Yugoslavia?

jkbrackens11

Anyone know what it was that actually destroyed the former Yugoslavia? I know there was a lot of Regional Nationalism in the 6 different states.

Was it this? Or was it the conflict over Kosovo?

jonniebgood1

jkbrackens11 wrote: »

Anyone know what it was that actually destroyed the former Yugoslavia? I know there was a lot of Regional Nationalism in the 6 different states.

Was it this? Or was it the conflict over Kosovo?

The 6 states were largely united behind Marshall Tito until he died in 1980. After this tensions began with the more economically prosperous parts of the country seeking greater autonomy from the largest population, Serbia. This was blocked by Serbia (under Milosevic) and this escalated through many different stages of conflict. The main army under serbian control occupied areas in Slovenia and Croatia and the main hostilities started between the serbian minority in Croatian army. The Serb minority was then reinforced by the Serbian army which then clashed with the Croatian army.
There is an excellent BBC series of documentaries on this matter. The Kosovo conflict was one of many parts to the wars in the area that followed in later years.

ValJester

You also have the rise of a militant nationalist bloc in Serbia and Croatia under the leadership of Milosevic and Tudjman, who played on the factors above, leading to a sort of nationalist-extremist sentiment coming to the fore in both countries, with the idea of Serb dominance, as seen by the infamous "This Land Is Your Land" speech, in which the idea was expressed that Serbs should dominate any territories they lived in.

ciarriaithuaidh

All is answered here. Riveting and hard-hitting documentary called the Death of Yugoslavia...most of the politicians involved interviewed for it aswell...

InTheTrees

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The 6 states were largely united behind Marshall Tito until he died in 1980.

Yes, I thought it was after Tito died that things started to unravel. He was the big personality/dictator that held the place together.

Morlar

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yes, I thought it was after Tito died that things started to unravel. He was the big personality/dictator that held the place together.

He also comprehensively shafted the Serbs who fought against the German army :

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/after-ww2/Chetnik-betrayal.html

PatsytheNazi

ciarriaithuaidh wrote: »

All is answered here. Riveting and hard-hitting documentary called the Death of Yugoslavia...most of the politicians involved interviewed for it aswell...

From watching the documentary it seems that the catalyst for the war was in Kosovoa. On the video you hear of ethnic Serbs complaining of " nothing been done for them ". My query is :

A) Was there genuine discrimination/abuses against the Serbs in Kosovo by the ethnic ( and Muslim ) Albanians amd if so is there any proof of it ?

Or was there a sort of oppurtunist movement who wanted to stir up ethnic hatred in Kosovo in the hope of political gain ?

ciarriaithuaidh

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

From watching the documentary it seems that the catalyst for the war was in Kosovoa. On the video you hear of ethnic Serbs complaining of " nothing been done for them ". My query is :

A) Was there genuine discrimination/abuses against the Serbs in Kosovo by the ethnic ( and Muslim ) Albanians amd if so is there any proof of it ?

Or was there a sort of oppurtunist movement who wanted to stir up ethnic hatred in Kosovo in the hope of political gain ?

From my knowledge on the area its definitely more B. There may have been a few isolated incidents which Serbs could call racist attacks, but if that was the excuse it was a gross over reaction. Croatia, and the ethnic Serbs in the border regions with Bosnia and Serbia there were actually more of a root cause of the crisis in my view. However as with most modern conflicts the roots of this war lay way back in the mists of time..more specifically, the muslim "enclave" in the former Yugoslavia is the last remnants of a settlement going back to the old Ottoman empire.
To put it plainly, Serbs had long held extreme views towards the Bosniaks (muslims) owing to some harsh treatment they received under the Ottomans (there were some massacres of Serbs during ottoman rule) and a belief that they were seen as unequal to the Muslims who were "blow-ins"...having spoke to some Historians, it seems that Bosnia (its muslims particularly) was highly prized in the Ottoman empire and the orthodox christian Slavs did not like having this rubbed in their face...it was all long built up tensions and hatred that festered and ultimately exploded, leading to a war that frankly doesnt register on the European conscience as much as it should given the horror and genocide that took place. Of course friendly Uncle Sam stood idly by for most of this, stepping in at the end to play the "peacemaker"..but thats another story..

Morlar

The USA/Israel/Nato sided with the bosnians/muslims against the serbs. As does hollywood (generally speaking). Some people have argued that this worked as a 'pressure valve' for islamic aspirations, routing them into europe and away from the middle east.

The bosnian/muslims during the war had well funded, slick & sophisticated washington based PR and Lobby firms on their side.

The serbs did not. The Russians generally speaking sided with the Serbs.

From a serbian perspective the underlying causes for the continuing conflict related to radical expansionist islam. Serbs are orthodox christians, there has been systematic persecution of serbs and even systematic destruction of serb churches in the interim. It would be my view that view radical islam is a factor in all of this, same as it is in chechnya, parts of asia and in a lot of other conflict zones around the world.

Both sides committed atrocities but in my view the western media generally tends to side with the non serbian side of this conflict.

*
I was in the imperial war museum in manchester a few weeks back and in their kosovo display are several reporters passes along with childrens drawings of UCK/KLA fighters. UCK or KLA are and were affiliated with mujahadeen and al qaida. There have been instances of isolated serbian communities where mass rapes and beheadings etc took place. So I thought those childrens 'shiney happy' drawings were odd to say the least.

jonniebgood1

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

From watching the documentary it seems that the catalyst for the war was in Kosovoa. On the video you hear of ethnic Serbs complaining of " nothing been done for them ". My query is :

A) Was there genuine discrimination/abuses against the Serbs in Kosovo by the ethnic ( and Muslim ) Albanians amd if so is there any proof of it ?

Or was there a sort of oppurtunist movement who wanted to stir up ethnic hatred in Kosovo in the hope of political gain ?

The conflicts in the Balkans were initially between Croatian and Serbian forces. This was due to Serbia trying to become more influential (which involved them taking control of Kosovo area- it had been an autonomous region in yugoslavia as far as i know). The war in Kosovo did not come until the late 1990's, years after the Balkans conflict had begun. An internal report by a Serbian group reported that abuses against serbs by albanians in Kosovo were widespread http://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/items/show/674
Proof of these allegations is not so easy to get so draw your own conclusions.

Morlar

I think this is a very good introductory documentary on the background, context and causes of the breakup & war.

It has contributions from most leading neutral parties, journalists intelligence analysts and so on. It is english language (though the subtitles are not). It's over an hour - there is a part 2 but even pt1 will cover most of the issues up to the early days of the war.

PatsytheNazi

Morlar wrote: »

I think this is a very good introductory documentary on the background, context and causes of the breakup & war.

It has contributions from most leading neutral parties, journalists intelligence analysts and so on. It is english language (though the subtitles are not). It's over an hour - there is a part 2 but even pt1 will cover most of the issues up to the early days of the war.

Good link. Haven't the time to see it all but they seem to be like a bag of cats over there and with the various sides, Germany, Muslim countries of the middle east backing the different ethnic groups. If the super powers and the UN were to refuse to recognise or support any break away state then war could have been avoided. But alas it wasn't to happen.

geekychick

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

If the super powers and the UN were to refuse to recognise or support any break away state then war could have been avoided.

Yes, that's exactly the gist of this "documentary".

To recap, if the international community hadn't recognised any country that wanted independance, all the nationalities would have stayed quietly well put, only taking cue off the big brother with the big army. Therefore, no war. Sure.

P.S. Please research the origin of any film made on sensitive political subjects such as this, at least then you will know what it is you are watching. Morlar knows well that he has posted a link to a film directed by a pro-Serbian activist, financed by Serbian dollars. He also knows that, therefore, the film presents only one side to the story of the causes of war, yet he is disingenuously claiming that this one-sided affair is a good introductory(!) documentary on the causes of war.

Morlar

geekychick wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly the gist of this "documentary".

To recap, if the international community hadn't recognised any country that wanted independance, all the nationalities would have stayed quietly well put, only taking cue off the big brother with the big army. Therefore, no war. Sure.

P.S. Please research the origin of any film made on sensitive political subjects such as this, at least then you will know what it is you are watching. Morlar knows well that he has posted a link to a film directed by a pro-Serbian activist, financed by Serbian dollars. He also knows that, therefore, the film presents only one side to the story of the causes of war, yet he is disingenuously claiming that this one-sided affair is a good introductory(!) documentary on the causes of war.

Yes it is a documentary - so there is no need for the dismissive ironic quotation marks. I think it's clear that your own views on this conflict are far from neutral.

If there are any points made by any of the contributors to that documentary that you feel are incorrect or untruthful please point out which commentator/point.

Feel free to also point out inaccuracies of the Documentary pt 2

Morlar

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Good link. Haven't the time to see it all but they seem to be like a bag of cats over there and with the various sides, Germany, Muslim countries of the middle east backing the different ethnic groups. If the super powers and the UN were to refuse to recognise or support any break away state then war could have been avoided. But alas it wasn't to happen.

I think a lot of that bag of cats from over there ended up over here too

I would agree that it's a complex subject with a lot of disparate interested parties from those in the US/middle east/Russia & Europe. Not to mention all the local religious territorial and ethnic & nationalist interests. For one side to attempt to place all the blame on one party to it seems silly in my view. My perspective on it is that it is not entirely clear even now - there was a lot of propaganda and misinformation fed to the international media of the time which has remained unchallenged, also that the islamist aspect of this war does not get enough prominence in general.

geekychick

Morlar wrote: »

I think it's clear that your own views on this conflict are far from neutral.

Yes, you have already explained how my views are "far from neutral" for simply pointing out the origin of this piece of propagandistic material.

Love it!

Reading the other posts on this thread, though, they seem to know exactly what's what and where to go for their information, so I am certainly not going to enter into a point-by-point contention of Bogdanich's work - fortunately there is really no pressing need to do so (besides which, I'd be here all night!).

Morlar

geekychick wrote: »

Yes, you have already explained how my views are "far from neutral" for simply pointing out the origin of this piece of propagandistic material.

Love it!

I will leave you with these amazon reviews (of the book the documentary is based on - written by Guardian editor Nora Beloff & the subsequent documentary itself) which you might find useful :

http://www.amazon.com/Yugoslavia-Avoidable-War-Nora-Beloff/dp/1872410081


By A Customer
This review is from: Yugoslavia: An Avoidable War (Paperback)
I respect the opinion of the person who wrote the review before me, but I urge you to read the book. I understand why Edo would not like the book. It is much different than anything else you can find in USA. The book shows the other side of the war and clearly states that there were three waring parties there. The book is filled with facts that show the numbers of serbian refugees from Bosnia (40%) which has been hidden to the West. The book gives a good idea of what really happened and all the reasons why the three nations didn't want to live together anymore. In any case, I can say that I feel wiser for have read it. Thank you.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


Report abuse | Permalink
Comment Comment



4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars An Important Dissenting View of the Bosnian/Croatian War, October 13, 2007
By R. Schultz (Chicago) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: Yugoslavia: An Avoidable War (Paperback)
I'm actually reviewing the 3-part videotape series that was made from this book. The videotapes were produced by Film Humanities, dedicated to producing educational/documentary films for TV and libraries. The author of the book is extensively interviewed on the tapes, as are many of her sources. I initially found the film to be a little dry - heavy as it is with these talking heads. But I soon became absorbed in the rather startling, upending argument it presents about the Bosnian/Serbian War.

The book/film's first diverging contention is that the War was triggered by Croatia's and Slovenia's separatist bids. It further contends that Germany's and America's misguided and mendacious backing of these aspirations made war virtually inevitable.

The film then goes on to take the controversial view that the Serbs, under their leader Slobodan Milosevic, were more victims than perpetrators in the ensuing War. The author of this work attributes our false perceptions to the fact that the Serbs didn't practice the skillful PR that the other factions in the War did. They weren't as good at staging events and at massaging casualty statistics. The power structure encouraged the others' spin-doctoring in order to justify our support of the Muslim factions and to keep oil interests on our side.

This view is so contrary to the general picture the media painted - that I at first suspected this book/film must have been financed by some Serbian coalition, and was in fact just the work of apologists for Serbia. However, I again began to change my mind as I listened further.

One of the Balkan experts giving testimony is John Peter Maher, and his presence on the tapes made a difference for me. I recognized him as someone I knew. He had been my linguistics professor in college, and now was appearing as a knowledgeable witness who had served in counter-intelligence in Yugoslavia. As my teacher, I'd found him to be a perceptive, reliable guide through the warring factions of linguistic study. He didn't seem given to unfounded partisanships of any kind in this perennially contentious field. So Maher definitely added credibility to this film's premise that the Serbs were not the instigators of the War, or the perpetrators of its worst atrocities.

I can't say that "Yugoslavia, the Avoidable War" completely convinced me of its case. But it gives me pause. Made in 2001, it was certainly prescient in its criticisms of US tendencies to dismiss diplomacy in favor of the use of immediate military might.

And this work once again brought into serious question the reliability of our news coverage. A good follow-up movie to obtain on this issue would be "Live From Baghdad" starring Michael Keaton. This movie was praised by many as a depiction of the heroic coverage provided by CNN field reporters during the Desert Storm War. However, I saw the movie as a rather sad commentary on how often foreign correspondents operate on an adrenaline rush, going after news bites and "scoops" that have little substance and that leave the viewing public with skewed versions of what really happened. It seems this sort of aggressive push/shove culture of headline grabbing might have left the public similarly misinformed about what was really going on in the Bosnian/Serbian War.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


Report abuse | Permalink
Comment Comment



8 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars An expert view on Yugoslav Wars, December 23, 2005
By Velimir Novakovic (Zagreb) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Yugoslavia: An Avoidable War (Paperback)
Nora Beloff was one of the greatest experts on Balkan affairs in UK (and Europe). She was editor of "THE GUARDIAN" papers and she was actively writting until her tragic death. Unlike many of her colleagues in Britain (and West in general), she actually knows very well what is she writting about! Her expertise on Balkans is unsurpassed and she has written several books on this matter. She states the facts, destroys propaganda and explains clearly who is who in Balkans and what was West's part in break up of Yugoslavia. If you are interested in Balkans, or you want to know how todays governments and media operate, function and create propaganda- this book is for you

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

If there are any points made by any of the contributors to that documentary that you feel are incorrect or untruthful please point out which commentator/point.

I'll give my view on this if thats OK.
This documentary is interesting as it gives a lesser heard side of the argument from the side that would ultimately lose out in that its control over the region is greatly reduced. The points made in the film are by valid contributors who clearly believe in their opinion and I find alot of it may well be valid.
However the film lets itself down in between the interviews where the maker tries to fill in with background information. For example at the 20 minute mark the documentarytries to link Croatian separatists with WWII Nazi's and does not substatiate this theory. This is followed by clips, facts and explanations about Nazi atrocities in the region. The atrocities are not in doubt but to link them to a whole separatist movement like that is not credible. Indeed I think that Tudjman (the separatist leader) actually fought against the Nazis in WWII.
Later in the film to much emphasis is put on Germany buying off Britain with a deal on Maastrict, France with a deal on currency, whilst the USA convinced to take its view based on elections. This ignores the not insignificant public opinion in these powerful nations that the people in Croatia or Slovenia should have rights to self govern.

Like I said at beginning there are also valid points made with 1 in particular which should be noted when taking in information about this subject-
the separatists aimed propaganda at the western world, The Serbs aimed their propaganda at Serbia. A whole new thread could be filled with why this was the case! It is difficult to be 100% neutral on this but an alternative view is always welcome.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This documentary is interesting as it gives a lesser heard side of the argument from the side that would ultimately lose out in that its control over the region is greatly reduced. The points made in the film are by valid contributors who clearly believe in their opinion and I find alot of it may well be valid.

By saying the contributors 'clearly believe in their opinion' - does that not imply that they are giving an opinion rather than what is in fact very often their testimony of events ? For example Lord Owen relating the story of the muslim croat mortar team arriving at the hospital to mortar serb positions then retreating before the intl media arrive to witness the serb retalliatory shelling. It would be inaccurate to dismiss this as an opinion he believes' in my view. This is his testimony based on either direct or credible high level witness testimony (in that case I believe official intl observers reported back to him).

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

However the film lets itself down in between the interviews where the maker tries to fill in with background information. For example at the 20 minute mark the documentarytries to link Croatian separatists with WWII Nazi's and does not substatiate this theory. This is followed by clips, facts and explanations about Nazi atrocities in the region. The atrocities are not in doubt but to link them to a whole separatist movement like that is not credible. Indeed I think that Tudjman (the separatist leader) actually fought against the Nazis in WWII.

I would actually agree that this is an area of weakness taking up several minutes in a 3 hr documentary. However the point of that section was to portray the WW2 landscape and the 20 minute segment does not fall down if it does not adequately make that connection. That segment in my view was to give a viewer an accurate overview of the region throughout WW2. Also I would factor in that it is a video documentary based on a book and so bound to not be a seamless transition. The other part you took exception to was as much an afterthought rather than the central contention in my view.

The overriding fact of that section was that serbs were systematically persecuted throughout Ww2 by largely muslim croats who were working for the nazis. Their atrocities even in ww2 terms were off the charts. Google ustasha (Ustaše) for more information. Serbs were systematically persecuted to the point where (and the figures vary) between 300,000 and 750,000 serbs were killed by them. The point of that information is to assert the notion that 45 years later serb civilians being placed under the wing of croat authorities when there had been no de-nazification process in that region post war - and how this idea may not have appealed to the serbs was the point I took from this segment. I believe it's a valid point - this fear on their part was well founded and understandable as a factor. Someone not having that information or level of background would simply not have considered it.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Later in the film to much emphasis is put on Germany buying off Britain with a deal on Maastrict, France with a deal on currency, whilst the USA convinced to take its view based on elections. This ignores the not insignificant public opinion in these powerful nations that the people in Croatia or Slovenia should have rights to self govern.

I didn't find those areas over emphasised personally. I think the point that the western media-reliant populations of said countries had been subject to washington based PR firms (Ruder Finn working for the croats) spin and propaganda had already been mentioned.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Like I said at beginning there are also valid points made with 1 in particular which should be noted when taking in information about this subject-
the separatists aimed propaganda at the western world, The Serbs aimed their propaganda at Serbia. A whole new thread could be filled with why this was the case! It is difficult to be 100% neutral on this but an alternative view is always welcome.

I would agree it should be.

Morlar

To clarify - I do not believe this documentary is the beginning and end of what you would need to know about that region.

Policital opponents of serbs are sure to eagerly dismiss it as propaganda however if there are factual inaccuracies by the contributors in their interviewed segments then I would be interested to read of them - until then my point is that it does contain a wealth of valid and relevant information. There is no such thing as a perfect documentary (or book about this region) for that matter.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

By saying the contributors 'clearly believe in their opinion' - does that not imply that they are giving an opinion rather than what is in fact very often their testimony of events ? For example Lord Owen relating the story of the muslim croat mortar team arriving at the hospital to mortar serb positions then retreating before the intl media arrive to witness the serb retalliatory shelling. It would be inaccurate to dismiss this as an opinion he believes' in my view. This is his testimony based on either direct or credible high level witness testimony (in that case I believe official intl observers reported back to him).

Not all the contributers are giving their 'testimony of events' so it is incorrect for you to link my generalised comment to 1 contributor and a specific case.
To clarify I would again say the contributors are giving honest opinion- the point being that rather than being biased and giving a one-sided part of the argument, they give their opinions (testimony in some cases, facts in some cases and views based on their experiences in some cases) in as balanced a way as is possible for people who have had involvement in the area.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Not all the contributers are giving their 'testimony of events' so it is incorrect for you to link my generalised comment to 1 contributor and a specific case.

On the contrary to say :

points made in the film are by valid contributors who clearly believe in their opinion

was incorrect.

I would agree that it was

"testimony in some cases, facts in some cases and views based on their experiences in some cases".

But those two things are not exactly equal which would be a minor point except here is an important distinction in summarising a 3hr documentary based on direct interviewee contributions.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

To clarify I would again say the contributors are giving honest opinion- the point being that rather than being biased and giving a one-sided part of the argument, they give their opinions (testimony in some cases, facts in some cases and views based on their experiences in some cases) in as balanced a way as is possible for people who have had involvement in the area.

Agreed.

Morlar

geekychick wrote: »

To claim that under 45 years of Communism in Yugoslavia there has been no de-nazification process is extremely dishonest and erroneous.

This is a side issue - encompassing one part of one segment of that documentary, but even so I disagree.

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/neonazism1.html#Neo-Nazism_in_Croatia

http://vukovar.50webs.com/ustashe.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism_in_Croatia

geekychick

As I have already said, and as that Wikipedia link on Neo-Nazism in Croatia that you provided clearly states, to quote it: "Parties like the Croatian Party of Rights which are most commonly associated with Ustašism generally aren't able to attract support from more than a few percent of the population." And haven't ever been able to since the Croatian independance. How that equals to a de-nazification process in Croatia allegedly never having taken place under 45 years of Communism, I don't know. Even the first president of Croatia, Tudjman, the separatist autocrat that he was, actually was a convinced anti-fascist who faught Nazis during the WW 2.

These links you posted and what you seem to be claiming through them, would be absolutely analogous to myself posting a link to a website with information about the the NPD and DVU of Germany and then claiming that Germany has never been de-nazified, as Jewish, Muslim and other immigrant population are in immediate danger of this marginal coalition of right-wing parties leading some kind of genocide against them. Or posting a link to BNP websites and saying that the UK needs to be de-nazified for the above reasons. Or posting links to any far right or white supremacist parties in any of the democratic countries in the West.

Heck, as long as I have entered this debate, I might as well do it:

http://www.die-rechte.info/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party

Morlar

On the subject of de-nazification in croatia I'd welcome people to compare the links you posted with those I posted ;

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/neonazism1.html#Neo-Nazism_in_Croatia

http://vukovar.50webs.com/ustashe.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism_in_Croatia

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

On the contrary to say :



was incorrect.

I would agree that it was



But those two things are not exactly equal which would be a minor point except here is an important distinction in summarising a 3hr documentary based on direct interviewee contributions.




Agreed.

Im afraid you are getting mixed up.

In this reply you say that first, my point was incorrect. Then, after I clarify my first point, you agree.

So bacically I am incorrect and you agree with me !!!

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Im afraid you are getting mixed up.

In this reply you say that first, my point was incorrect. Then, after I clarify my first point, you agree.

So bacically I am incorrect and you agree with me !!!

I am afraid the confusion does not lie with me. These 2 points you made are not identical :

points made in the film are by valid contributors who clearly believe in their opinion

"testimony in some cases, facts in some cases and views based on their experiences in some cases".

For me to say that the 2nd one is accurate and not the first - this does not signify confusion on my part.

As stated previously this is a minor point - except in this context where the validity of the interviewees collective contribution has been brought into question.

Morlar

I have re-read that post you responded to and I think it's now clear what you meant.

I recall making this and actually thought about clarifying it at the time but then didn't think it was necessary as it seemed clear to me.

This may clarify :

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
To clarify I would again say the contributors are giving honest opinion- the point being that rather than being biased and giving a one-sided part of the argument, they give their opinions (testimony in some cases, facts in some cases and views based on their experiences in some cases) in as balanced a way as is possible for people who have had involvement in the area.

Agreed.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

I am afraid the confusion does not lie with me. These 2 points you made are not identical :

For me to say that the 2nd one is accurate and not the first - this does not signify confusion on my part.

As stated previously this is a minor point - except in this context where the validity of the interviewees collective contribution has been brought into question.

I will walk us both through my explanation to clarify:

Over the whole documentary the contributors opinions (contributions) are based on testimony, facts and experiences. It is pointless explaining this more as it is not important.

To move the discussion on a bit you should clarify your opinion on whether the Croatian separatists under Tudjman were linked in a significant way with the Ustasa?

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I will walk us both through my explanation to clarify:

Over the whole documentary the contributors opinions (contributions) are based on testimony, facts and experiences. It is pointless explaining this more as it is not important.

My response to that is that there is a difference between an 'opinion' and evidence, testimony and experience etc. As stated in the example provided earlier - which is relevant :

Morlar wrote: »

By saying the contributors 'clearly believe in their opinion' - does that not imply that they are giving an opinion rather than what is in fact very often their testimony of events ? For example Lord Owen relating the story of the muslim croat mortar team arriving at the hospital to mortar serb positions then retreating before the intl media arrive to witness the serb retalliatory shelling. It would be inaccurate to dismiss this as an opinion he believes' in my view. This is his testimony based on either direct or credible high level witness testimony (in that case I believe official intl observers reported back to him).

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

To move the discussion on a bit you should clarify your opinion on whether the Croatian separatists under Tudjman were linked in a significant way with the Ustasa?

To reply in the language previously used I'd say it's extremely dishonest to claim that there are no issues with de-nazification in croatia (as illustrated in the links I provided). The fact at the heart of the matter and which is being disputed is this - the serbs were right to be concerned about their safety and the safety of their children - there were legitimate concerns about their safety in such a climate. This is the central point being made.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

This is a side issue - encompassing one part of one segment of that documentary, but even so I disagree.

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/neonazism1.html#Neo-Nazism_in_Croatia

http://vukovar.50webs.com/ustashe.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism_in_Croatia

link 1- This link has nothing to back up your opinion.

link 2- This link is extreme views and delves into issues with the ustasa that are not in question. As per post 26, we can all post links to irrelevent info but it is pointless. If it helps you I will identify for you that you are missing the proof of a link between the Ustasa and the 1990's Croatian separatists.
link 3- This link has nothing to back up your opinion.

I understand that Ustasa committed crimes against Serbs in WWII. If your over- emphasis on this was correct it would follow that people of Jewish origin would be afraid of their neighbours in France as the French collaborated with the Nazi deportations in France.

geekychick

Morlar wrote: »

On the subject of de-nazification in croatia I'd welcome people to compare the links you posted with those I posted ;

Absolutely. I posted the links I did, to make a point about what "de-nazification" means when compared between different countries across the board, and that in this way, your (and documentary's) allegation of no de-nazification process having taken place in the communist Croatia doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Having a minority extremist right wing party have a few seats in the parliament, and some cuckoo Ustasha descendants (I'm just guessing that's what they are) dress up in Ustasha regalia in April, does not a "no de-nazification" make, otherwise I can think of a few Western democratic countries who "haven't been de-nazified" or are "racist" and their ethnic minorities should be "legitimately concerned about their safety and that of their children".

So, compare the links, by all means.

Morlar

geekychick wrote: »

So, compare the links, by all means.

Agreed.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

link 1- This link has nothing to back up your opinion.

link 2- This link is extreme views and delves ..........................
link 3- This link has nothing to back up your opinion.

We are going to have to agree to disagree with your assertion that those links do not back up my point that there are serious issues with de-nazification in croatia (which are entirely relevant to this discussion).

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Agreed.

We are going to have to agree to disagree with your assertion that those links do not back up my point that there are serious issues with de-nazification in croatia (which are entirely relevant to this discussion).

The links you provide prove that in WWII there was Nazi collaberation in Croatia. They also show that there is an element of extremism in modern day Croatia. No proof of this being linked to Separatist elements is given other than your own opinion.

NOTE -QUOTE FROM YOUR LINK -At the end of World War II, the Communist authorities pursued a strict set of policies which could be deemed as a form of denazification, only more similar to the Soviet style than to the American style. People who collaborated with the Ustaše were often court-martialled at the end of the war, and the Bleiburg massacre was committed. After the war was over, there were trials against suspected collaborators, and secret service control over citizens with links to the Ustaše.

This quote is from one of the links that you gave.

Your own source/ link is catching you out if I am reading correctly.

You are correct though with one thing- We're not going to agree on this!

Morlar

NOTE -QUOTE FROM YOUR LINK -At the end of World War II, the Communist authorities pursued a strict set of policies which could be deemed as a form of denazification,

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Your own source/ link is catching you out if I am reading correctly.

You are correct though with one thing- We're not going to agree on this!

That is of course a single line and I will leave it to readers to decide if that's representative of the bulk of the content of any of those 3 links ;

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/neonazism1.html#Neo-Nazism_in_Croatia
http://vukovar.50webs.com/ustashe.html
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism_in_Croatia

Morlar

On the subject of online Yugoslavia war-related documentary links here are a couple more. This is a documentary from the Netherlands from around the middle of the milosevic trial - the contributors include the likes of George Kenney, a German journalist whose name I forget, a belgrade journalist and Thomas Deichmann :

The Milosevic Trial Pt1

The Milosevic Trial Pt2

losthorizon

Morlar wrote: »

The USA/Israel/Nato sided with the bosnians/muslims against the serbs. As does hollywood (generally speaking). Some people have argued that this worked as a 'pressure valve' for islamic aspirations, routing them into europe and away from the middle east.

The bosnian/muslims during the war had well funded, slick & sophisticated washington based PR and Lobby firms on their side.

The serbs did not. The Russians generally speaking sided with the Serbs.

From a serbian perspective the underlying causes for the continuing conflict related to radical expansionist islam. Serbs are orthodox christians, there has been systematic persecution of serbs and even systematic destruction of serb churches in the interim. It would be my view that view radical islam is a factor in all of this, same as it is in chechnya, parts of asia and in a lot of other conflict zones around the world.

I'm sorry but the "Muslims" of Bosnia were muslim really just in name. Go to Bosnia and the Muslim women wear exactly the same sort of clothes as non muslims. Of all armies the muslims were the least armed and the least backed. And in places like Mostar not only had they to fight off the Serbs but eventually the double crossing Croats. Dont equate the Muslims of the Balkans and especially Bosnia with places like Afghanistan - madness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1XYWtCx6zQ&feature=&p=680B00366DD6F81F&index=0&playnext=1

geekychick

losthorizon wrote: »

I'm sorry but the "Muslims" of Bosnia were muslim really just in name. Go to Bosnia and the Muslim women wear exactly the same sort of clothes as non muslims. Of all armies the muslims were the least armed and the least backed. And in places like Mostar not only had they to fight off the Serbs but eventually the double crossing Croats. Dont equate the Muslims of the Balkans and especially Bosnia with places like Afghanistan - madness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1XYWtCx6zQ&feature=&p=680B00366DD6F81F&index=0&playnext=1

Muslims in Bosnia are proud to call themselves Muslims, as well as Bosniaks, and as well they should be. It is their religion (so a little more than a name!), and from there there follows their ethnicity. As for the rest of it, of course they are not the same as Afghani Muslims etc. Islam is a geographically wide-spread religion with many variations across the board, even in places such as Afghanistan itself. Wearing of burka and similar is a cultural thing, as is extremism and fundamentalism of any kind - it is very dependent on the locality and its circumstances, so you are right there. This is not to say that Muslims had no help from Mujahedeen, because they did, just as Croats had help from abroad as well. They were fighting against the 4th best-equipped army in Europe (as well as each other later in the day).

EDIT: On reflection, as someone who has lived through the nineties' war, I think that on balance I have not done myself any favours by allowing myself to enter this debate - I have absolutely no stomach for Serbian propaganda, I find it too upsetting, and as such would not be the most appropriate person to debate it, at all. Beyond my first reaction I really should have left the discussion to the regular posters on here, and for them also to decide how biased or not I have been with the points that I have made.

I have removed two of my posts where I let myself down by using emotive terms and emoticons. The relevant points made in one of them are repeated and covered in subsequent posts.

jonniebgood1

geekychick wrote: »

Muslims in Bosnia are proud to call themselves Muslims, as well as Bosniaks, and as well they should be. It is their religion (so a little more than a name!), and from there there follows their ethnicity. As for the rest of it, of course they are not the same as Afghani Muslims etc.

EDIT: On reflection, as someone who has lived through the nineties' war, I think that on balance I have not done myself any favours by allowing myself to enter this debate - I have absolutely no stomach for Serbian propaganda, and as such would not be the most appropriate person to debate it, at all. Beyond my first reaction I really should have left the discussion to the regular posters on here.

Your input is welcome as are your opinions. I think debating these issues helps people learn from them whatever someones opinion is at the start or the end of the debate.

Morlar

It would be my view that view radical islam is a factor in all of this, same as it is in chechnya, parts of asia and in a lot of other conflict zones around the world.

losthorizon wrote: »

Dont equate the Muslims of the Balkans and especially Bosnia with places like Afghanistan - madness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1XYWtCx6zQ&feature=&p=680B00366DD6F81F&index=0&playnext=1

Not sure I did. Anyway - you are going to love this ;

The Hidden Army Of Radical Islam in Bosnia

It's a sky news video report about the 'Hidden army of radical islam in bosnia'. It points out how thousands of radical islamists/foreign fighters/jihadists/mujahadeen (whatever you want to call them) arrived in the region to fight on the muslim side. It also makes the point that many were absorbed but some fought in dedicated islamist units committing atrocities against serbs (the worst of the footage is not shown here). At one point the reporter shows a list of names and their countries of origin, saudi, yemen, palestine, britain, Libya, etc

It also contains footage of muslims desecrating an orthodox church, a bosnian serb being interrogated & partially beheaded. Khalid sheikh mohammed (who it is said planned 911) & fellow travellers of Osama bin laden. It does cover the subject of bosnian muslim women who have enjoyed a high levels of western freedom, however it also covers attempts to spread saudi wahhabi islam post-war which is less tolerant. Not bad for an 8 minute clip.

Ps that siege of Mostar clip was quite good - I had seen it before. There is an interesting point about 2 minutes in when the reporter voiceover says 'There are no safe places in Mostar' cue a bullet zinging by the camera microphone.
I liked the way much of the documentary focused on one person/one family rather than just throw detached facts and figures at the viewer. I always find you take more from a documentary that credits it's audience with having an attention span.

geekychick

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Your input is welcome as are your opinions. I think debating these issues helps people learn from them whatever someones opinion is at the start or the end of the debate.

Thank you, jonniebegood1. Also sorry about amending my post after you thanked it, I thought of something else to say!

It's all good however I will steer clear of historical/political fora in the future (as I have been till now), I really don't think I'm cut out for them.

Thanks again.

Morlar

geekychick wrote: »

I have removed two of my posts where I let myself down by using emotive terms and emoticons. The relevant points made in one of them are repeated and covered in subsequent posts.

I think this subject is understandably an emotional one for a lot of people on all sides.

Which may explain why it is rarely discussed on here. The last time I recall was a couple of years ago where a woman poster (presumably drunkenly) started calling me a 'serbian dog' for not agreeing with her take on things.

I don't think removing posts from a thread like this is a good idea because when someone reads it back later there is always the chance that a post - say Post A - gets made in response to post C & D. Then post D is gone so Post A and the replies that follow and general flow of it can be disrupted. So it can become hard to make out where some aspects get introduced and so on. I haven't gone back through this one but that's my general take on it.

Anyway I hope you didn't take offence at anything I said & we're not going to agree anytime soon. Aside from emoticons (rolleyeyes and smiley faces - which are a pet peeve of mine) I didn't have take any issue with anything you posted.

Exile 1798

Morlar wrote: »

He also comprehensively shafted the Serbs who fought against the German army :

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/after-ww2/Chetnik-betrayal.html

With respect, this is a Serbian ultra-Nationalist website.

The particular page on it you've linked to is a preposterous anti-Tito, pro-Chetnik screed.

jonniebgood1

Exile 1798 wrote: »

With respect, this is a Serbian ultra-Nationalist website.

The particular page on it you've linked to is a preposterous anti-Tito, pro-Chetnik screed.

+1 agree

also it is irrelevent to the discussion. As pointed out by 'geekychick' this type of link has the same relevance as a link to BNP would have....>none.

Manic Moran

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

If the super powers and the UN were to refuse to recognise or support any break away state then war could have been avoided. But alas it wasn't to happen.

I would caveat that a small bit. They recognised, but refused to support, which basically came out to be the worst possible combination. Had they not only recongised the breakaways, but actually actively supported them ("Oi! Serbs, if you try beating up on these Croatian dudes with your Army, we'll pummel you" and actually carrying through with that threat) the fighting would likely have been stamped out before it really caught hold. Instead, you had the encouragement of the independence, combined with a relatively pathetic and gradual increase in attention on the area, the teeth of which (or lack thereof) were adequately demonstrated by Srebrenica. A relative peace only came about after the NATO gloves came off, which should have happened a half-decade earlier.

NTM

jonniebgood1

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would caveat that a small bit. They recognised, but refused to support, which basically came out to be the worst possible combination. Had they not only recongised the breakaways, but actually actively supported them ("Oi! Serbs, if you try beating up on these Croatian dudes with your Army, we'll pummel you" and actually carrying through with that threat) the fighting would likely have been stamped out before it really caught hold. Instead, you had the encouragement of the independence, combined with a relatively pathetic and gradual increase in attention on the area, the teeth of which (or lack thereof) were adequately demonstrated by Srebrenica. A relative peace only came about after the NATO gloves came off, which should have happened a half-decade earlier.

NTM

I do not think that the war in the Balkans could have been avoided unless the UN supported the early Serbian efforts to quell the nationalism. They could not have done this as it would have been seen as undemocratic in the republics. It would also have seen them interfere with a situation where Serbian politicians had been trying to gain power over other teritories in Yugoslavia (as detailed in the BBC documentary previously linked in this discussion).

Manic Moran

I agree with you that it could not have been avoided entirely.

However, the extent of it could, I think, have been dramatically reduced by a robust response to any incidents. A brushfire may start no matter what precautions you take, but if you don't stamp it out in short order, you end up with a large wildfire which destroys all sorts of land and takes massive resources to control.

NTM

losthorizon

Sorry to bring the subject up again but here are my thoughts on the subject in a nutshell. Ive travelled in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro and of course my views are only those of an outsider with a superficial view and someone who watched the news unfold on TV.

First of all, I think the vast majority of Serbs are decent and some of the most friendliest people you could ever meet. They just happened to have the worst leaders when Yugoslavia broke up (as Croatia did -lets not forget Tudjmans role in all this). I sincerely believe Serbia was not interested in expansion for expansionist sake. For instance Macedonia was given independence with no problems. Slovenia was let go after a very briefy struggle which after all might be expected when regions of a country declare independence ( I think about 70 people were killed). Its when things get to Bosnia that it gets very messy indeed. Yes the Serbs do indeed have a lot to answer for but equally the international community did nothing and I mean nothing to stop what went on. The Croats were just as much to blame in Bosnia yet seemed to escape the wests ire to a large degree. Go to Mostar now and you will see that the biggest place of worship is a huge spire from a Catholic church built after the war. Much bigger than before the war - its like a big FO to the muslim population. TBH I dont know how the Catholic church can behave like that. Go a few miles down the road and you are still in Bosnia and Croatian flags are flying all around medjugorje. I warmed to the Serbs, Montenegrans (KIND OF) and especially the Bosnian muslims. A few last points Serbia recognised Montenegros independence without a bother ( a lot of Montenegrans think of themselves as Serbs) and it was probably Montenegros ethnic minorities who helped swing the vote for independence.

I think it was wrong to recognise Kosovos indepence. I means it wasn't a full republic just a province in Serbia. I mean Macedonia has a huge Albanian population as well. Montenegro only became a full republic because of its bravery during WW2 before then it was part of Serbia.

Bosnia and Montenegro are great place to visit btw

http://www.euronews.net/2010/11/19/dayton-is-still-the-root-of-what-is-wrong-with-bosnia/

bosnian

Since I'm from Bosnia, I think I could have a few thoughts on this

The main reason, according to my economics professor (who was part of yugoslavian delegations after Tito dies), and in what I strongly believe, is the creation of the state in the begining, because it was artificial brotherhood between our nations. Yugoslavia had a debt with the IMF, and it was tolerated untill Tito died. After that, IMF wanted their money back, but as the yugoslavian economy was really bad, it couldnt be done. Then, Slovenians started telling they could have achieved more if they were alone (which they would), Croats said they would exploit tourism more if they were independent state (which they would), and it began collapsing. It was expected that country would disintegrate(?) peacefully and began with prosperity as independent states, as it had most similiar economic system with the West, but Serbs had something to say.

Then it all began. First, Gazimestan rally, then Kosovo tensions, Vojvodina, and after that it started in Slovenia, which was ethnically pure, and Serbs didnt have any chance. After that it began in Croatia, in Knin, which was populated by Serbs, and in border area in north (Vukovar genocide).

And at last, Bosnia with highly mixed nationalities was real mess. First Corats and Bosniaks fought together agains the Yugoslav Army (at that time it was Serbian army), and army of republika srpska, and paramilitary formations from serbia, greece, russia etc (Russian sniperists are well known in Sarajevo, as they were paid for kill of every civilian in Sarajevo. They basically killed everything they saw from their positions in the hills surrounding the city. There is one movie called "Skip, hop, jump" I think, by Srdjan Vuletic, talks about snipers in Sarajevo). In 1993, Croats decided to change side, and join with Serbs (they destroyed the Old Bridge in Mostar in 1993). The war ended as it endend, with genocides and massacres (Srebrenica, Prijedor, Visegrad, Zvornik, Bijeljina, Trebinje, Kapija in Tuzla, Markale in Sarajevo and many more) as burden of Serbs, and they still celbrate war criminals (Karadzic, Mladic, Milosevic) as the greatest heroes of Serbian nation. Bosnian army did not destroy sacred objects, and today in Sarajevo, you have orthodox church, catholic church, sinagogue, and mosque in a circle of 100 meters, and we are proud of it, but my personal opinion, is we can be neighbours with serbs, but never friends.

Morlar

Here is another link which is relevant to the issue of Yugoslavia, Serbia, Kosovo. This story about the UCK/KLA goes back years and was always downplayed and dismissed as 'serb propaganda' and essentially ignored in the west.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-15/kosovo-premier-thaci-accused-of-organ-trafficking-afp-reports.html

Kosovo Premier Thaci Accused of Organ Trafficking, AFP Reports
By Boris Cerni - Dec 15, 2010 9:37 AM GMT

Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci was heavily involved in trafficking organs of Serb prisoners in the 1990s, according to a report by the Council of Europe, Agence France-Presse said.

The report by Dick Marty, a Swiss member of the 47-member European body that deals with human rights, said Thaci and other commanders of the Kosovo Liberation Army, an ethnic Albanian guerrilla group, set up the organ-trafficking ring after taking control of organized crime in the region, the newswire said.

Thaci’s government in Kosovo’s capital, Pristina, dismissed the report as a fabrication designed to smear the country’s leaders, AFP said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Boris Cerni in Ljubljana, Slovenia, at bcerni@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: James Gomez at jagomez@bloomberg.net

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1215/kosovo.html

Kosovo PM implicated in organ trafficking

The future of Kosovan Prime Minister Hashim Thaci is looking uncertain following a draft European report linking him to a criminal ring in the late 1990s.

Mr Thaci was allegedly one of the key players in the trafficking of organs of Serb prisoners after the 1998-99 conflict there, according to a draft Council of Europe report.

The report, by Swiss Council of Europe deputy Dick Marty, accuses Thaci and other senior commanders of the ethnic Albanian guerrilla group the Kosovo Liberation Army of having set up the traffic.

The draft report was published on the Council of Europe website yesterday and will be considered by its legal affairs committee on Thursday.

In Pristina, the government of Hashim Thaci dismissed the report as fabrications designed to smear the country's leaders.

Mr Marty wrote of substantial evidence that Serbians - and some Albanian Kosovars - had been secretly imprisoned by the KLA in northern Albania 'and were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, before ultimately disappearing'.

In the wake of the armed conflict, before international forces had time to re-establish law and order there, 'organs were removed from some prisoners at a clinic in Albanian territory, near Fushe-Kruje...' he added.

Those organs were then 'shipped out of Albania and sold to private overseas clinics as part of the international 'black market' of organ-trafficking for transplantation.'

This was carried out by KLA leaders linked to organised crime, and 'has continued, albeit in other forms, until today...' he wrote.

In this respect Mr Marty cited an investigation by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) into the Medicus clinic in Pristina.

EULEX said in October it had charged five people, including doctors and a former senior health ministry official, for trafficking in human organs, organised crime, unlawful medical activities and abusing official authority.

Dick Marty specifically named Mr Thaci, one of the KLA leaders during the conflict with Serb security forces in 1998-1999, in his report.

Thaci, he said, was 'the boss' of the Drenica Group, a 'small but inestimably powerful group of KLA personalities' who took control of organised crime in the region from at least 1998.

The diplomatic and political support the US and other western powers gave him during the talks following the Kosovo conflict 'bestowed upon Thaci, not least in his own mind, a sense of being 'untouchable',' he added.

'The signs of collusion between the criminal class and high political and institutional office bearers are too numerous and too serious to be ignored,' wrote Marty.

The report's sources also implicated Thaci and his lieutenants in 'assassinations, detentions, beatings and interrogations' in Kosovo and Albania between 1998 and 2000, he wrote.

Thaci's ruling Democratic Party of Kosovo (PDK), which won the most votes in Sunday's general elections, denounced Marty's allegations as 'fabrications' in a statement Tuesday.

The report's 'goal was to disgrace KLA and its leaders,' it added.

'It is based on groundless facts which are invented with a goal to harm Kosovo's image,' it added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7990984.stm

Horrors of KLA prison camps revealed

Michael Montgomery
BBC Radio 4, Crossing Continents

Click to play

Click to play
Advertisement

Newsnight film: Kosovo: Did atrocities continue?

The man spoke plainly as he explained the horrors he lived through in a Kosovo Liberation Army prison camp 10 years ago. He told me about how he watched people beaten with steel pipes, cut with knives, left for days without food, and shot and killed.

"What can you feel when you see those things?" he said. "It's something that is stuck in my mind for the rest of my life. You cannot do those things to people, not even to animals."

As the man talked, his mother paced nervously in the nearby kitchen. She was panicked and tears were streaming down her face.

"They'll kill him, they'll kill him," she moaned, clutching one of her grandchildren.

But her son persisted. We spent hours in the family's sitting room as our source detailed allegations of possible war crimes by KLA officers in a military camp in the Albanian border town of Kukes.

It was a crucial interview for a delicate story I have been investigating for years.

Mystery of the missing

Soon after the war ended in Kosovo, I started looking into the thousands of civilians who disappeared during and after the conflict. Many Albanian victims were dumped in wells or transported to mass graves as far away as Belgrade.


LISTEN TO THE FULL REPORT
Kukes map

But others - mainly Serbs - simply vanished without a trace. There were no demands for ransom, no news of any kind.

I had met sources who spoke vaguely about secret camps in Albania where Kosovo Serbs, Albanians and Roma were interrogated, tortured and in most cases killed.

I met another source who agreed to share important details about KLA prison camps. This man cut a very different profile.

He had returned from a successful career abroad to join the KLA in its fight for Kosovo's independence from Serbia.

The man was still proud of the goals he fought for, but he had become haunted by the treatment of civilians he had seen at a KLA prison camp. More than that, he said he felt angry and betrayed by KLA commanders who tolerated and even ordered the abuses.

"It didn't seem strange at the time," he told me as he described seeing desperate civilians locked in a filthy agricultural shed.


Now, looking back, I know that some of the things that were done to innocent civilians were wrong
Former KLA Fighter

He said the civilians were Serbs and Roma seized by KLA soldiers and were being hidden away from Nato troops. The source believes the captives were sent across the border to Albania and killed.

"Now, looking back, I know that some of the things that were done to innocent civilians were wrong. But the people who did these things act as if nothing happened, and continue to hurt their own people, Albanians."

This man was one of eight former KLA fighters who revealed some of their darkest secrets from the war.

A soldier's story

Yet another source spoke of driving trucks packed with shackled prisoners - mainly Serbian civilians from Kosovo - to secret locations in Albania where they were eventually killed.

He recalled hearing two of the captives begging to be shot rather than tortured and "cut into pieces".

"I was sick. I was just waiting for it to end," the source told me. "It was hard. I thought we were fighting a war [of liberation] but this was something completely different."

It has taken these men 10 years to speak to an outsider about the dark side of the war. They were breaking a code of silence that has held strong in Kosovo.

Very few Kosovo Albanians have publicly revealed crimes committed by their own side. And for good reason. Witnesses who have agreed to provide testimony for prosecutions of KLA commanders have faced intimidation and death threats.

Some have been killed, according to United Nations officials in Kosovo.

There is another reason. All the men we spoke with insisted they were Kosovan patriots and would take up arms again to defend the country's independence.

But that is precisely the point: independence - of a sort - arrived for Kosovo last year. Their wartime goal has been attained.

As one of the former KLA fighters told me: "Now is the time to be honest to ourselves and build a real state."