Have any of you ever heard of Srebrenica?

[DGoeij]

Seven years after the tragedy, after research by various commmitees, the Dutch parlaiment decided to hold hearings about the events. I just wonder if anyone in this quite international gathering has ever heard of the place?

[Húrin Thalion]

Of course! That was the main news in Sweden for several days, partly for that there are many refugees from former Jugoslavia here. Anyway there is always great attention to such things here!

E C

[Eliot]

I think I've heard of it. What is it?

[Arvedui]

Srebrenica is a village in the former Bosnia-Herzegovina. In 1994/1995 (not sure which), there were many Bosnian refugees in that village, protected by the UN. For some strange reason, the UN decided to declare Srebrenica a "safe haven."
Unfortunately, the UN did not have the means to be able to keep it a safe haven. So, to cut a long story short, the army of Bosnian Serbs surrounded the village, drove away some of the inhabitants, mostly female, and some children. The men and young boys were taken away, never to be seen again alive. Some of them have been found in mass graves.
The leader of the Bosninan Serb army at that time was one general Radko Mladic. He is "most wanted" by the International War Crime Tribunal in the Hague, and is reported to live in the suburbs of Belgrade..
Srebrenica is therefor the place of one of the worst attrocities in Europe since WW II.

[DGoeij]

Correct. The UN-forces in the town at the time of the fall of the enclave were Dutch soldiers. Estimates are that about 7500 men were murdered in the days after, by Bosnian Serbs.
Surviving refugees from Srebrenica (mostly women) blaim the death of their husbands and sons on the Dutch soldiers, the Dutch government and the UN as a whole.
I wondered how many of you had heard of this tragedy.

[Walter]

Yes, of course I've heard of it too, it happened 1995 IIRC and the dutch UN-forces - at least in the german media - were held resposible because they were said to have been neither well-equipped nor well-trained for that operation.

But even though the news were full of tragedies going on in the area of the former Yugoslavia during the first 5 or 6 years of the 90s, and even though they brought horrible pictures on TV, what struck me the most was when I first visited Croatia after the war (it was either 1994 or 1995) and saw (e.g in Karlovac, Dubrovnik) all the destroyed houses, desolate roofs in reality. In certain areas no roof was intact no wall without holes from bullets or grenades....

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Walter
what struck me the most was when I first visited Croatia after the war (it was either 1994 or 1995) and saw (e.g in Karlovac, Dubrovnik) all the destroyed houses, desolate roofs in reality. In certain areas no roof was intact no wall without holes from bullets or grenades....

I can imagine. My parents had very good memories of one of their vacations in Yugoslavia during the 70's. Especially the city of Mostar they told me, with the magnificent bridge. When they saw on TV, what remainded of the bridge and it's immediate surroundings they were very shocked indeed.


Originally posted by Walter
Yes, of course I've heard of it too, it happened 1995 IIRC and the dutch UN-forces - at least in the german media - were held resposible because they were said to have been neither well-equipped nor well-trained for that operation.

That's part of the reason why the whole thing is still being discussed in my country. The current investigation is one by Dutch parlaiment, meaning that a committee invites people for interviews. These invitations are supposed to be followed and it's a criminal offence to refuse. And people stand under oath, like in court.
The interviews are broadcasted live on dutch TV and I've watched several of them. It was all FUBAR.
They were sent there without heavy weapons, were refused any air-support when they asked for it and lacking fuel, ammunition and man-power, because the serbs refused to let any convoys through.:rolleyes:

[Eliot]

Now I remember what you guys are talking about. I just never knew the name of the massacre. Wasn't Slobodan Milosevic part of that?

[Arvedui]

The interviews are broadcasted live on dutch TV and I've watched several of them. It was all FUBAR.
They were sent there without heavy weapons, were refused any air-support when they asked for it and lacking fuel, ammunition and man-power, because the serbs refused to let any convoys through.

And of course, the soldiers get all the blame in the end.
I think it was Lord Montbatten who said once something like: The government who cuts your [the military's] budgets in peacetime, is the same government who expects you to give your life in time of crisis.

It is not a correct quote, but the meaning is sort of there.

I really feel sorry for your fellow soldiers. I would guess that they were pretty frustrated by the situation.
One thing you haven't mentioned is their rules of Engagement. I seem to remember something about the RoE, and that it prevented the soldiers from beeing able to do anything.

[DGoeij]

As far as I know of the RoE, all UN-forces were allowed to return fire. Of course, sitting in observation posts out in the open, because the UN had to show itself, and being fired upon by tanks, wich you are unable to harm (well, maybe the paint:rolleyes:), made returing fire a rather dangerous and ineffective option. In the same sense they were allowed air-support, but that was never granted by the UN-headquarters under commmand of the French General Janvier.
And the commanding officer was told by our minister of defence not even consider returning to the Netherlands with any casualties. That gave him enough room to manoeuver, didn't it?
As a side note, the only soldier that was killed, died of a handgrenade that was tossed towards his vehicle, by a Bosnian-Muslem. A great boost for morale. :mad:

EDIT: This is all based upon the interviews I saw and what I've got from newspapers and internet-sources from earlier investigations (one of them from from a Dutch research institute, which conclusions made our government resign in may 2002.)

[Gloer]

The UN forces in screbeniuca had an opportunity to die to the last man as Leonidas and his 300 spartans did in Thermopylai 490 B.C.

Instead hesitation to sacrifice U.N. soldiers lives for the honour of United Nations resolutions and human dignity led to utter loss of face.

[Walter]

heroism is one thing, stupidity another...

[DGoeij]

Originally posted by Gloer
The UN forces in screbeniuca had an opportunity to die to the last man as Leonidas and his 300 spartans did in Thermopylai 490 B.C.

Instead hesitation to sacrifice U.N. soldiers lives for the honour of United Nations resolutions and human dignity led to utter loss of face.

Sounds like a very macho approach. Thank you for you intelligeble comment. If you wish for any facts, be sure to ask for them.

[Arvedui]

Originally posted by Gloer
The UN forces in screbeniuca had an opportunity to die to the last man as Leonidas and his 300 spartans did in Thermopylai 490 B.C.

Instead hesitation to sacrifice U.N. soldiers lives for the honour of United Nations resolutions and human dignity led to utter loss of face.

Yes, they probably had that opportunity, but to what avail?
The result would have been the same, only a lot of Dutch soldiers would become casualties as well. And what purpose would that have served?

I normally watch my language in my various posts, but this is the most stupid reasoning I have heard in years!:mad:

[Gloer]

Is the simple example why United States was and is still the only reason why Europeans can maintain a reasonably stable and peacful state of affairs.

De facto is that we are a US protectorate.
Don't be too proud to swallow this, please.
Europe has no streght, moral or economical to defend it's affluency.
We would rather pay for peace until the barbarians would spit on our face and take what they want.

The barbarians? Who are they?
Ask Valeri Giscard d'Estang.

[Walter]

Originally posted by Gloer
Is the simple example why United States was and is still the only reason why Europeans can maintain a reasonably stable and peacful state of affairs.

De facto is that we are a US protectorate.
Don't be too proud to swallow this, please.
Europe has no streght, moral or economical to defend it's affluency.
We would rather pay for peace until the barbarians would spit on our face and take what they want.

The barbarians? Who are they?
Ask Valeri Giscard d'Estang.
Si tacuisses...

[Gloer]

if one wants to win a war - kill the philosopher first

[Arvedui]

Europe has no streght, moral or economical to defend it's affluency.

Europe have all that. What Europe do not have, is unity. We are getting there (well, not me exactly, since I live in a country where the people are proud of beeing different), only slowly.

[Gloer]

we would be quarreling wheather we can afford any wars. We dispute US ability to finance a war so how could we do that.
You actually stoke the key. Europe's weakness is in the fact that it is divided into very strong cultural areass and nations. Certain level of unity and agreement over leadership makes consentration of will and force more efficient.

PS. Arvedui, you live in a country that is proud to be "norsk" (= norwegian for somenting excellent).
:p

[Arvedui]

Well, IMO there is always the chance that one might be just a little too proud...
I do not think it is right to try to stay out of the rest of the world. But, of course everyone does not agree with me.

The US ability to finance wars could absolutely be discussed. When was the last year when USA had a surplus in its national budget? No matter how much you want this or that, reality is bound to strike sooner or later. When I lend money to someone, I expect to get that money back...