Talk:Operation Storm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

[edit] On removing POV

I've reverted the latest anonymous edit en masse because it didn't appear to contribute much other than POV and hearsay. I'll probably look at the diff in detail later and see if any actual factoids can be salvaged. --Joy [shallot] 22:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Should they prove to be authentic, as far as the major points are concerned, they present the case for clean and brilliant military operation that decisively defeated the Serbian expansion of the 90ies and paved the way to the Dayton peace agreement."

This line, and in fact the whole Controversy section, doesn't abide a neutral POV. I'm not familiar enough with the details of Operation Storm to correct this all, but this certainly shouldn't be allowed to stand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.119.118.12 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC).

One should add that the Serbs who were driven out during Storm were not backed by Milosevic at the time, they had been abandoned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.70.153.38 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC).

"clean and brilliant military operation" - could stand, "defeated the Serbian expansion" - could not stand, because Serbs lived there for ages. I agree that this paragraph shoud be changed. --Majmun 18:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The following document makes me believe that Krajina Serb exodus was initiated by the RSK Supreme Defence Council. This was also echoed by the former president of Republic of Serb Krajina Milan Babic:
(the following was translated into English...)

REPUBLIC OF SERB KRAJINA
SUPREME DEFENCE COUNCIL

Knin, 4th Aug 1995
16.45 hrs
No: 2-3113-1/95.
Due to a newly created situation appearing from a large-scale agression of the Republic of Croatia against the Republic of Serb Krajina and in spite of successful defence at the beginning, the greater part of North Dalmatia and the part of Lika are endangered. Having considered all these facts
WE DECIDED
1. To start evacuating population unfit to military service from the municipalities of Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, Drniö and Graãac.
2. Evacuation to be carried out according to the plan towards direction of Knin and furthermore via Otriç, and towards Srb and Lapac.
3. UNPROFOR HQ Sector South Knin to be requested support.
Knin, 4th Aug 1995

Certified by Serb Army HQ dtd 4th Aug 1995 at 17.20 hrs under Reg. No. as above.
P R E S I D E N T
Mile Martiç

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mynameismine (talk • contribs) 09:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] What does "Casualties" mean?

I'm against the redefining of the term "casualties" by including people who left their homes. If one consults dictionary.com, the definitions are as follows:

1. An accident, especially one involving serious injury or loss of life.

2. One injured or killed in an accident: a train wreck with many casualties.

3. One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: Battlefield casualties were high.

4. One that is harmed or eliminated as a result of an action or a circumstance: The corner grocery was a casualty of the expanding supermarkets. [1]

"People who left their homes" do not fit into any of the above - except, perhaps, into definition #4, which is chiefly metaphorical. Still, the grey box on the right ("Battlebox") shows a military textbook-style information on a particular battle, used in a number of articles; in that sense, when one speaks of casualties, only definition #3 makes sense and is appropriate.

I have no objection to discussing the effects of a battle on a civilian population, provided it is done elsewhere in the article (especially that, in fact, it already is). GregorB 22:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Choice of the word "casualties" is perhaps not optimal; I believe that, in sense #3, slightly more correct would be "losses". This is, of course, a template issue. GregorB 22:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

This war and battle are very specific and controversial. The entry "left their homes", gives something to think about. "Why? What were historical/present/at-the-time reasons, if any? Is that something that contradicts some other information?" We are not talking about some small number of people, but ~200 000, and that is something that should not be left out of "immediate" after-effects.

There's more - this is not military report, to base information solely on info strictly involving "military" stuff. Alter all, this is en encyclopedia, "civil" one.

Btw, "casualties" is not suitable word at all for things like this, I agree - and not only in this example. In fact, it is "chosen" jut because of that (so that some facts could be interpreted differently). But, this has nothing to do with Wiki, but with some broader topics including use of language & psychology. As you pointed out - losses is maybe far more better choice. --Majmun 10:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely that "this is not military report" if by "this" you mean the article. It shouldn't be, and it isn't. But the infobox itself is meant to be a military report, so I think it's better that it be kept that way. Incidentally, Template_talk:Battlebox (I've read it only after my original writeup here) is also rather clear in that respect.

I'd like to add that I certainly don't consider this to be a big issue. It is simply that I had deleted extra information from the infobox, and wanted to explain here why, so that my edit is not confused for pushing a particular POV on the article. GregorB 14:00, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support from the USA

I noticed that this article claimed that Operation Storm had received air support from the US. That isn't accurate, I'm afraid: the only US activity was the destruction of two SAM sites before the start of the operation, and it wasn't linked to the operation as far as I know. I quote from http://www.afsouth.nato.int/operations/denyflight/DenyFlightFactSheet.htm :

On 4 August 95, four NATO aircraft attacked two Croatian Serb surface-to-air missile radar sites using anti-radiation "HARM" missiles. Two U. S. Navy EA-6Bs and two U. S. Navy F-18Cs struck sites near Knin and Udbina in self-defence after the aircraft' electronic warning devices indicated they were being targeted by anti-aircraft missiles.

The article also claimed that the US had supported the operation by destroying telecoms facilities. That didn't happen until Operation Deliberate Force, which took place in Bosnia (not Croatia) about 3 weeks after the end of Operation Storm. -- ChrisO 13:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

First, even if this would be the only attack, it still amounts to air support, especially given that later Croatia used aviation against Serbian civilians and that SAMs could be used to defend from it. Second, here's a link to Yugoslav aeroclub "Nasa krila" (our wings) which says "Exact list of targets is not reported, but it is known that NATO was shooting communication centers, radars AA systems, command posts and repeaters of Serbian television. Besides in this operation have also participated airplanes of Croatian air force MiG-21." Tha page details other attacks of NATO on RSK. Nasa krila is a respectable aeroclub, I think the oldest in Serbia, founded in 1921. Nikola 13:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I looked it up and it would appear that Nasa krila is definitely wrong. There were no NATO air strikes during Operation Storm (indeed, NATO was criticised by the media at the time for sitting it out). According to the Washington Post of 5 August 1995, the air strike of 4 August 1995 took place after UNPROFOR personnel at Knin requested a show of force from NATO after coming under threat from Croatian Serb forces. While on patrol near Knin, the EA-6Bs were illuminated by SAMs, which were then targeted and destroyed.

How does destroying a SAM system protects UNPROFOR personnel? Nikola 08:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't - it protects the NATO pilots. -- ChrisO 22:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The air strike took place under the auspices of Operation Deny Flight, which was the enforcement of the no-fly zone over Bosnia and the UNPAs. NATO aircraft were allowed to shoot down aircraft violating the no-fly zone, as well as attacking ground air defence sites which were deemed to pose an immediate threat. Earlier air strikes against RSK targets (such as the 21 November 1994 strike against Udbina airbase) were in response to violations of the no-fly zone.

I would guess that Nasa krila was probably thinking of the later Operation Deliberate Force, in which communication centres, radars, command posts and TV transmitters were targeted - but that was in Bosnia, not Croatia, and it wasn't until three weeks after the end of Storm. -- ChrisO 20:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I should add that the 4 August strike shouldn't be characterised as "air support" either. Look up the Wikipedia article on close air support: "Close air support (often abbreviated as CAS or CAIRS) is the use of military aircraft in a ground attack role against targets in close proximity to friendly troops, in support of ground combat operations. In this role, aircraft serve a purpose similar to that of artillery." This wasn't the case on 4 August, as the strike was mounted to defend patrolling aircraft against a hostile surface threat rather than supporting ground forces. Technically it would be counted as a defensive counter air operation. -- ChrisO 22:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Is all air support close air support or maybe there are some other kinds of air support? Nikola 08:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There are other uses of air power - air interdiction and strategic bombing come to mind. However, an attack on SAMs wouldn't have constituted close air support, as SAMs aren't a threat to the ground troops whom CAS is intended to support. If the attack had been premeditated, it would have counted as air defence suppression or offensive counter air. The rules of engagement allowed the pilots to attack air defence sites on their own initiative if their aircraft were fired on or locked onto by SAM radars, as apparently happened in this instance. -- ChrisO 22:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

so in fact although this was not a CAS it was a strategic bombing, as you say,which can be caled air support since it helped Croation Air Forecs in this battle. Thank's for the clarification. Strategic bombing is the right term for the NATO air support given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mynameismine (talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] On ethnic cleansing

This article lacks the mention of ethnic cleansing and it should be more specific about the place where it was underdone - on the soil of the Republic of Serbian Krajina HolyRomanEmperor 17:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Serbian Krajina was a crime itself. No ethnic cleansing was done on it, because it should have never existed.--Juraj j 09:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the existence of political entities (such as Serbian Krajina) is a 'crime' according to people like yourself, ethnic cleansing did occur and should STRONGLY be mentioned. (If the tables were turned, and an expulsion of 250,000 Croats from Serbia occured during the war, you can bet International media would blast reports of ethnic cleansing until infants in Timbuktu heard about it. Ironically enough, this never occured, and Serbia is still the most diverse of the former Yugoslav republics...) Stop The Lies 01:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

[edit] Article and USA

Thiis article hardly mentions the role of the US in this operation. United States officials and generals have spoken about this and their constant surveilance of Gotovina's movements. THey bloked certain pathways and HELPED ISOLATE kNIN. They provided logistics and other information ,surveying the scene, 24/7, with Predator planes and the like.

THis sort of information should be added, also the fact that the Us gave the all clear to clean -up Croatian territory and enter Krajina.

What do others think

THE MILJAKINATOR 03:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think if you can find some reliable sources, please be bold and add it to the article! If there is something notable, there's no reason why it shouldn't be in the article. Laughing Man 05:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I also would like it be noted that you should please take care on your selection of words "THE MILJAKINATOR", as your "clean -up Croatian territory and enter Krajina" is quite offensive to be frank. Laughing Man 18:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's sources:

NGO Organization, Member of United Nations: US Officials aided and abetted Croatian General Ante Gotovina

Former Croatian minister confirms CIA's involvement in 1995 military operation

Was the US behind the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia?

US Involvement in Croatian War Crimes?

Feel free to apply them to the article.Stop The Lies 02:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

[edit] Afrika paprika

User:Afrika paprika keeps removing the fact that this is marked in Serbia as the darkest day in Serb history, commemorating the dead and exiled. Why? I can't see anything in here but bad faith. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've warned him against removing content for POV reasons. -- ChrisO 08:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracy and POV statements

First where does it states that it "led to ethnic cleansing"? Second where is the statements that this action enabled the return of about 250 000 people to their homes and at least twice as much in neighbouring areas? Where are the statements that this military operation also effectively stopped the war both in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia and enabled peacful reintegration of occuppied Croatian teritory in Eastern Slavonia, Croatian Baranya and Eastern Syrmia? And last where is this supposed "krajina region"?

As it is now this article is more like a Serbian POV then a NPOV article as some like to claim here thus it warrants an accuracy dispute tag. Afrika Paprika 13:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it led to ethnic cleansing seems unsourced at first - but it's also not arguable, but almost evident. This action couldn't've enabled the return of about 250,000 people to their homes and at least twice as much in neigbouring areas (750,000 Croat refugees? Where did you get that). Krajina itself had 78,000 Croats and 2,000 Muslims in 1991 - and a minority yet remained through the Serbian occupation. Your "krajina region" mention is not understandable... --HolyRomanEmperor 23:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT A FACT but an opinion...yours at that. There is no such thing as "Krajina" and you enforcing this supposed term is showing your true side. In the occuppied territories by the 1991. census there were over 205 000 Croats living in the so-called "Republic of Serbian Krajina". In zones South and North over 110 000 and in zone East over 92 000. Your diminishing of this number seem transparent. Also we have documents saying and ordering withdrawal of civilians from the Serbian terrorist leaderhip...most of them never even saw Croatian soldiers. Also the radio stations were blocked by the Serbs themselves due to messages from Croatian authorities to stay calm and not to flee, that nothing will happen to them. Afrika Paprika 00:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Question of Objectivity

Though I absolutely agree that editing or deleting passages is disrespectful, specifically the comments made by User:Afrika_paprika. However this article reads like an extremely one-sided Serbian POV. For one, the majority of the sources is obviously Serbian. I doubt very much you will get a balanced account from either a Serbian or Croatian source - especially if it's official.

Perhaps this article should be graded as pro-Serb biased and User:Afrika_paprika would like to write an article from a different POV. Users would then be able to make their minds up which sounds more believable.

Try reading the entry on this operation in the German-language Wikipedia - it gives a clear and objective view of the topic in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.44.130.214 (talk • contribs) 10:56-11:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] BIRN

"In spite of all the controversy, Operation Storm was seen as the event that ended Serbian aggression in both Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Had it not taken place, the Bosnian city of Bihac would have fallen, and more ethnic cleansing by the Serbs would have taken place. ^[1] Many believe that had it not been for Operation Storm, a Greater Serbia would still exist. "

The following source on "BIRN" is by Brian Gallagher from the ~~propaganda~~ "lobbying" organization, "Croatian Worldwide Association" [2]. Hardly a reliable source. // Laughing Man 22:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On ethnic cleansing 2

I will ad something- biggest diference between ethnic cleansing and this army operation is they simply fled before army even came!!! Ethnik cleansing that Serbs done prevously on that teritory and later in Bosnia, was unther their control and sistematicly true the years and orginased killing under theire goverment like in [srebrenica] masacre.-ivan zg

Oluja was not "ethnic cleansing." Did you actually read the Amnesty article? Nowhere does it say that 200,000 Croatian Serbs were "cleansed;" rather, it says that there were individual crimes committed during and after the operation. ...Which is very different than saying that the entire operation was a concerted effert to terrify and expel all of the Krajina Serbs. Mihovil 01:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International article states [3]: "During and after these military offensives, some 200,000 Croatian Serbs, including the entire Croatian Serb Army, fled to the neighbouring Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina under Bosnian Serb control. In the aftermath of the operations members of the Croatian Army and police murdered, tortured, and forcibly expelled Croatian Serb civilians who had remained in the area as well as members of the withdrawing Croatian Serb armed forces." I don't know how else you would describe the displacement of an ethnic group from a territory. I would appriciate it this reliable source is not removed as it has been previously by the following users:

Thank you // Laughing Man 06:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you still don't get it. Those 200,000 people left pretty much of their own volition. If you are going to argue that those who remained were ethnically cleansed, that's another matter. But as it stands now, you have cited this source incorrectly and inappropriately. That's why we have been removing it. Mihovil 13:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Of their own volition? Are you out of your mind? I know people who were too scared to visit their home towns in 2006, 11 years after the war. Needless to say, I've reverting - no need for you to delete sources. --estavisti 15:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see anything about "ethnic cleansing"? "some 200,000 Croatian Serbs, including the entire Croatian Serb Army, fled to the neighbouring Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina under Bosnian Serb control" <- This doesn't sound to me like "ethnic cleansing", does it to you? Afrika Paprika 25:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

<------ Great, but that doesn't prove much, and convinces me of absolutely nothing. The propaganda machine in Belgrade had people in a frenzy, telling them that if they stayed, it would be a repeat of NDH. I'm not denying that crimes were committed, but the operation as a whole was not ethnic cleansing. I'm reverting.Mihovil 02:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The propaganda machine? Before the war even started, Serbs were been discriminated against and killed. I suppose the Croats who fled Croatia because they had Serb wives etc were also under the influence of the supposed "Belgrade propaganda machine"? --estavisti 02:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence. Either provide something more reliable than your word, or cite the amnesty article properly. Mihovil 02:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Like where for example? And what Croats fled because of their Serb wives? I have an uncle who is married to my aunt..he is a Serb...he didn't fled. What the hell are you ranting about? Afrika Paprika 25:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of just repeating "don't remove my reference," why don't you consider the reason I gave for removing it? As I see it, you have distorted what the Amnesty article was saying, and the reference should therefore be removed. I am not interested in some stupid edit war, and I am willing to work out a compromise, but you must be willing to do the same. Ok? Mihovil 22:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with compromsing on this issue, I just think it's unacceptable to remove a "reliable source". I've just disambiguated displacement. // Laughing Man 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but this reliable source is very shortsited. It mentions what it belives to be the reason of he displaceent o all Serbs. It does not look into any hidden agenda which might be behind the leaving of so many serbs, and that was a result of Belgrade's propaganda machine. The source has not been cited correctly.

P.S i still have to get started on that USA bit, i just havent had the time.

THE MILJAKINATOR 03:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Who removed those external links and why? Unless you give me a good enough reason, they're going back where they belong.Stop The Lies 01:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

User "Rts freak" you removed them. Why did you remove them? If you do not give a good enough reason, they are going back. Stop The Lies 01:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

I forgot to put a summary of my edit: I replaced the external links Stop The Lies 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

[edit] Factual Accuracy

Just wondering which facts are disputed so we can try to reach consensus and remove the box: "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed" at the top. If the discussions in this talk page contains all of the disputes, I don't think that box should be there, because many articles have much more significant disputes and do not have the box. (And please no one bring up ethnic cleansing, that is not a 'factual error'. There can be disagreement if ethnic cleansing occured, but that doesn't mean that the "factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed"...and I don't see any mention of it in the article anyway. Stop The Lies 11:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

[edit] External Links 2

How convenient for user:161.53.116.99 to put the BBC article (trusted source) at the bottom of the external links (simply because it is sympathetic to the Serb cause), and replace it with two YouTube clips which are very far from being Wikipedia material. Not only do the links contain insulting/derogatory remarks in the comments but the videos themselves are propaganda. One example of propaganda is when a man claims that Croatian forces received no external help. This is widely reported to be false, as Croatia did in fact receive external aid. Feel free to add links, but make sure they comply with Wikipedia standards. Stop The Lies 05:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

[edit] Intro lines

Stop the Lies, I've reverted the edit concering the number of displaced Bosnians. As you may know, Croatia took the higher number of refugees of Bosnian nationality then any other country in the world since 1992. The number of dispalced Croatians was high, but not nearly as high as this figure. Plus, if they were all Croatians from Bosnia, it would mean about 30% of the Croat population was displaced - much too high, especially since the majority-Croatian parts (south-west Herzegovina) in Bosnia wasn't directly in the war - most of the Croat-Bosnian war was fought in central Bosnia.

Concerning the second subject, the line "majority of them from Krajina proper", I don't have a source, but I find the line logical. The area of Krajina constituted about 80% of Serb-controlled areas in Croatia. By total numbers of population, it is obvious they were from there: the pre-war population of eastern Slavonia was no higher then 80.000 (high number were also Serbs) and this was the second largest area under Serb control. The Spanish Inquisitor 07:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Krajina had a large Serb population for a long time. Only after 1995 was the Serb population of Krajina lessened due to ethnic cleansing. A source is necessary, or the line will be removed. I do not find it 'logical'. Stop The Lies 08:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

We are talking about the Croatian population of Krajina, not Serb. You know, the one that was ethnically cleansed in 1991... Croats made up about 200-300.000 people who were driven off. I'll find a source stating that Krajina was 30% Croat in 1990 and 2% Croat in 1992. Will that please you? The Spanish Inquisitor 08:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "pleasing" individuals. Wikipedia is about the facts. If you can find a reliable source that claims so then yes, of course it belongs on Wikipedia. I have not seen one yet. Stop The Lies 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Milan Babić indictment (http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/bab-ii031117e.htm):

"The deportation or forcible transfer of thousands of Croat and other non-Serb civilians from the SAO Krajina/RSK. According to the 1991 census the total population of the SAO Krajina/RSK was 286,716. Croats amounted to 78,611 (27, 42%) of the total population. Only 1,932 (0,67%) Muslims were registered at that time. Virtually the whole Croat, Muslims and non-Serb population of the SAO Krajina/RSK was forcibly removed, deported or killed." - I'm modifing the sentance and adding this source. The Spanish Inquisitor 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refugees from Bosnia

This is a direct quote from the source:

"Attacks against and harassment of Muslim refugees escalated in 1993 but have since subsided. Most of the attacks against Muslim refugees were due to hostility felt against Muslims who fought Bosnian Croat forces in central Bosnia throughout 1993. In early 1994, a rapprochement between Bosnian Croats and Muslims, on the one hand, and the Republics of Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina on the other, decreased tensions between Muslims and Croats in general. In recent months, conciliatory press coverage and government statements have led to a decrease in attacks against Muslim refugees in Croatia. However, following the expulsion of Bosnian Croats and Muslims from their homes in the Bosnian Serb-held city of Banja Luka in August 1995, the Croatian government has reportedly been allowing Croats to enter Croatia but has only accepted a small number of Muslims, most of whom remain on the Croatian-Bosnian border. Also in August 1995, the Croatian government was obstructing deliverance of humanitarian aid to rebel Muslims loyal to Fikret Abdi_, a renegade leader aligned with the Bosnian and Croatian Serbs against Bosnian-government forces in the Biha_ area.

The fighting between Croats and Muslims in central Bosnia in 1993 resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of persons. Many displaced Bosnian Croats came to Croatia as refugees, and some of these refugees attacked Bosnian Muslim refugees currently living in Croatia. The Croatian government did little to protect Bosnian Muslim refugees from attack. Moreover, the anti-Muslim propaganda regularly heard on the state-controlled television and radio throughout 1993 exacerbated tensions between Muslims and Croats in Croatia.

As of March 1995, the Croatian government was providing refuge to 189,000 refugees from Bosnia and 196,000 persons who have been internally displaced as a result of the war in Croatia in 1991 and thereafter."

Therefore, the 189,000 refugees from Bosnia were displaced due to Croat/Muslim tension.

Also, always explain/justify your edits, as I did. Stop The Lies 07:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Like you quoted the article, there WERE Bosnian refugees there. Claiming that there were ALL Croat refugees from the war is silly. After all, the article says these refugees were attacked. How could they have been attacked if there weren't there? In March 1995, the war in Bosnia was still very much active and Bosnian Moslems couldn't have just returned to their homes in the meantime. Like I said, Croatia held the largest number of Bosnian Moslem refugees in the world and you're negating that by misqouting a source. The same way you want me to provide a direct quote for "Krajina proper", find a direct quote for this or remove it. The Spanish Inquisitor 08:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes of course there were Bosnian refugees... wow you are really not understanding me... My edit to the article was saying that those 189,000 refugees from Bosnia came due to CROAT/MUSLIM conflict. AS THIS SOURCE CLEARLY STATES. What part of this don't you understand??? Stop The Lies 08:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

In fact, the 189,000 shouldn't even be in that sentence, because that sentence is talking about reasons Croat authorities gave for Operation Storm, and CROAT/MUSLIM tension couldn't be one of the reasons. Stop The Lies 08:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

OK, it's out of place here, but I'm saying that a large number of these 189.000 came BEFORE 1994 (majority in 1992) - not thanks to Croat/Moslem war. They didn't just show up overnight when the Bosnian-Croat war started, but the inflow of refugees was steady since 1992. The first two areas of Bosnia attacked by Serb forces were Posavina (north) and west Bosnia - from both of which refugees could have only fled over the border to Croatia. In fact, in early 1993 (before Croat/Moslem war) Slovenia had taken some 70.000 Moslem refugees before they closed the borders to Croatia saying they couldn't handle any more. The Spanish Inquisitor 08:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it's besides the point, just remove it.The Spanish Inquisitor 08:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Stop The Lies 08:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

[edit] Croatia says this, Croatia claims that

I couldn't escape a feeling that there was a certain cinicism in the sentences I edited. There undoubtably was ethnic cleansing of Croats from "Kraina"'s territory yet the fact is stated somewhat half-heartedly and the reader is led to doubt it's credibility. The figures I'm not gonna go into, so I left them under the 'according to Croatia' frase. The same goes for the motivation of Croatia's government in the operation. There is no reason for this to be doubted. DIREKTOR

[edit] Removing unreliable article

That article is not a reliable source--extremely POV written by a Serb who does not acknowledge any wrong in anything the Serbs did, excuses every crime they commited, and even tries to diminish Srebrenica. His writing is very juvenile, he refers to the United States as "the Empire" and says Tudjman brought a "revival" of Pavelic's symbols and vocabulary (a blatant lie--the grb he is does not want to mention has been a Croatian symbol for centuries), he says Serb agression in Croatia was "imaginary" (I guess all those exiled and dead Croats are imaginary too), writes sarcastically that the Americans trained the Croatians in "democracy" and "human rights" (italiacs were put in by him). He uses incorrect and inflated Serb numbers instead of the more neutral U.N. numbers and claims all Serbs who were left behind were killed (another lie), claims only a tenth of the Serbs who lived in Croatia before the war have returned (huge lie--try one third). He even had the nerve to write "Tudjman made Pavelic's dream to rid Croatia of Serbs a reality." He further bumbles on about Srebrenica and Kosovo, and finishes it off by saying "Where the Nazis failed, the American Empire has succeeded." That is why I removed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.195.70.237 (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree - see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. We need to take care that we're not directing readers towards fringe sources. -- ChrisO 20:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The said link IS a reliable source.

No, he does not excuse every crime they (Serbs) committed, this is simply a commentary on the crime that Croats committed. (Is that not allowed? A commentary on a Croat crime?)
No, he does not try to diminish Srebrenica. He compares Srebrenica and Oluja:

"In both cases, a UN "safe area" was targeted by the attack. In Srebrenica, the UN at least tried to protect Muslim civilians; in Krajina, it did no such thing. Serbs evacuated Muslim noncombatants from Srebrenica; Serbs who did not flee Krajina were killed. Yet Srebrenica is somehow "genocide," while Oluja is a victory worth a national holiday"

What he says is factual, and he brings to light how the fact that Oluja is praised is horrendous.

I disagree that his writing is juvenile: (1) The US is very commonly referred to as the American "Empire" (2) Before Tudjman the 'symbols' and 'vocabulary' were not present since WWII (Tito didn't allow it), so yes, he does bring a revival. He even quotes Tudjman, so it's not as if he's making stuff up.
He says that the revival of suppressed Ustasa ideology and "not some imaginary "aggression" from Serbia – was the root of their "rebellion" - there was no aggression from Serbia. And yes, millions of people (mostly Serbs) believe that this was the reason for Oluja (and we do include dissenting/contradictory views on Wikipedia as long as there's a significant number of people who hold those views, don't we)
He never added italics to "democracy" and "human rights", so you are lying. He added quotes to illustrate that these are actual words used by "officers, working for (US) government contractor MPRI". There is no sarcasm.
You claim that Serb numbers are inccorect, showing your POV, which is fine. But all sides should be able to give their numbers (just as the Croats should be able to give their numbers, which are significantly lower than the UN numbers), and he specifically says "According to Serb documentation", showing that he is not trying to pass them off as UN numbers and that he will let the reader decide for himself if he will agree with those numbers.
Um, yes, the Serbs that stayed behind in Krajina were not only killed, but were also raped and tortured (something this 'biased' writer doesn't even include). That is no lie. Croat soldiers went from house to house exterminating the Krajina Serb population.
Please provide a reference for your claim that by 2005 a 3rd of Serbs had returned to Croatia.
The quote "Tudjman made Pavelic's dream to rid Croatia of Serbs a reality" is a very honest quote. After the war, Croatia did rid itself of many many Serbs (which was Pavelic's dream - Pavelic= WWII Ustasa leader, under whose command a concentration camp was set up in which 500,000 to 1,000,000 Serbs (among other ethnic groups) were brutally exterminated - and you want to say that Pavelic's dream WASN'T to rid Croatia of Serbs???!)
Your use of POV wording such as "bumbles" doesn't help. He correctly compares the case in Krajina to the case in Kosovo.
The Nazis, who helped the Ustase, failed to remove Serbs from Croatia, the US, who helped the Croatian gov't, succeeded in removing Serbs from Croatia. Therefore "Where the Nazis failed, the American Empire has succeeded".

I have answered EVERY SINGLE one of your attemps to paint the link as an unreliable POV source. But, I will NOT replace it, because I am not one to start an edit war over one link (in most cases). I will however, put the link here, so anyone can use it as another source, for the case of ethnic cleansing that was Operation Storm (Maîtresse 22:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)):

ANTIWAR.COM - REMEMBERING THE STORM

Maîtresse, up until now I was very tolerant of your editing, but you really show yourself as very unbiased and pro-Serb. You take a lot of liberty on this article, reverting any edits which you do not like. This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and people have the right to add/remove content (as long as it's not vandalism), but you revert any effort from everyone, which drives people away from the article. In the last three months you made no less then 6 reverts, only one of which was vandalism.

Back to the subject. The "facts" you present here are themselves to be discussed, and are many, but I'll just stick to a few significant ones. The NDH numbers you use are the sterotypical Serb propaganda numbers. If you ever took a look at any publication (other then ones printed in Belgrade 1945-1995), you would find the number of Jasenovac victims is about 80'000 (74'000 were identified by names) and the TOTAL number of dead in NDH between 400 and 500'000 - and up to 40% of these were not Serbs, but were Jews, other Croats, Gypsies, etc. Any other number then that is a balant lie, but the propaganda is so strong that it results in stupid things like the ultimate Holocaust center having an article Jasenovac that says 600'000 were killed in one camp and an article NDH that says 500'000 were killed in the entire state... Food for thought.

I could go on about your other "facts", but to stick to the topic, I looked at what the subject is and I don't think anyone named "Nebojša Malić" could write a objective or neutral article about Op. Storm, do you?

Looking him up on the net, I found he argues against democracy and consideres monarchy superior (http://www.nspm.org.yu/Debate/2006_malic_re.htm), considers Kosovo a "occupied Serbian province" (http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=9980) and is, possibly most important, considered "a Serb hardliner" and biased by others involved in the subject (http://www.bosnia.org.uk/bosrep/report_format.cfm?articleid=1041&reportid=162)

The article's claims are, to say the least, very serious allegations and should only be considered if from a respectable writter or neutral source.

The Spanish Inquisitor 08:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

While I was writting, you revert count went up by one :( The Spanish Inquisitor 08:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Spanish Inquisitor's Attempt to Discredit my Work as an Editor

Dear Spanish Inquisitor,

1. Refrain from patronizing Wikipedia editors in an attempt to make their efforts appear futile with such phrases as:

"up until now I was very tolerant of your editing"
"This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and people have the right to add/remove content"

-I know very well what Wikipedia is, do not patronize me. You are in no way 'tolerant'.

2. If my edits are pro-Serb, then your edits are pro-Croat, a complete attempt to lessen the significance of Operation Storm, make the Serbs appear as the agressors, and the Croats as the victims (while this is true in other cases, Operation Storm is a case of aggression done towards Serbs, by Croats, and you are trying to hide this fact)

3. Comments such as these are unacceptable: " you revert any effort from everyone, which drives people away from the article"

I am in no way 'reverting any effort from everyone', that is quite the laughable claim. And a lie.
It is you who is attempting to drive me away from the article by patronizing and making such claims. Some editors have over 20 reverts on this article, so don't you dare say that I am reverting everyone's efforts.
I also explain any changes I make
There are many things I disagree with that I have not reverted. How could you possibly know that I "(revert) any edits which (I) do not like"
How about the fact that I didn't put the Antiwar source back in the article? Even though I think it's a reliable source...

4. Let's see about those 'revert' claims of yours

Revert 1: changed Krajina Serbs to Croatian Serbs: fact - as per source
Revert 2: put that there were casualties on both sides: fact
Revert 3: reinstated Wiki-standard sources that were replaced with youtube clips
Revert 4: added Bosnian/Croat conflict info: fact - as per source (which you falsely reverted despite info from source)
Revert 5: removed your attempt to downplay the effect of Operation Storm (completely unacceptable)
Revert 6: reinstated external link (and not again after it was removed again)
The one which you claim came while you were writing (which is a lie, since it came before), is a revert of an edit by user: 161.53.116.99, whose efforts have been reverted tens of times wo/ any explanation (including by yourself), so do not even try.

-If I were reverting everyone's efforts, don't you think that I would reinstate the link again which I clearly think should be there? Well I didn't, which shows that you are a liar.

5. Do not even try to appear 'tolerant'. Your attempt to discredit a user who always explains their edits and uses sources to back up their edits proves that you are very intolerant.

6. You say that you will go over a few significant facts. But you don't. You stick to one that is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT! The numbers of those killed in Jasenovac are disputed, that is why I gave such a big range. Obviously I didn't go low enough for you. I simply put a number there to illustrate that Serbs were killed in the thousands upon thousands, to illustrate my point. Even if you think the number is 10,000 that's fine, but it still proves my point.

You COMPLETELY ignored the any arguments concerning the article! And you are trying to discredit ME? Unbelievable!
Here are your attempts to discredit the author of the article:

A democrat is better than a monarchist, and monarchists are automatically biased: haha
He called Kosovo a Serbian occupied state?: umm... it IS! Kosovo is occupied AS WE SPEAK by foreign troops... wow...
You use bosnia.org to show what others think of him?? what a shocker! Negative thoughts about a Serb on Bosnia.org..... *sigh...

7. Last but not least, what was it that "up until now" made you "tolerant" of my editing? What did I revert that so outraged you? Since I only made 2 reverts after your last contribution to the article, it must be one of those. So which is it? The removing of an article while asking the editor to explain their edits (after which I did not reinstate the article), or the reverting of user:161.53.116.99's edit (which you have done yourself)? Since you claim you did not see my 2nd revert until after finishing your rant, it must be the first revert. This proves that you are not only very intolerant, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that I do not revert things "I don't like" even though I strongly disagree.

If you make Wikipedia personal, expect the same in return. From now on, focus on the article/source, don't try to patronize or discredit other editors through misleading statements or outright lies. Maîtresse 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to the replay to "My Attempt to Discredit Your Work as an Editor"® (now available as motion picture drama)

Seems you needed to blow off some steam... Feel better? :)

My post wasn't really an attack on you, I just warned you not to continue such practice of one-sided actions. But since you used my post to attack me, I will most certainly respond.

Wasn't "really" an attack, but "kinda" was... well "maybe"... ok it was. lol Nice. So now you're attacking me twice? You seem very aggressive... maybe you should seek help :) Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Excuse me for "patronizing you", I just never saw an article on Wikipedia where more edits are reverted then retained. Wikipedia, as far as I've known it (perhaps you can set me straight), was a community project. Unless your name is "Community", I have the right to warn you that other people can contribute too.

To warn me??? You're WARNING ME? Hahaha go excuse yourself and then remember that admins don't like editors who give themselves false authority by warning others for things they should not be warned about. Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

2) Since you wrote this, you most likely haven't even seen what my edits where, because I never deleted any of your edits, just added *reasons* as to why it came to the operation. I never added anything that could be considered revisionism, except that you choose to see my % of killed as that - your problem.

Um, yes you did. See there, another lie. *Sigh... Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

3) Unacceptable to who? You? Honestly, you act as you *own* this article. There are other people who are more then willing to maintain the article, no need for us to inconvienice you by making you go out of your way to revert other's attempts at what you find unacceptable.

I suppose I own this article. Maybe even every single article I edit. Maybe I own all of Wikipedia? Who knows? Haha Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

4) I'll just comment those that directly concerns me Nmr.4: you misquoted a source and misrepresented it. Just because the article said there were refugees from Bosnian-Croat conflict, you ASSUMED ALL refugees were from that conflict. How silly. Nmr.5: I added a percentage of killed. I didn't know mathematics equals downplaying effects of Storm :) Guess, as always, simple facts are unwelcome. The last revert came between the time I started writing my replay and ended it. You will forgive me if I haven't refreshed the page for an hour before I wrote, but it is indicative how you immediatly label me a liar. Good work.

And how 'silly' of you to think that those refugees fled because of Serbs (tee hee). You lied. You = liar. Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is downplaying the effects of Storm. It was a briliant military operation without which both the Croatian war and the Bosnian war would have continued for another two or three years, except that the Bihać pocket would have fallen - with the combined VRS-VSK offensive begining few weeks earlier (meaning another 20'000 dead Moslems), as would the last Moslem enclaves in north-central Bosnia (probably another 5000 dead). Unfortunately, the Serb population in Croatia took Martic's word (the evacuation order) that the "evil Nazi Croats" are going to slaughter them all, so most fled. And there were acts of murders and revenge, but these were not organized or ordered, but acts by a few stupid fools who wanted revenge for being driven out of their homes: you probably didn't know 30% of the Croatian army was formed from refugees which were driven out in 1991. So the units which attacked Krajina during operation Storm were battallions of people from Knin, Obrovac, Gračac, Glina... cities under Serb control. I trust you can't imagine what it's like returning home after being forced out for four years.

Brilliant military operation = this is where you show your bias. Way to go. I would never say ethnic cleansing done against Croats (or any nation) was "Brilliant". You sadden me. (I trust you can't imagine what it's like to be raped, don't patronize.) Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

5) Tolerant-Intolerant. Funny. You explain edits, but you still remove them. Say I would remove every motion of ethnic cleansing and explain it by not having a NPOV source for it. Which is true. The opening statement accuses Storm of being an act of ethnic cleansing without offering a neutral source for such a serious allegation (the oh-so-appropriate words: "some people belive/it has been called (by someone unnamed)"). By contrast the innocent "majority of them from Krajina proper" sentance, you found needed concrete sources... Yes, truely unbiased.

I guess you're right. In fact, if it were the other way around, Croats would welcome the expulsion (coughethinccleansing) of their people from Serbia. Get over yourself. Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

7) I was tolerant to see you do whatever you want because such a topic needs a little order, but you do selective order. It was the combination of all which threw me "into a rant" :) Which is best described by another external link which you chose to restore last: http://trinicenter.com/cgi-bin/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1059926910,54217,.shtml which you restored after it was deleted. Now this article is a little better then the previous, but the problem with this one is in the sentance: "14,000 Serbian civilians lost their lives". I had a laugh reading this. We have Croatian sources which say 1000 civilians, international which say 2000 and Serb sources which say 3000. Yet this article comes up with a number 7 times higher then the higest previous estimate, which to me looks like a game "Pick a number... Any number." The proof of the propaganda value of the article is in the sentance "the Croatian fascist(s) murdered as many as one million Serbs, Jews and Romani" during WWII." - which I've already covered.

"Tolerant to see me do whatever I want"?? Reinsert an external link? I guess you're right, I should stop abusing my privileges of POLITELY ASKING WHY SOMEONE REMOVED AN ARTICLE! hahhaha. Wow, great argument. Get it in your head that wwii Croatia was fascist (some argue it still is) and that they committed genocide. Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You are the one making it personal, I was attempting to ask you to ease up on the "undo" button, but you seem to view this article as your own.

Um, wasn't it you who attacked me? Lol. I see the article as my own? 6 reverts, each explained, and justified, and the article is my own? Please, get over yourself. Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

6) "my attempts to discredit the author":

"A democrat is better than a monarchist, and monarchists are automatically biased: haha " - doesn't have anything to do with bias, it has to do with inteligence. A man who consideres an autocratic society run by a power-hungry dictator "superior" to democractic principles should be considered somewhat "off" (not to use harsher language) "He called Kosovo a Serbian occupied state?: umm... it IS! Kosovo is occupied AS WE SPEAK by foreign troops... wow... " - occupied by Kosovars (police, local control); or the majority population of the area? According to such logic, Krajina was occupied by Serbs...? Or occupied by NATO whom they ASKED to stay there? According to this logic, peacekeepers around the world are "occupiers". Perhaps we should ask the people of Sierra Leone weather they want the "occupiers" to leave? "You use bosnia.org to show what others think of him?? what a shocker! Negative thoughts about a Serb on Bosnia.org..... *sigh..." - well you have to admit a monarchy-proponent attacking the entire world wouldn't be all too popular :) American Empire indeed...

Read: UN troops. Lack of any coherent argument... oh well I suppose you tried Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So since you asked for it, I will go over ALL of your facts:

First of all, you quote the article:

"In both cases, a UN "safe area" was targeted by the attack. In Srebrenica, the UN at least tried to protect Muslim civilians; in Krajina, it did no such thing. Serbs evacuated Muslim noncombatants from Srebrenica; Serbs who did not flee Krajina were killed. Yet Srebrenica is somehow "genocide," while Oluja is a victory worth a national holiday"

- while idylic and romantic for Serbian thought to the last, not EVERYONE who stayed behind was killed. I know it doesn't count as a "reliable source", but I was in the Krajina a week after the operation ended and saw more then enough living Serbs to know that "went from house to house exterminating the Krajina Serb population" is an exaggeration.

Thank you for your patronizing comments to Serbs as an entire nation. And your failure to respond with any argument. Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that his writing is juvenile: (1) The US is very commonly referred to as the American "Empire" (2) Before Tudjman the 'symbols' and 'vocabulary' were not present since WWII (Tito didn't allow it), so yes, he does bring a revival. He even quotes Tudjman, so it's not as if he's making stuff up.

- (1) Yes, US is commenly refered to as the "Empire"... by Iran, North Korea, Saddam Hussein... (2) So what are these Ustasha symbols? The Croat national coat of arms (differentiated by first field's color and dated from 7th century AD?), the Kuna as name for the currency (introduced in 1993, 3 years after it provoked the Serbs to rebel), the flag - by which clause flag of Netherlands is also Nazi-like :) Under Tito not these symbols were forbiden, it was forbiden to even say your nationality. For saying "I am a Croat", you would spend a few weeks in jail, is that too an ustasha symbol? I could say a few things about Tudjman, but I wont because I never liked the guy; however he became very unpopular in Croatia because even as late as 1993, he was still trying to negotiate with the occupiers of 1/3rd of his country. There were alternatives which would have been far worse and which really would have brought a "revival to 1941", but that didn't happen except in the brains of those that paraded through Knin in 1989 inciting the population to rebellion. There were many mistakes in the Croat leadership that fueled the tensions (including some doubious Tudjman speeches), but that is nothing compared to what Vojislav Seselj was saying in 1988 - or two years before Tudjman even became someone...

So you agree with me, I'm glad :)Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

He says that the revival of suppressed Ustasa ideology and "not some imaginary "aggression" from Serbia – was the root of their "rebellion" - there was no aggression from Serbia. And yes, millions of people (mostly Serbs) believe that this was the reason for Oluja (and we do include dissenting/contradictory views on Wikipedia as long as there's a significant number of people who hold those views, don't we)

Factual accuracy disputed... In September 1991 (as the war started getting serious), Serbia (that's right - the not-in-the-war republic) declared GENERAL MOBILIZATION and gathered reservists from cities as far as Niš to go fight at Vukovar. If it was only the local Serb affair, the war would have been over in a year. That is agression.

General mobilization to escape Croat aggression (as it points out in the document you provided). Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes, the Serbs that stayed behind in Krajina were not only killed, but were also raped and tortured (something this 'biased' writer doesn't even include). That is no lie. Croat soldiers went from house to house exterminating the Krajina Serb population.
Please provide a reference for your claim that by 2005 a 3rd of Serbs had returned to Croatia.
The quote "Tudjman made Pavelic's dream to rid Croatia of Serbs a reality" is a very honest quote. After the war, Croatia did rid itself of many many Serbs (which was Pavelic's dream - Pavelic= WWII Ustasa leader, under whose command a concentration camp was set up in which 500,000 to 1,000,000 Serbs (among other ethnic groups) were brutally exterminated - and you want to say that Pavelic's dream WASN'T to rid Croatia of Serbs???!)
The Nazis, who helped the Ustase, failed to remove Serbs from Croatia, the US, who helped the Croatian gov't, succeeded in removing Serbs from Croatia. Therefore "Where the Nazis failed, the American Empire has succeeded".

So lets summarize your "ethnically clear" and "genocidal" Croatia:

Article Serbs in Croatia: "The number of Serbs in Croatia was much larger in 1991, when they numbered at least 581,663 and over 12,2% of the total population of Croatia." "Due to various reasons, only a fraction of Croatian Serbs actually still live in their native homeland of Croatia: 201,631 according to the 2001 population census. They currently comprise around 4.5% of Croatia's total population."

This means that 34% of those that were "raped, tortured, killed and ethnically cleansed by a genocidal regime" choose to return there to live in that country which is currently run by Tudjman's party. So according to your logic, it would be like 1/3rd of the Jews returned to Germany in 1948 while it was run by the reformed Nazi party (led by some lower ranking Nazi official).

????Are you actually trying to claim that those who are still there are those who left? 600,000-200,000 = 400,000 (could it not be those who weren't cleansed from Krajina that comprise those 201,631?) hahahaha. Yet again, nice try! Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The article also states: "The total population of Serbs who originate directly from Croatia can safely be estimated at around 600,000 people."

Still living today. 600,000 out of the original 580,000... Yes, they really did suffer a genocide.

I did not use the word genocide. You did. PS: I'm glad you figured out that Serbs don't procreate and that they don't live outside of Croatia if they were born there. lolMaîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish Inquisitor 08:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think my response was one to blow off steam, that's fine. It was a response to your attempt to discredit me as an editor (or to your attack, as you put it). Since you didn't bother reading what I said properly and responding accordingly, what I said still stands. Your 'responses' are juvenile at best. All the best in future editing, including this article. You did not scare me away :) Cheers! Maîtresse 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything more from you then calling people liars. My fault for trying to use arguments :( Eh, Canadians... :) The Spanish Inquisitor 11:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video

I added it as a link. Is it valuable or not? [8] Fluffy999 23:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/p/e/Talk%7EOperation_Storm_2da2.html"

Categories: B-Class military history articles needing review | Old requests for military history peer review | B-Class military history articles