Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina/Archive 1

Stuff from 24.70.95.203
I have no idea where the user from 24.70.95.203 got those ideas about legal takeovers and still existing areas of Krajina and whatever. Maybe they refer to non-military takeovers and places with Serb majority, respectively? Or maybe it's just very bad English? Either way, that was really appalling... hopefully we won't have another pseudo-nationalist edit war here... --Shallot 23:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah, it's just a lot of rumours. That's fairly okay, as long as they're marked as such. --Shallot

wifes of Croat husbands
User 24.70.95.203 wrote that (only) wifes of Croat husbands returned to Krajina. Well, that's just plain wrong. I happen to have discussed this with someone on Usenet and I googled for the exact numbers, and here's the post: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=slrnbtovte.jb3.jrodin%40jagor.srce.hr

Translation of the relevant paragraph into English:


 * [In Croatia], in the following year the building of the last ~5,000 houses for Serbian refugees will be completed (the deadline is August 2004). According to the records of the ministry of rebuilding, 100,861 refugee of Serb nationality has returned (together with 208,505 refugees of non-Serb nationality, into around 23,000 objects rebuilt up to 2003, and 8,000 rebuilt up to the end of 2003), while another 13,547 people remains in Serbia and Bosnia, and 3,334 people in the Danubian region that still don't have the preconditions to return. So, 85.6% of cases have been resolved, and the rest will be within a year's time. Financing method is in a small part directly from the state budget, and the rest is mostly from foreign loans. (Which we will, I assume, also pay back.)

So basically if those numbers are wrong, then either the government is faking those registrations, or the people are faking them. I figure there's a little bit of both (if nothing else, because of the rules of statistical probability), but in general the refugee return is indeed happenning. --Shallot 08:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I saw on TV now that the number of Serbs returnees increased to around 115,000, with around 13,000 requests pending. There's also a widely recognized issue of people having their property returned but not actually returning, for whatever reason. The Serbian government minister reported around 140,000 refugees there (NB: this includes both BH and HR). So anyway, the process is slowly progressing, we definitely don't need random anonymous rants, that doesn't help at all... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   18:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

International recognition
Don't know very much about the Balkans, but I'm almost positive that China didn't ever extend diplomatic recognition to Krajina. China is extremely reluctant to extend diplomatic relations to secession states, lest people get ideas about Taiwan.

Roadrunner 04:50, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The same could be probably said for Russia (Chechnya) and Greece (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus). Could someone please double-check this official recognition thing? --Romanm 08:39, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think Russia ever recognised Srpska Krajina. And can any EU member (say, Greece) extend diplomatic recognition to a country that is not recognised as such by the EU? apoivre 19:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. Members of the EU can recognise anyone they want to. Or not. The EU simply has no power over this. 145.253.108.22 13:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, probably none of them actually officially recognized, they might have merely condoned the course of events that led to its establishment. I'll rephrase it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:27, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * S=The Republic of Serb Krajina had recieved more international recognizations when it was created then Croatia (Russia (Soviet Union until recently), Germany, Austria, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Italy, Macedonia.. P.S. I'm not completly sure that I've listed the correct ones, but that's because I saw it a long time ago. (On the TV. The Europe convection of 1991) but I am positive that there were a lot more then the ones that recogniyed Croatia at that time.

Article title
I've moved this to the Serbian translation, because it has about double the number of Google hits, and is much more commonly used. It's in the same boat as Republika Srpska in Bosnia, and the country of Cote D'Ivoire. Ambi 04:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It has about double number of hits when searched in any language! But there is practically the same number of hits when searched in English, . Add to that almost as many results of "Republic of Serb Krajina". So, I'm moving this page back. Nikola 10:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * shrugs* Whatever. Ambi 11:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On 15:03, 26 June 2006, User:Estavisti moved Republic of Serbian Krajina to Republic of Serb Krajina, with the log message ''Serbian relates to Serbia. Here the correct form is Serb''


 * I beg to differ. "Serbian" does not map only to "srbijanski", it also maps to "srpski". Yes, it's not particularly logical, but it's like that. --Joy &#91;shallot] 13:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's true that many people use Serb/Serbian wrongly, but that doesn't make their usage correct. --estavisti 17:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of what we might consider "correct" usage; after all, most people still call Myanmar Burma, despite what that country's government would consider "correct". The unarguable fact is that "Republic of Serbian Krajina" is the overwhelmingly the most prevalent form in English (18,000 Google results versus only 672 for "Republic of Serb Krajina"). On that basis, I'm moving it back to the former name. -- ChrisO 19:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

WWII stuff
An anonymous user previously inserted: ''Following World War II, Partisan leaders made it part of the republic of Croatia, though the map on their original declaration showed it as being part of Serbia. A rough draft of this declaration showed it as being part of a separate republic.''


 * An analogous thing was inserted in Prevlaka Peninsula, too. I left it in, but I don't think I've ever heard of any such thing. A (non-vague) reference would be appreciated. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Figures Census 1991
May i draw your attention to the german version of this article: After very long discussions we finally found a quite reliable source for the number of residents in the former RSK. The ICTY indictment against Slobodan Milosevic (see HERE), Section 69, contains information about these figures, so we decided to put them in. This is a format you could use, if you want (sorry for my bad english, just use it as a "template" and correct my spelling mistakes...):

Results of the 1991 census:

During spring 1991 lived 555.540 people in the region of the later proclaimed Republic of Serbian Krajina, 331.619 (59,7%) Serbs, 168.026 (30,2%) Croats and 55.895 (10,1%) other nationalities. The allocation of the population in the different parts of the RSK was as follows: (Source: ITCY)

--Spacecaptain 09:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ethnic map
I'll also note that the ethnic map (Image:Krajina ethnic map.jpg) is somewhat crude and from some analyzing of eastern Slavonian villages (I come from Vinkovci and have always had an interest in my old county's maps), it seems like it is slightly tilted towards a pro-Serbian stance. AFAICT it completely omits notable Croatian majorities or at least notable minorities in the vicinity of Tordinci, Antin, Stari Jankovci, Slakovci, Nijemci, Apševci, Lipovac, Ilača, ... Not to mention villages like Marinci or Novi Jankovci which didn't have clear majorities (IIRC). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be wise for you to put on your spectacles. The county (opstina) of Vinkovci is divided into 40 settlements (naselja) including the city of Vinkovci itself. This map merely colours each settlement's administrative region (situation from SFRY pre-war) the color of its respective ethnic majority. When no absolute (50%+1) majority could be found the village territory would be colored in purple. In the case of the county of Vinkovci the following were colored in blue: Gaboš, Karadži&#263;evo, Markušica, Mirkovci, Mlaka Antinska, Orolik, Ostrovo, Podrinje, Sremske Laze, Šidski Banovci, Vinkova&#269;ki Banovci. --Igor 8:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Apparently one of us doesn't orient oneself on the map properly. What about those that I mentioned above? How is Antinska Mlaka blue if Antin is supposed to be red or at least purple? And what about Koro&#273;, Laslovo and Ernestinovo (last two in the old Osijek municipality) which had notable Magyar population and I'm almost sure that they didn't have >50% Serb majority so would have to be purple? It's not like I'm disputing Serb majority in Bršadin, Trpinja, Pa&#269;etin, Bobota, Vera, Negoslavci, Borovo Selo, ... Blech. I'm really going to have to go back home and dust off my old maps with each village's census percentages... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * This map originates from www.srpskapolitika.com (which is probably not a very neutral source of information) and was subject of discussion in german wikipedia too. But as there is no other map of this kind available yet and the discrepancies were considered to be minor, we did not remove it. --Spacecaptain 11:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)11:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * What discrepancies precisely? --Igor 8:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You must notice how indicative it is that there are little blue patches all over central Slavonia or Bilogora, while such little red patches don't appear in places I've named. Given the name of the site I see completely why there was incentive for the author to do this... *sigh* --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;
 * Do you have a map of settlements (naselja) of the 1981 county (opstina) of Vinkovci so that we can compare? You are aware that the HDZ régime of Franjo Tudjman changed the whole administrative system in 1991 just before or after independence (in order to dilute the Serbs settlements). Maybe that is what is confusing you and inducing you into an erroneous conclusion about the map being pro-Serbian? --Igor 8:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh and what is this massive evil change that you're talking about? The new municipalities could not have "diluted the Serb settlements", the census methodology is orthogonal to that. Also, I can't exactly see how grouping into new, smaller municipalities affected minority rights more adversely than the old ones. For example, in the old municipality of Vukovar the Serbs were in a plurality, a minority in the old Vinkovci municipality, and negligible in number in the Zupanja municipality; whereas, in the new Vukovar-Srijem county (created by combining the old Vukovar+Vinkovci+Zupanja municipalities) the Serbs are a minority. At one hand, they lost a plurality in one area, but at the other hand, their votes in the county council influence a larger area. And they have new, smaller municipalities which allow them to be in a majority where they were previously in a plurality. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   01:10, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not from croatia and therefore have no idea of the correct allocation of the patches. If you could send me a "redesigned" map, i would include it in the german article as well. Or if you don't like to "paint" so much, just send me a rough draft, i will do the "artwork" then... --Spacecaptain 11:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it, I'm not blaming you for this. I know it all came from the same little propaganda headquarters :) I went back and checked Image:EthCleanCroatia.JPG and found that it has the same 1991 part. Oh well. Been there, done that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:40, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The ethnic map is great, but it does not say what ethnicity does each colour represents. It should at least be written at Bogdan | Talk 11:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Blue is Serbs, pale red is Croats, green is Muslims (modern Bosniaks) and in Vojvodina Magyars, ... Heh. I guess to someone used to this kind of discourse (cf. the past controversial ethnic maps) everything's clear, but for outsiders it's not... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:25, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

''':Dear Sirs, may I show you another ethnical map. It seems not to be from a serbian site.'''cmap. :http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/yugoslav.jpg


 * That simply describes majority by county (opstina), same thing, only not as precise as the given map. --Igor 8:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at this very interesting collection of old maps .http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_balkans.html It seems that serbia (for 500 years as a part of turkish empire) was through the centuries in the "far east" of croatia.

The creation of the so called "RSK" was a illegal act of terrorism. 217.187.61.195 14:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the time when the oluja started, krajina and bosnian serbs just tryed to occupy the bosnian muslim enclave of Bihac. They would have succeed, (and remember Srebrenica) without the oluja. In Bihac have lived at that time about 100.000 people.

old Krajina rights stuff
I also wasn't able to easily confirm the statements:


 * The Serbs who immigrated in the region liberated it from the Ottomans in 1659, and agreed to join the Austrian Empire in 1669, because the Austrians offered them the status of a crown land, greater autonomy and special rights.

A Google search shows one page that has:


 * In the 17th century, a military government was formed in the Austrian city of Graz. Its primary task was to organize the settlement of Serbs, who would later turn into the Austrian defense shield. In that way, the whole of Krajina was turned into a Serbian province. The Austrian Emperor solemnly confirmed the privileges given to Serbs on many occasions. He did it for the first time on September 5, 1538, and again on March 8, 1659. This, then, was the way in which the military border in Krajina came into being.

It seems rather hyperbolic to talk about these events this way... but then, that is to be expected from something written so obviously like a propaganda pamphlet. I could find no other page that talked about these supposed 1538 and 1659 grants, including in specific searches on srpska-mreza.com, suc.org and rastko.org.yu. Just for reference, in 1538 the said Austrian emperor was Ferdinand I, while in 1659 it was Leopold I. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   15:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, the chronology at de:Türkenkriege doesn't mention a war with the Turks in 1659 so presuming it's complete, it's unclear to me how this "[liberation] from the Ottomans" could have happened without a war (between the Austrians and the Turks). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;


 * Serbs were for more than 500 years a part of the turkish empire. So isnt´t it logical that serbs were fightig together with turks in the turkish army?217.187.61.195 15:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The establishment of Vojna granica (Militaergrentze) had had nothing to do with Orthodox Vlachs. This Serbian agitprop junk is simply imbecile. http://www.geohistory.com/GeoHistory/GHMaps/GeoWorld/NCroatia.html http://www.genealogy.net/privat/flacker/military.htm http://www.hr/hrvatska/WAR/causes.html For literature: Valenti&#263;, Moa&#269;anin, Roksandi&#263;, Buczynski,..http://www.geocities.com/hlebine/Radovi/Povijest/Rad_1-29/Rad_1-29a/rad_1-29a.html Mir Harven 16:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, I am not an expert, but maybe they refer to the Battle of Mohács (actually there were 2 battles) which took place in 1687 (see german version of de:Mohács). --Spacecaptain 10:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) Addendum: The english article only refers to the first Battle of Mohacs, which resulted in an Ottoman victory. In 1687 (the second Battle of Mohacs) the Austrians won. --Spacecaptain 11:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've removed this, then. I did leave the notion of some special rights because I recall vaguely from history classes that settlers were given some land rights or something like that. Can't remember the details. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:12, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

map
I've just fixed up Image:RSK.png to be far more pertinent and accurate. Spacecaptain, if you're watching, I noticed some disturbances on the German version of the article, it no longer includes the original image, what's going on there? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The original source of this map was considered to be quite biased so we took off the map and are working on a new version where we'll put in all available, neutral figures we can get. I'll keep you informed about the progress we make. The disturbances mentioned above were the result of a discussion between two very opponent participants fighting about the wording of different parts in the article, it seems that this discussion has ended now. --Spacecaptain 20:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Igor's latest edit...
...is nonsense. You saw that one coming a mile away, didn't you?

Let me try to explicate why, though it will probably fall on deaf ears...

Krajina existed first in the Croatia that was part of SFRY and then after it separated and was internationally recognized, in Croatia. Not in "former Yugoslavia".

The original MF was carved out of the Austrian crownlands that were officially named Croatia and Slavonia. They weren't "deserted crownlands", only parts of their territory was deserted. This shows a pattern of evasion, as if it was never part of Croatia, whereas it clearly was.

These supposed free peasants didn't particularly benefit from it given the military government and the generally conditions. The fact that these people were there not in a wonderland must not be understated.

The MF was disbanded and restored to civil government -- again of Croatia/Slavonia, which is where they originated in the first place.

The party of Pribičević gathered all of the Serbs that the Serbians called "prečani" (those from over (preko) the Drina river). The term "Krajina" cannot be applied to this whole territory.

The claim that Croatia had "paramilitaries" that tried to "disarm Serb policement(sp??)" is just ludicrous. It doesn't take a wizard to conclude that when e.g. when police stations stop following orders from their ministry of the interior it's not the ministry that became the outlaw.

Further, to state that the JNA sided with the Serbs because the Croats "abandoned it" is silly given that the Yugoslav leadership pulled out the Territorial Defense from Croatia in an attempt to avoid ever having to hand over its Croatian units to the new Croatia. Given that Croatia was one of the wealthier republics and as such it funded the creation of the JNA, having to relinquish all of it would be just plain wrong.

The "ethnic cleansing of regions not protected by SAOs" is another red herring. I'm not particularly acquainted with the whole situation in northwestern Slavonia, but I remember that e.g. the village of Voćin was first occupied by Serb forces and the Croats were removed, after which the Croatian forces retook it and the Serbs were removed. With the probable difference being that the Serbs first looted whatever was there and evicted/killed the Croats, and then when the Croatian forces advanced, they picked up whatever they could take and fled claiming "ethnic cleansing".

But this is just interpolation based on previous experience... Granted, there was some ethnic profiling and crime being done by the "Jesenje kiše" paramilitary unit of Tomislav Merčep, the executions on Pakračka poljana and whathaveyou, but that's not the story of all of Bilogora and nortwestern Slavonia...

And what I don't have to check into is the fact that Krajina Serb forces immediately proceeded to bomb the hell out of all the borderline areas that they couldn't manage to occupy, for months. Whatever sympathy anyone might have for e.g. the family of Dušan Zec pretty much pales in comparison with thousands of casualties inflicted by this campaign of (uh-oh, here comes the buzzword) terror.

The removal of information about ICTY and Babić is pure and unadulterated censorship. I don't think there's much reason to elaborate that.

Overall, same old, same old... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   15:39, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

quotes or explication
An anonymous user added notes to the effect that the RSK was self-styled and not recognized by anyone much else. I'm wondering if we should use quotes around the bolded initial instance or prepend "self-styled"? What about all other instances of the term in the text (those being both "RSK" and just "Krajina")? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   13:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think as long as it's mentioned that it wasn't internationally recognised, that's enough. Using quotes appears as if we're making a judgement. Ambi 13:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Quotes are ususlly used for this.

western slavonia etc
Current text:


 * Croatian armed forces began attacking those regions trying to force the Serbs to disarm. Finally the Yugoslav People's Army got involved trying to separate the two sides although standing aside most of the time and later siding with the Serbs once most of its Croat top branch deserted it. [...]


 * What ensued was an ethnic cleansing of Serbs from regions not protected by the SAO's, first in Northwest Slavonia (Bilogora) in Winter of 1991-2. A lot of Serbs forced from their homes came to the RSK while in turn almost the entire Croatian population of the Krajina was expelled.

This is a bit disingenuous.

First off, the notion of "Croatian armed forces" needs to be delineated: there was the Croatian police (the "milicija" or "policija" under the command of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia), and then there were the paramilitary formations which didn't have a single name or central organization, and then there was the "Zbor Narodne Garde" which was something of a legalization of these militias and reorganization under the command of the Ministry of Defense of RH (IIRC).

The process of disarmament was, well, not. The Croats organized public rallies and acquired (illegally) various arms in an effort to barricade the barracks of the Yugoslav People's Army since early 1991 (note that the SAO barricading began in mid 1990). Initially, the conflict was marked by local ruffians (under the sponsorship of the local political activists) sending verbal threats (commonly by phone), destroying property, placing mines under houses and detonating them. Occasionally there were raids of what one would call paramilitary formations on what their leaders would declare a target -- often houses of influential figures among the locals of the other ethnicity. In response to this, people who were harrassed, and their compatriots who witnessed the harrassment, fled.

Note that there were also people who fled because they were influenced by warmongering propaganda (without having had anything done to them or anyone they knew). There was also a practice of exchanging houses between Serbs from Croatia and the Croats from Serbia. (Each of these topics could use more elaboration and correlation with the rest.)

It's rather hard to assess who started the whole thing or who "led" in it -- it was done to the Croats in areas where the SAOs were dominant, and to the Serbs in areas where they were not. The police records, if they survived to this day, should provide some insight as to how many of these incidents happened, in which areas, etc. The censuses should provide more information about the number of people moved. The information I gleaned from some UN page a while ago said that 300K Serbs and 220K Croats were internally displaced in Croatia during the war. I can't find that one right now. Googling found me a page on suc.org that quotes a UN document saying 251K Serbs went to RSK and to Serbia (i.e. not just internally displaced), and Croatian Helsinki Group leader Čičak saying that 280K Serbs were expelled from Croatia. It's not likely that any of these numbers were anything more than approximations.

But anyway, I may have strayed a little bit. On to the next sentence -- the JNA did not have a neutral role because it was an institution responsible to the headquarters of SFRY in Belgrade, and Croatia was prevented from having its legal say in that (per Milošević's obstruction of Mesić's becoming the president of the rotating presidency). The JNA's Territorial Defense was withdrawn from Croatia for some reason, too, and this made it impossible for the Croatian authorities to control this armament (regardless of whether this kind of obstruction was the intent of JNA or not, it's still true and it's true that it wasn't done in other republics).

The winter of 1991-1992 was the period well within the "real" war had started. (For reference, Vukovar's three-month siege ended in late November 1991.) The process of ethnic cleansing or terror or however we want to call it, regardless of the side, had been going on for quite a while. Introducing the Serbian casualties this late and then mentioning the Croatian ones after them, that's wrong, as it doesn't do justice to either of those people.

While researching, I ran in to an interesting page at http://www.hlc.org.yu/srpski/Suocavanje_sa_prosloscu/Izvestaji/index.php?file=613.html It talks rather frankly about the whole quagmire.

Anyway, enough for now. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:31, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Please be aware that the Humanitarian Law Centre headed by Nataša Kandi&#263; is not to be trusted. My advice is follow the money if you want the truth. --210.50.177.191, 03:46, 7 Feb 2005

Nikola, what's up with the edit war? Please stop acting like Igor. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

soldier percentage in 1995
I'm not sure why the "including 60K soldiers" would be removed. I've checked what Veritas has, and it says 4,142 of 6,780 dead and missing are soldiers (61%). It doesn't seem unlikely that out of 150-200K in total that there would be 60K (30-40%) soldiers, too. Especially given the long border that had to be guarded. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The RSK's army (the VSK) numbered 55,000, according to Jane's, of whom 16,000 were deployed in eastern Slavonia and wouldn't have been among those fleeing in 1995. However, apparently only 30,000 of the VSK's soldiers could actually be mobilised. -- ChrisO 17:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction. Jane's sounds trustworthy enough.

Newest version of the article
Thanks to ChrisO for a full historic overview in the article. I wouldn't go so far to use the same term (ethnic cleansing) for the two sets of wrongdoing, but that's a minor semantic difference for most readers, I guess. As long as we've got the facts listed that explain the nuances, the phrasing is not that significant. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is no hard evidence Serbs were “ethnically cleansed” in 91, a lot of them left voluntarily believing they would soon return with JNA as victors (Same thing happend in Bosnia, where the majority of Serbs voluntarily left Sarajevo for neighboring Serb-controlled Pale, it was in fact an organized policy by SDS). While there certainly were some occasional excesses by the Croat side, it was never an organized campaign like the Serb one, and the Hague’s indictments prove that. I feel this also ought to be reflected in the article. GeneralPatton 23:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Having said that, there should be some more discussion with regard to the purported ethnic cleansing in 1995 (above I was primarily referring to the 1991 sections). What do the sources say, was the behaviour of Croatian army (or paramilitary even?) units in `95 similar to the behaviour of Serbian units in `91 and `92? How much deportation was there and how much displacement, and how is the displacement defined? How are Gotovina's actions/subordinates more inherently involved in this compared to the actions of other Croatian commanding generals during "Storm"? Details matter... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * In spite of that stuff, the article as it is now, is pretty balanced and comprehensive.GeneralPatton 23:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Excellent Stuff: First this

maps
I neglected to mention that another reason why Image:RSK.png shouldn't be trashed in favor of Image:Krajina ethnic map.jpg is that the latter is a blunt scan from some Yugoslav geographic atlas (definitely made after 1981, which is the year of census the data of which is shown on it) with a few lines drawn on it. One day someone's going to investigate its lack of true license and subsequently have it removed. On the other hand, RSK.png is based on a public domain image and safe from that kind of a problem. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many, many factual and historical inaccuracies
This article is very, very poorly written & it amounts to Greater Serbian apologetics in not few cases (no "Serbs" immigrated into Military frontier, but Vlachs. Also, Catholic Vlachs who became Croats outnumbered Orthodox Vlachs who became Serbs). Serious revision under way. Mir Harven 12:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

what vlach,serbian from Kosovo,Serbia,herzegovina and Montenegro emigrated to military frontier and they become CONSTITUTIVE PEOPLE not minority as in so caled croatia 1990!soory for my poor english!--195.29.40.162 21:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

haha! How you croats can lie to world! Croats become minority in Austro-Hungary empire su croats force serbian in catolich religion,becose of that in so caled croatia there is mene familes with serbian LAST NAME!STOP SPREADING LIES!--195.29.40.162 21:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Serbs weren't the constitutional nation in Croatia. Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I (Basic principles of Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia, section I): "...utvrđeno je da JE hrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj....... izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku." (...it was confirmed that Croat people HAS established (in the common fight in national-liberation war and socialist revolution, together with Serb people and other nations and nationalities in Croatia) HIS OWN state, SR Croatia. As you see, only singular form is used. Ustav SRH, čl. 1. (Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia): "SR Hrvatska je: (SR Croatia is) - nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda ( national state of Croat people) - država srpskog naroda i  ( state of Serb people) - država narodnosti koje u njoj žive.''" ( state of other nationalities that live in Croatia) Serbs weren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they were mentioned specifically, but nothing more. Croatia is national state solely to Croats. Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država". Source: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004.. There you have it, please don't spread that POV about Serbs as "constitutive people" anymore. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Pijade's ideas

 * proposal by a Communist functionary Moša Pijade, a former member of Greater Serbian organization "Black hand" to grant territorial autonomy to the Croatian municipalities with Serbian majority

Pijade was a member of the Black Hand, and made this proposal? I can't find any backing of this, and on the hr: version I see Mir Harven removed it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement from 147.91.1.45
I have NO HOME thanks to the evil Ustashi Forces, my sister is dead as well as several other siblings; my two houses bruned, estate pillages and I saw my horsw running set ablaze by the Ustashi flamethrowers. DON'T EVEN START to say that the operation was a success. 'cause it killed the world I knew and destroyed my childhood. The Operation Lightning and Storm were nothing but products of extreme and utmost evil created in the brains of several corrupted greedy Croatian fascists.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.1.45 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 July 2005


 * First off, I sympathise with your losses, but that is not an issue here.
 * A military operation can't be described as anything other than success when the attacking army defeated the defending army. This is not an emotional statement, it is just a factoid.
 * And it's also wrong to conflate issues like you do - the attacking army that conducted "Storm" was not Ustashi because that is a fascist organization from the mid-20th century, not from this time. Correlations between the two sets of crimes can be done, but equating them is factually incorrect.
 * Criminal activity such as killing civilians and destroying their property during and after "Storm" is described at some length at Operation Storm. If you wish to contribute information with regard to that, please don't hesitate to do so. However, expressing opinion such as that it's a "product of extreme and utmost evil" is not encyclopedic and does not belong to Wikipedia.
 * --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   9 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

If you don't know, the Croatian forces called themselves Ustashas, I know 'cause I have heard it myself, and there is no "defeating the defending army". I meant stricly at the organised ethnic cleansing activities that the Croatian Army took by. The job was not to defeat any army, but to decrease a nationality by: (this was a designed Croatian plan) "killing a third, forcing a third to leave and turning a third into catholics". The mere concept of an "army quelling a rebelion" was carefully used as an iron curtain to cover the major operation of creating an ethnicly clean country. P. S. I hope that I am not insulting you with this article in any way.


 * I heard of people who called themselves 'Ustaše' too, but that definitely doesn't mean that the entire army called itself as such, it would be anachronistic and insulting. The army of the Republic of Croatia is called Hrvatska Vojska or Oružane snage Republike Hrvatske.
 * The stuff about killing, expelling and converting - that's from the Ustaše organization. As a whole it is not relevant to the war in the 1990s, because no Croatian commanders at this time ever had any such plans. You may interpret actions of people in the field in some manner, but you can't mix the actions of an entire army with the actions of individuals. You will notice how this article does not go about saying "it's all a Greater-Serbian plan". --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No, no, what I just said was connected to THIS war, not WWII as you probably mean; and it was an ORGANISED plan to ethnicly cleanse the country of minorities, preferrably, the Serbs; the "killing a third, forcing a third to leave and turning a third into catholics" was a plan that was devised by the highest officials in Zagreb (I can't say Tudjman's government because it would be too offending to the Croatian readers) P. S. Where're you from, Joy?


 * Well, you have to provide some proof for these claims. (I'm from Croatia.) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   18:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I get the feeling that you understood "Where're you from?" as an insult. If you have, my apologies. As for the Ustashi part, I found a cassette in my village (Varivode near Knin) several years after the Croatian Army burned it; it said: "Ustaski domobrani 17, BC723", the recordings contained recordings of the squadron's executions of the local populace, as well as a well-organised plan recording. Unfortunatly, those men have never been identified, but it is obvious that they were working on a previously organised plan. About the "killing a third, forcing a third to leave and turning a third into catholics", you're utmost right; I have only heard it on several occasions on the TV and in several newspapers (of which some are also from Croatia), but I must admit that the actual authentity of that "plan" was never confirmed. Although, I have passed a lot around the bordering parts of Croatia, trying to evade soldiers that were continuosly chasing us (until my family and I DID finally manage to flee to Hungary), and I can confirm you (although I don't think that you'll believe me) that there were major ethnic cleansing activities present. For instance, in the history section, Karlovatz (my city, my ancestors were present there {and the surrounding regions) for four centuries, all the way back to the founding of Karlovatz in ... hm... I think it was... yeah... 1526) is only mentioned as a place where the Serbs (The Army of Srpska Krajina, in particular) alongside wih many other cases assaulted and shelled it. It is true, but the true story of Karlovatz is not shown. We were oppressed (Serbs) in it. Sharpshooters were placed on the roofs for the soul goal of shooting anyone attempting to flee and all local Serbs were mostly cornered into a fourth of the city. Then me and my family fled. The Soldiers have already entered our apartment building and have started to "relocate to a better area" the local residents (all Serbs by the case), there were several gunshots heard and not one soldier was harmed (they probably executed those who did not want to leave). We have entered the car with whatever small stuff we could pack in a few moments, and went. Then someone said: "Vid' ih jebem im mater, pobjegose!" and a patrol chased us. If they were not recalled to station the defenses (which were currently under attack by the Serbian Krajina Forces) we would be surely done for. I am sure that Karlovatz wasn't the ony place. (and since the operation was a full success, it's no wonder if a plan like the one mentioned above wasn't exposed into the publicity)

P. S. Do you actually think that I would lie about such things?


 * (Nah, I didn't take the question as an insult.)
 * No, I actually sympathise and believe. I'm from Vinkovci, which like Karlovac was on the front lines during the lines. After the balvan revolucija began, I heard various stories of Serbs in the city being terrorised, even seen people's houses blown up because of the inhabitants' nationalities. Heck, later when the war already escalated, after a grenade from Mirkovci damaged the Orthodox Church, the fine Croatian gentlemen (*snicker*) thought it was a good idea to level the whole building down.
 * I've also heard the story that at one point Glavaš, Vice Vukojević and other Croatian 'leaders' went to a field near Borovo Selo with a mortar and fired a grenade onto the village (which is inhabited almost exclusively by Serbs) and damaged a house (no idea if it killed anyone, possibly). A few days later, the Serbs massively picked up arms and organized a militia, and when the Croatian police sent a squadron to intervene, they ambushed them and killed a dozen mostly young men. Those twelve policemen are venerated today, but apparently they never would have died in the first place had it not been for certain criminals.
 * There's also widely circulated information about a secret police / militia unit led by Tomislav Merčep called Jesenje kiše that apparently had a mandate to interrogate, intern and kill anyone they thought was against the Croatian government. Obviously, they relied on ethnic profiling - if someone was a Serb who wasn't openly against the rebellion in Krajina, they were a suspect. The unit has been implicated in various executions near Pakrac and elsewhere.


 * These are probably all true stories, but it still stands to reason that had it not been for the mass hysteria initiated by the likes of SANU members and Serbian media (remember reading reports in Svijet and Danas about how Albanians sodomized a Serb peasant in Kosovo? I wouldn't bet on the exact details, but it was something equally gross), there might actually have been law and order and the criminals among the Serbs or the Croats may not have surfaced. And eventually, the terror changed into outright war, with the border cities picking up the most damage and casualties (around 11 thousand non-combatants was the last count, I think).
 * It's probably not a good idea to make broad generalizations, but by and large it seems to me that several conclusions are fairly clear: that the civilians near the front lines were endangered on either side, that they massively fled because there was a real chance that they would get killed if they had stayed. A slight but notable difference might be in the bare fact that most of the area of and near Krajina was a battle zone, whereas in the 'outer rim' of Croatia was relatively safe. Many Serbs survived the war in Zagreb, Rijeka and elsewhere without having grave problems because of their ethnicity - I live and work with many of them and nationality is simply not an issue for us. Granted, some were terrorized too, but not nearly all. Whereas, I doubt that there were many such cases with Croats in Drniš, Petrinja or Beli Manastir - at least I never heard of them. That seems to be a basic distinction that separated the two entities. It might not have been intended that way, but that's how it came to be.
 * That's why Croatia managed to preserve a decent standing (despite harsh criticism for its own misconduct, too) in the international community, and was eventually recognized as 'the right side' of the war. That changed the overall perspective from "it's a Balkan quagmire where Croats terrorize Serbs who terrorize Croats who ... ad infinitum" to "it's a Balkan quagmire where the Serbs terrorized the Croats more than vice versa".
 * As far as the encyclopedia article is concerned, I suggest that we try to include as much information as possible, and keep the scope balanced. Which is to say, we can and should add the information about terrorism, but it also needs to be matched with information about military operations because they marked the war at least as much as the terror did. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   14:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

context
This article lacks any mention of Vukovar and Kijevo.

I noticed also that a new user created articles:


 * SAO Krajina
 * SAO Kninska Krajina
 * SAO Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem
 * SAO Bosanska Krajina

They all need to be vetted and integrated (the fourth only peripherally, but still). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   13:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC) Quote: I saw my horse running set ablaze by the Ustashi flamethrowers

How can any serious researcher and compiler even bother to answer such patently ridiculous claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.236.22 (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Frontier == ==

I am requesting a change of the name to "Frontier" since it already says Krajina, and would be much more understanding for foreigners. HolyRomanEmperor 12:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually the internationally known name of the entity was "Krajina", so changing it to "Frontier" won't accomplish anything but further confusion. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed.

But, Serbs were a constitutional people of Croatia (minimal was 12% of the total population). And here it says 11% (a figure released by Croatian nationalists) It was actually between 12,2% and 14,4%. HolyRomanEmperor 20:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Serbs weren't the constitutional nation in Croatia. Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I (Basic principles of Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia, section I): "...utvrđeno je da JE hrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj....... izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku." (...it was confirmed that Croat people HAS established (in the common fight in national-liberation war and socialist revolution, together with Serb people and other nations and nationalities in Croatia) HIS OWN state, SR Croatia. As you see, only singular form is used. Ustav SRH, čl. 1. (Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia): "SR Hrvatska je: (SR Croatia is) - nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda ( national state of Croat people) - država srpskog naroda i  ( state of Serb people) - država narodnosti koje u njoj žive.''" ( state of other nationalities that live in Croatia) Serbs weren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they were mentioned specifically, but nothing more. Croatia is national state solely to Croats. Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država". Source: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004.. There you have it, please don't spread that POV about Serbs as "constitutive people" anymore. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, maybe I didn't notice this in the same revert? Fixing now. 581663/4784265=0.121578. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should rely on population census data rather then on calculating: (12,2%) HolyRomanEmperor 21:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * How do you suppose that the statisticians who conducted the census arrived at that percentage, other than calculating? Black magic? :)) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

There were nearly 100,000 Orthodox Yugoslavs in 1991 in Croatia. I don't discard the possibility that they are all Orthodox Croats, but it is funny how the number of Yugoslavs fell to almost zero, and the number of new Croats in Croatia climbed for exactly the same number of Bosnian Croatian refugees and migrants from Serbia and Montenegro that came by 1995 (this is how the nationalist Serb propaganda spreaders got their 700,000 Serbs in Croatia) HolyRomanEmperor 21:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This should be mentioned, yeah. Although with the Yugoslavs, there's always a reasonable possibility that these were people from mixed marriages who intentionally did not wish to opt for either side (in the war or otherwise), so this warrants at least a small discussion rather than just a mention.
 * Having said that, I can't find the exact religion to nationality mapping in the above page. It says that there were 104,728 Yugoslavs in SRH in 1991, but it doesn't mention Orthodoxy. Can you find a reference for that? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, because of the Communism, there is no religeous census in Yugoslavia. The sources that state that are mostly from nationalist excuse-of-a-website pages that I do not aprove (no matter that I believe that). Yes, that with mixed marriages is entirely correct, although they mostly emigrated under pressure and assimilated as Serbs. The only place where I find the 100,000 Orthodox Yugoslavs that is acceptable, is www.rastko.org.yu although yet again, it doesn't mention the source. But then again, 100,000 Yugoslavs were ethnicly cleansed from Croatia (no matter of religeon), so I accept these claims that they are Serbs. P. S. change the 12.15 to 12,5 if you will? HolyRomanEmperor 19:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I should add, that on 19 August 1990, the Serbian national council (in Croatia) released a referrendum, regarding Serbian autnomy within the Socialist Republic of Croatia. 756,549 votes where released (later, according to nationalist claptraps of Serb Frontier politicians in 1993) The official tribune for justice of the Republic of Serbia processed this information, and declared that around 150,000 votes where forged (mostly Serbs that did not have voting status, and also largely Croats). Which gives us still over 600,000 people that voted for it (amd the census says around 580,000 Serbs in Croatia!) Add up to this number those without the voting status, and all becomes clear :-) HolyRomanEmperor 19:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The official census of 1991 (Croatian, although forged) stated that there are 76.5% Roman Catholic Christian, 11.1% Serbian Orthodox Christian (remember that decreasing-to-11% note?) Sunni Muslim 1.2%, Protestant (various) 0.4%, and undecided 10.8%. Jeremija D. Mitrović and various resources from rastko.org claim that of this undecided 3.4% are Serbs, others are lesser religeons, Muslims that feared nationalims, and stout communist Croats. All this fits-in with current religeous and ethnic structure of Croatia (nearly 700,000 Croatian Serbs) HolyRomanEmperor 19:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed the percentage to 12.2 (rounding to the first digit after the decimal point), and noted the number of Yugoslavs with a link to their article and a note that a significant percentage of them were Serbian-inclined. That should be the the most accurate statement given the available information.
 * I don't think that there will be any more value provided if we repost various unsubstantiated claims. Even if you accuse the census to be forged, at least it was made by the state statistics office and not a historian known to be controversial (this is abundantly clear from a google search on Jeremija Mitrović). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree :-) HolyRomanEmperor 12:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the Frontier part, but I strongly object that the country should be named Serbian Krajina. The unsimpathizing of Serbians is known for Serb Frontiersmen. The adjective should be Serb, just like Serb Montenegro is stated on www.njegos.org Besides, the Montenegrin are more related to Serbians than we are :)) HolyRomanEmperor 13:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by even if I...? I thought we made clear that it was forged (11%?) HolyRomanEmperor 20:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Bingo: There were 782,000 Serbs in Croatia in 1981. because over two thirds of Yugoslavs were in fact Serbs. HolyRomanEmperor 17:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

That makes around 17% of Croatia's population, no? HolyRomanEmperor 17:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

In 1910 there were 611,257 Serbs in Croatia (17.7%) HolyRomanEmperor 17:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

In 1921 there were 606,252 Serbs in Croatia (17.6%). It is from this moment that more and more will proclaim themselves Yugoslavs. HolyRomanEmperor 17:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

In 1931 there were 636,284 Serbs in Croatia (16.8%); number of Serb Yugoslavs: unknown HolyRomanEmperor 17:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The Croatian Ustašas, Nazi Germans and Hungarians and fascist Italians are responsible for (most acurratly) 90,000 Serb deaths in the period of 1941-1945 on present-day Croatia. HolyRomanEmperor 17:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The Croatian Ustašas, German and Hungarian Nazis and Italian fascists are responsible for (most acurratly) 90,000 Serb deaths in the period of 1941-1945 on present-day Croatia. HolyRomanEmperor 17:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The Croatian Ustašas, German and Hungarian Nazis and Italian fascists are responsible for (most acurratly) 90,000 Serb deaths in the period of 1941-1945 on present-day Croatia. HolyRomanEmperor 17:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, somebody please delete the upper twice repeated (technical problems). In 1948 there were 543,795 Serbs in Croatia; the number of Yugoslav Serbs is unknown. Due to migration, there were 98,314 Serbs less that year only HolyRomanEmperor 17:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The percentage of the upper-mentioned number is 14.4%. Now, in 1953 there were 588,756 Serbs in Croatia (15%); the Serb Yugoslavs are again unknown.

In there were 624,991 Serb in the Socialist Republic Croatia (around 15%) Although the number of Yugoslav Serbs is unknown; this year signifies 83,301 less Serb in Croatia due to migration. HolyRomanEmperor 18:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

In 1961 there were 624,991 Serb in the Socialist Republic Croatia (around 15%) Although the number of Yugoslav Serbs is unknown; this year signifies 83,301 less Serb in Croatia due to migration. HolyRomanEmperor 18:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

1971 states 626,789 Serbs in Croatia (14.2%, unknown other) yet it strangely marks 60,938 Serbs less in Croatia due to migration. HolyRomanEmperor 18:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

1981 says 531,502 Serbs in Croatia (11.6%). This year migration marked 60,188 less Serbs in Croatia; yet we have a positive figure on Yugoslav Serbs - there were 782,000 Serbs in Croatia (17%) HolyRomanEmperor 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

1991 calls 581,653 citizens of Croatia Serbs (12.2%). It is known that almost definatly all Yugoslavs were also Serbs. HolyRomanEmperor 18:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This clearly states that the number was constantly decreased and supprassed. Besides, calculation counts 380,032 exiled Serbs from Croatia (not calculating "others" who were Serbs). HolyRomanEmperor 18:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

And you can't even imagine the grim on my face when I went to Zagreb and saw that I was listed as a citizen of Croatia (I am a war refugee that lives in Serbia and Montenegro) This created doubts in my mind whether the current a-little-over 200,000 Serbs in Croatia number is completly correct :P HolyRomanEmperor 18:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Original Krajina
I feel like this whole section needs to be placed in a separate article. "Republic of Srpska Krajina" really has nothing to do with Krajina during the Austro-Hungarian/Ottoman times. The map of this original Krajina is particularly confusing to the reader. Request to create a separate article, or merge it with "Military Krajina" article. Nouanoua 02:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree, the section is good introduction to the history of RSK. It is also not quite true that RSK has nothing to do with Austro-Hungarian Krajina. And why do you think that the map would confuse readers? Nikola 16:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What history of RSK!?? It has no history, except this Military Krajina which is not a history of RSK but of the entire region, irrespective of the illegal entity during the 90s. I see no reason for that section to be in this article when there is a completely separate article Military Krajina that deals with this history. As far as the image... it does not help the reader understand what RSK was and where it was. Instead right near the top of the article, it shows the map of Military Krajina and other regions during Austria-Hungry, which makes no sense to me. RSK is not a continution of Military Krajina, but something rather unrelated. Nouanoua 17:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I also don't understand how AH Krajina is related to RSK. RSK was created in 1990, and this is the start of it's "history". Also, the article is way to long and detailed. 16:19 23 December (UTC)

This article is lacking the main reason for Serbian people's rebellion: the 1990 illegal (towards any Yugoslav law) constitution of Croatia that also contradicted itself in which the Serbs in Croatia are stripped of full rights (they are no longer a constitutional nation, only a minority) HolyRomanEmperor 22:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Serbs weren't the constitutional nation in Croatia. Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I (Basic principles of Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia, section I): "...utvrđeno je da JE hrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj....... izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku." (...it was confirmed that Croat people HAS established (in the common fight in national-liberation war and socialist revolution, together with Serb people and other nations and nationalities in Croatia) HIS OWN state, SR Croatia. As you see, only singular form is used. Ustav SRH, čl. 1. (Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia): "SR Hrvatska je: (SR Croatia is) - nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda ( national state of Croat people) - država srpskog naroda i  ( state of Serb people) - država narodnosti koje u njoj žive.''" ( state of other nationalities that live in Croatia) Serbs weren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they were mentioned specifically, but nothing more. Croatia is national state solely to Croats. Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država". Source: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004.. There you have it, please don't spread that POV about Serbs as "constitutive people" anymore. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming "RSK"
I changed the name of RSK in so called "RSK", because;

Croatian Republic (RH) is a legal succesor of Socialistic Croatian Republic (SR H) which (whith other socialistic republics) made Socialistic Federal Republic Yugoslavia (SFRJ). By study of Baudilaire Comission SFRJ broke apart and every of its parts became independent. Republic of Croatia exist in unbroken continuum in that time ('90ies). So caled "RSK" is parastate which existed in & ocupated territory of another souveren nation (RH). I also corrected that so called "RSK" had right to secede from Croatia and to stay in SFRJ. By study of Baudilaire comission it did not have that right. Ceha 22:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your use of "so-called". It's an extremely loaded form of words and fails NPOV; we're not in the business of deciding whether a self-proclaimed state is a legitimate entity or not. -- ChrisO 22:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Serbian Krajina is a misnomer
The title of this article should be “Republic of Serb Krajina” – not Serbian Krajina – because Serbian is a term used to distinguish Serbs from Serbia (Serbians). Serbs from Croatia are not Serbians, thus it should be Republic of Serb Krajina not Republic of 'Serbian' Krajina.

Recent changes
As for "Serbs began to increasingly fear a nationalist Croatian government, and the return of fascism and ethnic killing. Whether realistic or otherwise, such talk provided a powerful rallying point for Serbian nationalists opposed to the prospect of living in a newly independent Croatian state." is exchanged by "Serbs began to resent Croatia wanting to become their own country, because most followed the idea of a "Greater Serbia", where Croatian land was really "Serbian"." Better said serbian POV is changed to croatian POV (as for ideas of greater Serbia look at and statments of Seselj. JNA at the time was Serb dominated. "Serbs became opposed to the regime of Tuđman for his demands of an independent Croatia. More specifically, they saw this process as resulting in a loss of certain number of their minority rights. Also, Tudjman in his political speaches tried to deny role of Ustase in Second World War. Serbs felt unsecure in new Croatian state, especially when compare it with NDH, Independent State of Croatia during WW II. After the election of Tuđman in April 1990, a new Croatian constitution was passed in December 1990. This constitution declared Croatia to be the nation state of Croats. The constitution downgraded the status of Serbs from a nation within Croatia to that of a minority. This only heightened the sensitivity of Serb demands for cultural autonomy, language rights among many other demands. The constitution contradicted the Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, despite Croatia still being legally part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Serbs responded to these rejections by leaving parliament. The rebellion of the Croatian Serbs was thus set in motion" is changed by "Serbs became opposed to the regime of Tuđman for his demands of an independent Croatia. More specifically, they saw this process as ruining their image of a Greater Serbia. After the election of Tuđman in April 1990, a new Croatian constitution was passed in December 1990. This constitution declared Croatia to be the nation state of Croats, since they made up 78% of the population. The constitution put the status of Serbs within Croatia to that of a minority, infuriating Serb radicals. Many Serbs try to justify their so called independent state by saying the constitution contradicted the Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, despite Croatia still being legally part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. But Croatia declared independence from Yugoslavia, which meant they would follow their own constitution." and by the statments of Baudilaire comission Yugoslavia fell apart and (S)R Croatia is one of its succesors. Serbs politics were oposed to Croatian independence, not just to Tudjman's policy.

"The fighting in the Krajina generally took the form of Serbian attacks on Croatian police posts and state buildings, with the Croatian police fighting back. In addition, there were numerous attacks on civilian targets, such as the blowing up and burning of houses belonging to people of the "wrong" ethnic group, and inevitably the killing of civilians. Serb paramilitaries were often initially armed with small arms. However the JNA soon gave them free access to army equipment, up to and including armoured vehicles and artillery. The European Union and United Nations attempted to broker ceasefires and peace settlements. The truces however were repeatedly broken, often after only a few hours, as one side tried to play the diplomats for their political advantage." is changed to "Serbs began numerous attacks on Croatians in the area, with many calling themselves Chetniks. They massacred Croatian villages and ruined Croatian towns, killing a large number of people. They were supported by the JNA, which provided them military arms. Many Croatians fled their homes, or were forced out by the rebel Serbs. The European Union and United Nations attempted to broker ceasefires and feeble peace settlements, but to no avail." because as JNA was pro-Serb, and most of weapons of TO were captured by JNA, Croats did not have any weapons, so it is pointeless to talk about "fighting". Non-serbian population is mostly Croatian one (why should this be hidden) "The score by then, in the undeclared war against Croatia, was 2,200 Croats killed, 140,000 refugees, razed villages, shelled towns, destroyed cultural monuments, churches, hospitals, old people's homes, kindergartens. TV transmitters were also destroyed, cameramen and journalists of the Croatian Radio and Television were killed." is added. And so one... -- Ceha 21:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That is Croatian POV --212.200.202.222 10:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to discuss & change something please argument it. -- Ceha 21:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sentence"The Krajina Serbs did not initially seek independence for their area." is not true. They wanted to stay in Yugoslavia (which was braking apart). So, basicly the whole project was about to stop Croatian independence. Even when they occupied that area they were talking about anexion of that territories to Serbia. They wanted independence from Croatia and autonomus regions (from which other Croatian citizens were forcibly evicted and fired upon) where just first step along the way.

-- Ceha 11:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Serbs weren't the constitutional nation in Croatia, they weren't stripped of their rights, Constitution from 1991 hasn't downgraded their status. Osnovna načela Ustava SRH, odlomak I (Basic principles of Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia, section I): "...utvrđeno je da JE hrvatski narod zajedno sa srpskim narodom i narodnostima u Hrvatskoj....... izvojevAO ... u zaj. borbi sa drugim narodima i narodnostima Jugoslavije u NOR-u i socij. revoluciji ...nacionalnu slobodu, te uspostavIO svoju državu - SR Hrvatsku." (...it was confirmed that Croat people HAS established (in the common fight in national-liberation war and socialist revolution, together with Serb people and other nations and nationalities in Croatia) HIS OWN state, SR Croatia. As you see, only singular form is used. Ustav SRH, čl. 1. (Constitution of Socialist Republic of Croatia): "SR Hrvatska je: (SR Croatia is) - nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda ( national state of Croat people) - država srpskog naroda i  ( state of Serb people) - država narodnosti koje u njoj žive.''" ( state of other nationalities that live in Croatia) Serbs weren't in any higher position than other nationalities in SR Croatia, although they were mentioned specifically, but nothing more. Croatia is national state solely to Croats. Jedino je Hrvatima SR Hrvatska nacionalna država, ostalima je samo "država". Source: Dunja Bonacci Skenderović i Mario Jareb: Hrvatski nacionalni simboli između stereotipa i istine, Časopis za suvremenu povijest, god. 36, br. 2, str. 731.-760., 2004.. There you have it, please don't spread that POV about Serbs as "constitutive people" anymore. Kubura (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Map discussion
First off Ceha, the map you're referring me to is of a too small resolution for me to be able to make anything out. Secondly, the map we do have doesn't exclude the possibility of Croat villages around Doboj. It shows a few mixed and Croat areas very near to the city, so I don't see how it contradicts what you're saying. // estavisti 00:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this map large enough for you?:) I gave you the link to watch which contains all the lesser maps (of every village). Please next time look a little bit closer. There is a census with this maps so you can see for each village what it looks like. Also in the previous map there is no mention of Serb mixed areas northwest of the city (you can look at the census), and map with incorections shows that area 100% Serbian....

Ceha 22:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, now I see. Still, the site you link to is hardly very reliable - it's such a hardline Bosniak nationalist site that it accuses Alija Izetbegović of betraying BiH! A report is a report though. --Еstavisti 00:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, they might be what they might be:), but census of 1991 is correct(can be googled out). Also look for info about town population of Sanski Most, Prijedor and Foča (add all the numbers of town setlemns (marked with g)) which show serbian relative majority (in the cities, not in the whole municipalities). Or the Croat relative majority in the towns of Travnik and Bugojno (or Bosniak in the Bosanska Gradiška). Data is data --Ceha 02:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the map; yes, it might have some errors, but nothing is perfect, and it doesn't look bad. I say we just leave it alone unless someone has a better map. --Jesuislafete 08:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, map is not deleted it is just stated that it has some inacuracies. Second most of those are in serbian favor so map is slightly POV. And noone is going to look for batter map if we do not state that this have errors:) --Ceha 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)