Talk:Operation Medak Pocket/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Operation Medak Pocket. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
UN's Medak investigation
Here's this link.
Final report of the United Nations Commission of Experts established pursuant to security council resolution 780 (1992).
Annex VII - Medak investigation
S/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. I)
28 December 1994
About that text there's article in Croatian magazin Hrvatski list from Oct 4, 2007, pages 19-23.
This should be helpful. Kubura (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
We had couple T-72s captured from barracks, and we used them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AurgelmirCro (talk • contribs) 21:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Croatian war crimes
Should this article be in the Croatian war crimes category? As per the above link to the UN investigation there was definite ethnic cleansing by the Croat forces. But is that a war crime? -- Esemono (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, probably about 90% of wars throughout history have been about "ethnic cleansing" if you use the broad definitions we now use. Either through colonialism, religious/cultural conversions, dispersion, killing, assimilation. Canada and the U.S. have ethnically cleansed parts of their countries from aboriginals (particularly the province of Newfoundland). The UK took part in an ethnic cleansing in parts of Ireland in the mid 19th century. Turks did it in Bosnia. Israel did it in parts of Palestine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.177.82 (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Esemono you are wrong. Croats and Serbs fought many running battles between 1991 and 1995, many times their troops clashed and until Operation Storm, chunks of land and its population changed hands here and there following the outcome of each battle. Nevertheless, there is a strict Wikipedia policy for how to present the incidents. Invariably, you had a struggle between two belligerents and on every occasion, civilians wre harmed both during the campaign and in the aftermath. For every incident where the Croats came out on top, a page exists by the name of the operation and it is listed in the infobox that it was a Croatian victory of some kind, and the article will describe the event in such a way that rank outsiders overturned the bigger opponent. When it is the other way round: the Serbs won't so much have earned themselves a tactical victory (a phyric one if they are lucky) but the focus will be entirely on the atrocities caused and as such be described as a "war crime", but every military expert knows that any new project involving armed forces has an operational name and that they are deployed only to tackle a resistence from the enemy. It is very clever editing by some people, I'll grant them that. But I just cannot figure out one thing, if every time the two rivals clashed and the Croatian forces came out on top while all their opponents did was harm civilians never having repelled a Croatian army, how could Zagreb be so clumsy as to not control their own territory for four whole years!!!!! User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 21:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)