Talk:Operation Medak Pocket/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ceha, Jadger comments

I'm sorry but your page does not proves a thing. It just proves that Canadian goverment claims (based on statments of its own soldiers) that there was a battle in the area. Where did you cite the UN? Where did you shown exact formulation of UNPROFOR mandate??

1. Why would word attack be better than retaken? Retaken is more usefull as it better discribes the situation. Atack is a bias word if you don't say who is attacker and who is defender. Also in Domovinski rat Rebel Serb forces did attack firs and for the first stage of war Croat forces were just defending Croatia (higher contex...). There was also agresion on Croatia. So if you'd like to use that word you would need to put it in the right contex and explaining the whole situation. Because of all that things word retaken is much better. It tells you there was an action and by whom that action was made.

2.First your analogy is wrong. Mandate in Iraq was taken under pressure from international comunity and was directed against Sadam. Mandate in Croatia was taken under plee from Croatia to help with return of the refugies and disarming the rebels.

Second UN does need premision (at least that was before Kosovo war) when it interveens at the ground of one souveren state. How would you feel that UN lanches an invasion on Toronto just because Canada didn't repay it UN-debts? Third UN did not force it forces in Bosnia (there was a war there also, you remember?) or interveened in any war conflicts there (prior to NATO air stikes) Srebrenica, Žepa?

3.Neutral confirmation relays on Serbian and Croatian sorces which would prove Canadian claims. As for unsatisfaction of UN mandate I also think that Serbs (at least at the end:) did shared that opinion. Nevertheless UNPROFOR forces did not done its job. Not a single refugie didn't returned in its home, and many others were banished out during that mandate. That is a fact. Opinion does not matter.

4.VBR is a cannon. If you are an armed civilian in a war zone your chanses to get shot are slightly bigger than if you were unarmed

5.Teh world goverment? UN is not nothing of a sort. It is an association of states in wich states take care for it intrestes (acording to UN politcs)

Of corse Croatians are not totaly objective. How would you act if there was a war in your country, anather states invade you, and troops which you called to help you quell the rebelion (financed by a neighbouring state) and ocupation of 30% of your country gets friendly with the ocupier, and start arogantly telling you that you are not cooperating with them (while they drink beer and foul around with ocupiers?), and that you should behave. That you can not go to your own house, and you see troups which should be there to help you telling you to come latter while thay drink with persons who have forced you out of it? Problem with Canadian version is that it states only the good side (and much of it is disputed), and doesn't tells anything about the rest... So from theirs story you could see that they were peacekeepers (knights in shiny armor) who dashed to some god forsaken country (there is not even notice it was in Croatia) killed some bad gays and went home. That's not the case. And for quebecers(what that therm means?) I don't know what is ethnic percentage of them in princess pats (that was battalion which took part in aleged fighting), and I'm afraid that without that everything else is chit-chat. Do you know why french (they were their before Canadians) battalion choosed that position (few metters away from Serbian forces)? There were good wines in the celer of the building:)

6.That is not the full definition. Where is article about return of everbody who were forcefully thrown out from their homes? Problem with Canadian (and some other peace forces) were as they didn't act as they were in Croatia.

And Canadian forces still did not do their job. Their position was few meters from armed Serbian one in demilitarised zone? Helo? --Ceha 13:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Can you be any more confused? first you call them rebels, now you are claiming that Serbs invaded Croatia. It was a rebellion, but foreign serbs came in to help their brothers, and so it was not an invasion, it was a rebellion or uprising. Attack is better then retaken as the land had not been Croat controlled for a significant period of time. The operation was an attack, and that is what we are talking about, the operation, not the whole war.

2. you are dead wrong, the purpose of UN peacekeepers was to restore peace to the region so that discussion could take place, the way you describe it is that the UN was hired as mercenaries to bring the land back under Croatian control. The UN does not take sides, it is there to restore peace so that peaceful discussion can take place.

I wouldnt care about Toronto, it's a shit hole anyways (just kidding). but the UN did go into Bosnia, once it had escalated to the level of what the one in Croatia had been. Do you actually research things before typing? And besides, the UN did not invade Croatia because it failed to pay its debts, the UN is not the Mafia.

3. I can't believe you just called the two warring factions "neutral". LMAO. UNPROFOR was not there to put people in their houses, that decision is up to the individuals, the UN is not your nanny, you have to rebuild your own country after you ruin it (the Serbs were citizens to remember).

4. I would not need a cannon to protect myself. i am a much better shot then needing to destroy the whole area around my target, how good do you think a deer would taste if I harvested it with a VBR? Sure your chances of getting shot are higher if you are an armed non-combatant, but then again so are your chances of shooting back when they try to take your home.

5. The UN is commonly called the World Governing Body, not the world government, there is a slight difference in the meaning that is hard to explain to non-english speakers.

Before you start making wild claims could you provide sources that prove that the French only took up the position because of the proximity to alcohol. Or show sources that show that the Croatian forces present actually had lived in that area previous to the war. The reason that the Peacekeepers got friendly with the "occupiers" who were in fact rebels who had lived their lives in Croatia, is because the "occupiers" where cooperating unlike the Croatians who burned the land before withdrawing. If these Croat forces were from the area, why would they torch there own homes? your claims make no logical sense.

6. there is no such article, as the mission was not about forcing people to live in a former war zone again. The mission was about establishing peace, not about giving people land.

The reason they did not force the armed Serbs out of the area as quickly as they did the Croats is because the Serbs were not shooting at them like them like the Croats were. Do you have any evidence that shows that after the Croats withdrew that they did not attempt to deal with the Serb presence? please cite your accusations.

And can you really blame them for not completing their mission perfectly? they were being shot at by people they were there to protect. Are you going to blame the genocide in Rwanda on the Canadian peacekeepers as well because they did no move out of their compound when they were under siege? After all, it was the peacekeepers mission to protect the people of that nation, but they were too busy dodging bullets and shells to stop them from being murdered, by your reasoning we should put shame on them as well.

to re-iterate, the UN peacekeepers were not there to rebuild your nation after you guys made it a shit-hole (so to speak). they were there to stop you from digging yourselves a deeper hole, they are not responsible for your actions, you yourself are responsible for your actions.

--Jadger 23:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

1.I'm not confused. Croatia was attacked by ex-JNA army. Most of the people from that army were from Serbia and the army was controled and financed from Beograd. It was under direct control from Slobodan Milošević. (See Milan Babić's testemony). So foreign army atacked and seized one third of Croatia. It had help from some Serbs which were also Croat citizens (by census of 1991. Croatia had Serb population of 12% of wich only 4% lived in territories wich were ocupied). On ocupied territories Croats made 60% of prewar population (which is totaly irelevent, as it could be populated with Chineese, it was stil part of souvern state of Croatia) and which were forced (as other non-Serb population, Hungarians, Chehs, Slovaks, etc) to run for their lives. Those Serbs which helped in agression of another state to their homeland called their actions rebelion. Foreign Serbs (Milošević) controled their finances and goverment so it was primary an act of agression.

It is not important for how long Croat authorities did not have acces to that territory (for 2 years) it was still part of Croatia! Borders did not change over night.

2.UN are not mercenaries. Croatian goverment called them to help it with reintegration of that territory (and disarment of Serbian militias). UN forces were ablied to act acording to laws of the country they were in (that is Croatia:) and not to claim theirs own justice. Let me make you another paralel (to think objectivly it is best to put yourself in someone's others skin). If some other country invaded Canada(JNA was 4th military force in Europe), ocupied one third of the country, granated the rest, had some quislings (ok 4% of population is more than some) on theirs side while you don't have any weapons (there was an embargo on countries of ex-Yugoslavia, wich left only Serbs with guns) and ask the world to help you, because they are killing your colegues, frends, and then when help arrives they make friends with people which bannished you out of your home, and call you un-cooperative because you would like to return to your home, what would you do?

UN does not takes sides? UN forces were in foreign country, and should acted according to laws of that country. To you that sentence sounds like if for examples Croats had laser guns and conquered half of Canada, UN forces should just come and sit around while they play raser-haids? UN is a legistive body. It should take care that legistation are abided. If somebody makes an agression it should get an embargo, and be cut of the rest of the world. If that doesn't works there is always interveniton ask mr.Bush:) or just look aroun Korean war As for Bosnia, UN did not done much good there eather. Can you speak to me about any military action wich UN forces had in Bosnia? I asked you about Srebrenica and Žepa? You did not replayed. UN forces could had been on the moon for godness sake. It would not made a lot of diference. I live here, you remember? Some of my experience is from first hand. I don't need television to speak about forces of my country which are 'making order' and helping savegees in some god-forsaken land. Bosnian war would had never stop if it were not for actions of Croatian Army wich forced Serbians to negotiatian table. And even then, it was not quite enough... For invasion, I did not speak about Croatian debts, but rather of a Canadian ones:) The point was, that somebody can not do as it wants in your own country. If somebody is citizen of that country it should act acording to laws of that country. In oposite he is criminaly responsabele...

3.If you are fighting with somebody and you call somebody else to help you clean the sitution and that somebody else later (few years after) claims he was in fight with you while you were fighting with that first one, is not the first one neutral? It is in his interest to put the blame on you in show you as agressif villain. There is not one Serbian report of any other mention of Croato-Canadian conflict.

UN was there to make conditions for that people to return home. They wanted that, but Serbian rebels (see above formulation:) did not allowed them that. Also your inclination of civil war is highly incorect (see above explanations). What is usage in UN if one of its memers can not use it in defence of it souverenty (for godness sake even League of Nations did that in Greeko-Bulgarian war of 1922), and panishment of agressor?

4.Ok, you have a gun. What are the chances for your souvirval if a tank comes to your house?:) Serbian goverment used its tanks on Croatian soil...

5.I speak 3 foreign languages (know too more a bit) and curently learning 4th. I think I know the diference beetween Goverment (that is an institution) and Governing Body (that could be multiply organisations, institutions and procedures in wich you can acheeve something). But that still does not change my comentary. There is not a thing wich is un-biased in this world. Everbody has its angle.

For french peacekeepers I recomend you reading Višnja Starešina books Balkan's Labaratory and Hague's formula. I don't know if you can buy it in Canda:) The fact that UN-forces (peace keepers is to shiny word:) get friendly with Serbian ones is that they were in territories under control of that forces and that that forces were very 'generous' in any way... As for cooperation, from that vilages, from positions wich were few meters from Canadian soldiers Serb granated Gospić (the larges town in 150km radius) in something wich supposed to be demilitarisation zone. How is that cooperating? Are you saying that if in own village there is not a Croatian majority that Croatian goverment does not hold juristiction under that village (although it is a part of internationaly recognized Croatia) ?

6. Giving people land? How are you to say that somebody can not return to its own house? Establishment of peace? If somebody brokes into your house and tries to evict you, but call police does police sais you now hold, that is his room now, try to get along? No. It punish him because he was trying to evict you out of your house. Croats were 60%-majority on territories which Serbs claimed it were theirs own. Serbs even tried to occupy 90% of Croatia (we are talking of the people which made only 12% of population, and of wich only 4% lived in the territories wich were claiming). Also speaking of the Serbs is incorect. Many Croatian Serbs fought against that agression. Apropriate name would be quislings:)

My comentary was for time before action. Canadian forces were located few meters from Serbian positions. Serbian positions were hevelly armed in demilitarised zone, in which Canadians patroled? Canadian forces did not had any right or mandate to use force on Croatian army. There is a difference between shouting in self defence and shouting at somebody to get from some area if you didn't see that. Your analogy with Rwanda is also flawed. Most of Rwanda army were armed militias which actualy avoided any kind of conflict with any profesional army (that is a practice in that part of Africa). If somebody is killing 1 million people there is a blame on world (or UN) if it does not do nothing. What is your use of peace keepers? They should go in egotic countries on vacations had a little talk between themselves and that's it? I don't know wich was the mandate in Rwanda. I don't know if they had authority to use force. If they did not theirs first objective should be to informate the public of that events. And for yours dodging the bulets I think it is ridicilous to compare some underarmed militia with something wich should be prime army. And if somebody is not ready to give his life for the cause he has no place in the army. Your conclusion is also false (I'm afraid so:) UN mandate was never to achive stand still as in Cyprus, but to help to solve the situation. You said that UN is seen as world goverment? In Croatia was seen at the time as world cop (there were examples in history when UN acted that way) which is going to make some wrongs right.

--Ceha 23:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I highly agree with merging this document with the Canadian version of it. This would allow for a better organization of the content between the two articles: (1) the common factual elements of the battle listed first and then (2) present the Canadian/UN & Croatian sides afterwords... in no particular order. It will look and feel quite ugly once the two are merged, but I believe that seeing both viewpoints side by side will allow for a better analysis overall. My 2 cents --P-Chan 10:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't now, articles are pretty oposite, and there should be some middle ground found, but I don't see if that is possible... Most of Canadian sorces, even aproach is considered pretty ofensive in Croatian, and most of the accusations are not proven (at least not yet). If someone has some idea, please suggest it...

--Ceha 22:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

How about Ceha, you find an official version by the Croatian government, and provide it as a source. That way we can see what the actual Croatian government has to say about it, rather then relying on your hearsay as to what the general consensus in Croatia says is true. Because your whole position relies on "the grapevine"; rumours spread throughout the Croatian population, perhaps started by the very same Croatian soldiers who were there burning down the homes of the local residents and murdering many of them, women and children included.

--Jadger 05:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Official version of Croatian government is that Croatian forces battle with Canadian ones and that if anything happend it was a small skirmish in wich Canadian forces took some granades because they were positioned few meters from Serbian positions. It is documented by not mentioning of any Croato-Canadian battle by Serb(that means opponent:) side. This claimes are not awable on the net, hower that were the statmens of officials from Croatian goverment... Also, if something could be said to relay of the grapevine, it should soner be Canadian story:) --Ceha 21:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. The two sides don't have to agree at all, they just have to be representative of what their own side believes. Hopefully overtime the "Canadian & Croatian" specific material will shrink and the "objective" stuff that everyone agrees on will grow. Just so you know, I seperated out a wee portion of the article, because that section was pretty much exactly the same in both of the articles. If you take a close look, the only word that I added was the neutral word "attacked"... it was "invaded" in the Canadian one, and "retaken" in the Croatian one.

--P-Chan 06:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC) I don't see that word attacked is neutral:( As you can see in previous discoussion, it is hard to belive that Croatian soldiers were attacking in theirs own country, more that Croatia was previously attacked by forces which were under control of Serbian president... --Ceha 21:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Just realized that the Canadian version is much more detailed than the Croatian one. I have a feel that's mainly due to the fact that we are more likely to find Canadian version material in english than Croatian version material in English. Also, the article here seems to be setup in a way that is much more balanced than the Canadian one (aside from a few comments). I have a feeling that's due to the fact that this is suppose to be the main article on this battle.

Wish we could turn the the Canadian version into a stub, and just slowly shrink/import it into this article...

--P-Chan 06:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I don't think it's too bad. At the very least we can find some common ground between the two sides. I mean both sides can agree on the time, the names, some of the descriptions and background. Things can be worse... much much worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenian_Genocide

We can structure the article based a controversial topic style and show the facts seperate from the approach taken by both sides of the conflict. (Croatian government and the UN/Canadian one).

1. Background
2. UN/Canada Side
3. Croatian Side
4. Aftermath

I think that's the least we can do right now. (I won't merge the articles, but I change the formatting on this one.) What do you think Ceha & Jadger?

--P-Chan 06:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I sounds right, just I am not sure that Canadian side has UN verification, and perhaps sequence of paragrafs should be like this;

1. Background
2. Croatian Side
3. Canadian Side
4. Aftermath

--Ceha 20:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with your offer P-Chan. However, Ceha seems intent on subliminally making the Croatian version seem more objective or official/true. Instead can we somehow create two columns? where they are represented equally, or before stating each side. Or maybe the two sides be listed alphabetically, as would be a standard and relatively easy to explain reason to place one before the other.

or perhaps create a pointform table of the two sides to be placed before the descriptive paragraphs, to basically underline where the two sides differ.

and Ceha, can you please provide some source that states an official position on this by the Croatian gov't? we haev UN/Canadian sources.

--Jadger 22:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC) I don't see what is wrong in trying to make something NPOV (if you don't lie). NPOV aproach is the basis for functioning of this encyclopaedia. As for UN/Canadian forces, most of the claimes are from Canadian soldiers which were in UN-forces. There is not one statement from responsible UN source that there was ever battle between Croatian and Canadian forces. Don't mix this with battle that ragged between Croatian and Serb rebel forces.

--Ceha 21:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few links that I found just through google. Based on what I've seen from the articles so far, the UN version is largely based on Canadian accounts of what happened. (See external links). I'm not to say that the Canadian version is right, it's just that it's generally seen as official.

I have a feeling that most of the material out there supports the Canadian side. From what I've seen so far, there are very few articles expanding on an alternative Croatian viewpoint. Ceha, are there editorials or anything on the Croatian side that you could provide?

(The Miroslav Međimorec articles seem to be the only thing I can find. He seems to have written volumes of online stuff on this, and even writes about the serbian interpretation as well).

--P-Chan 10:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunetly no. As I stated before in most of Croatian media this is seen as minor skrimish(or less than that), and does not have the value which it has in Canadian media. There are few books which speaks (and) about that issue. From Višnja Starešina; Formula Haag, Labaratory Balkan, are the ones I read. This incident is not mentioned in anny book which is writen before 1996, because according to all sorces (Croatian, Serbian and Canadian onew) it did not exist. Only after that year there are news about that incident (and only in Canadian media). Miroslav Međimurec article is (to my opinion:) good because he is seeking conformation from other sources (serbian ones), and is not just quoting Croatian ones(which are mostly of-net in any case). As for UN conformation of Canadian version, I am not sure about that (at least I could not find any). Is there a statement from UN qouting that? In [1] there is no mentionig of Croato-Canadian battle...

--Ceha 12:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It should probably be assumed that the UN confirmed the Canadian "version" of the story, as it was the basis for the trials of the Croatian commanders for war crimes. Also it is most likely the official version because it is the only one properly documented and researched version of the story.

Also: this is very interesting on the whole yugoslav wars era. [2]

--Jadger 17:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC) To my knowledge there was not any trial of Croatian commanders because of conflict with Canadians. There was a trial for Mirko Norac in wich he was founded guilty for not stopping war crimes. No conflict with Canadians were ever mentioned in that... I don't see how does UN supports Canadian side without hard evidence (some statment of responsoble UN source, preferably not Canadian one:) Trial of Milošević is very interesting in any way:)) Also I just saw some things that are wrong in the layout:) Word attacked. Croatian territority:) Word retaken should be used. Also last paraghraf "Canadian government, concerned about not harming Canada's reputation for neutrality in the Balkans suppressed all news of the "alleged" Canadian participation in the fighting. This publication did not come to general knowledge in Canada until 1996. The Canadian Forces were also concerned that Canadians killing Croatians would be seen as similar to the Somalia Affair, that was raging at the time, and that would give Canadian army rasistic and unitarian image (anti-muslim in Somalia, anti-catholic in Croatia)." Why is it changed? --Ceha 21:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no indication anywhere that the Canadian government chose to suppress the information due to those reasons. If you look at the statements on the Canadian side... very different reasons were given. (Didn't want to show Canadians in danger, and didn't want to show Canadians were killing in case it was mixed up civilian brutality, which was what Somalia was all about). The racist comment makes no sense here, since most of the troops were caucasian. And an anti religous statement? Generally, Canadians are not that religious to begin with, has had no history of sectarian violence on the topic and there are a significant # of catholics in the nation anyways. As for unitarian? You may have to elaborate on the meaning of that.

--P-Chan 22:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am comfortable saying this due to the abundance of Canadian articles on this topic.

Some Canadians called Serbian rebels their alies (from the time of first ww), and forces of Croatian goverment german (or nazi) scum. Isn't that rasistic? Also due to personal connections wich Serbia had (most of diplomats in ex-Yugoslavia were of Serbian origin, and wich lobbying for their cause, while Croatia was young state with its diplomacy still in the begining) against all proofs (Serbian agression on Croatia, etc.) in some cases Serbian rebels were in advantage. The same is with this. Perhaps word bias is better formulation? --Ceha 13:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Official Croatian goverment position is that a battle between Canadians and Croatians never took place, Croatian goverment forces fighted with Serbian rebels (and won), maybe in that fighting some Canadian forces toked some granades because they were to close to Serbian positions (but that could have not lasted more than half an hour). Diplomaticly Croatian forces were forced to withdraw, latter it was founded that some trops made war crimes for wich their comander (Mirko Norac) was judged on Croatian court, founded guilty and sentenced (I think it was for 15 years). Any contact or fight with Canadian forces is seen as highly imaginative. Canadian soldiers are described as pretty arogant persons (Jaggers thoughs about who had the right to live there, his friendship with Serbian soldier etc. to some point are prove some of that things:) which didn't held any respect for Croatian laws or situation in wich Croatia were. --Ceha 22:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

can you provide a source for this "official" croatian version? as this would of needed to have been officially denied. Bobetko was indicted for war crimes, but the Croatian gov't wouldnt hand him over to the ICTY before he died.

and can you please provide some source that states that Jagger was a Serbian sympathizer? and if you cannot please stop your libel.

and why would the UN troops respect Croatian law? they were in lands administered by the UN, in order to stop fighting, and so obeyed international law. Croatian law had no say in Serbian Krajina, the nation of Croatia had claims on its lands, but laws cannot be administered without the ability to enforce them, which was not present. that is like me being ordered by the Croatian gov't to pay them taxes, now why would I do that? I don't like gov'ts that protect war criminals, and I dont live in that nation and have no intention to.

and the conflict with Canadians was mentioned in the indictments of the Croatian war criminals, simply stating the "Medak Pocket" was in reference to this occurence, which was elaborated upon in the trials.

See, you say that you need another UN source then the "Canadian" one, but the "Canadian one" takes its information from the UN. You are confused because it tends to be stated from the UN/Canadian perspective or is from a Canadian website that takes its info from the UN. but it is all from the UN, why would South Africa or Britain or any other non-involved UN nation be bothered with publishing a report that none of their audience is concerned about, and they did not participate in?

--Jadger 01:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Official pages of Croatian goverment are [3]. I tried to find something about the issue, but I did not have luck. Pages are on english, so if you wish, you could also try. UN forces were in territory of one of its members, Croatia. They were called there by that member. They were not in terra nula, or somwhere on Mars! Nation of Croatia did not have claims on that region, that region was Croatia! Serbian Krajina is a parastate which was not recognized by not a one other state (except Serbia). As for your analogy on paying taxes it is a wrong one. If Canadian goverment orders you to pay taxes, what would you do? Would you refuse?:) And what were the cosequiences of your actions? That Serbs lived in Croatia (and evicted 60% of population (which was non Serb) from that area, hallo?) By using this statments you are caracterized as Serb simpatizer (to a degree), because you speak of one parastate (RSK) as it is a real state, and deny souvenity of Croatian state. I don't mean to offend you (or libel you) but that is the case... To be indited of something does not means that you are guilty. Are not all man considered inocent until their guilt is proven? I'd like to have some statment from UN (resolution, whatever) which shows that that is official opinion of UN and not of just one member. As for interest of the states could you tell me (you still did not answer about my question of Zepa and Srebrenica) what was the intres of Great Britains refusment to abolish UN-weapons embargo for the states of ex-Yugoslavia, when only Serbs had the weapons, and they were killing peopleos (200 000 of Bosniaks, for example) with that guns? Ah, the lands of Commonwealth --Ceha 14:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe there is some sort of video footage taken during the incident. I believe afterwards, at least. Either that, or some sort of media was present. I will look into this further and get back to you.

UN deaths

What evidence is there that 11 UN troops were killed? I thought they were French before because no Canadians died, but I can't seem to find any mention of this anywhere. The figure of 11 shouldn't be there unless there is some evidence of it.

--P-Chan 13:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(I just asked the author of the 11 killed entry to confirm.)--P-Chan 13:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently an unsigned user placed the 11 killed entry on the article, which makes me rather suspicious. I'm fairly certain that if anyone on the UN side died in that battle, that it would have been easily verified through articles online. Because such a critical error has managed to stay on the article for so long (3 months without detection), there is a good chance that there may be other critical errors here as well. I'm not an expert on this topic, so I can't tell. All the changes that I've made so far have been based on what I've read in the last few days. I think we should put a "Needs attention" tag on this until we can thoroughly go through the facts in this article. --P-Chan 20:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

---

To may knowledge, none of the Canadians died in operation Medak Pocket. In profesionalism under fire it states so. Also for the deaths of 27 Croat soldiers, that is only mentioned in that book. No Croatian sorce (hospitals, etc) claimed ever that... --Ceha 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

dead soldiers are not usually taken to hospitals, and so I doubt hospitals (atleast civilian ones) would have no dead soldiers in them. There were no Canadians killed in the battle, that has been established. I have seen in the numerous UN articles I have been reading since encountering the article that they all agree that around 27 croats were indeed killed. The Croatian soldiers would not of been taken back to hospital, as they attempted to flank the Canadians during the night, so the Canadian Snipers would pick off the scouts trying to flank them, and no one would in their right mind walk out to where another has just been shot and pick him up, when you know doing so will result in you getting fired at.

--Jadger 23:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but when a soldier dies, somebody notifies its family, he is writen of the list of social security, tax, etc.... People don't wanish in the midst of the night.

--Ceha 14:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

not necessarily, there are still many unknown soldiers still from wars over 100 years ago. most of the most important nations in the world have a "tomb to the unknown soldier". for instance, Canada, Britain, USA and Poland all have one each, and I bet many others do as well. these soldiers are unknown, but according to you that is impossible.

--Jadger 18:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that soldiers died in the wars which were fought 100 years ago. What hapens in any army today when some of its members is killed? Do they send a letter of condolance to its family? If 30 soldiers went missing would not some news went out at least in newspapers?

--Ceha 21:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Official UN version

If somebody could put links in wich UN sources prove Canadian version (That Canadian forces fought Croatian ones from Medak pocket in large battle). Official statments(presumably from non-Canadians), no unfinished accusations or proces on ICTY. Thanks:) --Ceha 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The UN does not publish a separate version of its own, as the Canadian forces were operating under the UN flag and not operating for Canada per se. As I stated earlier, the UN uses the "Canadian version" in the indictments of the Croatian war criminals (the former commanders). The Canadian version does not actually state a pitched battle takes place between Croats and Canadians if you read it again. the point of the Canadian version is establishing the murders and other atrocities by the Croatians as they withdrew. The Canadian version simply states that they were fired upon, and returned fire, and were attempted to be flanked but halted it with sniper fire, and the next day the Croatians were ordered to withdraw but delayed and murdered the civilians of the area and burned their homes.

--Jadger 23:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC) First ICTY is court which is established by UN, not UN spokesman. Second it is not arguable that a war crime happend in the area, but contex from wich is putted is. As you said there were no pitched battle between Croatian and Canadian forces. On September 15 Croatian forces obliged to withdrew from that area. Actions of Canadian commander (which was later removed from that post) are seen unnecesery, and in Canadian version he is portrated as a hero. Also simplifcation of the canadian version should be in order. For now it seems that anything happend just on actions of Canadian forces which is un-true. Canadians played unimportant role in the operation and in Canadian version, every second word is about them and theirs actions. --Ceha 14:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This entire argument is foolish. It is obvious to any normal, educated person that the Croatian side as presented here is biased and is unbelievable in its attempt to grasp at any possibilities to create a version that is self-suited. Croatia didn't "invite" the UN in to help quell a revolt. The UN TOLD Croatia that they would be entering the country to restore peace (that means stop both sides from committing atrocities). Yes, Croatia agreed to it in order to look good to the international community because it was inevitable anyway. They can call it an invitation if they wish, but I liken it to when a business executive resigns his post because he will be fired if he doesn't. He can call it a resignation but he was let-go. Likewise, they can say they invited the UN in but the UN or NATO would be coming in no matter what Croatia did. Snd yes I know that NATO wasn't a part of the international effort at this time but if the UN had failed in its effort to get involved, NATO would have become involved just as they did in the Kosovo matter. As for the claim that Canada took sides against Croatia, again not true. Plenty of Serbian war criminals were brought to justice by Canadian and UN soldiers and are facing charges today for crimes committed against Croatians, thanks to Canada. If the Croatian reports of Canada being Serb-friendly are true then how do they explain what happened just a few years later in Kosovo? Do they not realize that the Canadian Air force was part of that massive campaign of air strikes against Serbian targets in 1999? In fact 10% of all the munitions dropped came from the Canadian CF-18s. Not very smart for a country that supposedly loves the Serbs. And now I've gone and done it. I've entered this foolish debate. Everyone in the educated first-world knows the truth lies in the UN and Canadian version of events. The Croatian version is fantasy. It's time we stopped wasting our time with these arguments. They go nowhere and we should honestly just stop caring about what they think. After-all, Canadian soldiers died trying to maintain peace and save lives in their country, just as we're doing today in Afghanistan, while they try to discredit us for our efforts. The day that soldiers from the "great and just" country of Croatia begin to risk their lives outside their own borders for the good of the world, as ours do, will be the day that I begin to care about their opinions again. -medic10

It is needed a thousand time if that persons repeatedly forget where they are (where) and about what are they saying. This action took place in 1993, and Croatia is from 1992 member of UN. As for statment that UN does not "do" reintegration or quelling of revoltes, that is also untrue. UN forces (UNTAES) were responsible for reintegration of eastern Slavonia in Croatia in 1998.

NATO forces did not ever came on any actions in Croatia. What are you talking about? UN would be coming to Croatia no matter what? Hm, I can bet that in last 30 years there was a plenty of Conflicts in wich UN did not take part. Columbia, Kurdistan, Baludzistan, etc...

Canadian troops in that action were not neutral, were situated just few metters of Serbian positions and (according to they confesion) opened fire on Croatian troops. Does that prove something?

As for the criminals which they arrested, that is praiseful (very ok) and is called doing theirs job. No more, no less.

What is wrong with you? You can not just barg in and spit around something which "everbody knows". That is the main problem with this page. A lot of people from Canada are sudenly insulted when somebody tolds them that something is different from what they heard on TV.

Croatian soldier were part of UN missions from 1998 forward. Eastern Timor, Afganistan, are just some of the places...

It bothers me because you look stupid while you claime that "educated persons from first world" (which is by definition somewhat rasistic) shouldn't bother what everbody else thinks. If you do something you should do it right, and not that your actions causes more blodshit and destruction. And it would be great that you stop to think about yourself (or Canadian army) as something which is just great and glorius. If you are sencierely trying to help, you should not put that to somebody's nose and act like arrogant baster. If you help somebody he will one day return you the favor (I'm not talking about peacekeeping in Canada:) but you will have few millions of friends more in the world). And any critisism is good. If is based on facts you will have the space for improvments, and if it is not, you will have the spot for lightenting all the good things you've done.

BTW: I'm courious. What is your education level?:)

--Ceha 15:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo intervention happend 10 years after and it was even than controversial. There were a lot of wars (Gruzija, Moldavia, etc.) in wich NATO forces did not intervined. To my opinion intervention was at order from the first time when Croatia was attacked. Unfortunatelly it did not happened.

--Ceha 11:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

for the last time, stop saying it was in Croatia, this took place in lands that had separated from Croatia, adn Croatia had no power over this region before attacking it and taking it back. the Confederate states were never recognized by a foreign state, but every can agree that they did exist.

and please, asking for a person's education level is a personal attack, although not directly, it implies that they are uneducated hillbillies. please do not turn this into a "flaming war" as it is called on the internet.

And please stop debating this without providing a single source. If the Croatian version is true, why has there never been anything put forward to corroborate it, while there is plenty put forward in support of UN/Canadian side. Wikipedia is not a site for personal opinion essays, note below the edit box it says:

"Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. "

and this new user coming in and saying "everybody knows" as u state it, is doing exactly as you are doing. except you are sayin "all Croatians and Serbs know..."

now before you continue to post ceha can you provide sources besides the opinion papers of one Croat (as u have already)?

--Jadger 18:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to make it more clear to you. When US troops attacked Canada in 1812 war, was any occupied part of Canada part of US? In the ww2 half of France was occupied by Germany. Does that land stops being french, just because it is on foreign occupation? Croatia was a memer of UN with clearley defined bonderies (which included that territory!) Any statment contrary to that would be just as saying that Ontario is not part of Canada! Please stop implaying othervise...

Second, your parallel with CS is void. Under US constitution states had the right to secide. Under Croatian constitution, Croatian citizens don't have that. Also at that time there was no international body wich would grant international recognision (and prestige) to the states. Please think something through before you fly out with something like this. I apology for indirectly calling medic10 uneduceted hillbilly but he did ask for that (qoute; "It is obvious to any normal, educated person that the Croatian side as ..."). If he thinks for himself as educated would not it been right that he shares with as what is his degree of education?:) Nevertheless it was malicious and I'll try not to do it again. I can give you lot of sources on the net, but they are mostly on Croatian (internet editions of newspapers), and I doubt they would be of use to you. Međimurec case study [[4]] is pretty large, so if you have time to read it... It basicly speaks official Croatian version, with references to Serbian and Canadian ones. I've given you list of books to read about... It is not my fault that you live on the other continet.

--Ceha 21:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

table at start of article

the table at the start of article places the Canadian/UN forces under the same heading as the serbian forces, which creates a perhaps unintentional POV attack. As I am not that skilled at the particulars of the codes on wikipedia, can someone else create it so that the UN forces were a 3rd side.

--Jadger 03:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Yes, that would be good. This looks very unprofesional. --Ceha 21:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Jadgers comments?

I'm not sure if he did it itensionaly or not, but as the questions were aimed at me I'll try to answer it. Qute; "I tried to find stuff as well from the croatian side, and guess what, no luck. I wonder why? is it because it is not documented or proven, which is the opposite of the Canadian version. please, because a nation is not recognized does not mean it does not have control of its land. for instance, Taiwan has not been recognized by a single nation, yet it is recognized that China does not have control of this land and its law and government has no role in Taiwan, yet it is officially a part of China. Serbian Krajina was exactly the same way. OMG, I cannot believe you just siad: "only Serbs had the weapons" how did the Croatians start the Medak pocket offensive without guns? you yourself recognized that they did in fact have weapons, as a matter of fact, Croatia had been buying the former soviet bloc weapons through the former east germany. Oh wow, you've run out of actual arguments so you are starting to libel and defame me? calling me a Serbian sympathizer. where do you keep getting these numbers? 60% of population was Croatian? come on, cite a source. and because the Serbs ejected Croatians does not mean that the Croatians can move in and start burning Serb homes and start killing them if they refuse to move."

Croatian version denies any involment with the battle with Canadians. If there was a battle, Canadian side should show evidences of it. I did not see it till now. Paralell with China/Taiwan is also partialy wrong, as goverment of People's Republic China did not ever had control over that island. Croatian forces (police) had control at that territory at the begining of the war. Also Taiwan was at some point international representative of whole China. RSK was never in that position.

As for embargo, I'll clarify you a little bit:) Croatian forces fought against JNA which was 4th army in whole Europe. Croatia bought its weapons on black market, and by doing that it was breaking the UN-embargo. UN-embargo was puted at the time when only JNA was armed. I'm sorry to say that but when somebody has guns and other does not, what is the purpose of embargo? That that second guy gets kill? In Bosnia only Serbs had guns (also at the begining) British government threathen with veto when anybody tried to lift embargo (which would allowed Bosniaks to arm themselves). Bosnian Serbs killed 200 000 Boniaks.

Look I don't think that you are a bad person, but I think that you do not have all of informations. (you still did not answer Srebrenica question) And in the first statment I did not called you Serbian simpatizer, but stated that you have statments which are similar to theirs. Please recive my apology if I offended you, that was never my intention. If I had so low opinion of you I would not participate in this discussion nor would be talkin to you right now.

As for percentage there is census of 1991. No one has the right to kill somebody, no matter what that somebody done to him. The point was that Serbs did not have rights to secide, not constitutional, not demograficall... As I asked you before, what would Canadian goverment do if one village stoped paying its tax, started blocking trafic and killing its citizens. How many of them would end up in jail?

--Ceha 21:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The truth is probably in the middle

OK, I don't understand the argument that because the Canadians were occupying positions within a few metres of the Serbs that they were taking the Serbian side in this matter. This was the first step in a Cease-Fire agreement that both sides CLEARLY agreed to! Yes, it's in official UN documentation (you can request copies of many of these documents from the UN and they are in several transcripts from the International War Crimes Tribunal). And yes the CROATIANS AGREED to the Canadian soldiers occupying the Serbian lines as the first step in this cease-fire. The agreement that was signed by ALL sides stated that the first step would be for the Canadians to occupy the Serbian lines, then the second step would be for the Canadians to open a corridor between the two front lines and finally, the third step was for them to move into the Croatian lines. The Canadian infantry move into the Serbian lines shouldn't have been viewed as hostile because the Croats knew it was going to happen and had signed a cease-fire. Apparently this didn't mean anything to them however, as they began firing on the Canadian soldiers. Now, I am willing to admit that perhaps the high-level Croatian authorities didn't communicate this fact to the Croatian troops on the front lines, so they may have misinterpreted the Canadian advancement and (at the front-line level) have been justified in firing at the Serbian/Canadian positions. This doesn't negate the fact that there is UN documentation that proves the Croatian commanders knew of this Canadian movement in advance and should have told their troops not to fire... And Croatian mis-communication or not, once the Canadian soldiers were under fire, they had every right to return fire.

This brings me to my second point: Even after this initial 15 hour engagement ended the Croatians agreed to yet another cease-fire and agreed to allow the Canadian soldiers to advance into their territory the next day at 12h00. However, when the Canadians tried to move forward the next day, as agreed, they were once again stopped by a Croatian army roadblock. This was in total contradiction to their agreement. Now, of course the Croatian government would lie to their people and tell them that these agreement were never in place and they never fired-upon or stopped any Canadian soldiers. It's in the Croatian government's best interest to do this because the reason the Canadians were being held up, according to the International War-Crimes Tribunal (an organization that Croatia supports by the way), is because the Croat soldiers were trying to delay the UN's discovery of a small massacre of Serbs behind their lines. Now once again, I don't want to seem biased. I'm not saying there were no Serbian war crimes or massacres of Croatians. There were. In all wars both sides usually commit atrocities. But the fact is, that in regards to the Medak Pocket and what occured behind the Croatian lines, we are not talking about Serb war crimes (of which there were many), we are talking about Croatian war crimes. I don't know why it's so hard for some Croatians to admit that any of their military commanders could have commited these attrocities... And in order to help deny any such possibility, they have to deny any actions their soldiers may have taken against the Canadian UN troops to delay their advancement.

Also, to address some of the continual requests for the Canadian side to "prove their story". I don't know how they can do that any more than they have. The UN agrees that this event took place (proven by their documentation and awarding of the Force Commanders Medal to the Canadian forces), and it is also referenced in many papers filed with the International War-Crimes Tribunal. It's also been reported by an international pool of reporters that were near the front lines in Medak. I understand that those of you who are calling for this proof are skeptical of these sources but what else can the Canadians say. You don't accept the words of the Canadian soldiers, the Canadian Government, the UN, the international media, or the War-Crimes Tribunal. On the other hand, what proof does the Croatian side present, besides the words of their own government and media? At least the Canadian side has international backing!

- medic101

My notion of Canadian soldiers being near the Serbian ones were not in context when they were supposed to establish demilitarized zone. If you read Professionalism under fire, you can see that the center of Canadian peacekeepers was few meters from Serbian positions. That was my alusion. Serbs granated town of Gospić from that position...

As for Croatian goverment forces slowing down the demilitarisation, official version is that they done that to stop reentering Serbian entrence in the pocket. Some skrimishes which happened at that time were (this was an official version) consequence of Canadian hurrying of Croatian goverment forces. Do you have any page on the web which shows original agreement with original lines in wich Croatian forces should withdrow? I did not read the original, just comments of it (which were made by Croatian officials).

As for war crimes, nobody denise them, and they should be punished (as Croatian court have done with Norac).

--Ceha 11:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Accusation made on the ICTY, aren't still proven. Those cases aren't finished yet... I'm skeptical, because all of the informations comes from one source... Look, there is no doubt that there was a crime in Medak pocket, which should be punished. Canadian participation in the battle is what is questionable. That battle is something which went unnoticed by the Serbian forces (and they were Croatian enemies, which would jump gladly on such a thing), and was a secret till 1996. I'm just curious have could that have happened?

--Ceha 12:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to add that I apologise for my very emotional response the last time in which I talked-down to the Croatians and implied that Ceha was uneducated. I do not truely believe that so I apologize to you Ceha. I was just reading this site and became very upset because I know a Canadian soldier that was in this operation and I do not believe for a minute that he has lied to me about the entire thing. It's too real for him. What I perceived as a Croatian cover-up just really upset me. I also apologize for making a few inaccurate comments, especially in regards to Croatian contributions to international peace-keeping. I know they are involved, but in my emotional state I just didn't think their commitment compared at all to something like Canada's proactive and nation-rebuilding operations in Afghanistan (where many Canadians soldiers are losing their lives). Look, the truth of this whole matter is that both sides (Croatian and Canadian) have probably twisted the story to their own benefit. The real truth lies somewhere in the middle, but closer to who's story is what is up for debate. My opinion, and that of the international community is that the real truth is closer to the Canadian side. Ceha's opinion appears to be that the real truth is closer to the Croatian side. We will never know for sure if we all keep ignoring the facts the the other sides present. PS: My education level is university. Bachelor of Science in Paramedicine from the University of Toronto. I work as a paramedic in Ontario.

-Medic101 23:55, March 16 2006 (UTC)

Ok, everbody can make a mistake. I'm sorry if it seems that I'm blackening involments of Canadian forces through the world, it tooks a lot of guts to travel to some other part of the world and risk your life for somebody you don't know. I'm just saying which were problems in this case... And I'm always willing to compromise. Just give me something solid, something I can work on.

PS: I'm glad that you are somebody normal to which I can talk. PPS: and I also have a university educational level, Bachelor of Computer Science, University of Zagreb. Although I don't think that counts for something, persons are what they are according to theirs deeds, not the level of education --Ceha 12:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Simplify the Arguments (too much at one time)

alright here is where I would like to simplify the argument so that we can end it as we are getting nowhere, I dont have time to explain global politics or the war of 1812 to you. Now I will ask you this once Ceha, and don't try avoiding it by going off-topic. But as you have stated multiple times, the Serbians and Croatians dont even recognize that the battle actually happened. BUT, then you go on in detail in the article about the Croatian version of events in this battle, that according to Croatians, never took place. NOW, how can one describe what one's forces did in a battle, when you don't even admit the battle took place?

--Jadger 07:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I would like to state, that in the War of 1812, the US never had control of Canadian territory long enough to set up some form of administration, they usually only had Canadian lands for a week at most before retreating again, whereas Serbian Krajina controlled the lands for years before the Croats attacked and tried to retake them.

--Jadger 07:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get of topic, but I'm trying to get you think objectivly (at least from my point of view). If you want to understand somebody you should "get into its shues", or better said, put yourself in its position. At that way you can say when he had right, and when he was wrong. I'm asking you to that for a few day from now:) Imagine a scenorio wich would happen in Canada and wich is similar to something which happend in Croatia. And tell me what would be your actions. And how logical are some situations...

I did not know that US did not hold any piece of Canada in that war for longer than a month. So you say that in accordance to make something (for examples drinking buddies, or a gang) a state, you only need to administrate of some land and stop anybody other of doing that? International recognition has no value?

I hope that you can see what am I trying to say with that many paralles. I'm trying to get you to understand the situation better. My talks are not diversions or something of that kind, but is extrimly dificult for me to try to explain you something when you even don't know that was Croatian territory...

As for battle which never took place, perhaps I did not make myself clear. There was a battle ragging between Croataian goverment and Serb rebel forces. There was not a battle between Croatian goverment forces and forces of Canadian peacekeepers. There were some skrimishes. NOT a battle.

I don't know what is your knowledge of Balcan wars(because of Srebrenica & Žepa). Selfproclaimed RS existed for 4 years (not in the same territory, when it was erased by Croatian army. It was never internationaly recognised, and Republic of Croatia was (with territory including that one claimed by RS).

I'm sorry there is so much of my arguments, but everything should be put in the right context...

--Ceha 12:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

LMAO, you start off on the wrong footing from the very start, you state:

"I'm not trying to get of topic, but I'm trying to get you think objectivly (at least from my point of view)."

never has anyone said that your POV is objective, in fact I would like to find anyone who would characterize it as such.

and the saying "put yourself in their shoes" means exactly the same as "put yourself in its position".

International recognition does have a value, but only when you are trying to conduct international politics, not when you are administering your own lands. I repeat, taiwan and Palestine are not nations, yet they control land, and nations interact with them as such, but that does not mean they do not exist or are not valid, as you are trying to pretend with Serbian Krajina.

Now I ask you, what constitutes a nation? does someone else recognizing you as such make you a nation? of course not, it is many characteristics. The most important thing under the Westphalian system that makes one a nation is that the people share a common cultural, historical or economic history that binds them together so that they can be recognized as such, and Serbian Krajina can be described as such.

and if the battle was between Serbs and Croats, then why are there Canadian and Croatian versions of battle, but not a Serbian version of battle?

and a Croatian free state was established by Nazi Germany and recognized by her allies, but in no way was it free to govern itself according to its own wishes. and the Allies did not recognize it as a nation, so does that mean that the Croatian state existed?

My point is, the dispute of the article is on the way Croatians incorrectly portray the battle, because of their obvious bias. Are you saying that the Croatian government or the consensus has not been that it was a glorious operation, but the Canadians came in and stopped us from "regaining" Croatian lands.

--Jadger 22:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

First, there is nothing wrong with my intention. How can we have a serious discousion when you over and over speak about the "state of Serbian Krajina" without any though what that name even means to Croatians? Second, as for objective thought what is wrong in looking something from somebody elses POV? Only by looking the same thing from all the angles, you can make NPOV. I insist in claims that my statments are NPOV. You deny basic thesis from wich my claimes are deducted. Would not it been right that you try to (I'll repeat again) put yourself in that shoes to achive NPOV? Third I'm not pretending at anything. About 30% of Croatia was under ocupation by Serbian rebels and Army from Serbia (and 60% of people living in that area were banished from their homes, only on the fact that they were not Serbs). Administration of some territory does not make something of a state, nor a nation. State is something what is internationaly recognised, and nation is a grop of people with same (similar) goals. Under your definition few bandits and a gang could be characterized as a state. Forth, you are wrong about economic fact. If ever Came into existence, RS would be economicly non-existented because it was made from Croatian border territories (any part wich ex-JNA could gets its hand on), which was clearly seen in the latter stages of war when rebel Serbs demanded grain for the harvest from Croatian goverment so they could have a normal harvest? As for common cultural and historical history the same rules can characterize a minority in foreign land (same roots, that's all). There is Serbian version of battle. In it there is no mention of Canadian intervention. You can read more about it in Međimurec's case study [5] or in the Serbian press at the time. And for your statments of Croatian state in ww2, it is not true that ISC was not recognized by all the allies. SSSR recognized it. Territory of that state was divided on German and Italian ocupation zone, and it was nothing more than a pupet of axis. Todays Croatian state is not inheritor of that creation but of SR Croatia, which was made in the fight against it. Croatian resistence is one of the eldest in Europe (in ww2) and indeed did something for end of ww2 (if you don't know Tito was a Croat). I'm saying that Canadians did not do nothing. There was diplomatical pressure on Croatia to withdraw its troops from that part of Croatia, to demilitarize it. Your version is bias, because it speaks only of Canadians and their role in that battle, which is wastly overrated. There was a battle between Croatian goverment forces and Serbian rebels. They were some minor skrimishes with Canadians after that. In Canadian version of OM Battle[6], every second word is about Canadians. Who is the bias one? --Ceha 3:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes in Croatian version

First, control of self-proclaimed RSK on the territory of Medak Pocket was only tempory as RSK was it self unrecognazed creation wich lasted only temporaly itself. Second, Croatian forces entered the pocket. Pocket was on territory of RH and that is a good discreption. Third, my note is perfectly correct. Why is it changed? Forth, if you are speaking of Croatian version than Croatian version should be heard. Croatian version includes inefficienty of Canadian troops and primary goal of Operation Medak Pocket (defense of Gospić). In Canada this skrimishes, are known as the biggest battle after ww2? Why should that be hidden? As for your comment of Croatian version, can you give me some document from UN to back up your claims? No? Then what is it doing in the article? Internationaly accepted version of events? Please give me source, that UN claims that. As for UN Commision of Experts, for that crimes there is still a trial? Then how can it be 100% sure (by this I'm not saying that the crimes did not happend, but I am saying that there should be a trial over first, so we could name the guilty ones). Last sentence was highly bias. It puts all the blame on RH goverment, whith the trials not yet over. As for your comment of that 80 years old women she was filmed a few days before by Serbian television with the machine gun in hers arms quoting that no Croats will ever enter that village. In the UN report there is no mention how many of casulties were civilian ones. This article is better informed than that UN report? --Ceha 3:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

your note is not fine, as even if a link isnt in English Language a link can still be provided, you could of learned that from Molobo or Space Cadet, they manipulate the rule well.

also, why do you keep editing it so that it says "and reintegration of rebel areas in the Croatia since 1992, but they mostly managed only to support "the status quo""? Their mission was to re-establish the status quo so peace can be established, their mission was not to fight Croatia's wars for them. you have already noted that UNPROFOR's mission was not to reinstitute it, and I have already provided clear examples in the previous talk.

and as for your definition of "temporary" control, years is not temporary as it is commonly understood to mean in a military context. Serbian Krajina had controlled the land for multiple years, since 1991, and had established administrative control and there was no remainder of the Croatian gov't in the region. Using your definition of "temporary", all lands are under the temporary control of a nation, as we cannot tell the future, perhaps another nation will invade and take land, and so USA could have "temporary" control of NYC or Washington DC right now.

the comment on the biggest canadian battle after Korean war (nmot WWII) is taken out of context in that section, so it has been removed from there until I have enough time to properly re-write the article so it is NPOV. BUT if you will not stop reverting then no one will ever have time to do work on it.

The documents from the UN are cited in this talk page and at the bottom of the article page, so stop asking for references when they are already given, you are the only one who has been able to give credible sources.

It is 100% sure that the people died by unatural means, and it has been proven that they have been murdered, if it was ordered is what is currently being resolved. Or are you saying that civilians behind the Croatian lines somehow accidentally died of gunshot wounds, and their houses were burnt down ACCIDENTALLY. It is known that the croatians killed them, if it was ordered is the only thing being determined.

how do you know that it was the exact same woman that was murdered? the only way you would know that is if you were one of the Croatian soldiers present in the area when the withdrawal took place, and saw her body. In that case you would be heavily biased (which is already obvious) in order to cover up your own actions. I must again point you to the message at the bottom of the edit box that says that all information must be verifiable

--Jadger 04:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous; who made you the authority on the Croatian War, may I ask? What on earth do you know about Croatia and what happened there? You speak so arrogantly about these things as if you have the complete unassailable truth, when no one in fact has that regardless of what they think they know. And you can't simply assume that because you can't find information supporting the Croatian point of view online and in the English language that it doesn't exist--you're making the typical Anglophone mistake in assuming that everything of importance has been meticulously translated to English and made available on the web. Besides, everything you've said here is pretty much verbatim what Canadian media has been reporting on the subject for the last 15 years, so it's no secret where you're getting your "facts" from. Normally when one is far-removed from an event and has conflicting information, a very cautious and conservative approach to the topic at hand is most sensible. It seems to me you're just looking for someone else besides the Poles to antagonize. --AHrvojic 16:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

ok seriously, WTF are you talking about? have u actually read the entire discussion? I am not the one that is saying 80 year old civilians with bullet holes in them were not murdered, or that the burning of their homes was somehow justified. I am not assuming that everything of importance is in english, I even said in my previous comment (if you had read it) that a suitable link in Croatian would be allowable to acknowledge the Croatian POV, and someone could translate it, perhaps you could? that is if you can find one. And the source of my facts is the UN (the link at the bottom of article for instance), care to do any reading from there? they are unbiased. You are just trolling, so I am not going to comment on your obvious instigation of a fight.

--Jadger 16:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Your adolescent nonsense has been coming up on my watchlist for weeks now, even when you called Toronto a "shithole" (as a native, I beg to differ). Those UN "facts" you keep referring to are from the ICTY *prosecution* (there are *two* sides, remember?) doing its job--the mere existence of indictments does not imply guilt on all counts, which you seem to have great difficulty understanding. Everything else you've said here comes from unsophisticated Canadian sources that you believe to be sacrosanct. Professionalism under Fire? What populist trash. Same goes for Macleans and The Star. A lot of ink for a military operation that Canada had no real significant role in, though typical of the Canadian tendency to desperately scrape together every last crumb that could be construed as some sort of past glory. Canada, like every other country on earth, has its own political interests and to believe that Canadian sources are inherently more credible than Croatian sources is pure naivete. Ceha has spent a very long time patiently trying to explain "the other side" of things to you, but you refuse to take him seriously and tease him about his English instead. Stop bullying and show some respect. --AHrvojic 02:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that 2 gentelments, so insted of reverting that line you could just pointed that out to me. As for reintegration and return of refugies, have you read that link that you gave me? Quote; "UNPROFOR's mandate was to ensure that the three "United Nations Protected Areas" (UNPAs) in Croatia were demilitarized and that all persons residing in them were protected from fear of armed attack." [[7]] ? Nobody ask UNPROFOR to wage war for Croatia. Goal of the mision was return of the refugies. If all refugies returned, Serbs would again became a minority in that territory. UNPROFOR mission also included respect for Croatian souverenity. Please read the link one more time...

As for temporary, it means that that creation was temporary. It was never given international recognision nor was recognised as state by any other country. Word temporary in this context means that internationaly recognised Republic of Croatia did not had control over one part of its country some time. Please do not try to give credit to something what was unrecognized by the whole world. As for taking something out of the contex, I think you are wrong. If Canadian goverment boost itself that was a greatest battle after the Korean war, I can use that frase and prove it that it is not. If I use one sentence, what is the rule you should not qoute me? Please explain what do you think by taking something out of the contex? That Canadian statments should be seen only in positive light? I'm not trying to force any of my changes. If I would be doing that, I would not have this discussion with you, nor leave some of your changes. You are talking about one article in Canadian newspapers in wich one of the interviewed Persons (Calvin) was fired shortly after that mission. And I don't see that Gen. Jean Cot had any statments in the text? You say, you know? Is that a POV? There is a trial on ICTY. Before that is over that are only suspicions. I don't see what is wrong with my formulation? Ok, now you are calling me a war criminal? And you were insoulted when I called you a Serbian sympatiser?? I did not take any part in that battle. I have only 24 years and at that time I was to young to do anything. But I'm curious now. What is your background? What have you done there (if you were there?) As for that granma death, Serbian television reported hers "heroic" death. I'm starting to lower my opinion of you. I've given you a thousand questions and most of it is still unanswered. If you are wrong (which is obvious as in Srebrenica and Žepa case) why you don't admit it. Also it would be great if you stoped only to think how to promote Canadian Army (I'm affraid that you are highly bias in this thing) and try to open yourself to other sources. How can you achive NPOV, when you are not even replying to questions of the person whom you discouss?

--Ceha 19:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And for coments of AHrvojic, I'm afraid that he's got the point. Have you ever think, that something could not be on the web? I gave you list of books. That is enough of litterature, wouldn't you agree? And that about death of that old women was very low (as for calling me a war criminal). You did not saw that emision on Serbian television, did you? Please stop act like onipotent, all-knowing thing, and try to listen what other people are trying to say to you. And answer a question, please. If I can loose half an hour to answer you, how can this be a good discussion if you don't answer to me? This is not a monologue, in which everbody talks to himself. Please try to cooperate, and not to ofend everbody. --Ceha 19:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

---

you never did such a thing, and you know it Ceha, you need to properly cite them, and if they were as credible as you pretend you would of used them in the article by now, which you havent.

and as for blind headstrong rush into confusing things, let me clarify it for yet another time, it is not a question of whether the murders were committed, as it is known that they were, what is being investigated is whether it was ordered or not. not trying to cloud the issue by saying it is a trial, the trial is charging the commanders with murder, it is known that the people were murdered, which officer was behind it is what is being discussed in the trial, not whether it actually happened, as that has been proven.

again you insist that the goal was to force the land back under the Croatian yoke, but UNPROFOR never had that as its outline, the quote you just gave us perfectly said that. its mission was to establish peaceful settings for talks to end the dispute, nto to force the rebels to give up and become Croatian citizens again.

As for Serbian Krajina never being recognized, the movement for "rebellion" can be traced back to June of 1990, before Croatia was established as a nation either (if you want my source, check the wikipedia entry on Republic of Serbian Krajina). And on 30 September 1990 (before Croatia existed) the Serbian Krajina officially declared its autonomy. So before Croatia existed, this land had already declared it was autonomous, now how can an area be a part of a nation that doesn't exist yet? The truth is, that even before Croatia was independent, fighting had broken out in this region trying to stop Croatia from forcing this land with them.

WTF? I never called you a war criminal, you said that the dead 80 year old woman had been seen days earlier with a rifle on TV, but did you see her dead body and realize that it was the same woman? that is the only way you could of known it was the same woman as on the TV with the rifle, as you have claimed it was. you ASSUME everything, but prove nothing.

I have tried repeatedly to cooperate, but every time I try you always repeat the same BULLSHIT. "it is official Croatian position, no translation, no citation available". I am getting fed up with you constantly making blanket accusations and not backing them up with any shred of proof, while I have provided source after source for all your questions. but every time you always reply "the UN is wrong, and is not credible".

as for me being biased, what is with the paragraph in the article:

"Canadian government, concerned about not harming Canada's reputation for neutrality in the Balkans, suppressed all news of the Canadian participation in the fighting and released only euphemistic statements about Canadian troops "monitoring" the area and "establishing control". It was not until 1996 that details of the battle came to general knowledge in Canada. The Canadian government was also concerned that news of Canadians killing Croatians would be seen in a similar light as the Somalia Affair, where two Canadian soldiers beat to death a Somali teenager, and that would give Canadian army negative and bias image."

now, you have never provided any proof of a cover-up? or that it has any relation to the poor showing in Somalia. And you have never provided any source that shows the reasoning behind the "cover-up" as you call it. this is a conspiracy theory of yours, that is it, like Aliens landed at Roswell and are cooperating with the US military, it is exactly the same: no proof, and no way you can possibly prove it.

I have removed that numerous times, but you keep adding it, that is the most blatant piece of POV BULLSHIT I have ever seen. now, show me a piece of POV I have put into the article? if you can. But I bet just like your sources, it will only be in Croatian and untranslatable and not available on the internet right?

if your sources are so credible, quote them and provide a proper citation.

--Jadger 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read a tone of books regarding this matter. I didn't thought that statments from former minister of foreign affeirs or special deputy of Croatian president would mean that much to the article. I'll try to find the books and use quotations from them. As for crimes, I agree with you. The trial is just about who is responsable. So you can not put in the article that "Although no commander has been charged, it does not lessen the fact that Croatian government forces murdered Croatian citizens of Serbian ethnicity." as they were trialed for that. It is not proven that they've done it on the orders from the goverment. Yoke is an insault. Please do not try to offend my country, as I'm not saying that a Canada is some good forsaken wolf-fuck where people has no brain:) This is a civilised discussion, no? Did you read the statment? Where are those zones? Are they in Croatia? Yup, they are. Majority of UNPA zones, residents were Croatians (and a large one, I think more than 70%). If that persons returned into them, what is that? UNPROFOR did not have any authorization to use force (except in self defence). As for negotians, those rebels really did not have nothing to say about that (as all of decisions were made in Belgrade, they even turned down z-4 plan, but I doubt you now anything about that). Croatia was a recognised nation from 1945 when second Yugoslavija was internationaly recognaside. Croatia was one of its republics, and under constitution of 1974 it did have the right to secide from the rest of that country. Badillero comision confirmed that the borders of SR Croatia are not changable, and Croatia was recognised as souveren state in that borders. You are mixing few things (and you don't have a clue about Croatian past). Selfproclamation by a grup of criminals (they are all in ICTY now for their genocidal attempt) does not create something out of nothing. Please try to inform yourself more about some things before you jump to conclussions. "the only way you would know that is if you were one of the Croatian soldiers present in the area when the withdrawal took place, and saw her body. In that case you would be heavily biased (which is already obvious) in order to cover up your own actions"-->that is an accusation. If you did not though what you said, OK. Name of that women is Danica. Perhaps there is something about that on the net (I'm not sure, and don't have the time to serch for it). I've given you the sources from wich I got it. RSK television? what is more I can give you? I told you from the begining that I can not find any page which would confirm it was an official position of Croatian goverment. I'll try to get you some qoutes from the litterature I've given you, but I think that a best way for you to acept this is to read those books yourself.

"Canadian government, concerned about not harming Canada's reputation for neutrality in the Balkans, suppressed all news of the Canadian participation in the fighting and released only euphemistic statements about Canadian troops "monitoring" the area and "establishing control". It was not until 1996 that details of the battle came to general knowledge in Canada. The Canadian government was also concerned that news of Canadians killing Croatians would be seen in a similar light as the Somalia Affair, where two Canadian soldiers beat to death a Somali teenager, and that would give Canadian army negative and bias image." is true. See [8] or try seing older editions of Medak Pocket (which I did not wrote). "The Medak Pocket affair was widely publicized, caused an international outcry and badly dented Croatia's international reputation. However, the Canadian government, concerned about not harming Canada's reputation for neutrality in the Balkans suppressed all news of the Canadian participation in the fighting. It did not come to general knowledge in Canada until 1996. The Canadian Forces were also concerned that Canadians killing Croatians would be seen as similar to the Somalia Affair, that was raging at the time" Only diference is my analisation of the image wich would have Canadian army after that. Have you read Professionalism under fire? or any other link from that page? (as you can see even article in Toronto Star is from 1996). You just looked up ridicilous:) When did you hear about the so called battle? How well are you informed of this events. I would not like that at the end it ends up that I were discussing with some 12-year old kid wich saw negative review of Canadian actions and decided to do something about it. Also I do not like the implifications that I lie, or that I have something to hide. Plese try to better inform yourself of this matter. You have google. Search. Not everything in your had has to come from Canadia goverment. What are: " INTERNATIONALY ACCEPTED VERSION OF EVENTS: is the Canadian/UN version!" "Although no commander has been charged, it does not lessen the fact that Croatian government forces murdered Croatian citizens of Serbian ethnicity." "The international community sees this view of the Croatian people as uneducated on the matter" Things you wrote on RSK, etc.. Spoksmen of international comuny, right?:) And I must to inform you that your stands about RSK (for wich leadership of RSK-Krajina is being sentaced on ICTY) is very much similar as theirs. That is a POV, right? And try to control your language. I did not call you have minded moron, not did I swared in this discussion for once, did I? I'm sure that are beatifull forest and small quantity of people in Canada, but when you speak to somebody else try to mind your manner, will you? --Ceha 14:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I live in Toronto AH, and indeed it is a shithole, nothing but crime and poverty, go tolive for a while anywhere else in Canada, you will realize how horrible Toronto is. and I have never quoted Maclean's or any of those, those links where there before I became involved in this article. Maclean's is a red leftist propoganda machine (altho now it has become more of a glitzy celebrity rumour-mill now). I have only quoted from the UN, and not only the indictments of the war criminals, but I have quoted and cited multiple times on this here talk page. I never said the Canadian sources were inherently more credible then the Croatian source[s] [sic], but the croat source is one random guy who says he has researched the matter a lot, then at the bottom of the page puts a bunch of letters after his name, pretending to be a genius. What I have been quoting is the UN, not only the Canadian sources, and the UN is an internationally respected (except by Croats it seems) neutral force that tries to resolve disputes.

--Jadger 07:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And who do you think the UN is? How can an organization directed by a handful of powerful member countries, each agitating for its own political interests and occasionally winning them, be a completely neutral force? And that's assuming the UN is some sort of monolithic one-minded entity instead of the extremely complex and often self-contradictory human organization it is. Once again, indictments are not facts and the one other linked report submitted *under the direction* of the UN was evidently overseen by Canadians (a quick Google confirms that William J. Fenrick is also Canadian)--hardly impartial. This article definitely wouldn't be complete without those sources, but one must always be critical and present them cautiously, rather than at face value. --AHrvojic 04:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you live is somwhere where you do not feel right, I live in Croatia, and it is haven on earth:) We have our problems, but it is a butiful country. I did not understanded your conection with Maclean, would you care to clarify? As for that letter, I already told you, that I did not write it. I puted my comentaries at the end of the letter so person who read it would be able to saw it mistakes. There was a e-mail in that letter wasn't it? Why don't you try to e-mail that guy and ask him about it? And for sources, did you read Međimurec Case study? all of it?

--Ceha 15:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC reply

Hi,

Someone posted an RfC on this article. They said this article has a POV/edit war dispute. As far as I can tell, that's an accurate description.

I have seen this happen too many times to count, especially with war-related articles. Two factions with vastly different interpretations on an event start bickering. Now you can choose to (1) spend the rest of your life worrying about this one article on Wikipedia, or (2) get over it. You will never be able to prove that your side is correct. Once you accept that and are ready to move on, you can start with the following:

• Create one (1) section per point of view.
• Do not edit the section belonging to the opposite side. Counter their criticisms if you like, but do it in your own section.
• Do not include a single word from an invalid source. See this for details.

Hopefully you are all mature enough to navigate around this problem. If you have any further questions, you may leave a note on my talk page.

Good luck,

 Cdcon  21:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your sugestion. Something like that was at the begining when two articles egisted (Operation Medak Pocket) and Canadian version of OMB. On sugestion of P-Chan and on accusations on Jadger that Operation Medak Pocket is not objective, we tried to put all the data in the same page. Most of the page of Operation Medak Pocket was changed, while Canadian version was granted sufix that is accorded with UN (wich is not by my opinion in any case). I even tried to put some things in that page more objectivily. Problem is that Jadger had clung to his opinion (saints of Canadian Army) and has started to change Croatian version of the page (he has no data on what is opinion of Croatian public, nor is he living here, but just puting on his POV), for example calling Croatian opinion educated etc... The more cooperative I am the more hard lining is he (he puted RfC sine in this article). I totaly agree with your sugestion, but I don't know what to do. He is poorly informed of the situation in the region (If you want you can see that from the end of the discussion), nor he is attributing to the article in any way then qouting Canadian sources. I asked him a thousand questions (to try to look something from other perspective and achive NPOV in that way), which he declained (he just avoided to answer the questions). If you look Canadian version of OMB you'll see that that article is Canadian-centered and basicly it does not talk off anything else, then of Canadians and their actions. I'll try to give him qoutations for the book I read, but I have a feeling that he'll than just come to something else to argue (he did not had a clue of something wich is the basis of Canadian claims (secrecy of operation) and he claims to an "advocate" of that side. As I read his page yesterday I saw that he thoughts of himself as crusader. I'ld like to point out to the masacres that crusaiders done in the name of the faith and some things which is he doing. I'm sorry to speak so badly of another member of wikipedia, but I don't see any will of coperation on his side. Positive side of his is that he is not (at least not most of the times) reverting article changes. --Ceha 1:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

LMAO, u agree with his suggestion? that is what I have been trying all along. I was the one mature enough to ask for RfC to end your bullshit Ceha, now your trying to pretend to be the mature one.

your right, I do not live in Croatia, and do not know what the Croats have been told by their government about the battle, but all information on wikipedia must be VERIFIABLE that has been my point all along, and Ceha has never varified it, he alwasy jsut says: "it is croatian viewpoint, no sources needed or available".

I have never once claimed to be an advocate of either side. quote me from the talk or anywhere else where I have stated that I am an advocate for anything but the following of Wikipedia policy, which you Ceha blatantly abandone. You simply assume that because I am Canadian that I want a messianic image to surround the Canadian forces. If that is not a personal attack on me I don't know what is.

and my user page if you would care to look for more then a milisecond says I am a crusader to stop POV pushing, which is what I am doing here, trying to stop YOUR POV pushing.

Now I ask you Ceha, what have you actually contributed to this article? I have been looking long and hard throughout the history, trying to find a single edit of yours that adds new or enlightening information about the article. I have only seen that you have engaged in multiple edit wars with myself and many other respected wikipedians.

--Jadger 07:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Ceha seems to like to make up stuff in order to attack my credibility, why don't I just give citations and links to his own extreme POV pushing. for instance [[9]] and I quote: "made it myself" now, Ceha is not only an expert and an eyewitness to the Medak pocket, but he also has insight into the collective of the Serbian mind, and knows their plan to conquer all the Balkans. As it looks to anyone that has seen your history Ceha, you simply go about constantly jading issues to make Croatia seem like the good guy, and serbs as the evil devils. I wouldnt be surprised if you have written an alternative version of the protocols of the elders of zion with Serbs in the place of jews

--Jadger 08:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

First it seems to me that I AM more mature than you. First and for all my english is worse than yours, but at least I don't swear in any other word. What have you been trying all along? P-Chan maded a new otlow of the page, and you started to change "Croatian version", with statmens that are clearly insaltful, bias and unproven (for example, " The international community sees this view of the Croatian people as uneducated on the matter"). As for sorces I've given you literature from wich I read those informations. I've try to give you exact qoutations. You are not an advocate for Canadian side? what does this sentence then means? [10] "I also do not like the idea that the Canadian version is portrayed as BS and that the Croats were innocent, while their commanders were indicted for war crimes." Is this a POV? And that is also the answer to your question about personal attack. You are a Canadian, who does not look how Canadian version is portrayed? I did not call you messianic, but from my POV you are acting like that. You opinion of Croatia is not very high, I'm affraid "the UN peacekeepers were not there to rebuild your nation after you guys made it a shit-hole (so to speak)" and you keep talking about some non-existent nation (RSK) which leadership eneded up in ICTY for genocidal attempts?

As for crusader allegation I told you who crusaders were, and what were theirs actions. They also had a glorios cause, but it ended in much of blodshit. Formulation fight agains POV pushing would be more aproprite (if you were trying to say that)? Only person (except you) which tried to rearange this page (and wich changes I removed) was SimonP. We reached agreement when I puted all of other data(which stil has Canadian bias) in other page, and puted visible link to it.

As for your allegations that Serbs were trying to conquer whole of Balcans (and that they were the good guys) please read [11] or try to google with great +serbia +map +chetniks . This maps was made under reference of Serbian claims in Bosnia (claims on acces to the sea, borders on una and Neretva river) which (the main sketch) could be seen on [[12]] and the rest informations I goted from newspapers, about towns wich Serbs attacked, etc. As for allegations that I'm a racist, please show me when I did say that. I'm using short term for Serbian forces as it would be gross to put in any other word forces which were controled by Serbian president Milošević, which attacked another souveren country, etc... Persons who made war crimes in my contry should be held responsable, no matter of their nationality, because, crime is a crime, no matter what. There was no civil war in Croatia, but agression, and that is something wich Jadger is trying to forget? --Ceha 14:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)