June 30, 1991
New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York City, New York 10036
Attention: Jack Rosenthal, Editor
To the Editor:
Championing human rights, self-determination, and containing communism have
characterized United States foreign policy for the past forty years. Now that this
policy, so patiently followed in the past, is about to succeed in the near total
collapse of communism, the Bush administration has abandoned these tenets in
Yugoslavia.
The administration only heeds Prime Minister Ante Markovic, a communist
apparatchik, who was not elected by its citizenry, but appointed by the communist
regime that existed prior to the countrywide democratization. Over one year ago
Croatia and Slovenia overwhelmingly voted an anti-communist ticket. Whereas,
free elections, seven months ago in Serbia, the communists captured 4 out of 5
seats in their parliament.
In keeping with America’s new policy as the chief defender of the global status quo,
Yugoslavia, cobbled together after World War I, apparently must remain intact—no
matter the cost. The administration continues to favor communist Serbia, despite
Amnesty International citing Yugoslavia (read Serbia) one of its worse offenders
and its abominable record of human rights violations in areas under their control.
Ambassador Warren Zimmermann, in March 1991, speaking on Belgrade
television, said the United States supports a united and democratic Yugoslavia.
Earlier he had stated in “NIN,” a Serbian periodical, America’s concern about the
dangers facing the Serbs and Jews living in Croatia. To reiterate American policy,
Zimmermann used blatant disinformation and by raising a non-problem, he clouded
the issue. Perhaps our government has evidence to the contrary and has not made
it public, but I do not know of any post-war instant of Jews perceiving themselves
of being in jeopardy in Croatia.
Secretary of State James Baker stated: “if Croatia and Slovenia leave the
federation it would undermine the cause of human rights and economic reforms.”
Whose human rights was he talking about?
In free elections, republics vote for their own destinies. Although the communists
were only victorious in Serbia, nonetheless, they continue to dominate Yugoslavia.
Serbia, by blocking the normal rotative process for the federal presidency,
effectively deprived Yugoslavia of a legitimate head of state.
Recently 94% of Croatians voted to secede if Yugoslavia didn’t agree to a
confederation. Since Serbia rejected the concept, Croatia joined with Slovenia to
secede. The “economic reforms” Baker referred to has been a disaster. Baker
believes the United States can deal more effectively with a unified, economically
ruined Yugoslavia—human rights be damned. Our schizophrenic policy has been
interpreted by the Yugoslav army as giving tacit approval to unleash its attack.
Perhaps the administration wishes to keep Serbia as a museum for communism,
since it is now dead in Albania and in an agony phase in Russia.
Sincerely,
===============================================
Jerry Blaskovich, MD
The Guardian
To: the Editor
119 Garrington Road
London, England EC1R- 3ER
November 13, 1991
Derek Brown’s recent article, “Serbian Schizophrenia” extensively quoted Dr.
Kosutic. What was surprising is that he did so without a hint of skepticism to guide
the reader
Kosutic laments that the Serbs were victims of imperialism during this century.
Serbia, an independent kingdom before World War I, was cobbled together with
other Balkan states, including Croatia, into a new state after the war. President
Wilson and the other “founding fathers” of this newly formed kingdom envisioned a
highly centralized state. But the Serbs instead imposed a tyrannical rule upon all
non-Serbs—favoring terrorist methods to support their position, such as the
assassination of Croatian delegates in the Yugoslav parliament in Belgrade.
Yugoslavia, in essence, was a government in which the Serbs were the
imperialists—all non-Serbs suffered ethnic discrimination.
Kosutic also lamented that the Serbs were victims of communism. Yet it was the
Serbs who controlled the newly emerged communist Yugoslavia after World War II.
The only true statement by Kosutic was that the communist regime “slapped down
ethnic rivalry” but he failed to mention that its supervision was controlled by the
Serbs and almost invariably was directed against the Croats.
Brown is asking the readers to join him in singing Kosutic’s lament for the
downtrodden Serbs. But asking us to accept such a manipulated view of history
suggests that Brown believes his readers, like animals from the taxidermist’s hand,
only look alive. But we readers are alive and aware that Amnesty International cites
Yugoslavia and the Serbian actions as one of the worse offenders in the civilized
world. We know that most historians agree that Serbian nationalism was directly
responsible for World War I. We also see daily that Serbian actions have caused
countless deaths in Croatia, made 250,000 Croatians displaced persons,
destroyed 210 Catholic Churches and 160 historical building—almost one-quarter
of which were designated by UNESCO as cultural monuments. Serbs are
besieging the city of Dubrovnik even as I write. These are actions of aggressors
and imperialists.
Brown and Kosutic declare that Western democracies have portrayed the Serbs as
villains. United States policy—as distinct from the perceptions the media has given
the American public—have always been the biggest supporters of the Serbs.
Although for 40 years the United States government has championed human-
rights, self-determination efforts, and the containment of communism; our
government has abandoned these positions in Yugoslavia. While the
understanding what borders mean is changing radically with the advent of the
European Common Market and firm lines between states become fuzzy, only in
selected places are borders sacrosanct. James A. Baker III has declared that this
Yugoslavia must have firm borders. The civil and human rights of Croats and
Slovenes must matter little to the Bush administration, who are firm supporters of
the Serbs. With such unfailing support from the U.S., why are the Serbs
schizophrenic?
Sincerely,
=================================================
December 10, 1991
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York City, New York 10036
Attention: Jack Rosenthal, Editorial Page Editor
Dear Mr. Rosenthal:
The sole purpose of David Martin’s article of November 22, 1991 was to inflame
and prejudice your readers with inaccuracies to justify the carnage that is being
waged by the Communist Yugoslav army in Croatia.
Martin could not even get his geography right. He intimates that the post World
War II borders of Croatia was reestablished at the expense of the Serbs. A
comparison of the borders with Croatia’s prewar borders, those defined by a
Serbian king, will confirm that Croatia lost territory when Tito, the communist
dictator, reestablished its frontiers.
Martin’s bandied about statistics with abandonment. His statement that 500,000
thousand Serbs died at the hands of the Ustashe is contrary to the facts and is
another example of the big lie that the media has been perpetrating. According to
the official Yugoslavia Report to the Federal German Government, a report to
extract war repatriations, a total of 346,740 Serbs died during World War II.
Despite his inflated figures he omitted to say the majority of deaths came at the
hands of Germans, Partisans, Luftwaffe and Allied bombings, Soviets, endemic
diseases, and natural causes. Independent sources, such as Dr. Bogoljub Kocovic’
s ‘Zrtve drugog svetskog rata u Jugoslavija’(Victims of World War II in Yugoslavia-
London 1985) and Vladimir Zerjavic’s study for the 1989 Yugoslav Victimological
Society in cooperation with the Zagreb Jewish community are in agreement
Martin’s editorializing represents clever distortion. Although President Tudjman is
quoted in The Guardian as stating that he is thankful that his wife did not have any
Jewish or Serbian blood, what Martin disingenuously omitted to say was that
Tudjman completed that statement by saying “or else she would have died at the
hands of the fascists.”
It is apparent that Martin is playing Milosevic’s tune of disinformation. The
orchestration began shortly before Croatia declared its independence when
Milosevic’s propaganda apparatus announced that Croatia was building
concentration camps for 500,000 ethnic Serbs in Croatia; that thousands of Serbs
have been driven from their homes: that a Vatican plot against Serb Orthodoxy was
uncovered: Austria and Germany were conspiring with Croatia to build a Fourth
Reich. Not to play second fiddle, Martin has composed his own ditties of distortion.
His propaganda provokes the Serbs to the same hysteria and hatred that resulted
from the sham story headlined by Reuters that Croatians slaughtered 41 Serbian
children.
Sincerely,
===================================================
November 13th 1992
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York City, New York 10036
Attention: Jack Rosenthal, Editorial-Page Editor
Dear Mr. Rosenthal:
Your hypercritical editorial, “The U.N.’s Bad Example on Bosnia (November 5,
1992),” regarding Croatia’s refusal to admit Bosnian refugees is in keeping with
England, France, and United States’ hypocrisy to excuse their own inactions.
According to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, Croatia, whose
territory is one-third occupied by Serb forces, has already given asylum to 640,000
Bosnians that fled from horrific Serbia human-rights violations. Coupled with the
271,798 displaced persons from Serb occupied Croatia and fighting an ongoing
war, Croatia does not have the economic means to care even for its own needs.
As of September 1992, Germany has taken 220,000 refugees; Switzerland 70,520;
Austria 57,700; Hungary 50,000; and Sweden 47,000. The numbers are markedly
different from countries most critical of Croatia’s new stance that your editorial
labeled “morally reprehensible”. France has taken 1,108 refugees; England 2,000
and the United States magnanimously “offered” to take 1,000. Kenneth Clarke, the
United Kingdom’s Home Secretary slammed the door on Bosnian refugees on
November 6, 1992, when he imposed strict visa restrictions. Previously Charles
Wardle from the same office assured the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees
that England would not raise visa barriers. So much for double speak.
Your stating, “U.N. peace-keepers complicate their own mission” does not address
UN complicity with Serbia. Jean-Claude Cocoloto, Head Officer for U.N. Refugees
on July 28, 1992 declared the U.N. is, “...Not only creating refugees, but of
becoming a partner in Serbia’s ‘Ethnic cleansing’.” Recently (November 2, 1992)
UNICEF purchased blankets in Belgrade, which is contrary to, and flaunting U.N.
imposed sanctions, shipped them intentionally to Bosnia. After the Bosnian
government learned about the origin of the blankets they refused to accept them.
The U.N. then sent the blankets to the Serbs in Serb-held Bosnia. Which is
another example of the UN helping the aggressors and disingenuously punishing
the victims.
Sincerely,
==============================================
November 15, 1992
The Daily Telegraph
Fax 071-538-6455
Editor:
In Michael Montgomery’s article, “Yugoslav Army May Rejoin The War,” Yugoslav
President Dobrica Cosic threatening to order federal troops back to Bosnia-
Herzegovina is ludicrous and should not be taken seriously.
It should be recalled that after the Yugoslav Army (JNA) “withdrew” from Bosnia-
Herzegovina on May 29, 1992 it left behind 85% of its troops and most of the
equipment. That JNA proudly proclaimed the newly named Army of the Serbian
republic of Bosnia- Herzegovina must now defend the people. However, the JNA
command structure remained and has been functioning continuously, as witnessed
by the coordinated artillery and aircraft bombardment-taking place.
Cosic’s unsubstantiated allegations that Croatian brigades have invaded Bosnia
are in keeping with the pattern of Serbian duplicity, as exemplified by Milosevic and
Karadzic.
Sincerely,
=====================================================
December 9, 1992
New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York City, New York 10036
Attention: Jack Rosenthal, Editor
Dear Mr. Rosenthal:
The naiveté expressed in “In a Serbian Prison” (December 4, 1992) was
astounding. The Western democracies that Mr. Rosenthal places so much faith in
to influence a Serbian democratic process never explicitly condemned the Serbian
war policy and its ethnic cleansing. They responded with consternation and hand
wringing only after existence of the Serbian concentration camps were made public.
Ousting Milosevic “someday” gives scant comfort to the victims of continuing
atrocities being committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. To consider Serbia
has a “democratic opposition” and its leaders speaking “moral truth” was ludicrous.
President Panic was not elected but appointed. He publicly set a goal of 100 days
to cool hostilities. This time has long since passed. During his tenure, despite his
avowed democratic intention, Serbian aggression has increased and captured
more territory. Sarajevo may soon join Bosanski Brod and Jajce as a fallen city.
The Yugoslav air force continues to fall to fly with impunity. Ethnic cleansing, more
appropriately called the “Final solution” has become dramatically more blatant and
the concentration camps continued to operate. Kosovo is fermenting to the boiling
point. The only other serious “democratic” opposition, Vuk Draskovic, is in total
agreement with Chetnik policy.
Perhaps Mr. Rosenthal is privy to inside information, since there has not been one
utterance of the so called opposition speaking “moral truth” publicly; to the
contrary, they have been conspicuously silent in confronting Milosevic about the
atrocities and ethnic cleansing.
Mr. Rosenthal alleges that Croatia has taken a “Big bite” of Bosnia-Herzegovina is
blatantly false. These are areas where Bosnian Croats have lived as a majority
and who are defending their homes. They are distinct as Bosnian Moslems and
Bosnian Serbs.
Sincerely,
===================================================
December 23, 1992
Letters to the Editor
The Los Angeles Times
Thomas Plate, Editor
Fax 213-237-7679
Dear Mr. Plate:
Kempster’s “U.S. Hopes Serb Voters Will Rescue its Yugoslav Policy” (December
20, 1992) thesis that the Bush administration peace hopes hinge upon whom the
Serbs elect as president is ludicrous. But the article’s main thrust is to whitewash
the administration’s responsibility for carnage in the former Yugoslavia.
President Bush’s “waffling,” his favorite term to describe President elect Clinton, is
applicable to his stance in Bosnia. For example, he ignored CIA warnings that
Yugoslavia would break apart with violence. One month after U.N. Commission for
Refugees said the conflict had resulted in 2.2 million refugees, Bush dismissed the
Bosnian horror as a “hiccup.
Last week, Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger finally made noises like a
statesman and attempted to reassert America’s lost leadership role in world. More
positive rumbles have come out of his officer this past week then in the previous
two years. But the grandstand gesturing is too little, too late for the countless dead
and the millions of refugees.
Eagleburger’s diplomatic frenzy to create a “No-fly” zone knew it would not fly
(pardon the pun) because of France’s and England’s valid opposition and
Russians threat to veto the plan. Now that Russia expressed sending troops to
help their Serbian Orthodox brethren further crimps the idea. Russians threat to
veto the plan. Now that Russia expressed sending troops to help their Serbian
Orthodox brethren further crimps the idea.
Kempster cited reasons the administration held back were they hoped the
European Community would take the lead and the world wasted time to prevent
the breakup, does not hold water. When Germany, Austria, and Italy favored the
Croatian and Slovenian exit, the Bush administration vigorously threw its diplomatic
weight against the idea of independence of any Yugoslav republic in the mistaken
concern that succession and nationalism will become contagious and destabilize
the Soviet Union.
It was the United States that wasted time and not the world. Bush referred to
Kissinger’s idea of stability, which is in sharp contrast to Reagan’s approach of
giving a clear priority to human rights and self-determination. The U.S. actively
campaigned for the Yugoslav federation. Secretary of State James A. Baker
warned Croatia and Slovenia they could not expect recognition.
The State Department put an inordinate amount the pressure to block Germany’s
proposed diplomatic recognition of Croatia. Cyrus Vance and Lord Carrington
argued that recognition would only escalate the war. However, by January 1991,
after Germany recognized Croatia it brought about the first lasting cease-fire.
The responsibility of the war lies ultimately with the Bush administration. In June
1991 Secretary of State Baker made a speech in Belgrade that Yugoslavia should
use all means possible to preserve the stability of the country. His statements gave
tacit approval to the Serbian military that a Serb controlled Yugoslavia was the key
to stability.
Ever since the conflict erupted American diplomacy tried to appease the radical
Serbian chauvinism. Eaglebuger persistently warned detractors and legislators that
unity was the only way for peace. White House Spokesman Fitzwater berated and
condemned Croatia’s and Slovenia’s actions and blamed them for the war.
Nationalism in Croatia, which was stoked by Milosevic, was a blended with a
democratic tinge. However, it was tied to Leninism in Serbia. The ethnic cleansing
and concentration camps in Bosnia created consternation and teeth gnashing in
United States government circles—but only after their existence became known
through the media. In Croatia, when the Serbs for carrying out similar activities, not
one voice was raised in condemnation. To the contrary, news stories implied that it
was what the Croatians deserved.
The common threads that permeate from the media-placing blame on all sides and
ancient ethnic hatreds-are prime examples of Serbian disinformation and were
consistent in the public statements of the administration before Bush lost the
election.
Sincerely,
====================================================
December 23, 1992
The Washington Post
For publication
Fax number 202-334-5547
To the Editor:
If there is any doubt that Serbian forces may have committed war crimes, one need
only look to the incident at Vocin, a Croatian village. More than a year after the
massacre of 43 villagers, Vojislav Seselj, its mastermind, was named a war criminal
by U.S. Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger. The crime should now receive
the attention it deserves.
Serb atrocities against Croatian civilians are not spontaneous events, like what
happened at Mai Lai; rather, it is planned Serbian policy. The mayhem at Vocin
was no worse than what the Serbs did elsewhere, but what made it unique,
Serbian soldiers who were captured confessed to their participation.
Having received orders to retreat, the Serbs, after occupying the village for four
months, unleashed evil incarnate. After the carnage, 43 bodies were found, but a
great number of others, including children, disappeared without a trace.
Cursory examination of the corpses, later verified by forensic studies, revealed that
most of them had been tortured and mutilated. Half the victims were over 62, the
eldest 84; many were found chained and killed in a variety of ways-axed, burned,
stabbed, and shot. One victim was chain sawed in half. After the bodies were
identified and photographed, extensive forensic studies were carried out. Chemical
analysis of the charred remains—in reality, nothing but chunks of carbon—verify
that the victims were burned while still live.
The Serbs made a cardinal error. In the haste to retreat, they left behind a large
number of witnesses. After the killing orgy, the perpetrators went on the drinking
spree. A few passed out behind some bushes and were left behind. When Croatian
troops entered the area they were captured. Under interrogation they described
their heinous crimes and being members of Seselj’s notorious “White Eagles. “
What was most telling, they admitted to being under orders from Belgrade. The U.
S. Congressman, Frank McCloskey was present at the interrogation and saw the
bodies in situ. His testimony lends objective credence to the incident.
Similar crimes occurred after the fall of Vukovar, when soldiers of the Yugoslav
army evacuated 175 Croatians from the hospital. Dr. Clyde Snow, a U.N. forensic
medical specialist, announced on October 28, 1992, evidence indicated that a
mass grave contained bodies from the operation. Since the two slaughters
occurred so close chronologically and geographically, it is likely that the
perpetrators were the same. At the first anniversary celebrating the fall of Vukovar
the Serbs specifically honored the “White Eagles.”
Of the countless crimes committed in Croatia and Bosnia, Vocin is the most
extensively documented massacre of the conflict. The perpetrators must be held
accountable.
Sincerely,
====================================================
December 28, 1992
Letter to the Editor:
Los Angeles Times
Dear Editor:
Your otherwise excellent editorial “Imagining peace in the Balkans” (December 27,
1992) was marred by some glaring discrepancies and omissions of certain facts,
which were vital for your readers to arrive at an understanding.
Unquestionably, Serbia “suffered” in World War One, but it was a war they
triggered after the “Black Hand” organization (comprised of Serbian officers)
assassinated the Austrian Arch Duke in Sarajevo.
When the King renamed the country Yugoslavia it was not to “restore order and
reintegrate the Croatians”, rather it was to dissolve the Old Kingdom and
strengthen Serbian domination. The Croatians attempt to integrate was cut short
after their delegates were assassinated in Belgrade’s Parliament by a Serb of the
same “Black Hand” organization. Instead of punishing those responsible, the king
established a dictatorship. Extreme draconian measures produced an opposition
that assassinated the king in Marseille—not Paris as your editorial stated.
The editorial stated the Nazi invasion meant different things were true, but for the
wrong reasons. The Ustashe, an ultra right small minority of exiles were installed
as a Nazi puppet government in the same league as Quisling Norway and Vichy
France. The Ustashe never represented the Croatians at large and experienced
far less popularity then the Vichy had with the French.
However, Serbia had a legitimate government headed by the former minister of
war, General Milan Nedic, who collaborated with the Nazis to an extent that Serbia
was able to retain significant civilian authority. The Serbian Orthodox Church also
openly supported Nazi policy and theologically justified persecution of Jews. These
elements, working together, caused the chief Nazi civil administrator to proudly
proclaim Serbia the only country where the ‘Jewish question’ was solved, and
Belgrade, the first European city to become ‘judenfrei’.
The Chetniks were strongly allied with the Nazis against the resistance. Your
stating, “Serb resistance was undeniably quicker and stronger” is not correct. It
was decidedly rare to find a Serb from Serbia in the resistance. The resistance
was comprised mostly of Croatians, Croatian Serbs, and Slovenes.
Your editorial said Tito redrew the map of Yugoslavia to show an “expanded”
Croatia is also incorrect. The new borders where redrawn as a joint effort of Tito, a
half Croat and Slovene; Alexander Rankovic, a Serb; Mosa Pijade, a Jew; and
Milovanj Djilas, a Montenegrin. Comparing the pre war World War II borders, which
had been approved by the Serbian King, with a post war map, Croatia had lost
territory.
Sincerely,
======================================================
January 18, 1993
The Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor
Thomas Plate, Editor
Dear Mr. Plate:
Milovan Djilas arguing in “Peace Plan Needs Enforcement Contingent” (1/15/93)
that there is essentially no difference between the protagonists is a demeaning
attempt to categorize the Croatians and Moslems with the Serbs. Furthermore,
labeling their respective ideologies totalitarian is disingenuous and unsubstantiated.
Croatia democratically opted for an anti-totalitarian government in internationally
monitored elections. To remain tied to Serbia would be chained to a failed
anachronism. The emergence of President Tudjman and Croatian nationalism are
products of what Milosevic created. Bosnia received United Nations recognition
after fulfilling all criteria for statehood and for Djilas to expect the readers to believe
Izetbegovic’s government is totalitarian insults their intelligence.
In contrast, Serbia elected a communist government headed by Milosevic in
December 1990. And most recently, Yugoslavia reelected the status quo. Although
there were voting improprieties, nobody doubted the results-only the extent. But
what was most telling, Vojislav Seselj, an ultra-nationalist, received 20% of the
votes. Djilas ignores the fact that Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger has
branded Seselj and Milosevic as war criminals.
Djilas, an admitted participant in war crimes, became a political pariah after
criticizing the way Communism was being implemented in Yugoslavia. He remained
a steadfast Communist and adheres to the myth that the on going conflict is
religious and ethnic in origin.
The Serbian leadership are communist, and by definition atheistic. Milosevic’s wife
is the party’s chief ideologist. By contrast, the Croatian and Bosnian governments
do not attest to religious affiliation. Its ministers are diverse religiously, including
Jewish. Their constitutions do not differentiate along ethnic lines and allows
freedom of religion.
There are now chinks in Belgrade’s disinformation campaign. Jeri Laber, Executive
Director of Helsinki Watch said: “The ethnic wars ... are not what many want us to
believe, the result of the age old hostilities ... but are a relentless propaganda
campaign aimed as stirring up old tensions engineered by Milosevic.”
Participants of a recent religious summit that included Patriarch Pavle, the head of
the Serbian Orthodox Church, heads of the Moslem and Roman Catholic
communities of Bosnia-Herzegovina and chaired by Rabbi Arthur Schneier
concluded the war was not religious and that “crime in the name of religion is the
greatest crime against religion”.
Sincerely,
====================================================
February 7, 1993
The Times
To the Editor
For publication
Fax 011-44-71-782-5046
Sir:
The biographical sketches [”Balkan Conflict” (February 4, 1993) of the main
players in the drama being played out in the Balkans was the finest to appear in
the media. The Times, however, erred as to when Mr. Milosevic was labeled a
“war criminal”. It was during the last weeks of Bush’s administration, rather than
the “first months” of the conflict.
Your excellent article would have better clarified the quagmire if you have not
omitted some very important points and expanded upon some of your statements.
Mr. Eagleburger ties with Mr. Milosevic were not limited to the political realm. In the
interim after Eagleburger was U.S. ambassador to Belgrade and his appointment
as Deputy Secretary of State he worked for Yugoslav government owned
companies. While serving on the board of the Yugoslav bank in New York, his
protégé, Mr. Milosevic served a similar function in Belgrade. When Mr.
Eagleburger returned to the State Department, Kissinger Associates paid him
1.114 million dollars in severance pay. It is noteworthy, General Scowcroft and
Lord Carrington were also principles of Kissinger Associates.
It is true Mr. Milosevic attained power pandering to Serbian nationalism, but it was
he, who rekindled long dormant Croatian nationalism. Mr. Milosevic equated the
present Croatian government with the dreaded World War Two Ustashe regime.
He mounted a disinformation campaign that the Croatians were building
concentration camps for its Serb minority, driven thousands of Serbs from their
homes in Croatia, uncovered a Vatican plot directed toward Serb Orthodoxy, and
Germany and Austria were conspiring with Croatia to form a fourth Reich. The
tragedy is that these mythologies were then and continued to be believed.
The ethnic groups lived side-by-side in the 45 years after war. It was not until Mr.
Milosevic divided Yugoslavia along ethnic lines that the peace was shattered.
Croatian nationalism and Mr. Tudjman are products of what Mr. Milosevic set in
motion.
It was while researching historical records of the concentration camps at
Jasnovnac that Mr. Tudjman learned that the seven hundred thousand dead
Serbs, a figure bandied about by the Yugoslav government, was grossly inflated. In
1964, German federal government was given the figure of 346,740 as the total
number of Serbs that died in the entire Yugoslavia during the war years. The
number includes Serbs who died at the hands of the Germans and Ustashe,
Partisans, Luftwaffe and allied bombings, Soviets, and endemic diseases such as
typhoid and typhoid. This figure is in agreement with published scholarly works on
the subject.
It is understandable that Mr. Tudjman is disillusioned with Cyrus Vance and
UNPROFOR. During the recent Owen and Vance diplomatic flurry, Mr. Vance said
Mr. Milosevic, a man who previously broke some 40 agreements in Croatia, is “a
man to keep this word.” Despite UNPROFOR’s presence, not one stipulation in the
Vance Accord in Croatia has been implemented. The Serbian military irregulars are
still armed, the purged Croatian population has not been able to return to their
homes and the pre-existing borders appear of thing of the past.
Sincerely,
===================================================
February 11, 1993
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York City, NY 10036
Fax 212-556-3690
Attention: Jack Rosenthal, Editor
To the Editor:
The Vance-Owen Plan, Mr. Rosenthal naively places so much faith in “The Crime
of Vance and Owen” (Feb. 5, 1993), is nothing less than asking the legitimate
Bosnian government to liquidate itself. The Boston President Izetbegovic, acutely
aware of Cyrus Vance’s recent and past performances, is rightly skeptical not to
trust him.
In Croatia, the only effect the Vance Accord and UNPROFOR’s deployment had
during the past year was to consolidate Serb positions. Not one stipulation of the
Accord has been realized.
Perpetuating a mythology Rebecca West helped create in “Black Lamb and Grey
Falcon”, Rosenthal misconceptions should be corrected. Although true for the rest
of the Balkans, the Croats and the Serbs never engaged in tribal war and did not
have a “mutual hate” nor have been “Killing each other for centuries”.
To be sure, there had been many battles in the region, but they were between
Christian Europe and the Ottoman Empire. Invariably the Croats always fought with
the Europeans, whereas the Serbs frequently fought on the side of the Ottomans.
Prior to 1918, there had been a remarkable symbiosis between the two groups.
Their first armed conflict occurred during World War II.
In the last days of the Bush administration “honorable” Vance secured a promise
from Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, not to let Izetbegovic meet with the
administration to present his case. Only after their “General Agreement” became
known publicly, Eagleburger allowed the meeting to take place. Recently, Vance
commented about Milosevic- a man who broke over 40 peace agreements in
Croatia-“A man to keep his word.”
Perhaps Mr. Rosenthal has inside information but no one has advocated defeating
or smashing Serbia as he stated.
Sincerely,
===============================================
February 13, 1993
The Washington Post
Attention: Blaine Harden—Foreign desk
Fax number 202-334-5547
Dear Mr. Harden:
Your “ Serbia is a Nation in Dangerous Hands “ (February 9, 1993) is the finest,
most succinct article written on the subject. You are to be congratulated! However,
there is one area that demands re- clarification. The media consistently, and your
article is no exception, state that the Ustashe sent hundreds of thousands of Serbs
to death camps.
To the sure, one death is one to many, but the figures the media has been
bantering about are grossly inflated. In 1964, in order to extract war repatriations
from the German Federal Government, the Yugoslav government was only able to
come up with a total of 346,740 Serbs that died in a whole territory of Yugoslavia
during World War Two. (1)
These figures, in agreement with published scholarly works on the subject,
includes those who died at hands of Germans and Ustashe, Partisans, Luftwaffe
and allied bombings, Soviets, killed by other Serbs for political expediency and
diseases such as typhus and typhoid, which were endemic at the time.
Parenthetically, the seminal reason Franjo Tudjman became a political pariah
some 20 years ago, was his research concluded that all of victims—Gypsies, non-
Serbs as well as Serbs, totaled less than 25,000 dead, which contradicted political
correctness.
I am particularly glad you didn’t bring up the cliché your colleagues have been
using with abandon—the Croatians and Serbs had been engaged in tribal wars
and killing each other for centuries. Rebecca West created this mythology in Black
Lamb and Grey Falcon but the media, for some reason, has been perpetuating
these statements as Gospel.
Certainly there were battles but they were between Christian Europeans and the
Moslem Ottomans. Prior to 1918 there had been a remarkable, peaceful symbiotic
relationship with between the Serbs and Croats. It was not until World War Two
that they had their first armed conflict. (2)
Sincerely,
Jerry Blaskovich, M.D., M.A. (Islamic art history UCLA)
Co-chairman “ Americans for Freedom in the former Yugoslavia”
Associate Clinical Professor USC School of Medicine
(1) Politika, Belgrade, April 29, 1989. Raul Hilberg: The Destruction of the
European Jews (Vol. 2, New York: Holmes and Meier, 1985) p 692
(2) “From the historical perspective, this area experienced little violence prior to the
twentieth century and never witnessed a vicious religious war as seen in Western
Europe.” V.P. Gagnon Foreign Affairs (Summer 1991) p 31
===================================================
February 15, 1993
The Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor
Thomas Plate, editor
Dear Mr. Plate;
Alexander Cockburn’s “The U.S. Can’t Blame Serbia for Everything” (2/14/93),
echoes, chapter and verse, the Serbian position. Blaming both sides, labeling the
Croatian government fascist, disingenuously omitting mention of the Serb
concentration camps and organized rapes is typical of the Serbian propagandists.
The L.A. Times, not editing Cockburn’s unsubstantiated allegations is surprising
journalistic practice.
When Slobodan Milosevic’s star was rising, with the help of the American embassy
in Belgrade, Franjo Tudjman was a pariah after he had been imprisoned by
Communist Yugoslavia. His political isolation made it impossible for him to
“sponsor” anyone in the Yugoslav army as Cockburn alleges. Croatia had no army
or militia to sponsor-all military power was in Serb hands.
Tudjman arrived on the political scene only after the fall of the Berlin Wall. No
longer fearing the Russian monolith, Croatia, as well as all the former captive
nations, opted for self-determination and Croatians were no longer fearful to
express national feelings. Rather than pandering to exiles, as Cockburn alleges, it
was the communist government U.S. politicians and intelligence agencies
“pandered” to after Tito’s split with Russia.
Cockburn’s attempt to equate a democratically elected government in
internationally monitored elections with the fascist Ustashe is demeaning. Despite
its faults, Croatia has as much ties with the Ustashe as Moshe Dyan had with the
PLO.
In the 1980’s the flurry of Western Bank credits and loans to Belgrade resulted
from Ambassador Lawrence Eagleburger pressuring Western-banking institutions,
despite it being contrary to American policy at the time.
In the interim and after Eagleburger left the State Department and until being
named Deputy Secretary of State, Eagleburger worked for Yugoslav government
owned companies and banks. He became director of a Yugoslav bank in New
York, which benefited from the loans he previously arranged. His protégé,
Milosevic directed a sister bank in Belgrade.
In it is noteworthy that, Eagleburger, General Brett Scowcroft and Lord Carrington
were principals in Kissinger Associates, whos The recent call for intervention did
not come for altruistic motives, such as aiding self-determination or protecting the
sovereignty of a legitimate state. Rather it was the atrocities and ethnic cleansings
that stirred the world’s conscience to call for intervention. Cockburn’s theses for
nonintervention are in keeping with the Serbian line.
Quoting General Lewis Mackenzie, whose credulity is now in question after being
accused by the Bosnian government of sexually exploiting Muslim women
prisoners brought to his quarters by Serbian guards, was incredible. Mackenzie
disparagingly berated Moslems for defending and wanting to take back their own
homes.
Sincerely,
==================================================
February 22, 1993
Dear Mr. Platte:
War Cast Shadows on the U.S. Serbs (2/22/93) tries to evoke the human quality to
sympathize with people “uprooted” and from a “homeland torn by war”. But Serbia,
the “homeland” these lamentations were directed toward is another story. No gun
has been fired in anger, no one died, nor one house or institution was destroyed
there because of the war. The uprooting of the Serbs was invariably voluntary and
occurred in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Most Serbs fled because of unfounded fears that were generated by disinformation
campaigns orchestrated from Belgrade. They were told and believed the Croatians
were building concentration camps for the Serb minority, Serbs orthodoxy was in
jeopardy because of the Vatican plot and the legal, internationally monitored
elected government of Croatia were successors of the dreaded fascist Ustashe. (1)
Serbs were further pressured to leave after being forewarned of impending
Yugoslav army attacks. All Yugoslav army attacks in Croatia and Bosnia-
Herzegovina were preceded by warning the Serb population before hand. Attacks
inexorably naturally follow a pattern of coordinated air strikes, rockets and heavy
artillery. As the defense pulls back, the Yugoslav infantry moves in. Once the
objective is secure, Serbian irregulars forces start their “cleansing” operation on
the non-Serbs.
The Serbs paranoiac fear of being “dominated by other groups” is a result of
historical revisionism. The Ottomans did not align with anybody when they
conquered what had been the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Despite the
rhetoric, the Nazis did not align themselves with Croatia. Rather the Nazis replaced
a legitimate government with their puppet-the Ustashe.
The “independent” state of Croatia was on a par with Quisling Norway and Vichy
France. Never representing the Croatians at large, the Ustashe did not experience
the same popularity of Vichy had with French.
However, the Nazis aligned with the Serbs in Serbia. The Serbs, understandably,
and the media, for less obvious reasons, disingenuously omit mentioning the
Serbian-Nazi connection. Serbia had a legitimate government headed by the
former minister of war, General Milan Nedic, which collaborated with the Nazis to
an extent that Serbia was able to retain significant civilian authority. The Serbian
Orthodox Church openly supported Nazi policy and theologically justified
persecution of the Jews. The infamous mobile gas vans, to exterminate Jews, were
first used in Belgrade. These elements, working together, caused the Nazi civil
administrator to proclaim Serbia, the only country where the “Jewish question” was
solved and Belgrade, the first city “judenfrei.” (2) It is noteworthy, that six months
prior to the Nazi invasion, Serbia enacted laws prohibiting Jewish participation in
the economy and the university.
According to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. Drazan Mihailjevic, the so-called
fascist fighter and hero to most Serbs was an overt Nazi collaborator as early as
1941.
The article perpetuates the mythology that Rebecca West helped create that
suspicion between the groups was a product of numerous wars. To the sure there
had been many battles in the region but it was usually between the European
Christians and the Ottoman Muslims. The symbiosis between the Serbs and
Croats lasted until 1918. Their first armed conflict occurred during World War Two,
(3) which is by no means ancient.
Ramila Jovicic, who was quoted in your article, said the differences between Serbs
and Croats were negligible and was the prevailing attitude until the demagoguery
of Milosevic divided Yugoslavia’s along ethnic lines. The nationalities lived side-by-
side in peace for 45 years after World War Two.
======================================================May 8,
1993
Letters to the Editor
Los Angeles Times
Times Mirror Square
Los Angeles, Calif. 90053
Reference: Buchanan’s article “America has no Business in Bosnia”
Editor:
It is disappointing to see how Patrick Buchanan’s political pendulum swings. Once
perceived by many as a champion of self-determination, he caught the imagination
of a sizable segment of the population to an extent that he came to be a threat to
George Bush in the primaries.
In November 1991 Buchanan expressed in print and public speeches moral
outrage about the Serb aggression in Croatia. He advocated lifting the arms
embargo on Croatia, using the Sixth Fleet to break the siege of Dubrovnik, and
bombing Belgrade. Comparing the Western democracies as witnesses to the Serb
rape in Croatia to Kitty Genovese rape witnesses, he piqued the conscience of the
America public. With the same actors and scenario being played in Bosnia, but to a
greater degree in Bosnia, is Croatia any less a victim?
Ever since Buchanan was allowed to speak at the Republican convention, he
suddenly developed a blind spot to Serbian aggression. Previously, the Croatian-
American communities responded to his statements generously. In Southern
California alone, they gave in excess of $50,000 to his campaign.
Buchanan’s article echoing the conservative viewpoint of the Republican Party
apparently has no compassion or humanistic feelings that suggested he was
taught by Jesuits and knows full well the hatreds in the former Yugoslavia are not
ancient. Before they were cobbled together after World War I, the Serbs and
Croatians had a remarkable symbiotic relationship. Their first armed conflict
between them occurred during World War Two.
Sincerely,
===================================================
August 21, 1993
Foreign Policy
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
2400 “N”Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20037-1153
Reference: No. 91 Summer 1993
To the Editor:
Dusko Doder’s “New War, Old Hatreds” was notable not for the quality of
journalism but instead, for the artfulness of its propaganda. The pedestrian reader
could not notice that Doder cleverly perpetuates unsubstantiated conclusions,
which leaves us feeling kindly toward a Serbia guilty of crimes against humanity.
Contrary to what Doder alleges, the only “strong diplomatic action,” taken by the
Bush administration in the Yugoslav crises was to admonish Croatia and Slovenia.
Nothing untoward was directed against the Serbs until well after Bush lost the
election.
The ultimate responsibility for current chaos lies directly with President Bush. After
he sent Secretary of State James A. Baker III to Belgrade to reiterate our policy
that Yugoslavia must remain intact at all costs, the Serb military perceived his
speech as tacit approval to unleash its attack on Croatia and Slovenia.
When Germany and Italy expressed willingness to help the fledging democracies of
Slovenia and Croatia, the Bush administration mounted a campaign led by Deputy
Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, to pressure the allies not to get
involved. Not bowing to the pressure, Germany made its first unilateral diplomatic
move since World War II. This decision elevated Germany to a leader status and
cast the United States’ role to that of a follower.
When Doder stated that the sanctions imposed upon Serbia and Montenegro was
“harsh” it must have been tongue in cheek. If it were not for the tragedy in human
lives, the Marx Brothers could have scripted implementation of the sanctions. Only
after President Bill Clinton stepped in, in early 1993, did the sanctions become
meaningful.
The vaunted airdrops have proven to be unsuccessful. Reports from Gorazde and
Srebrenica indicate that most of supplies landed in Serb-held territories or drop in
the river.
In keeping with Serb policy, Doder disingenuously does not mention that the
seminal factor that triggered World War I was orchestrated by the Black Hand
organization. They assassinated Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in retaliation to
Austria’s annexation of Bosnia, which blocked Serbia’s territorial aspirations.
The Black Hand has a long history of violence in the promotion of a Greater
Serbia. Black Hand conspirators murdered the king of Serbia, Alexander Obrenevic
and his wife the in 1903. An exiled Karadjordjevic, linked the Black Hand, returned
to Serbia and was crowned king. Besides the responsibility of First World War, it
was a Black Hand member in 1928 that shot and mortally wounded three Croatian
delegates, including Stejpan Radic, in the parliament in Belgrade.
Rather than punish the Black Hand, King Alexander Karadjordjevic imposed
draconian measures on all non-Serbs, declared a dictatorship, and renamed the
kingdom-Yugoslavia. To implement his mandate King Alexander appointed Prime
Minister Zivkovic. Zivkovic was the individual who opened the gates to the
assassins of the king and his wife in 1903.
To be sure, there have been historical and religious differences in Yugoslavia, but
they were not ancient as alleged by every secretary of state and the media since
the onset of hostilities. None of the battles were ethnic. The battles were between
the Muslim Ottomans and the Christian Europeans. Prior to this century there had
been a remarkable symbiosis between the Croats and the Serbs. Animosities
developed only after Serbia came to dominate Yugoslavia.
Typically, everyone analyzing precedents of today’s conflict always cites the
Ustashe, but never mention the Serbian government of World War II. The Ustashe
came into being as a consequence of Radic’s assassination and the Serbs’ harsh
draconian measures directed toward the Croats. They were extremely small
number of predominantly Herzegovinan Croatians that included over 20 percent
Muslims, who lived in exile in Italy under Mussolini’s largesse.
With the German invasion and the defeat of the Yugoslav army after a few days
battle (the Yugoslav army officers were 90% Serbs) the Nazis installed the
Ustashe in Croatia as a puppet state. On a par with the Vichy and Quisling
governments, they never represented the Croatians at large nor did they enjoy the
popularity the Vichy had with the French.
In Serbia, the former minister of war, General Milan Nedic, who collaborated to
such an extent with the Nazis, headed the government that Serbia was able to
retain significant civilian authority. The Serbian Orthodox Church openly supported
Nazi policy and theologically justified persecution of Jews.
These elements working together caused the Nazi civil administrator to proclaim
Serbia the only country where the “Jewish question “ was solved and Belgrade the
first City “ Judenfrei”. It is noteworthy, that six months prior to the war, Serbia
enacted laws prohibiting Jewish participation in the economy and the university.
Historical revisionism has created the idea that the Serbs were somehow allied
with the Allies. According to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, resistance against
the Nazis stopped in early 1941.
Doder plays the game of historical revisionism when he stated the post Tito era
provoked an adverse reaction against the Bosnian Serbs and their share of
political and economic power began to decline. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall the
Communist Party controlled every facet of society-from the cradle to grave. In
former Yugoslavia, except for Slovenia, the vast majority of the party apparatchiks
and UDBA (the secret police) were Serbs.
When Slovenia and Croatia made overtures for self-determination, nationalism
played a minor role. The ethnic groups lived side-by-side for 45 years after war. It
was not until Milosevic divided Yugoslavia along ethnic lines that the peace was
shattered.
After Milosevic enhanced his power by pandering to Serbian nationalism and
communist Party of Serbia reasserted it, it struck fear in the other republics. It was
Milosevic who rekindled long dormant Croatian nationalism. Tudjman was a
byproduct of what Milosevic set in motion.
Milosevic equated all Croats to the Ustashe. He mounted a disinformation
campaign that the Croats were building concentration camps for its Serbian
minority, driven thousands of Serbs from their homes, uncovered a Vatican plot
against Serb Orthodoxy, and Germany and Austria were conspiring with Croatia to
form a fourth Reich.
Even the international press abetted Milosevic’s campaign. A Reuters reporter
made world headlines that he had witnessed 41 Serbian children slaughtered by
the Croats and related the gory details on Serbian television. The next day,
however, he said the story was a hoax. His retraction did not appear in Serbia, but
the allegations along with other mythologies are still being exploited to whip up
hatred toward the Croats.
Doder, as well as a number of writers, such as Misha Glenney, state that the main
reason for the fear among Serbians living in Croatia was that Tudjman “refused to
dissolve the fascist Croatia.” This statement is a success of Serbian
disinformation. They made it “gospel” that a puppet government in German
occupied Croatia over 50 years ago dictates the action of the present Croatian
government.
Despite the Tudjman government’s shortcomings, it bears no responsibility for the
Ustashe. Tudjman has as much in common with the Ustashe as Moshe Dyan had
with the PLO.
Doder’s statement that the Croats enjoyed arms superiority in the Serb part of
Croatia is blatantly false. All the heavy weapons were in the hands of the Serbian
controlled Yugoslav army. Before the war, the Serbs officers distributed weapons
to the Serbs after depleting the stores of arms in Croatian hands.
Doder emphasized that secret deals and negotiations between the Serbs and
Croats were made to carve up Bosnia. It should be noted that the meetings were
sponsored by and at the insistence of international bodies. The most famous one,
(or infamous) in Graz, was set up by the EC.
Doder’s concluding suggestions read something out of “Fantasy Island.” It is not
the international community who should end the “the demonization of the Serbs”
but the Serbs must do it themselves. To do otherwise would condone Serbian
actions.
Sincerely,
====================================================
February 10, 1994
Minneapolis Star and Tribune
425 Portland Avenue
Minneapolis, Minn. 55488
Attention: Eric Ringham, Editor
Dear Mr. Ringham:
Publishing “ Perpich’s Croatia Connection with Franjo Tudjman” (February 6,
1994) by Adam Minter was not in keeping with the Star and Tribune’s usual high
journalistic standards, but it fits H.L. Mencken’s characterization: “All successful
newspapers are ceaselessly querulous and bellicose. They never defend anyone
of anything if they can help it; if the job is forced upon them, they tackle it by
denouncing someone else.”
Minter’s statements that Tudjman was anti- Semitic, a Holocaust revisionist, and a
war criminal borders on slander and must be rebutted. A revisionist is someone
who knows the facts and disingenuously changes them. Minter tries to be
revisionist himself. But that label gives him too much credit. He does not fit the
definition and obviously has not read Tudjman’s book that he quoted.
Not one international body, including the commission of experts at the DePaul
University, which has been compiling all the war atrocities and the Tribunal Minter
cited have accused Tudjman or a member of his government with war crimes. No
evidence exists that Croatian troops murdered large groups of civilians. (1) Any
atrocities that Croatians may have committed were sporadic and spontaneous,
such as what happened at Mai Lai. In contrast, the horrors perpetrated by the
Serbs were a government policy, rather than a byproduct of war.
Tudjman’s detractors consistently quote his “thank God, my wife is neither a Serbs
nor a Jew”, but disingenuously omit to mention the completion of his statement, ‘or
else she would have died at the hands of a fascists’.
Anyone that followed Tudjman’s 1990 campaign cannot cite one anti-Semitic
statement. Tudjman has full support of the Croatian Jewish community. Many
members of his cabinet are Jewish. In an appeal to President Bush, the Jewish
Community Congress of Croatia said, “even though claims are being made try to
show that the republic of Croatia is anti-Semitic and neo-fascist, the Jewish
community has enjoyed all rights of a religious and ethnic minority without
restriction of any kind of discrimination.” (2)
Regarding the Holocaust dedication, whether Elie Weisel did or did not turn his
back on Tudjman is moot. Weisel’s speech berated President Clinton, who was
also present. Does that make Clinton an anti-Semite?
Rudy Perpich declined to become Croatia’s Foreign Affairs Minister because he
valued his American citizenship. However, when Milan Panic, a naturalized
American citizen became president of Yugoslavia, the legality or where his
allegiance laid was never questioned. During Panich’s tenure, Serbia performed
acts of human-rights violations not seen since World War Two. Not once did he
condemn members of his government who were responsible for rape and
concentration camps, ethnic cleansing programs, slaughter and the human
mayhem inflicted upon non-Serbs.
Sincerely,
(1)Susan Brown, “Jury is Out on Bosnia War Crimes Tribunal. “ Insight (August 30,
1993), pp 12 -13
(2)Appeal of the Jewish community in Croatia (copy enclosed)
May 3, 1994
======================================================
The Tidings
Attention: Todd Tamberg - Editor
1530 West Ninth Street
Los Angeles, Calif. 90015-1198
Dear Mr. Tamberg:
Daniel Smith-Christopher’s statements in “L M U professor Examines Bosnia and
Violence Code” (The Tidings 5/1/94) perpetuates the success of the Serbian
disinformation apparatus. Although the article did not state Christopher’s field of
expertise, it clearly was not Balkan history.
Apart from the deaths and destruction ‘on the ground’, the main casualty of the
conflict is truth. The Serb propagandists juxtaposition of facts and selectively
omitting other facts, relay messages to the American public the futility of
involvement and the imperviousness for outside intervention. Apparently
Christopher bought their theses.
Contrary to Christopher’s statements, every Serbian action, starting with the attack
on Slovenia in 1991 to the present one at Gorazde was calculated to gain political
advantage. Their agenda has not deviated one iota.
The protagonists have not “been at each others throats for hundreds of years.” No
battle, prior to the Second World War, was ethnic. (1) To be sure, the area
witnessed numerous battles, since it was the fault line between Christian Europe
and the Islamic Ottoman Empire. But Croats and the Serbs had a remarkable
symbiosis until they were cobbled with other Balkan peoples in 1918. Animosity
developed only after the Serbs imposed draconian measures on all non-Serbs.
Christopher justified Serbs’ actions because ‘they suffered horrendously after
World War Two’. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Serbs, through the
ruling Communist Party, had all the advantages in the former Yugoslavia. They
controlled the entire country’s political, military, and economic infrastructure in
Yugoslavia, which included Croatia and Bosnia.
I agree with Christopher’s statements that we have not heard all sides and
Catholics have a responsibility. On the former point, the Serbs control all
negotiations and dictate the terms. The Muslims and Croatians are unable to
express their views. Catholics have already taken responsibility. The Vatican was
one of the first states to recognize Croatia. In January 1994, the Holy Father said:
“The international community had acted a criminally negligent manner” and that
peace, based on trading territory or manipulating ethnic groups would not last. (2)
Sincerely,
(1) “From a historical perspective, this area experienced little ethnic violence prior
to the 20th century and never witnessed the vicious religious wars as seen in
western Europe.” V.P. Gagnon: Prospects for Stability; Foreign Affairs (Summer
1991) p.31.
(2)“Vatican Decries World ‘ cowardice’ on Yugoslavia.” International Herald
Tribune January 12, 1994
===================================================
December 3, 1994
Washington Times
Letters to the Editor
Fax No. 202-269-3419
Attention: Marc Lehrer
Dear Mr. Lehrer:
Andrew Borowiec’s “Agreeing to Serbs Dominance is Peace Path to Least
Resistance” (December 1, 1994) attempts to lead the readers through minefield of
inaccuracies and historical revisionism. But what he describes in the article is too
recent for us to be fooled.
The Western powers used every diplomatic maneuver to prevent Yugoslavia from
“fracturing’. To this end, Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and his ilk
pontificated and seeded disinformation to legislators and the media.
Instead of applauding Muslim successes against the Serbs, Lieutenant-General
Michael Rose, speaking for the international community, threatened carpet-
bombing the Muslims if it recurred. The lie that the UN put out that “the Muslims
had mutilated Serbs” was recanted. (1)
It’s true that the Serbs did emerge from World War One on the side of allies. But it
was a war the Serbs started to satisfy their nationalist aspirations. And it’s also
true, the Yugoslav army, which was led by 161 Serbian, 2 Croatian, and 2 Slovene
generals, were decimated during World War Two. However, the statement that the
Serbs formed the heart of the resistance is sheer nonsense.
Initially the only force that fought the Germans was the Serbian Chetniks. But
according to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, resistance against the Nazis came
to a complete halt in early 1941.
The only viable force against the Germans was the Communist Partisans. But they
did not participate in the fighting until Germany attacked Russia and only after
receiving vast supplies and air support from the Allies late in the war. But contrary
to the media’s fantasy, the overwhelming majority of Partisans brigades were made
up of ethnic Croatians. Tito had virtually zero following in Serbia proper. (2)
Sincerely,

Jerry Blaskovich, MD, MA
(1) J Muravchik. “Yellow Rose” (The New Republic: December 5, 1994) pp 23 - 24
(2) Statement of Bozidar Puric, Prime Minister of the Yugoslav government-in-exile,
in early 1940. McLean and Deacon writing in the fall of 1944 admitted their
estimates of Partisan strength were grossly exaggerated. “At the beginning of
1944, Partisan forces in Serbia were limited to a few scattered, ill-equipped
detachments of a few hundred ... “ David Martin, The Web of Disinformation:
Churchill’s U.S. Yugoslav Blunder (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1990) p
xxvi
==================================================
“ In the Mail “
The New Yorker Magazine
20 West 43rd Street
New York, N.Y. 10036
Dear Editor:
As an institution, the Voice of America rightly deserves the accolades in “The Voice
of America of the VOA “ [September 8th]. In communist Yugoslavia the VOA was
unquestionably the most widely listened to radio program in Croatia. Croatians,
including Communist Party people, albeit surreptitiously, viewed the VOA as their
best source of news and played a decisive role in Croatia’s self determination
effort. to Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnia Serb leader.
As if this fact alone was not a major breach of security, she also served as
translator for President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and other administrative
officials in the delicate negotiations with Croatian President Franjo Tudjman and
other Croatian officials. If this isn’t the classical case of having the fox in the
henhouse l don’t know what is.
Jerry Blaskovich, M.D.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
classical case of having the fox in the henhouse l don’t know what is.
Jerry Blaskovich, M.D.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
======================================================
The New Republic May 1995
Samatha Powers’ “Guns and Pigs” (May 22, 1995) was the most succinct analysis
about the current situation in Croatia from the media. Her conclusions were right
on the mark. But, Powers not citing why the Croatian forces “barged in on United
Nations protected areas” cast the Croatians into a villains role to pedestrian
readers.
The term “United Nations Protected areas” is in itself a dichotomy. The U.N. has
neither territory nor protected anyone in this conflict.
The Croats intent was to reopen the route that links eastern Croatian to the rest of
the country. On April 22, 1995, the Serbs blockaded that route. Under the watchful
eyes of the U.N. the Serbs then set out terrorizing and killing travelers. Apparently,
as long as the casualties are limited to Croats, it’s acceptable.
Although the blockade was in violation to UN resolution 981 and Croat- Serb
agreements, U.N. observers stood idly by and reacted only after the Serbs
intensified their actions. Rather than chastising them, the entire UN contingency
fled to the safety of their camps after perceiving that they may be in danger.
Despite the U.N.’s precaution, the Serbs captured and held hostage a number of
the “Peacekeepers.”
Jerry Blaskovich, M.D.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
======================================================
October 27, 1995
Insight-Correspondence Editor
3600 New York Avenue, NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
Editor:
Ted Galen Carpenter’s otherwise informative article “No: Air Strikes will Shed
blood but No Light on a More Secure Europe” (October 23, 1995) was marred by
some glaring inaccuracies. It wasn’t the Croatian military that “expelled 150,000
Serbs from Croatia’s Krajina region,” but a response to orders from the self-
proclaimed president of Serbian Krajina, Milan Martic and General Mile Mrksic.
Mrksic, one of Yugoslavia’s top generals, recently was sent by Milosevic to
command the Knin forces. Rather than being “terrorized” the Serbian exodus was
orderly and preceded the Croats entering Krajina.
Many Serbs had ample reasons to flee. Some had come from Serbia proper after
1991 and moved into homes whose previous owners had been purged or
murdered. A large number of the indigenous Serbs fled because they had
participated in atrocities on their Croatian neighbors. As most of atrocities were
purposely committed in front of witnesses, a tactic to scare the remaining Croatians
and accelerate ethnic cleansing, the witnesses were sure to return. But the
majority left because of coercion from fleeing neighbors. The organized manner of
the exodus, under protection of armed Serbian military forces and documents
support statements by the Serb leadership in press conferences in Belgrade
precludes the media’s misstatements that the Croatians played a role in the
migration.
The quoted figure is either inaccurate or there had been any enormous birthrate
among the Serbs during the past four years. UNHCR, however, routinely inflates
the numbers to get increased funding. In the last official census (1990), before the
war, 120,000 Serbs and 102,000 Croats lived in the area. By 1995, as a result of
ethnic cleansing, only 279 Croatians remain. The media never mentions these
statistics. Unlike the Serb exodus in 1995, when the Croats were deported
massively in 1991, they had no choice but to leave all their possessions behind.
The lucky ones were allowed to take only what could be carried. None were
allowed to take their cars or tractors.
Sincerely,
=============================================
Los Angeles Times January 1996
Obviously, Tyler Marshall didn’t research “her story” adequately. (A Festering
Mystery Fuels a Croatian Mother’s Crusade.”[1/1/96]). There never was a mystery
about the fate of the 238 Vukovar patients. Before Dr. Vesna Bosanac, the hospital’
s director, “arrest” she was given guarantees by Yugoslav army officers that the
patients would be protected under the rules of the Geneva conventions. Instead,
they were forcibly evacuated and summarily executed.
Dr. Clyde Snow, an American forensic anthropologist, announced on October 28,
1992, that he found a mass grave that contained the remains of the patients taken
from the hospital.
In another investigation on December 17, 1992 was more revealing. The Serbs
allowed a team, sponsored by Physicians for Human Rights, to dig one test trench.
Using classical archaeological methodology, they cataloged body parts and
artifacts they found. Based on the soil patterns of the surrounding area, they
estimated there could be at least 200 more bodies. The Serb authorities stopped
further investigation. Whatever the team identified was placed in separate bags,
sealed, and replaced in the test trench. Fresh earth was shoveled back in (Bailey,
E. “Must they get away with?” Daily Telegraph, May 25, 1993).
How long future forensic studies will be fruitful is questionable. The environmental
factors are conducive for rapid deterioration since the area has high water table,
with mud and pools of water, and was a farmer’s field that had been heavily
fertilized in the past.
The approximately 3,000 missing Croatian from Vukovar, most likely, met the same
fate as the hospital patients.
Jerry Blaskovich, MD
====================================================
The New Republic
To the editors:
When Istvan Deak [With God on Their Sides 11/25/96] said: “Its a pity that the
reviewed books didn’t appear a few years earlier,” he apparently didn’t know The
Muslims of Bosnia had been out since 1993. But it’s more the pity Deak didn’t
question the reality of Michael Sells’ theses. Instead, he lauded the inaccuracies,
which perpetuates the prevalent misunderstandings about the conflict.
Sells’ attempt to simplify the origins of the war as a religious conflict between
Christians and non-Christians completely falls apart after remembering what
happened in Croatia. Before the Serbs moved on Bosnia the “Christian” Serbs
committed identical horrors in “Christian” Croatia, albeit on a smaller scale.
Ignoring Sells’ religious issue, the Croatian and Bosnian campaigns were simply a
land grab to create a Greater Serbia.
Calling Tudjman’s government, who are mostly Bolsheviks, Christian, insults
Christianity. Their massive re-conversion from Communism—by definition atheist—
is reminiscent of the mass conversions that occurred in 15th century Bosnia; and,
for the same reasons—economic and social/political advantage. The Catholic
Church in Croatia, often at odds with the government, is separate from the state.
Milosevic, by contrast, had the blessings of the Serbian Orthodox Church that
publicly justified the Serbs’ activity in Croatia.
Deak’s pronouncement: “Hundreds of thousands of Serbs have been driven out of
their ancestral homes in Croatia,” is erroneous. Although the rout at Krajina will join
the battle of Kosovo in the Serbs’ legend pantheon, most of the Serbs left on their
own volition or were ordered to by their leaders. The organized exodus, conducted
under the protection of the Serbian military, was confirmed in documents and
supporting statements from top Serbian leaders in Belgrade press conferences. In
late August 1995, the Knin leadership published documents in Politka (a Serbian
daily) that revealed orders by Milan Martic, quasi president of the Krajina Serbs,
and General Miles Mrksic to evacuate before the Croatian forces arrived.
Many Serbs had reason to leave. Some had moved into Croatian homes whose
owners were killed or purged in 1991. A large number fled because they had
participated in atrocities. As most of the atrocities were committed in front of
surviving Croats (a scare tactic used to accelerate ethnic cleansing), the witnesses
were sure to return and exact revenge. But the majority left because of coercion
from fleeing neighbors.
Deak’s critique, without substantiation, said between 1992 in 1995, Muslims have
been the victims and the Serbs and Croats, the victimizers. He contradicts a
December 1995 United States Information Agency report, which states the Bosnian-
Croats, had sustained the highest injury rate (42%) in Bosnia, in contrast to of
Bosnian-Muslims (15%) and Serbs (13%). Most of the Croatian casualties came
after April 16, 1993, when the Muslims attacked and perpetrated the same sort of
atrocities that the Muslims had been subjected to by the Serbs. By November
1993, the Muslims ethnically cleansed 156 Bosnian-Croat towns and villages.
Jerry N. Blaskovich, M.D
==================================================.
May 15, 1997
The Orange County Register625 Grand Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92701-4347
Attention: Ken Brusic-Managing Editor
Dear Brusic: Although Chris Hedges continues his revisionism campaign, “Croatia
Resettling Its People In Houses Seized From Serbs” (May 15, 1997) it was the first
time in months he hasn’t equated Croatia’s peccadilloes with fascism. The Serbs
from Croatia, rather than being expelled, emigrated voluntarily or were following
orders from their leaders.
To be sure, a large number did flee. In 1991, many Serbs moved into homes
whose Croatian owners were displaced or slaughtered. Others had participated in
atrocities, often before witnesses—the favored method to accelerate the Serbian
ethnic cleansing program. Since some of the owners and witnesses were sure to
return, the perpetrators presumed the worse and fled.
This establishment media, hypercritical of Croatia’s improprieties in resettling
Serbs, remain silent on the Serbs’ total noncompliance of resettling non-Serbs in
their territories. The only stipulation Croatia’s government imposed on resettlement
was against those who raised arms against Croatia or committed war crimes. Of
the 355,446-resettlement applications the Croatian government approved 348,000--
a remarkable 97.9%. Yet there hasn’t been a media account about resettling the
200,000 displaced Croatians who fled over five years ago from real Serb terror.
Interestingly, those who censure Croatia the most are the same ones who justified
the Serbs mayhem in 1991 as something the Croatians deserved because of their
alleged fascism. Hedges stating that the Croatian survivors in the rebel Serb
enclaves lived in a “sort of a police state” was a gross understatement and truly
disingenuous reporting.
Instead of chastising the young democracy, Hedges should, at the very least,
adhere to the basic tenet of journalism—objectivity.
Sincerely,
===================================================
The New York Times 3 June 1997
According to, “In Balkans, Albright Warns Croat Leader Over Accords,”(6/1/97),
Madeline Albright has joined the New York Times in its ongoing condemnation of
Croatia. In lockstep with the Times’ policy, Albright’s public wrath was directed only
toward Tudjman’s government—but not a peep about Milosevic, who devised,
implemented, and pursed a strategy that resulted in over 250,000 deaths.
For all we know, her private conversation with Milosevic may have been discussing
his candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize. Prior to venting her spleen on Croatia,
Albright should’ve reviewed CIA reports that blamed the Serbs for committing over
90% of the war crimes and revisited the Croatian mass gravesites around Vukovar.
Perhaps she’s forgotten the near violent welcome she received from the Serbs
there, who continues sabotaging every effort to reintegrate. Although more than14,
000 Serbs have resettled in Croatia, Milosevic hasn’t allowed the repatriation of
one Muslim or any of the 200,000 Bosnian Croat refugees to their ancestral homes
in areas under Serb control. Albright couldn’t bear to publicly reproach Milosevic.
The Times fondness for the Serbs has distorted its recollection of the 1995 Serb
exodus, which was a voluntary and orderly migration—in contrast to the forced
expulsion of the Croats from their homeland.
Jerry Blaskovich, MD
=============================================
13 February 1998
Los Angeles Times
The Times’ editorial “Proper Pressure on Milosevic” (3/11/98) suggestion that
‘shaming’ Yugoslavian officialdom to restrain themselves in Kosovo, must have, at
the very least, provoked gales of laughter in Belgrade. For years Western
diplomats have ‘been there, done that’—without success. In the words of that great
American philosopher, Yogi Berra: “it’s deja vu all over again.”
Obviously the Times have forgotten that arms rich Serbian forces conquered one
third of Croatia and devastated Bosnia’s non-Serb population without as much as a
ho-hum until NATO intervened. To assume that the Serbs, who haven’t complied
with one stipulation of the Dayton Accords, will bow to diplomatic pressure is
ludicrous and the height of naiveté.
Jerry Blaskovich
================================================
Editor: John G. Craig Jr.
The Post-Gazette
34 Boulevard of the Allies
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Fax (412) 263-2014
April 22, 1998
Dear Mr. Craig,
Several of Boris Generalovich’s statements rebutting Glen Atkins’ April 6th letter
were nonsensical and need rectification. Atkins, most likely, didn’t “delve into
history” because it wasn’t pertinent to justify contemporary Serbian actions in
Kosovo. Since the international media’s attention were diverted in covering the
Serbs’ killing fields story in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, the world remained
ignorant that the non-Serbs had been living under martial law since 1989 in
Kosovo, where all human rights were denied them—including hospital admissions
and attending schools.
Only after the Serbian military, acting under the direct orders of Slobodan
Milosevic, slaughtered 80 Muslims, mostly women, children, and elderly, and
buried them, Nazi style, in a mass grave, Kosovo has become an issue.
Apparently, a condition Generalovich now takes umbrage with.
It may behoove Generalovich to read Western history’s version of King Alexander’s
assassination. Instead of Croatian terrorists, as Generalovich alleges, it was a
Macedonian-born Bulgarian citizen, who committed the regicide. Unsubstantiated
charges, such as his, only instill hatred against Croats and perpetuate Serbian
mythology.
Sincerely,
================================================
The International Herald Tribune
iht@iht.com
To the editor:
Jose Cutileiro, “Kosovo Is a Political Problem, Not Just a Moral Crusade”
(4/21/99), resurrected the hackneyed—but erroneous—“all sides guilty” theses.
Equating the Kosovars horrendous expulsion with the Serbs’ organized evacuation
from the Krajina is ludicrous.
Rather than the Croatian Army who supposedly “violently expelled the Serbs,” the
exodus was ordered by the Serb leaders and was conducted under the protection
of the Serb military. The details are supported in documents and statements of top
Serbian leaders in Belgrade press conferences. In late August 1995, Politika (a
Serbian daily) published Milan Martic’s , quasi president of Krajina, and General
Miles Mrksic’s orders to evacuate before the Croatian forces arrived.
Many Serbs had legitimate reasons to leave since they had moved into homes
whose Croatian owners were killed or purged by Serb forces in 1991. Another
large number fled because they had participated in atrocities committed in front of
surviving Croatians (a scare tactic to accelerate ethnic cleansing). The witnesses
were sure to return and exact revenge. But the majority left because of coercion
from fleeing neighbors.
Jerry Blaskovich, M.D., M.A.
=====================================================
The New Republic
May 9, 1999
To the editor:
“Milosevic’s Willing Executioners” (5/10/99), aside from capturing the essence of
the Serb psyche, placed the Serbs’ culpability into proper perspective. It’s a pity for
the 250,000 dead, countless wounded, and 2.8 million refugees that an article,
such as Stacy Sullivan’s, wasn’t published in 1991. The media, instead,
bombarded the public with Serbian mythology and half-truths.
Notwithstanding the State Department’s newly found demonizing of the Serb
leadership, Milosevic is merely the tail that wagged the dog of the Serb psyche.
The most objective minded Serbs never voiced disgust or remorse to the
slaughters that the Serbs were committing in Croatia and Bosnia. To the contrary,
every Serb gain brought about by these methods was gleefully applauded. Only
after the Serb fortunes started to reverse, protests occurred. All actions, no matter
how grotesque by western standards, were justified and encouraged by the
Serbian Orthodox Metropolitans.[1]
The Serbs’ mind set is understandable, given their teaching that the only good
Muslim is a dead one and the Roman Catholic Church is the anti-Christ. When
Sullivan alluded to the hackneyed—but erroneous—all sides guilty theses, she
blunted the Serbs’ responsibility. It’s noteworthy that CIA reports and De Paul
University, the largest repository of the war crimes of the conflict, are in agreement
that over 90% of the atrocities were committed by the Serbs. But what makes the
statistics more significant, the Serbs atrocities were part of official government
policy while the non-Serb crimes were spontaneous events—akin to the Mai Lai
incident. [2] Yet the media continues to play the all sides are guilty card.
Sincerely,
Jerry Blaskovich, MD, MA
[1]” Croatia” Marcus Tanner: Yale University Press; 1997 p 283
[2] “Anatomy of Deceit” Jerry Blaskovich: Dunhill Publishing: New York; 1997. pp.
39-40
====================================================
Nacional
Zagreb, Croatia
April 20, 2001
DIREKTOR SVIH IZDANJA
Ivo Pukaniæ
To Nacional’s Editor,
Most of Wolfgang Petritsch’s statements in Nacional’s (19.4.2001) “The politics of
the Catholic Church in BiH tragic for Bosnian Croats” were disingenuous and
flawed. His only statement that was forthright: “The majority of people in
Herzegovina are honest people” contrasted markedly with the American
ambassador’s disparaging opinion of the Croats of Herzegovina.
While Austrian history influenced Petritsch’s opinion that the Church and politics
not mixing well may be true for Austria, it has no bearing in the context of
contemporary Bosnia. It’s obvious that he’s not aware how the Catholic Church
functions. The Church is a universal body and the individual parishes that make up
that body do not rule as fiefdoms.
Petritsch has the mistaken notion that the Catholic Church in Sarajevo is somehow
different from its Mostar counterpart and the Franciscans in those locales act
independently.
Since he implies that Mostar’s diocese is not cooperating with Dayton’s mandates,
and is all the more tragic for the Croats of Herzegovina, perhaps he should send in
the tanks to level St. James Church. The British troops who entered Medjugorje in
early April to harass the population and pilgrims didn’t succeed as the UN hoped.
Destroying the Church certainly would to send a message to those villainous
Croats of Herzegovina that the international community’s mandates are not to be
trifled with.
Sincerely,
Jerry Blaskovich MD
Rancho Palos Verdes, California