Operation Safe Passage with the context of the four point Cessation of

20 Hostilities Agreement.

http://www.un.org/icty/transe90/080312ED.htm

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

„Бљесак“ vs. „Блесак“
Wouldn't the correct Serbian rendering be „Блесак“ and not „Бљесак“? As far as I know, the latter is the Ijekavian dialect, which is not used in modern Serbian. --Mtu (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)