Free Republic

No, Austria triggered the war by illegaly, and contrary to the Berliner Congress agreement of 1878, annexing Bosnia in 1908.

More BS propoganda... While it's true that at the end of the war, the aggressors were pushed out of Krajina, it was nowhere near the 500,000 figure.

If we do not go into that “far” history from 1914, (as we are always blamed) we can only then refer to census in 1981. And numbers are:

In 1981 there was 11,5 percent of Serbs and 8.24 % of Yugoslavs, Others (or “neopredeljeni”) 3.61% out of 4,578 million inhabitants in Croatia.

Then: Serbs: 11,5 % out of 4,578,000 = 526, 470;

Yugoslavs: 8.24% out of 4,578,000 = 377,227;

Others: 3.61% out of 4,578,000 = 165,265;

If we assume that half of the Serbs declared themselves as Yugoslavs without “others” That is around 188,000.

So the number of Serbs in 1981 would be close to: 526,470 + 188,000 = 714,470;

If you add to that number average birth rate in Croatia and Slovenia (as lowest one in Yu) during 80ies you got number close to 900,000 Serbs living in Croatia on the beginning of nineties, without “indeterminate“ (neopredeljenih) Wow - did I make up all of that?

As there are today only about 200.000 Serbs left in Croatia you can do the math by yourself:

900,000 - 200,000 = 700,000

You were partly right with your BS, that it was nowhere near the 500,000 figure. More like 700,000.

Teritorial distribution of Serbs in Croatia (according to settlements) according to the population census on March 31, 1981

According to you should that say:

Teritorial distribution of Aggressors in Croatia (according to settlements) according to the population census on March 31, 1981 ?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/740046/posts

KLA Comnmander Remi Expels 220,000 Albanian Civilians

Columbia U. | Nov 1999 | Max Sinclair

Posted on 08/27/2002 8:23 AM PDT by vooch

Commander Remi began expelling Albanians from the Llap region once the international monitors pulled out. The sole intent of this strategy seems to have been to provoke a refugee crisis. Evidently, the KLA knew it could only rise to power through the maximum suffering of the very people it purported to be defending.

Chris Bird of the Guardian filed a story on Saturday March 20, 1999 which described how the KLA knocked on people's doors in Srbica telling them they had to "leave immediately, at one in the morning" as the UCK spread land mines throughout the village. The villagers then had to walk miles through a wind swept snowy night.

The tide of KLA induced refugees grew until it reached 160,000 as described by Lirak Qelaj. Qelaj acted in part as an information officer for Commander Remi and one of his jobs was to film the plight of displaced Albanian civilians with a video camera. Qelaj " disclosed that it was KLA advice, rather than Serbian deportations, which led some of the hundreds of thousands of Albanians to leave Kosovo" as reported by Jonathan Steele of the Guardian on June 30th.

In one episode, around 160,000 displaced people were stranded near the village of Kolic on the east side of the Pristina-Podujevo road. Qelaj said the UCK " urged the people to go on to the main road and start walking to Pristina." note: what Qelaj forgot to mention to Jonathan Steele was the trilfing fact that Remi's men had to shoot 80 civilians who refused to be expelled. This was reported in a BBC TV report aired in March 2000.

Sometime in late April, in the north of the Llap region, the KLA urged another crowd hiding from the bombing and numbering almost 60,000 to leave for Macedonia and Albania according to Qelaj.

In Remi's zone of operations alone, the KLA expelled 220,000 Albanians. This is keeping with the pattern Remi established prior to the bombing. Albanians were only worthy of decent treatment if they were actively supporting the KLA. Those who stood on the sidelines were to be used for propaganda purposes or worse.

Yes. It's a tradegy the west aided the destruction of the old Yugoslavia by supporting the neo-fascist secessionist movements. The opposite should have been done: supporting the federal organs and NATO bombing the sh*t out of the Neo-Ustasas and Islamo-fascist seperatists. They wouldn't have dared to provoke a civil war in that case.

LONDON (Reuters) - New information from remote locations of Iraq has pushed up the civilian death toll from the U.S.-led war by 500 in the last month to at least 6,000, an Anglo-American research group says.

The Iraq Body Count's (IBC) latest figures, based on media reports and more than a dozen counting projects from independent investigators in and outside Iraq, put the minimum number of civilians dead at 6,055 and the maximum at 7,706.

"Both the U.S. & the U.K. said they were taking every effort to minimise civilian casualties and talked a lot about smart, precision weapons," IBC researcher John Sloboda told Reuters.

"From that, one could have expected a clean war with very few casualties, but I don't call 5,000 to 7,000 very few. It is clear the coalition claims were political claptrap."

The latest IBC toll has risen by about 500 after information arrived from areas that had not been reached before by outsiders. The group says its statistics are the most comprehensive collation of civilian deaths available.

"If you look at a map of Iraq, there are still a lot of places, that you would imagine allied troops have gone through, where there have been no reports of killings yet, simply because no journalist or researcher has gone there," said Sloboda, a psychology professor from Britain's Keele University.

The IBC, run by British and American academics and peace activists, has chastised London and Washington for not setting up an official investigation into civilian deaths.

"Then there are the deaths by malnutrition and dehydration as a consequence of the war which we haven't even started talking about," Sloboda added.

The United States and Britain have repeatedly stressed their tactics were designed to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.

But they are declining to give estimates.

"We made every effort to reduce civilian casualties by a careful targeting policy," a spokesman for Britain's Ministry of Defence said.

At the Berliner Kongress in 1878, Bosnia was given to Austria-Hungaria for a period of 30 years. Bosnia was to be administered by the Austro-Hungarian empire and before that it was part of the Ottoman empire for a few hundred years. In 1908 Austria-Hungaria annexed Bosnia, which was contrary to the decisions agreed at the Berliner Kongress. The majority population of Bosnia at that time was Serbian. There were no Austrians living in Bosnia, nor Hungarians. Austria-Hungaria's claim to Bosnia is therefore disputable. Bosnia was annexed against the will of it's inhabitants, who were fed up of beeing enslaved by empires. So saying the Prince had no business being in Bosnia is like saying President Bush cannot tour the southwest of the US, because of Mexican separatists like Aztlan, is like don't having a clue really.

Sad but true.

So yes, Serbia is going to go down in the history books as the bete noire of the Balkans in the 1990's - but that outcome was determined by the Serbs themselves in places like Vukovar, Srebrenica, and Racak - not in the Pentagon.

The outcome was predetermined by the 'great powers' and there will be a lot of 'revisionist' history. Unfortunately for you, I guess, but there will allways be people seeking the truth and not the Hague's version of history.

As to the Serbs outside of Serbia, they made their choices, and have forfeited the chance to attempt the same for at least a generation. If they still feel like joining Serbia is in their best interst in 50 years or so, and they can convince the countries they live in that it is in their best interest to go, then there is a chance they may succeed.

But I will tell you this, DEI, any attempts to change international borders through use of force will result in more of the same of what happened in the 1990's. It didn't work this time around, and it won't work in the future.

You miss the big picture here and I assume you do so intentionally. The first attempt to change international borders through use of force was made by the violent secession of Croatia and Bosnia, assisted by outside recognition (aggression through recognition). Only after this, the Serbs proclaimed their own secession from these illegal statelets and I repeat, they did so in response. Why do you say the Serbs should try to insist on their right to self-determination 50 years later on? What will change in 50 years? Why wasn't it possible for Croatia and Bosnia to let the Serbs go, in the same way it was possible for Yugoslavia to let Slovenia and Macedonia go? So the Serbs can exercise their right to self-determination in 50 years, why couldn't they have done that at the begining of the 1990's? That would have prevented a lot off bloodshed. But hell no, Germany and the US didn't like it? Why should the Serbs convince anyone to grant them their rights they have fought and died for, for decades and centuries? Should they ask the Neo-Ustasa's in Zagreb and the Islamofascists in Sarajevo for permission? My a$$!

But I will tell you this, DEI, any attempts to change international borders through use of force will result in more of the same of what happened in the 1990's. It didn't work this time around, and it won't work in the future.

It did work for the Ustasas and Islamofascists and this is the hypocrisy and the doublestandard I will never accept, no matter what your history books will tell.

An end to the specious defences of Milosevic and his actions - you've pretty much conceded the point on the command responsibility issue, DEI.

This is not about Milosevic and I think you know that. The trial will define 'what' history was and is in the balkans. The 'Kriegsschuldfrage' will be answered accordingly to the outcome of the trial. And the outcome of the trial was already determined long ago at the Pentagon, the White House, the State Departement, you name it.

Perhaps we can move on to other things, like figuring out how to rebuild the Serbian economy and integrating it into Europe.

That would be nice for a change, and as there's no end of opportunities for rancorous disagreement when it comes to economics, we could maintain our usual relationship while arguing about how to construct a better future rather than apportioning blame for a disasterous past.

Hoplite, it is my strong believe that there can't be economic, political progress and prosperity for Serbia as long as the occupation continues and the Serbs west of the Drina are denied their right to self-determination and their right to join Serbia for a new and democratic Serbian Federation. First things first. As long as you oppose this goal, for whatever reason, we will be in fundamental disagreement.