Talk:Operation Medak Pocket/Archive 1

first section
the real story from a 20 year old Canadian standing in the capolla of his M113 at 4:13 sept 1993 They started shooting at us and we had just got there. We were told this was a more intence operation we were going into and were made aware once again of our rules of engagment but it was all ruttine by month 5 of the 6 month tour. I was getting water ready with two other mates from my section for dinner rats in a quick break from ploting shott reps when the wasps started flying over head. I Looked at them and we acknowledged that we were in an action, I moved up into the M113's cappolla While each of my mates went up each of sides of the M113 to take up firing positions: while i pulled the action back and cocked the 50. The section to our front and left, 2section, had started to return fire and i looked for an indication of a target as the rest of my section retuirned to the position of the M113 were i was. The Croatian Amy Soldiers to our front began to increase their Fire upon us as we began to entrench our selves and begin to defend ourseves. Soon the tracers going past me were no longer machine gun fire but cannon fire, 22mm and the mortar rounds began to fall amoung us. Us Canadians and the Serbs whom we were shareing a position with had begun to fight back quite dessperatly as we were being overpowered very quickly. Yet the croatian amy soldiers were shooting and shelling us heavily in that first hour only 2 Serbians were cuasulties of the assualt. We had fround our arcs of fire and all sections had reported to the platoon commander as proccedure. And then there was silence, We fought again several times over the next 24 hours untill our Conlnel had with his superiors forced the UN's mandate on the aggressive Croatian army soldiers. We moved forward and kept the serbian army back while the Croatian Army retreated from the Kryina and we established a buff zone and began our work of enforcing a demiliterized zone safe for the civilian populace. I was a Peacekeeper When i was 20 years old in 1993 and i fought the Croatian army. My country never knew what I or any other Canadian Soldiers Did in Croatia untill 1996. We saved the lives of hundreds of thousands croatian and serbian lives when we halted the direct attack and assult on our position. I sevred in 8 platoon Charlie company under Cpt McKullip All of us have been miss placed save our daring Sgt Dearing Whom was to have been in 7 platoon. Unfortunatly even the CO's of Battaloins cannot get the facts straight to save the face of their soldiers when an entire country is unaware of the extent as to which Canadian soldiers go to to uphold Peace in the World. Peace to my Brothers in Arms whom ever you fight for lets win the day. To further dispute some uneducated opinions of the Madak pocket incident When the Croatian Army was in withdraw from the The Madak pocket as being the for front platoon in the operation the withdraw of the Croatian army was done as text book to the retreat of the german army through russia in 1944-45, ie' scorched earth. I having been at the front and closest point to the Croatian army the remains that where found and documented By the UN where accuurate as the overwhelming evidence of genocide was wholley apperent by the overseeing UN staff who entered the Newly Demiliterized zone immeadialy and on the mid day of sept 17. I hope that there is no dispute of the understanding that many civilian cuaslties were discoved in the open many of whom where children and women. Royce Even David Morton Canada farmermorton@hotmail.com

I would think that the Canadian Military would be the best source for this material. As would any other credible source. The press if any,or perhaps a review of the reports from all sides. The article on the preceeding page is full of spelling errors, prejudiced statements, and a lopsided view of the entire affair. Canadian military records would clarify exactly what happened, furthermore an encyclopedia is supposed to be unprejudiced. The a forementioned article is trite and should be pulled before some unsuspecting and gullible readers take it as fact.
 * If Canadian Military claims it was part of a battle on a territory of souveren state, against the gouverment forces of that state, without mandate of UN, without refernces it was held on territory of that souveren state how can it then be neutral and unprejudiced?

Ceha

Chronology of the homeland war 1990. - 1995.

1990. (22-23 April) and (6-7 May) The first multi-party elections in Croatia after 1938.

30 May Constituent assembly of the multi-party Croatian Parliament was held.

17 August On the day when "a referendum on Serbian autonomy" was held on the area of Knin, Benkovac and Obrovac, traffic was blocked in an organized way (the so called Log Revolution began)

1991.

5 January Police stations in Knin, Obrovac, Benkovac, Gra&#269;ac, Korenica, Donji Lapac, Dvor na Uni, Vojni&#263; and Hrvatska Kostajnica stopped following orders of the Croatian Ministry of the Interior and entered in the so-called task force of the Krajina's.Secretariat of Internal Affairs.

During February-March a new series of rallies of Serbs was organized throughout Croatia at which the Croatian Constitution was rejected and Croats and Croatian authorities were threatened.

1st March Policemen of Serbian nationality employed in the Croatian Ministry of the Interior raided the police station in Pakrac together with mobilized reservists and disarmed all Croatian policemen. On the following day, special units of the Croatian Ministry of the Interior expelled Serbian extremists from Pakrac.

31 March restored the National Park Plitvice was restoered under control of the Croatian legal police forces by special units of the Croatian Ministry of the Interior in an armed conflict with Serbian terrorists who previously conquered that territory. Josip Jovi&#263; from Aržani near Imotski was killed as the first victim of the War for Independence (Bloody Easter).

2nd May Serbian terrorists killed 12 and wounded 21 Croatian policemen in Borovo Selo near Vukovar.

19 May A referendum on independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Croatian was held. 94% of citizens spoke out for independency and sovereignty of Croatia and against remaining in Yugoslavia.

28 May Review of the part of the units of the National Guard Assembly was held at the stadium of the football club Zagreb in Kranj&#269;evi&#263;eva Street in Zagreb. (slika)

25 June The Parliament of the Republic of Croatian adopted a Declaration on establishing the independent and sovereign Republic of Croatia (Independence Day) in conformity with the will of citizens expressed at the referendum.

3rd July Yugoslav Army tanks entered Baranja and Eastern Slavonija. The so-called Yugoslav Army openly prepares for attacking Croatia.

25-26 August The first fierce attack of the Yugoslav Army and Serbian paramilitary units on Vukovar and Borovo naselje and Oto&#269;ac in valley of the river Gacka.

14-15 September By conquering barracks in Plo&#269;e there began a blockage and conquering of the barracks, armament storages and different military facilities of the Yugoslav Army in Croatia.

16-23 September In fierce fightings for Šibenik, Croatian defenders succeeded in defending the city ("both of (aircraft) them fell").

21 September The General Staff of the Croatian Army was established. The first Chief of _Staff was General Antun Tus.

1st October A fierce attack of the Yugoslav Army and chetniks from Monte Negro and Herzegovina on Dubrovnik and its surroundings began. Near the village of &#268;epiku&#263;a Croatian defenders inflicted heavy losses to the aggressor (the fiercest attacks were on Dubrovnik on 11 November and 6 December).

8 October Proclamation of the independence of the Republic of Croatia (three month deferral of the Constitutional decision of 25 June expired) - Day of Independence of the Republic of Croatia.

3 November Assembly of the National Guard officially changed its name into Croatian Army.

14-16 November The Croatian Navy in Split and in Kor&#269;ula channel defeated the Yugoslav Navy and ran the navy blockage in the city of Split.

18 November The organized resistance of the Croatian defenders in Vukovar stopped.

In early December Croatian defenders took over the initiative on western Slavonian battlefield.

7 December Badinter Commission reached a conclusion that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia did not exist any more.

1992.

2nd January Representatives of the Republic of Croatia and Yugoslav Army signed a cease-fire agreement (Vance' s Plan) in Sarajevo with intermediation of the United Nations' emissaries.

13 January The Holy Chair recognized the sovereign and independent Croatia.

15 January 12 states of the European Union announced the recognition of the sovereign Croatia followed by recognition by other states.

22 May The Republic of Croatia was admitted to United Nations.

18 May-30 June With military action "Torched land" the Croatian Army began the operation of unblocking Dubrovnik on the southern battlefield and successful liberation of the South of Croatia.

Up to 30 May the Yugoslav Navy left the last occupied Croatian island of Vis, Lastovo and Mljet.

21 June By lightning-quick action the Croatian Army liberated Miljevac plateau (7 villages, about 150 km2).

1993.

22 January Liberation operation of the Croatian Army began, "Pirat" - Maslenica. Within 72 hours Croatian military units liberated and retained a significant area. Dalmatia is linked again by road Zadar - Maslenica - Karlobag with the land-Croatia.

9 September Croatian Army liberated villages in Lika - Divoselo, &#268;itluk and Po&#269;itelj (Medak's pocket)

5 October UN Security Council explicitly confirmed that UNPA zones are an integral part of the Republic of Croatia.

1994.

17 February LtCol Damir Tomljanovi&#263; Gavran was killed while defending its homeland on Velebit near Tulove grede

30 March Agreement on termination of hostilities between armed forces of the Republic of Croatia and rebelled Serbs was signed in Russian Embassy in Zagreb

26 June Tactical military exercise with target practice was held on the island of Vir near Zadar

29 September Ministers of Defence of the USA and Republic of Croatia William Perry and Gojko Susak signed a Memorandum on Cooperation in Defence and Military Relations in Pentagon

1995.

7 April Croatian Army liberated a significant area on Dinara above Knin, creating preconditions for liberating Knin.

1-3 May Western Slavonija and Posavina were liberated with military-police operation Bljesak (Lightning).

2-3 May Rebelled Serbs rocketed Zagreb and other Croatian cities

3 August Negotiation led between Croatian authorities and rebelled Serbs in Switzerland fell through. Serbs rejected a proposal for peaceful reintegration.

4-8 August With military-police operation "Storm" Croatian military units liberated the occupied Croatian territory in northern Dalmacija, Lika, Banovina and Kordun.

5 August Croatian Forces liberated Knin (Day of Victory and National Gratitude Day)

12 November Erdut Agreement was signed between the Republic of Croatia and rebelled Serbs from Baranja and Eastern Slavonia and Western Srijem on peaceful reintegration of these regions in the constitutional and legal system of the Republic of Croatia.

23 November The United Nations Security Council confirmed the agreement on peaceful reintegration of the eastern Slavonia and western Srijem into the Republic of Croatia. That process finished on 15 January 1998 when these regions were restored to Republic of Croatia.

Veliki obrat u slu&#269;aju Meda&#269;ki džep (croatian language)
Veliki obrat u slu&#269;aju Meda&#269;ki džep

Na Sudu u Haagu u procesima vezanim za Meda&#269;ki džep dogodit &#263;e se spektakularni obrat! Pristupit &#263;e ameri&#269;ki svjedoci - stru&#269;njaci - koji &#263;e Sudu iznijeti javnosti zasad manje poznate &#269;injenice vezane uz izvještaj francuskoga generala Jeana Cota, ondašnjega zapovjednika snaga UN-a, ispri&#269;ao je za Fokus dužnosnik jednoga veleposlanstva u Hrvatskoj koji je želio ostati anoniman. Naime, to je Cotovo izvješ&#263;e korišteno kao materijalna osnova ne samo za podizanje optužnica, ve&#263; i za neprihvatljive kvalifikacije protiv hrvatskih generala za akciju Meda&#269;ki džep iz 1993. godine. Ameri&#269;ki &#263;e svjedoci Sudu objasniti kako su i Amerikanci nakon te akcije izašli na teren te istražili pojedinosti te akcije. Navodi iz ameri&#269;koga izvješ&#263;a bitno se razlikuju od onih koje je potpisao francuski general Jean Cot. Me&#273;utim, svakako najvažniji element ameri&#269;koga izvješ&#263;a odnosi se na izjavu samog generala Cota koji je ameri&#269;kim &#269;asnicima priznao kako je u svojem izvješ&#263;u naveo neistine, jer su ga obmanuli pripadnici kanadskog bataljuna koji su djelovali na tome podru&#269;ju.

Naime, on se toga rujna 1993. godine u potpunosti oslonio na informacije koje je dobio od Kana&#273;ana kojima je zapovijedao potpukovnik James Calvin, objasnio je Amerikancima zapovjednik UNProFor-a francuski general Cot. Vjerodostojnost iskaza &#269;asnika kanadskoga bataljuna najbolje se ogleda u &#269;injenici da su upravo njegovi plavci ovih dana primili odlikovanje za "juna&#269;ko ratovanje" protiv snaga HV-a. Cinizam kanadske strane ne leži samo u neistini kako su "juna&#269;ki ratovali" protiv HV-a, ve&#263; su te kanadske juna&#269;ine "pobijedile broj&#269;ano nadmo&#263;ne i bolje opremljene Hrvate, te im nanijeli teške gubitke od &#269;ak 27 poginulih gardista". Tako otprilike glasi kanadska verzija nesre&#263;e u kojoj je njihovo oklopno vozilo naletjelo na minu, a pritom su ranjena njihova &#269;etiri vojnika. Da ironija bude ve&#263;a ti su vojnici stradali sasvim bezrazložno, jer su se zaputili na podru&#269;je koje je bilo ozna&#269;eno kao nesigurno. Nisu ozbiljno shvatili hrvatska upozorenja - da su Srbi prilikom povla&#269;enja, po svoj prilici, minirali svoje položaje.

Za razumijevanje takva otklona ameri&#269;koga i francuskoga izvješ&#263;a o istom doga&#273;aju potrebno je prikazati kauzalni slijed doga&#273;aja te 1993. godine.

Slijed doga&#273;aja 1993.

Nakon operacije Maslenica u sije&#269;nju 1993. godine beogradski je Generalštab donio Strategiju realne prijetnje. Odnosilo se to na sustavne artiljerijske udare po hrvatskim položajima, ali prije svega civilnim ciljevima. Ta je strategija za cilj imala odvra&#263;anje HV-a od mogu&#263;ih daljnjih akcija i to kontinuiranim napadima na okolicu Zagreba, prometni smjer Zagreb-Rijeka, dalmatinske gradove, posebice Gospi&#263;. U biti je ta strategija bila klasi&#269;na teroristi&#269;ka akcija u kojoj su mjesecima stradavali civili, a najugroženiji je bio život u Gospi&#263;u, koji je bio na dometu minobaca&#269;a. Francuski general Jean Cot i UNProFor su gubili vjerodostojnost jer nisu ispunili ništa od mandata koji im je povjeren, a koji se odnosio na prekid vatre. Hrvatski general Janko Bobetko je u tome razdoblju više puta upozoravao francuskoga generala na neodrživu situaciju, ali UN-ovim su vojnicima ruke bile vezane. Europski su saveznici NATO-a, prije svega Velika Britanija i Francuska bili protiv bilo kakvog udara na Srbe, zbog straha za sigurnost svojih vojnika u sastavu jedinica UN-a, ponavljali su u to vrijeme. Bila je to svojevrsna pat pozicija koja je išla na ruku Miloševi&#263;evim interesima, a kod saveznika je rasla frustracija i blamaža pred vlastitom javnoš&#263;u, koja je, zgranuta stradanjima civila u BiH i Hrvatskoj, tražila od svojih vlada da nešto poduzmu. Do jeseni je situacija u Gospi&#263;u postala neizdrživa, &#269;ekanje i oslanjanje na me&#273;unarodnu zajednicu donosilo je samo nove civilne žrtve i razaranja te je uslijedila operacija Meda&#269;ki džep. Bila je to svojevrsna pljuska zapovjednicima misije UN-a, ali i vladama glavnih država koje su rukovodile tom mirovnom misijom. "Pokušali smo pridobiti europske saveznike za ovu ideju (ukidanje embarga na uvoz oružja i uporaba zra&#269;ne sile za odvra&#263;anje od mogu&#263;ih srpskih napada, op.a.), ali nismo uspjeli", izjavio je 25. studenoga Anthony Lake, savjetnik za nacionalnu sigurnost bivšega ameri&#269;kog predsjednika Billa Clintona u intervjuu Radiju Slobodna Europa. "Razumljivo je da su europske vlade zabrinuto gledale na mogu&#263;nost jednostrane ameri&#269;ke akcije u Bosni koja bi mogla dovesti u opasnost živote njihovih vojnika", pojasnio je Lake uzroke neu&#269;inkovitosti europske politike u rješavanju ratne krize te 1993. godine na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije. U to je vrijeme kriza na jugu Europe bila me&#273;u najvažnijim vanjskopoliti&#269;kim temama Bijele ku&#263;e. "Bosna je dugo bila jedna od prvih rije&#269;i koju bi predsjednik Clinton ujutro izgovorio", opisuje odnos SAD-a prema krizi na prostoru propale države Anthony Lake. U svojim ocjenama odnosa europske politike prema krizi u BiH i Hrvatskoj Clintonov savjetnik isti&#269;e kako su "ameri&#269;ki prijatelji i saveznici u Europi svojim odnosom prema Bosni zapali u neodrživo stanje". Lake nadalje isti&#269;e: "Da smo kojim slu&#269;ajem uspjeli progurati rezoluciju o ukidanju embarga u Vije&#263;u sigurnosti, Francuska i Velika Britanija bi sigurno na nju uložile veto, uvjerene kako &#263;e doprema oružja u BiH izložiti njihove vojnike dodatnoj pogibelji". Možda je najslikovitiji opis licemjernoga odnosa Europe prema ratu u BiH i Hrvatskoj u tome razdoblju do&#269;aran sljede&#263;im rije&#269;ima: "Odobren je jedino ograni&#269;eni zra&#269;ni udar na srpsku vojnu zra&#269;nu luku Udbina u Hrvatskoj s kojeg su svakodnevno uzlijetali zrakoplovi koji su napadali Biha&#263;. Nadao sam se da &#263;e udar na Udbinu biti djelotvoran i da &#263;e poslužiti kao signal kako daljnji napadi na Biha&#263; ne bi bili dopušteni. Kada sam se probudio sljede&#263;eg jutra shvatio sam da je UN odobrio da se napad izvede u trenutku kada na udbinskoj zra&#269;noj luci ne bude srpskih zrakoplova te da su bombe napravile samo nekoliko rupa na pisti. Ako je time odaslana ikakva poruka, ona je samo svjedo&#269;ila o našoj slabosti. Ali takav je ishod jako usre&#263;io europske saveznike". Dakle u takvome me&#273;unarodnom raspoloženju, kad je bilo kakva akcija protiv Srba bila neizvediva, Hrvatska je vojska izvela akciju Meda&#269;ki džep. U tom je trenutku nastala sveop&#263;a pomutnja ponajprije u vladama Francuske i Ujedinjenoga Kraljevstva, jer se time o&#269;itovala neu&#269;inkovitost europske politike prema Srbima koju su te države predvodile. Odmah nakon zauzimanja Meda&#269;koga džepa hrvatskim su vlastima upu&#263;ene ozbiljne prijetnje s francuskih i britanskih nosa&#269;a zrakoplova Fosh i Invisible koji su se nalazili u Jadranskome moru. Kako su se europski saveznici našli u krajnje frustriraju&#263;oj situaciji zbog akcije HV-a, oni su Hrvatskoj zaprijetili zra&#269;nim udarima ukoliko se HV odmah ne povu&#269;e sa zauzetih položaja. Hrvatska je pristala na povla&#269;enje, ali to o&#269;ito nije bilo dovoljno. Bilo je potrebno oblatiti uspjeh HV-a kako bi na taj na&#269;in europski saveznici amnestirali vlastitu nesposobnost i kolebljivost prema srpskim agresorima na Hrvatsku. Teško je u ovom trenutku procijeniti jesu li Kana&#273;ani doista obmanuli generala Jeana Cota ili je on u svojem izvješ&#263;u svjesno pisao neistine o akciji Meda&#269;ki džep. U svakom slu&#269;aju laž je nastala negdje na potezu - zapovjednik kanadskoga bataljuna potpukovnik James Calvin - i general Jean Cot, zapovjednik UNProFor-a. Hrvatska je pristala na povla&#269;enje pod nadzorom kanadskoga bataljuna. Bilo je dogovoreno da povla&#269;enje ide dio po dio, ali kanadski je zapovjednik požurivao Hrvate i tražio da se povuku odjednom. Hrvatska vojska na to nije pristala, jer bi se tako izložila srpskom okupatoru, &#269;iji su vojnici stupali odmah iza kanadskih transportera. Povla&#269;enje je protjecalo u vrlo napetoj atmosferi. Stoga, kako bi prikazali HV u negativnom svjetlu, Kana&#273;ani su izmislili nepostoje&#263;u bitku. Na temelju te virtualne bitke sa&#269;injeno je izvješ&#263;e generala Jeana Cota. U to je vrijeme postojala odli&#269;na suradnja ameri&#269;ke i hrvatske obavještajne službe. Ameri&#269;ka je strana pozvana da pošalje svoje stru&#269;njake koji bi ispitali stvarno stanje. Tako je nastalo i to drugo izvješ&#263;e u kojemu se nalazi i dio o ispitivanju generala Cota u kojem doti&#269;ni priznaje da je bio obmanut - jer je svoje izvješ&#263;e temeljio na informacijama koje je dobio od kanadskoga bataljuna.

Tko informira Haaški sud

Haaški sud je pokazao interes samo za izvješ&#263;e francuskoga generala. Razlog tome je što je pri&#269;a o Meda&#269;kom džepu prema Haagu išla samo na osnovi francuskoga izvješ&#263;a, koje je bilo dostavljeno nekim nevladinim udrugama me&#273;u kojima i HHO-u, zatim Veritasu Save Štrpca i pojedinim hrvatskim medijima koji su na tome temelju dugo godina gradili svoje znanstveno fantasti&#269;ne konstrukcije o Meda&#269;kom džepu. Na taj je na&#269;in i na tome temelju Tužiteljstvo Haaškoga suda akciju Meda&#269;ki džep okarakteriziralo kao zlo&#269;ina&#269;ku, te je inkriminiralo optužnicama protiv hrvatskih generala. Haag je potvrdu za takav zaklju&#269;ak dobio iz &#269;etiri "neovisna" izvora: HHO-a, Veritasa, Cotova izvješ&#263;a i tobože neovisnih hrvatskih medija. Ovakvim neo&#269;ekivanim obratom postaje razvidno kako u pozadini, kao temelj svih spomenutih izvora u stvari leži izvješ&#263;e generala Cota - odnosno krivotvorina. Kako doista dolazi do obrata u slu&#269;aju Meda&#269;ki džep, potvr&#273;eno je i u prošlom broju Nacionala u kojem je objavljena pri&#269;a o nedavnom odlikovanju kanadskih vojnika za lažnu, izmišljenu bitku. S obzirom na to da se Nacionalu ne može omaknuti tekst u kojem se o HV-u piše na pozitivan na&#269;in, objavljivanje spomenute pri&#269;e ima i svoj jasan obavještajni odnosno politi&#269;ki predznak.

"Greates Canadian battle after the Korean war which never hapend" Case study; The Medak pocket This should alone be a material for another artickle:) Ceha 01:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That article says nothing of the sort. It presents the Croatian actions as factual and unwise, but argues that they were just one aspect of the event. It clearly states that "with this military operation: those unwanted and impermissible acts – crimes – have given the whole action negative connotations." It does not say that these events did not happen, quite the opposite. - SimonP 01:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That is just the first page look further,there is a whole case study in it:)

Ceha 01:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was well aware. I think you are missreading the article. The phrase "the Canadian non-existing battle" is not Međimorec's opinion. Rather it is a quote from a Canadian book, and it was called "nonexistent" not because it did not happen, but because the battle was kept secret for so long in Canada. Međimorec has his doubts and questions, but presents no evidence. The UN, Canada, and ICTY have all investigated this and have found that the accepted story is correct. - SimonP 01:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean that Canada, the English-speaking media, and the ICTY *prosecution* have found the story is correct. You're quick to dismiss the Croatian point of view without even considering that this entire article smacks of a Canadian Armed Forces puff piece and doesn't hold up to even basic logic. AHrvojic 05:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Quote or not that word rightly describes curent condition. If you are going to change the artikle again please put in further expanations;
 * a) Operation Medak pocket took place in souveren and UN-recognazed state of Croatia which has well defined boundaries, in the current article reader could conlud that the mention regia is in Serbia, or even in another continent:)
 * b) When tallking of the alleged battle you should use the adjetive "alleged" because if one of the sides in the disputed article denies existanse of the battle, and neutrals sources also deny it (there is no mention of the alleged battle in the Serbian war documents, and they were at time at war with (rebeled against) Croatia) the least you can do is to put it as alleged (it should also be clearly explained that Croatian goverment denies existance of the alleged battle, and that the neutral sorces(again Serbian who rebeled against Croatia in that time) don't confirm its existence. Article as it is now, is clearly bias. As mentioned above, that operation was investigated by ICTY, but by the prosecution, and that case is still opened, there is not a judgment jet, so it is inconclussive at best:) As Canada was (by its on words, and ignoring the independent sides) participant in the alleged battle (it is clearly shown that its military had use from alleged battle (after crisis in Somalia, its reputation was at stake, and needed something to put at ease its public) its sources (without the neutral conformation) are regarded as bias and should be treated as that (when using it sources it should be mentioned that you are using sources of the side that might be bias).
 * c)UN peace keeping forces in Croatia didn't have the mandate to use force (except in self defense) and definetly no against the forces of the goverment in which territory they were mandated, so it is legally imposible for that battle to take place (Canada didn't proclaim war and invaded Croatia, didn't it?:) This should also be mentioned in the article
 * d)so called Republic Krajina is mentioned without the " " and without adjective rebel,self proclaimed or UN unrecognazed when you list sides. Neutral obserwer could conlud that that was a battle between two recognazed states(the second entity was a rebeled para-state) and that Canadian peace forces intervined in international conflict beetween two states in which one (Croatia) attacked second
 * At the moment I am going to change the page back in the shape that is in NPOV (the one i used before) if you don't agree please don't just roll back my changes, but use my arguments(I think they are neutral) in the change of the article (it is unproper just to flip-flop the page between two versions)
 * And for your comentary that that articles reflect just minority point of view, it is not important how many people belive that something is true, what is important are the facts and as you can see above I gave a lot of them to you:) (It should not be fair that Canada which is ennormusly bigger than Croatia, got credibility just by its size. Please look at the other sources before changing the page (and I don't meen Canadian ones))
 * Ceha 11:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if some believe the event is fictional, that is no excuse for removing information. Rather you should add a paragraph outlining why some think that and what they think happened, and not remove the description that is still the generally accepted account of the events. - SimonP 00:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Truth is qualitative and not quantitative. Just becose a lot of people have told you something that doesn't make it true. In all the reports at the time (Serb, Croatian, UN) Canadians were barelly mentioned. Operation Medak pocket was a military operation of Croatian army which fighted against (rebeled) Serbian forces. "Suposed" Canadian intervention happened affter the operation was over (Croatian forces stoped and started regruping). If you are going to change the page I would apritiate (I think this is bed spelling, but:) to read something off it and not just flip-flop the page. Also isn't it unapropriate to remove POV sign when there are clearly evidences about possible diffrent corses of actions.

My article probable isn't the best solution, and a new should be writen, but most of the informations in the previous article I see highly bias (this is just point of view, but it is point of view argumented with facts). You have an army which was part of UN-peace mission, which reacenly had more than few scandal, which is accused on colaboration (and too-closed relationships) whith rebel forces in internationaly recognized country, which clames that had fough an army of that country in the area which is part of that country and doing so without any mandate from the UN (mandate was for the reintegration of the rebels in Croatia). Highly discussionable dissision. In most off the Canadian books about that issue all facts above are barely mentioned. I will try to make a new article (in due time, maybe this weekend) in which all of aboved statemens are obvious, but I'm afraid that in doing so article would look like its writen from an extremist POV as most of the cannadian allegations should be noted that they are from cannadian (and yet unconfirmed, maybe even proven false by Serbian and Croatian war documents) point of view. To make the story short I will try to make merger of the two documents by monday:) Ceha 11:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC) I made it:) Hope you like it:) Ceha 11:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I made some compromis between 2 latest changes (which would make it closer to NPOV), and I'd like to sugest to anybody that they first talk to the discussion page, and then change something. Most of the people who are changing something pretty much insist on Canadian version which is yet unrecognizet (there is no neutral conformation of the battle) which Croatian and Serbian sources claim that was just a small sqrimish. Some people forget to recognize that "battle" happened on Croatian soil. To my opinion discussion of canadian neutrality during that incident should also be made (perhaps even in another article), as qualification of neutral by-standers and claiming existence of the battle, makes little sence. Most of the changes Someguy963 made were OK, but I think that some things are not enough strongly pointed out (lack of mandate etc). Maybe existence of Canadian forces in Croatia is well known, but all evidences are not. I suggest reading Case study of operation Medak pocket:) Ceha 16:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

non-POV now?
I have attempted to remove POV pushing, I have noticed that the UN and all international sources outside Croatia are in agreement with the "Canadian" version of the battle. for instance, the original author states it was 1/2 hour long, but then it is stated that there was fighting throughout the day and night, then the Croats withdrew after noon the next day, now that is longer then 1/2 hour. That remined of the previous version which was much harsher for Canadians. It lasted about 1/2 of an hour. Thank you for noticing, I'll correct that.

I have also merged the Canadian version into this, as they should go together and not be separate, as that infers that the previous Croat version is the true one and that the Canadian version is an example of propoganda. --Jadger 07:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Canadian version was removed because most of it is unproven yet. It was not deleted but puted in seperate article.

I also do not like the idea that the Canadian version is portrayed as BS and that the Croats were innocent, while their commanders were indicted for war crimes. --Jadger 07:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Canadian soldiers were visitors in foreign country with mandate of that country and they fought against it? Please read the entire article, and discusion before you change something. Notice where were Canadian military positions (few metters from Serbian rebels), notice that evidents from Canadian version are not mentioned neither in Croatian, nor Serbian sources. And also read Case study of operation Medak pocket. I see your concern about reputation of Canada, but without seeing all the facts you can't make proper desisions. Ceha 13:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

- Most of your changes are incorect. 1)There wasn't internationaly recognised "Republic of Serbian Krajina" but rebeled area without any international recognision. It wasn't attacked. How can you be attacer in your own country? Territory was retaken... 2)There is no need to hide goal of peace mission. (it was reintegration of that territories in Croatia), which Canadian forces didn't managed(or wanted to) succed. Were is the motivation to cooperate with somebody who isn't doing it's job, and is doing quite the oposite? There is no need to hide that. 3)Evidences for existance of battle don't exist in rebel Serbian (they were Croat oponents at the time!) or goverment sources. Just in Canadian ones. That is not neutral conformation! Why is that sentence deleted? 4)There was not alleged Serbian policy of arming civilians. Unfortunetly there was a TV record from their television in wich one nanny takes the AK-47 and talks about killing of Ustaša's. Most of population in that territory had personal wepons and was traditionaly suspicious about Croatian government. And not all Croatians claim that, but just some. 5)Canadian goverment hidening of events is true. Canadian goverment didn't go public with this for few years of the "alleged" incident. As for religious census in Canadian Army, Quebequois make only 30% of Canadian population.

Main point of taking Canadian version out of the article was that it was unproven. Unproven things doesn't have a place in encyclopedia. Also Canadian forces were part of UNPROFOR mandate, wich goal was return of refugies (mostly Croats, and other non-Serb population) and eventualy reintegration of territory in Croatia. Canadian forces didn't made non of that, but held friendly relationships with Serbian rebels which forced that peoples out of their homes. Sapienti sat? Ceha 13:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

1. How can you be attacker in your own country? simple, a foreign or revolutionary army ocupies your land and you attack them in order to drive them out. see for instance the battle of Queenston Heights.
 * then the territory was retaken. Or it must be in some other way emphfisized that that happend in your own country, and not somwhere else (for example in Zanzibar)

2. Canadians were not "visitors" in the country, they were peacekeepers, authorised to use a certain level of force in order to stop the opposing sides from fighting. And the Croatian army attacked the Medak Pocket, that's what forced teh UN forces to move in, to try and protect civilians in the area and restore peace
 * They were authorised by the same Croatian goverment which they claim they fought? And they claim that Croatian goverment wasn't cooperative with them and that Serbian rebels (which drove hundreds of refugies from that area) where more cooperative? UNPROFOR didn't have the mandate to use force except in self defence. And that still doesn't answer the question why should be the goal of UNPROFOR mission hidden in the article. Same goes for Canadian and other UNPROFOR forces its behavior, and ignoration of the madndate...

3. which sentence are you talking about? cite it please
 * 'nd a battle which lacks neutral confirmation is seen highly offensive in Croatia,'

4. just because a civilian has a rifle does not mean they got it from the government. I am a hunter, I have many rifles, but not one of them was given to me by the Government. they could of very easily found the rifle on a dead soldier, or bought it for personal protection on the black market, they were in a war zone, they wanted to feel safe.
 * Part of that 'arsenal' were personal wepons, but (large) part was given by the ex-JNA army. Also I doubt that you have VBR hidden somwhere in your house:)

5. Quebecois is not a religion, Roman Catholicism is however, and a majority of the Canadian army is from Quebec and stationed there (that was my point). Although most people now do not call themselves "Roman Catholic", most Quebecers are of ancestry that followed that religion, and grew up raised the traditional catholic way, and so naturally harbor a certain attachment to that religion and its followers, saying they were anti-catholic makes no sense. You mispelled it? Quebequois? Do you even speak french?:) I don't have data for percentage of Quebequois in the army, but they make only 30% of Canadian population. a) I sencirely doubt that they make 100% of the Army. b) Your second persumsion is not correct. Serbs over and over underlined old aliance between them and English and French (1. ww, Antanta, Serb caused that war, etc.) It did had great role latter (when people saw what Serbs were doing), but it was efficient in the start. also, why did u edit my correction of your grammar? yours is very poor. Also why did u remove the Canadian portion? I attached it because it belongs here, and having it on another page gives the impression that it is wrong and the internationally favoured version is the Croat one, whereas in fact the "Canadian" version is the one endorsed by the UN.
 * Most of your corrections wasn't just about the grammar, but had slightly changed meanding of the article. I removed Canadian portion because I don't see it as confirmed. "Battle" between Croatian forces and Canadians is described as small skrimish in Croatian and Serbian sorces and is barely mentioned. Also text is highly POV. UN forces where determined? Croatian goverment did sighn that it would retreat it forces. Part of things (for which Canadian commander was latter removed from office) was this hurrying goverment forces which was oposite of treaty. Second in Canadian version Canadian peacekeepers look like princes on white horses:) They came, they saw, they rescued. It is not objective, and as I stated that view is seen highly offensive in Croatia

and how can you possibly claim to "see all the facts" when u refer to Serbian and Croat versions, but do not cite the actual articles? by that same method, God told me to blow up the world with a nuke, I read that on a page I saw once, not sure where it came from though, but I think its from God, so it must be true. Of course I won't give you the page to see, God made it for me.
 * I told you to look them up:) Only thing I could scramble of the net is Case study of Medak Pocket  . I don't beleeve (because rebelion is over) that Serbian forces exist on the net.

--Jadger 17:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[|DND commendation of 2PPCLI BG] that just proves my point that they were not there to "re-integrate" the land into Croatia. case in point:"While deployed there on a UN peacekeeping operation, members of 2PPCLI were ordered to create a buffer zone between the Serbs and the Croats."
 * HTTP Error 404 -

Not Found
 * that is not any evident. Please look what was mandate of UNPROFOR peace forces...

If the Canadians were only aiding Serbs, then why did they receive: "2PPCLI received the Meritorious Service Cross, Mentions-in-Dispatches, and the UNPROFOR Force Commander's Unit Commendation for their actions." Are you now going to tell me the whole UNPROFOR was against Croatia? --Jadger 23:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, that site is credible, it comes directly from the Canadian Government, that is, unless you believe in conspiracy theories.
 * I don't belive in any of the conspiracy theories. But I belive that UNPROFOR was highly uneficient (I was in Croatia during the war), that did not do its mandate etc... Your link is not funkcional? But in any case looking at coruption in UN I would not be suprised that they gotten medals for the job not done.

--Ceha 2:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

please do not edit within my argument, do it afterwards, numbering them like the one you are answering. also, the word is "inefficient" not "unificient".

sorry the link was not functioning, I copied it wrong, here it is though. []

you avoid my clear stating of the mandate, which is not as you have claimed, and I have proved it by citign the UN.

now my rebuttal again, as numbered above

1. it was an attack, as an attack. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines attack as "begin an offensive against". which is exactly what happened.

2. Sure, they were authorized by the Croatian government, but do you really think that the UN wouldn't of forced UNPROFOR upon the region if full scale war and ethnic cleansing had escalated? The UN did not need permission, but saying the UN was allowed in just gives the facade of the high levels of government cooperating, much like Saddam Hussein let weapon inspectors into Iraq but lower levels did not cooperate with them.

3. the sentence was deleted, as "neutral confirmation" makes no sense. I am assuming you mean that the majority of Croatians think that the peacekeepers didn't do their job.

4. what do you mean VBR? and I do not live in a war zone, but if I did I would have a rifle at the least.

5. I did not mispell quebecois, look it up, for instance here: []

you may not see the Canadian version as confirmed, but it is the UN version of the story, are you saying teh world governing body is not a reputable source?

also, I never said that Quebecers (note different term) make up 100% of the Canadian Forces, but they are a majority, and most Canadian Military bases are in Quebec.

I never removed that Croatian forces signed to withdraw, or else the fact that they intentionally slowed the withdrawal in the Canadian version would not make sense.

I never said the Canadians were knights in shining armour (to use the correct saying), the fact that Croatians are resentful of their participation and see them as pretending to be such does not matter. You cannot say that the Croatian population is totally objective themselves.

6. I would like to finalize this by reiterating the UN mandate as defined by the UN: "Initially established in Croatia to ensure demilitarization of designated areas. The mandate was later extended to Bosnia and Herzegovina to support the delivery of humanitarian relief, monitor "no fly zones" and "safe areas". The mandate was later extended to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for preventive monitoring in border areas" []

--Jadger 05:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)