Talk:Operation Horseshoe

Source
I would suggest reviewing the following paper entitled Democracy and Propaganda: NATO’s War in Kosovo by Dr. Mark A. Wolfgram, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Oklahoma State University original (doc) google cache (html)

Here is a portion of the abstract:
 * "Although an independent media is recognized as central to the proper functioning of democratic institutions, democratic governments often exploit their citizens’ faith in that independence to generate popular support or at least acquiescence. I use the examples of Operation Horseshoe and the fighting at Racak and Rugovo during the Kosovo war to illustrate how democratic governments in the United States and Germany attempted to manipulate public perceptions of the Kosovo conflict in 1999 and justify the war.  The study is based upon a review of over 100 newspaper articles found in the Lexis-Nexis database and numerous scholarly articles, allowing me to trace the development these specific narratives."

Perhaps we can incorporate some citations to this work and the sources referenced in the paper in the article. // Laughing Man 06:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article as it is now is ridiculous. Claims by NATO governments and intelligence without any backing are presented as "evidence", while anything else is presented as "denial". Nikola 19:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There should be a link to the following leaflet that was distributed by Rugova's government AFTER the bombing started, to encourage the outflow of refugees. http://grayfalcon.blogspot.com/2007/04/expelled.html


 * 15 years after it was first suggested, I have added the Wolfgram source to the article. SchuttenbachPercival (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Removing of content
User:Nikola Smolenski has removed a signiticant part of article without prior discussion. Removed informations were directly related to the article's topic so I have put it back. Removal of controversial content requires prior discussion.--Mladifilozof (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no controversial content. Removed information is completely irrelevant to this article and the references used do not mention Operation Horseshoe anywhere. The newest incarnation of the article is even worse, presenting Operation Horseshoe as something that actually existed. That is why I will revert it too. Nikola (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Returning of content
We do not know does such Plan ever existed, but we know that the Republic of Serbia "in an organized manner, with significant use of state resources" conducted a broad campaign of violence against Albanian civilians in order to expel them from Kosovo and thus maintain political control of Belgrade over the province. We also know, from the legally binding verdict of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, that deliberate actions of Serbian forces during the campaign "provoked the departure of at least 700,000 ethnic Albanians from Kosovo in the short period from late March to early June 1999."

Those informations are completely relevant to the article and the references used do mention Operation Horseshoe. If you challenges any information from the article, please name specific problem. You can't simply remove any information you don't like. We have to present all relevant informations in the article, not to hide it.--Mladifilozof (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism
The passage of Noam Chomsky's criticism is evidently false (perhaps on purpose?). He reveals that on March 27, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that 4000 had fled Kosovo, and on April 1, the flow was high enough for UNHCR to begin to provide daily figures. Its Humanitarian Evacuation Programme began on April 5. The 200,000 figure is what the UNHCR was reporting for displaced persons within Kosovo, a figure that had been fairly stable for about a year.

Here is a slightly more complete report, from his book New Military Humanism. Prior to the bombing, and for two days following its onset, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported no data on refugees, though many Kosovars -- Albanian and Serb -- had been leaving the province for years, and entering as well, sometimes as a direct consequence of the Balkan wars, sometimes for economic and other reasons.NOTE{For details on the refugee flows, and the history generally, see Miranda Vickers, _Between Serb and Albanian: A History of Kosovo_ (Columbia, 1998).} After three days of bombing, UNHCR reported on March 27 that 4000 had fled Kosovo to Albania and Macedonia, the two neighboring countries. Until April 1 the UNHCR provided no daily figures on refugees, according to the _New York Times_. By April 5, the _Times_ reported that "more than 350,000 have left Kosovo since March 24," relying on UNHCR figures, while unknown numbers of Serbs fled north to Serbia to escape the increased violence from the air and on the ground. After the war, it was reported that half the Serb population had "moved out when the NATO bombing began." There have been varying estimates of the number of refugees within Kosovo before the NATO bombing. Cambridge University Law Professor Marc Weller, Legal Adviser to the Kosova (Kosovo Albanian) Delegation at the 1999 Rambouillet Conference on Kosovo, reports that after the withdrawal of the international monitors (KVM, Kosovo Verification Mission) on March 19, 1999, "within a few days the number of displaced had again risen to over 200,000." Basing himself on U.S. intelligence, House Intelligence Committee Chair Porter Goss gave the estimate of 250,000 internally displaced. The UNHCR reported on March 11 that "more than 230,000 people remain displaced within Kosovo."NOTE{Carlotta Gall, _NYT_, April 5. Summary based on NATO and UNHCR beginning April 1, _NYT_, May 29, 1999, accompanying a John Kifner retrospective. Serbs, Guy Dinmore, _Financial Times_, April 1; Kevin Cullen, _BG_, June 12, 1999. Weller, "The Rambouillet Conference," _International Affairs_ 75.2, April 1999. Goss, BBC, "Panorama: War Room, 19 April, 1999. UNHCR press release, March 11, 1999.}  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:430:0:38:DD77:ABD3:538B:ED03 (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Dr. Mark A. Wolfgram (Assistant Professor of Political Science - Oklahoma State University): Democracy and Propaganda: NATO’s War in Kosovo (Science artical about this topic):
 * "First, the evidence provided by German Defense Ministry to the prosecutors in The Hague has never been used in the trial against Milosevic. A careful survey of the trial’s transcripts has failed to find any prosecution references to the plan."
 * "Secondly, Heinz Loquai, a former German military officer, published a book in which he charged the German Defense Ministry with manufacturing evidence to support the war effort."
 * Thirdly, the British House of Commons issued a report, which suggested that no such plan existed or was in operation prior to the beginning of NATO’s offensive.

--Alexmilt (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, books and articles have no the same weight as judicial verdicts and reliable international reports.

Second, the Tribunal verdict speaks about planned activities, planning of operations, etc:


 * It further found that the murder of Kosovo Albanian civilians by VJ and MUP forces executing the common plan was reasonably foreseeable to Lukić ...


 * The evidence proved that Lazarević significantly participated in the planning and execution of joint VJ and MUP operations conducted from March to June 1999 in Kosovo, including in places where the Chamber found that crimes were committed, and that he continued to do so, despite his knowledge of the commission of such crimes.


 * The Chamber found, therefore, that Lukić was the bridge between the actions of the MUP on the ground in Kosovo and the overarching policies and plans decided in Belgrade.

Thirdly, the British House of Commons conclude that "there were orchestrated elements to the campaign of expulsions, which could be described as a plan. Outside observers could have been aware of this plan as it would have required significant preparation. We also conclude that the withdrawal of OSCE monitors together with the international media and the start of NATO's bombing campaign encouraged Milosevic to implement this plan.

--Mladifilozof (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

German documentary: Es began mit einer Lüge (It began with a lie) shows the proof that so called "Operation Potkovica" was made by German Verteidigungsministerium. Dokumentary shows the proofs how this "Operation" was made with false proofs (vilage Randubrava and vilage Sanhovici or Petershtika).

Same movie Heinz Loquai: (rough translation) "I ask for a meeting in Defence Ministerium, which took place in November, and there was said to me that there was no "Operation Horseshoe..."

Heinz Loquai was german general that worked in OSCE in Vien during the war and he his job was to prepare peace missions of OSCE. He worked on place where he should be first to know for some Operation plan Horseshoe - he was a direct witness to events.

He said in show Panorama of German main state TV ARD: "Diese Grafiken sind entstanden im deutschen Verteidigungsministerium, das hat man mir jedenfalls gesagt."

translation: "This diagrams (of Operation Horseshoe) were made in German Defence Ministery, that was told to me."

Today all what Yugoslav army did in Kosovo war is not secret becouse:
 * Hague tribunal has all eveidence what Yugslav army did - and this Operation was never mention.
 * Secret talks of Yugoslav Headquater were published in books (Vojna tajna 1 and 2  serbian). Man who secretly took this and published(Vlajko Vlajkovic, oficer of yugoslav army) was on the court. There is no single word about such a plan.

There are a lot of writers and publicist who are accusing German goverment of that time and who are saying that this "operation" was a false operation but this here are people who really work with this topic or they were closed to know what realy happend. Today many publicist just say that there was this operation without to go deep in this topic. --Alexmilt (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe Yugoslav Army hasn't plan named Operation Horseshoe. Maybe diagrams of Operation Horseshoe were made in German Defence Ministery. But unfortunately, Serbian forces actually conducted large-scale campaign of ethnic cleansing. Nowadays, Operation Horseshoe is a name attributed to such campaign.--Mladifilozof (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, unfortunately it is POV to write about that in that way. Please, stop removing tags from article, when it is obvious that only you regard this article neutral. -- Tadijaspeaks 18:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * C'mon, guys. There's A LOT of scholars, papers and testimony about Operation Horseshoe and because of ONE or very few want to contest it, it doesn't mean that Operation Horseshoe was "a lie of the Germans, Americans and Albanians" -- otherwise, Holocaust denial would be a credible teory today and the Shoah would be described as "The alleged killing of Jews allegedly by army and police forces of Germany during World War II".--189.62.206.53 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Religion?
Was not this war religiously motivated? I thought that the ethnic peculiarity of the "to be cleansed" group was religion. Would someone clarify that, please, and if I am correct indicate the religion of the involved groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.129.241 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Operation Horseshoe, "antiterrorist operation"?
The operation clearly taret civillians with the objective of wiping out the Albanian-speaking population from Kosovo. It was, in fact, a TERROR OPERATION made by the dictatorship of Slobodan Milosevic. NATO intervened to stop this terror.--189.33.173.42 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarian invention
OK, sources told us that Bulgaria invented the plan, that was NOT EXISTING, and send it to Germany as "truth" find by their Military intelligence.


 * Stručnjaci: Bugari nisu sami smislili „Potkovicu“
 * Bugari poslali NATO na Srbiju
 * OTKRIVENA NAJVEĆA PREVARA AGRESIJE NATO NA SRBIJU: BUGARI IZMISLILI „POTKOVICU“
 * Bulgaria forwards Horseshoe plan data to Germany

Please, dont remove POV tag, as this article should be fixed, even if we fix this subject. -- WhiteWriter speaks 13:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent the sources again as you did a couple of days ago by adding that In 2011, former Bulgarian Foreign Minister Nadezhda Neynski revealed that entire operation was hoax and political lye by Bulgarian government in order to take down former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milošević. although the source said nothing about lies or hoaxes etc.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, i didnt used exact words then, but now is fixed, as i did. Please, dont remove legitimate sources from this article, as you did. -- WhiteWriter speaks 18:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You used the term lie and hoax that were nowhere to be found in the actual source and then you repeated the same source misrepresentation after the revert of the block evading/sock IP. That being said I didn't remove the tanjug source but corrected and moved it to the sections.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, neither words lie nor hoax are in the article now. -- WhiteWriter speaks 19:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither are in the article because bobrayner and later I removed them, while the blocked IP kept reverting your edit back. Btw why do you and the blocked IP keep adding the term alleged? None of the sources support it and please attribute the content to the appropriate source. Even Tanjug doesn't label the Serbian claim as a fact but as an allegation of RT of Serbia, to which it was attributed. Btw you don't have to add every single version of the story that has appeared on the Serbian media. The English-language version of Tanjug is more than enough.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources use the term alleged, including that Tanjug one you mentioned. As it is questionable did this ever happened in the way it is explained, it is alleged. -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really have no idea where is that ip come from. And it looks like it is a lot of different ip's... But probably one user... Anyway, what is your proposition regarding this dispute? What is the thing you question regarding those sources? P.S. I used 2nd revert today for Gaius. In order to invite him here. :) :) Three is the merrier! :) So, tell me, what is you proposition? -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIC there's no dispute, so please stick to the sources and attribute them properly.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is dispute, as you are removing sources and opposite meaning from this article. AFAIC, there is dispute. And i hope that gaius will join, and will hear him also. Reverting will not fix the situation. Source claim that Bulgarian military intelligence and government drafted this plan in 1999. So, this plan was fabricated by Bulgaria. That means that it is alleged operation of Yugoslav state, as it is (in fact) fabricated by Bulgaria. -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to assume good faith but I'll ask only once (since you've added the same part three times) where does she during her interview confirm any kind of allegation? You've added, reverted and even attributed to her terms like hoax and political lies so you'll have to provide some sources.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zjarri, "hoax and political lies" are now deleted. That means that those are not in the article anymore. I will not add sources for the material that is not in the article anymore. Anyway, other sources does have that terms, like "Revealed the biggest fraud of NATO aggression against Serbia: Bulgarians invented "Horseshoe"" but it is better to have English sources for the exact terms, for the lede. Something different, that IS in the article? :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I.e you're admitting that you have no source, in which the Bulgarian minister makes any of the statements you've attributed to her.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Following your insistence on a completely irrelevant information that does not exist in the article, and have no connection points with my related questions, i conclude that you don't have any other problem regarding this sources in this article. -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you change the meaning of this sentence into opposite one? -- WhiteWriter speaks 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now everything is attributed correctly without the need of reverts i.e you had written  In 2011, former Bulgarian Foreign MinisterNadezhda Neynski revealed that Bulgarian military intelligence and government drafted the plan in 1999 and turn over the information to Germany but in her interview she said "I provided the German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer – respectively NATO –a report in possession of the Bulgarian government that made it clear that there had been a plan, "Horseshoe", carefully prepared by the intelligence services of Serbiaand then state leader Milosevic that set two goals. First – to destroy the Kosovo Liberation Army, and second – to "cleanse" Kosovo of ethnic Albanians. so I made an edit that made her statement precise  In 2011, former Bulgarian Foreign MinisterNadezhda Neynski revealed that Bulgarian military intelligence and government compiled a report which made clear the existence of the plan and turned over the information to Germany, although plan was not verified at that time.. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, i am afraid that you didnt understood the source. She was explaining the horseshoe plan that was presented to Germany, and its parts, and she was not telling that like a factographic thing that happened, but like a parts of the Horseshoe plan. -- WhiteWriter speaks 23:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)There is no wp:silence and if WW can't provide a source except for the Serbian (state) media Tanjug both the POV and the alleged part will be removed within a week. This began as a dispute between WW and bobrayner, an IP from Serbia that has been blocked since then intervened i.e if no RS is provided within a week for the alleged label, I'll revert back to bobrayner's stable version. In fact most of the content WW has been reverting isn't even in the sources as quoted above. Btw if WW continues to attribute to Nejski comments that she has never made I'll ask for immediate admin intervention as it isn't just source misrepresentation but also BLP violation. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bobrayner also changed the term drafted with intercepted (which WW later reverted). While intercepted is somewhat closer to the sources, drafted is nowhere near to the sources and has a very different primary definition and connotation.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 22:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This plan IS NOT CONFIRMED. Neither then, nor now. Your deep pov about it cannot quite help in this article. Please, dont try to push it, as you dont have sources for it. And i added several sources for alleged. I can give you more, if we want to make lede unreadable... :) Do you have any further problem with this edits pf mine? If yes, tell me, and we will fix it. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 10:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * World Socialist Web, Spectrezine and tertiary partially wikipedia-based sources? Not RS. Btw since you know what RS is and despite that you chose to go on a cite sources that self-identify as radical journals of the European Left  and are published by organizations like the International Committee of the Fourth International is tendetious.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 11:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Some kind of protection, probation or restriction?
The topic of this article is controversial and should probably be put under some kind of probation which I believe would reduce a possibility for continuation of the disruption (like using edit lines to refer to other editors' work as "crap" (diff)).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's odd that you ask for "probation" on this article after I try to bring it in line with what sources say, but you stay silent on other articles infested by Serbian nationalist socks &c. Why is that?
 * Nonetheless, I would welcome any kind of probation on this article which allows it to be more closely aligned with reliable sources. On the flipside, I would oppose any kind of probation that lets you oppose such edits because you can find some excuse such as disapproving of the tone of the edit summary. Which of those two kinds of editing is disruptive and which of those two do you wish to prevent? bobrayner (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you explain, Antidiskriminator? bobrayner (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I gave a clear explanation for my proposal, and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect me to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's odd that you ask for "probation" on this article after I try to bring it in line with what sources say, but you stay silent on other articles infested by Serbian nationalist socks &c. Why is that? It's frustrating that shifting articles away from a Serb-nationalist position towards a sourced position is still called "disruptive" - haven't you been called out on that dozens of times, over the years? bobrayner (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

“…alleged[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]”
Here we come Serb propaganda again… the majority of these little numbers point to texts written by marginal, far-left-wing publications in the Western World or Serbian sources. It seems like someone has to appease the souls of Milosevic and Arkan in Hell.

In the same paragraph, we see the world “pretext for NATO”, comparing the attitude of the Western military alliance to Nazi Germany in the Gleiwitz incident…--179.153.193.237 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. Thanks for the pointer. bobrayner (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

How a site like this can be a kind of source at all (http://www.spectrezine.org/war/kosovo.html)? How it can be a source even for a word of "alleged"? It's totally biased far-left anti-Western propaganda. --Smörre (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Operation Horseshoe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120117005001/http://www.tanjug.rs/news/29644/bulgaria-forwards-horseshoe-plan-data-to-germany.htm to http://www.tanjug.rs/news/29644/bulgaria-forwards-horseshoe-plan-data-to-germany.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Operation Horseshoe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030731142318/http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/koschron.pdf to http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/koschron.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522100942/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Reports/document.html to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/kosovo/reports/document.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923021126/http://belgrade.usembassy.gov/policy/regional/030331.html to http://belgrade.usembassy.gov/policy/regional/030331.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080210045137/http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/10/31/serbia/print.html to http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/10/31/serbia/print.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Name given by the Bulgarian government ?
Whilst many sources corroborate that Bulgaria supplied intelligence to Germany, and thus NATO, regarding 'horseshoe', none of the sources corroborate that Bulgaria gave the name, some explicitly refer to Germany giving the name, and several (eg Gdn), say that Bulgaria was not the only source at NATO's disposal for their conviction that such a plan existed. Pincrete (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * if your on top of the sources and they met RS, by all means correct the article and make the content adjustments. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If no one replies justifying present text, I will. No I'm not fully up to speed on this one, and aware that this is a contentious issue. Pincrete (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Operations before NATO intervention


Yugoslav Army military response to KLA attacks culminated in Operation Horseshoe directed not only against KLA fighters but also including systematic expulsions of Kosovar civilians. During the armed conflict in 1998 Yugoslav Army and Serbian police used excessive and random force, which resulted in property damage, displacement of population and death of civilians

Some date Operation Horseshoe's effective beginning to the summer of 1998, when hundreds of thousands of Kosovar Albanians were driven from their homes.

'''Withdrawal of Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe monitors, together with the start of NATO's bombing campaign, encouraged Milošević to implement this "orchestrated elements to the campaign of expulsions, which could be described as a plan". On 20 March 1999, the Serbian offensive, known as Operation Horseshoe, was already in motion. ''' "If it comes to the NATO bombing, if it comes to the American aggression, we Serbs will quite suffer, but the Albanians in Kosovo will be no more."

- Vojislav Šešelj, Yugoslavia Deputy Prime Minister

Firstly, the bolded sentence does not have anything to do with "Operations before NATO intervention". Quite the opposite, it refers to the start of NATO bombing and "Milošević's plan" as a consequence. Secondly, "NATO intervention" should be referred to as "NATO bombing", as in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia wiki page. In particular, the bombing of Kosovo is highly correlated with the displacement of people, and this is never commented on in this page. Thirdly, the plan is only alleged, and no proof of its existence was shown (from what I understood from this article), as noted in the beginning of the page, even though this is completely disregarded throughout the page.

Finally, this wiki article is a complete mess, and I do not understand why is it allowed. It goes completely against Wikipedia standards, and should be completely re-written, specially when it comes to polarising subjects, such as recent wars.


 * I agree with several aspects of this (unsigned) comment from 18 May 2021. First, the article is a complete mess. I noted that there were citations needed tags that in some cases dated back to January 2012; they had never been verified in nearly 10 years! Second, I removed the sentence Withdrawal of Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe monitors, together with the start of NATO's bombing campaign, encouraged Milošević to implement this "orchestrated elements to the campaign of expulsions, which could be described as a plan" because it doesn't fit under "Operations before NATO intervention." Third, I agree that no proof of the existence of Operation Horseshoe has been shown in the article; although for WP:NPOV reasons, I have kept the citations from authors that take as given the existence of Operation Horseshoe. SchuttenbachPercival (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Removed two sentences from the introduction
In this edit, I deleted the following:

"Claims that the plan was being implemented were NATO's justification for their bombing of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War.

Human Rights Watch said that in early 1999, the Yugoslav army and the Serbian police 'in an organized manner, with significant use of state resources' conducted a broad campaign of violence against Albanian civilians to expel them from Kosovo and thus maintain political control of Belgrade over the province."

My reasoning is that


 * 1) The July 18, 1999 Guardian article does not support the claim that Operation Horseshoe "was being implemented" prior to the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Rather, it states that "As Nato's raids began, Milosevic's forces moved into position...It was the beginning of an operation"; that is, the alleged Operation Horseshoe "began/was beginning" after "NATO's raids began," not before.
 * 2) The Human Rights Watch report does not contain the quote "in an organized manner, with significant use of state resources" at all. This can be confirmed by google searching site://hrw.org/ "in an organized manner, with significant use of state resources".

SchuttenbachPercival (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The Gdn makes clear that preparations and early skirmishes by Serbia preceded NATO bombing - so it is not as simple as before or after. Even if that were not the case, that would not prevent the existence of the operation being the justification for the NATO campaign, so the logic for removal of that part is wrong. Even if the HRW does not support the quote, does it support the rest of the HRW text? I'll look at it before proceeding. Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It wasn't clear to me that the Guardian article attributed "the preparations and early skirmishes by Serbia" before the NATO bombing to "Operation Horseshoe." That's pretty much the general, common criticism I have of the parts of the article that I deleted: they were not about "Operation Horseshoe" per se.


 * Similarly, regarding the HRW report, it is agnostic as to whether "Operation Horseshoe" actually existed:


 * "Media reports later claimed that the Austrian government had warned NATO before the bombing that a large-scale Serbian offensive was in preparation. The allegation was repeated two weeks into the bombing by the German government, which said that Operation Horseshoe-a plan to expel Albanians from Kosovo-had been drafted six months prior to the air war.82 A retired brigadier general in the German Army, however, later stated that the claims of a plan were faked from a vague intelligence report in order to deflect growing criticism in Germany of the bombing.83"


 * To further clarify, my concern is related to WP:SYNTH: source A mentions Operation Horseshoe, source B describes crimes (but doesn't attribute them to Operation Horseshoe), the two sources are synthesized together to imply that the crimes were evidence of Operation Horseshoe. SchuttenbachPercival (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I partly agree with you, 'Horseshoe' may be a western name for a PLAN which may not have existed by that name or have been fully formulated/framed at all. The article is also to an extent about ACTUAL 'ethnic cleansing/racial targetting' which took place mainly AFTER the beginning of bombing, and which some claim was merely a response to the bombing. I think it is unrealistic to expect sources to specifically refer to 'horseshoe', if they are talking about planned or actual 'ethnic targetting/cleansing' before or around that time. The Gdn source also says some things much more strongly than we did (that targetting/expulsion of the Albanians was threatened if NATO bombing started and that the speed and scale of the expulsion surprised the West for example), but it does NOT say explicitly what we previously claimed, that 'horseshoe' was the justification for bombing, though it does imply it. Is the article about an alleged plan, an actual campaign or both? I think it has to be about both to give anything resembling a full picture. Pincrete (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you've asked the right question: "Is the article about an alleged plan, an actual campaign or both?" I concur that to approximate a full picture, both should be discussed, with care taken not to give an impression of synthesis between the two. SchuttenbachPercival (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Two years on and the issue of WP:OR is still present. A recent addition was made in the lead section. That being, . I removed the text as none of the sources actually mention "Operation Horseshoe". As the sources do not mention "Operation Horseshoe", it is thus very easy to fall into the WP:OR trap. A discussion should occur on where the content should be moved to possibly War crimes in the Kosovo War if it already isn't covered? ElderZamzam (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason I had originally added this section was not intended to refer to the alleged Operation Horseshoe, but to state the fact that ethnic cleansing by Serbian forces did occur during the war. It was also meant to avoid confusion as some readers may mistakenly believe that the act of ethnic cleansing is alleged and not just Operation Horseshoe. I don't see how this would constitute WP:OR. The article even mentions that around 863,000 Albanians were expelled, I just added it to the lead to avoid confusion. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit and removed the WP:OR I believe you're referring to. Yung Doohickey (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Yung Doohickey. It is difficult to make a judgement call when a citation doesn't specifically refer to "Operation Horseshoe". It is always good to search talk pages to see if editors have had issues in the past. ElderZamzam (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think its relevant background info and as the short para doesn't say anything about Horseshoe, there's no necessity for the sources to mention Horseshoe IMO. But the Gdn (below) does, it treats 'Horseshoe' as the name of the 'expulsion' that actually occurred. Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

'