Potted history of events in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia

[Magda Hassan]

The US has for many decades paid well placed people to work for them while they also receive a wage from their own state. This is particularly true in military, police, political and intelligence areas.

__________________________________________________________________
"Miloševi? intelligence chief was CIA man" 2 March 2009 | 09:46 -> 16:46 | Source: Tanjug, LA Times THE HAGUE, BELGRADE -- Slobodan Miloševi?'s head of intelligence service known as the DB, was in fact "a reliable CIA associate" for eight years, a report says.

The Los Angeles Times wrote on Sunday that Jovica Staniši?, "accused of setting up genocidal death squads", was "a valuable source for the CIA, an agency veteran says, he also 'did a whole lot of good'."

Facing a war crimes trial at the Hague Tribunal, "Staniši? has called in a marker with his American allies. In an exceedingly rare move, the CIA has submitted a classified document to the court that lists Staniši?'s contributions and attests to his helpful role."

The newspaper says that the document remains sealed, but that its contents were described by sources to its reporter.

The report claims that the CIA recruited him in Belgrade in 1992, by now retired William Lofgren.

"The agency was all but blind after Yugoslavia shattered into civil war. Fighting had broken out in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Miloševi? was seen as a menace to European security, and the CIA was desperate to get intelligence from inside the turmoil," says the daily.

"For eight years, Staniši? was the CIA's main man in Belgrade. During secret meetings in boats and safe houses along the Sava River, he shared details on the inner workings of the Miloševi? regime. He provided information on the locations of NATO hostages, aided CIA operatives in their search for grave sites and helped the agency set up a network of secret bases in Bosnia."

At the same time, the reports said, Staniši? was "setting up death squads for Miloševi? that carried out a genocidal campaign" according to Hague prosecutors.

Lofgren said the agency drafted the document to show "that this allegedly evil person did a whole lot of good", but he did not claim to disprove the allegations against Staniši?.

The 58-year-old former head of the Serbian secret service, who pleaded not guilty, remained silent, "citing the tribunal's ban on communications with the media".

"The CIA's effort puts it in the unusual position of serving as something of a character witness for a war crimes defendant," writes the LA Times. "The agency declined to comment on the document. Because its contents are classified, the letter could be considered by the court only in closed session. Court officials said it was unclear whether the document would be of significant use to the Staniši? defense, or would come into play mainly in seeking a more lenient sentence if he is convicted."

While in Hague prison, Staniši? wrote a seven page account of the 1990s era where he "portrays himself as someone who sought to moderate Miloševi?, and who worked extensively with the CIA to contain the crisis".

"I institutionalized cooperation with the U.S. intelligence community in spite of the notoriously bad relations between our two countries," Staniši? writes. That collaboration, he continues, "contributed significantly to the de-escalation of the conflict."

But the chief prosecutor, Dermot Groome, says that Staniši?'s actions to help the CIA and counter Miloševi? only underscore the power he had.

According to the newspaper, "Staniši? drew boundaries", which included "never taking payment from the CIA".

His Hague trial was postponed last year "to allow him to return to Belgrade for treatment of an acute intestinal disorder that according to court records had caused substantial blood loss. If Staniši?'s health stabilizes, his trial is expected to resume this year", say the article.

Hague: No comment

No one at the Hague Tribunal was willing to comment on the claims found in the LA Times report.

The transcripts from the Staniši? trial proceedings to date do not show that a letter had arrived from the CIA at this UN war crimes court.

Even if such a letter was submitted and mentioned, reports say, that would have happened in one of the sessions closed to the public.

[David Guyatt]

By now I suppose we should take these sort of shocks as read. But good grief!

[Jan Klimkowski]

I foresee that man will resign himself each day to new abominations, and soon that only bandits and soldiers will be left... I give them this counsel: whosoever would undertake some atrocious enterprise should act as if it were already accomplished, should impose upon himself a future as irrevocable as the past.

The Garden of Forking Paths
Jorge Luis Borges

[Paul Rigby]

The US has for many decades paid well placed people to work for them while they also receive a wage from their own state. This is particularly true in military, police, political and intelligence areas.

__________________________________________________________________
"Miloševi? intelligence chief was CIA man" 2 March 2009 | 09:46 -> 16:46 | Source: Tanjug, LA Times THE HAGUE, BELGRADE -- Slobodan Miloševi?'s head of intelligence service known as the DB, was in fact "a reliable CIA associate" for eight years, a report says.

The Los Angeles Times wrote on Sunday that Jovica Staniši?, "accused of setting up genocidal death squads", was "a valuable source for the CIA, an agency veteran says, he also 'did a whole lot of good'."

A CIA asset administered the programme of ethnic cleansing which served as the pretext for US-led "humanitarian" intervention? Sounds about right.

[Magda Hassan]

On the tenth anniversary of the war against Yugoslavia, or at least what was left of it after they started dismembering it from the late 1970's, I thought I would post this potted history of the events as most of it has gone down the memory hole for the western media at least. By Michael Collon, one of the few who have followed it from the beginning and seen it for what it is.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m21436&l=i&size=1&hd=0

1 1991 OR EARLIER?
Did the war begin in 1991 with the secessions of Slovenia and Croatia?

NO. In 1979, the BND (German CIA) sent a team of secret agents to Zagreb. Mission: to support Franjo Tudjman, a racist who actively promoted ethnic hatred and did all he could toward the break-up of Yugoslavia. Germany supported and financed this Croatian Le Pen, and sent him arms before the war.
To what end? Berlin never acknowledged the existence of the unified Yugoslav state which had courageously resisted German aggression in the two world wars. By once more breaking Yugoslavia into easily dominated mini-states, Germany sought to control the Balkans. An economic zone it could annex in order to remove it from local authority, to export German products to it, and to dominate it as a market. And a strategic route toward the oil and gas of the Middle East and the Caucasus. In 1992, the Bavarian Interior Minister declared: "Helmut Kohl has succeeded where neither Emperor Guillaume nor Hitler could." (see the parallel maps 'Yugoslavia in 1941--in 1991', Liars' Poker, pp 68-69)

2 GERMAN WILL?
Did Germany deliberately provoke the civil war?

YES. At the beginning of the Maastricht Summit in 1991, German Chancellor Kohl was alone in wanting to break up Yugoslavia and precipitously to recognize the 'independence' of Slovenia and Croatia, in defiance of both International Law and the Yugoslav Constitution. But the rise of German power would impose this madness on all its partners. Paris and London fell right in line.
According to The Observer< of London: "Prime Minister Major paid dearly for supporting German policies toward Yugoslavia which all observers said precipitated the war." In effect, all the experts had warned that this 'recognition' would provoke a civil war. Why? 1. Nearly every Yugoslav Republic was a mix of diverse nationalities. Separating the territories was as absurd as dividing Paris or London into ethnically pure municipal districts. 2. By favoring the neo-fascist Tudjman and the Muslim nationalist Izetbegovic (who had in his youth collaborated with Hitler), it was certain that panic would be provoked among the important Serb minorities who had lived for centuries in Croatia and Bosnia. Every Serb family had lost at least one member to the horrible genocide committed by the fascist Croats and Muslims, agents of Nazi Germany in 1941-45.
Only Tito's Yugoslavia had been able to bring about peace, equality and coexistence. But Berlin, then Washington, wanted once and for all to break this country they saw as being 'too far to the Left' (see question 4).

3 A PASSIVE USA?
Did the US remain 'passive and disinterested' during this war?

NO. Lord Owen, special European Union envoy to Bosnia, and later a well-placed observer, wrote in his memoirs: "I greatly respect the United States. But in recent years (92-95) this nation's diplomacy has been guilty of needlessly prolonging the war in Bosnia."
What was its aim? While the Germans were busy taking control of Slovenia, Croatia and, eventually, Bosnia, Washington put pressure on Izetbegovic, the Muslim nationalist leader in Sarajevo: "Don't sign any peace agreements proposed by the Europeans. We will win the war for you on the ground." Washington then prolonged for two years the horrible suffering inflicted on all the people of Bosnia.
By what means? 1. Setting aside all the advantages Berlin had gained in this strategic region of the Balkans. 2. Dividing and weakening the European Union. 3. Installing NATO as the Continental European policeman. 4. Restricting all Russian access to the Mediterranian Sea. 5. Imposing its military and political leadership on all the other wars being prepared.
Because the war against Yugoslavia was at the same time a non-declared war against Europe. After the fall of the Berlin wall, US strategies were geared toward stopping, at all costs, the emergence of a European superpower. So everything was done to weaken Europe militarily and politically.

4 WORLD BANK & IMF
Did the World Bank and the IMF help destroying this country?

YES. In December 1989, the IMF imposed draconian conditions on Yugoslavia which forced liberal prime minister Markovic to beg for aid from George Bush Sr. This 'help' was aimed at destabilizing and bankrupting all large state-owned businesses. The World Bank dismantled the banking system, laid off 525,000 workers in one year, then ordered the immediate elimination of two out of every three jobs. The quality of life fell dramatically.
These policies and the growing incidence of work stoppages in solidarity with displaced workers in all the Republics heightened the contradictions among the leaders of the various Republics to whom Belgrade could no longer provide financing. To get themselves out of this mess, the leaders had to resort to divisive tactics and invested greatly in nationalist hatreds. This war was ignited from abroad. Like so many others.
The war against Yugoslavia was a war of globalization. All the great Western powers sought to liquidate the Yugoslav economic system which they found too Leftist: with a strong public sector, important social rights, resistance to the multinationals... The real reason for these various wars against Yugoslavia can be read in this reproach (this threat?) from the Washington Post: "Milosevic was unable to grasp the political message of the fall of the Berlin wall. Other Communist politicians accepted the Western model, but Milosevic went the other way." (4 August 1996).

5 "OUR FRIENDS"
Did the media give a phony image of 'our friends' Tudjman & Izetbegovic?<7i>

YES. The hyper-nationalist Croat and Muslim leaders were presented as the pure victims, great anti-racist democrats. But their past as much as their present should have alerted us:
When he took power, Franjo Tudjman declared: "I'm happy my wife isn't a Jew or a Serb." He hurriedly renamed the streets that had carried the names of antifascist partisans, reinstated the money and the flag of the old genocidal fascist regime, and changed the Constitution in order to run off the Serbs.
During his 1990 electoral campaign, Izetbegovic reissued his 'Islamic Declaration': "There can be neither peace nor coexistence between the Islamic religion and those social and political institutions that are non-Islamic." He set up a corrupt and mafia-ridden regime based primarily on the lucrative black market and the hijacking of funds from international aid. He called for assistance, with Washington's blessings, from Islamic mercenaries, most notably from al Qaeda.
Once the war had started, serious crimes were committed by all three camps, but by hiding these histories, the situation was rendered incomprehensible.

6 HISTORY & GEOGRAPHY
Did the media hide the essential history and geography of Bosnia?

YES. We were made to believe that the Serbs were the aggressors, that they had invaded Bosnia from outside its borders. In reality, three national groups had been living in Bosnia for a long time: the Muslims (43%), the Serbs (31%), the Croats (17%). And one should not forget that 7% of 'Yugoslavs' were born of mixed marriages or preferred to eschew narrow national identities.
Dividing Bosnia according to nationalities, as the EU did, was absurd and dangerous. Because this diverse population was completely intermingled: the Muslims lived primarily in the cities while the Serbs and Croats made up the peasantry and were dispersed throughout the sub-regions. Bosnia could not be divided without civil war.
In fact, the Serbs of Bosnia did not fight to invade the territories of 'others', but to save their own lands and establish corridors of communication between them. It was an absurd and bloody situation, with all the ravages of a civil war, but this civil war was provoked by the great powers.

7 "GOOD GUYS" AND "BAD GUYS"
Was the presumption of "Serb aggressors, Croat and Muslim victims" correct?

NO. In command of the UN forces in Bosnia from July 1993 to January 1994, Belgian general Briquemont was well placed to declare: "The disinformation is total (...) Television needs a scapegoat. For the moment, there is complete unanimity in condemning the Serbs, and that in no way facilitates the search for a solution. I don't think one can view the problem of ex-Yugoslavia and of Bosnia-Herzegovina only from the anti-Serb angle. It is much more complicated than that. One day in the middle of the Croat-Muslim war, we gave some information on the massacres committed by the Croatian army. An American journalist said to me: 'If you give out that sort of information, the American public won't understand anything.'"<7i>
It is not a question of denying the crimes committed by the Serb forces. The ideology one finds in the writings of Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic is extremely right wing. But in reality, after the break-up of Yugoslavia, on all sides, certain criminal and political forces used the methods of war to seize territory and riches. In the three camps - Croat, Muslim and Serb - militias committed grave crimes. To the detriment of all the people. Thus, in August 1994, the Muslim nationalist leader in Sarajevo, Izetbegovic, attacked the Muslim region of Bihac, controlled by Fikret Abdic, who had distanced himself from Izetbegovic and wanted to live in harmony with his Serb and Croat neighbors. In this offensive, Izetbegovic was aided by six US generals.
Remaining silent to the crimes of 'our friends' but demonizing whoever resists us is classic war propaganda. Numerous media lies were totally fabricated by a US public relations firm, Ruder Finn. Colleagues of the famous Hill & Knowlton, who created the media lie about Kuwaiti incubators stolen by the Iraqis.

8 "ETHNIC CLEANSING"?
Did Serbia initiate a program of ethnic cleansing?

NO. If one believes that ethnic cleansing was actually the program of 'the dictator Milosevic', one has to admit that this program was sadly ineffective. Because throughout the war years and still today, one of every five inhabitants of Serbia is a non-Serb. In Belgrade there are and have always been many minorities living without any difficulty: Muslims, Gypsies, Albanians, Macedonians, Turks, Hungarians, Gorans . . .
In reality, contrary to the image given by the press, Serbia is today the only state of the ex-Yugoslavia, along with Macedonia, that remains 'multinational'. On the other hand, all the NATO protectorates - Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo - practiced an almost total ethnic purification.
Milosevic objected to the excesses committed by the Serb militias in Bosnia. His wife made several declarations against them. An embargo was even applied by Serbia against Karadzic. Certainly, part of Serb public opinion was influenced by racist nationalism. But this was due precisely to Germany and the great powers having plunged the country into civil war and thus into hatred.

9 SREBRENICA
Did the media correctly report on Srebrenica?

NO. First element. Even if it's a matter of condemning abominable crimes, historical truth - necessary for reconciliation - is not served by the propagandistic processes that unreflexively use the term 'genocide', by the obfuscation of the fact that that some of the victims died in combat or by the systematic exaggeration of the numbers. Inquests have determined that many of the 'victims' were found some months later voting in subsequent elections or even taking part in other battles with Izetbegovic's army. This information was and remains obscured. We won't here go into the argument over numbers which only serious historians will be able to sort out definitively.
Second element. Why did the media hide the events essential to an understanding of this drama? In the beginning, this region was inhabited by Muslim AND Serbs. The latter were run off in 1993 by an ethnic cleansing committed by the Muslim nationalist troops of Izetbegovic. French general Morillon, who commanded the UN force there, charges: "On the night of the Orthodox Christmas, the holy night of January 1993, Nasser Oric led raids on Serb villages. . . . There were heads cut off, abominable massacres committed by the forces of Nasser Oric in all the neighboring villages." (Documents of information from the French National Assembly, Srebrenica, t 2, pp. 140-154) The desire for vengeance does not excuse the crimes committed later. But why systematically hide the crimes of 'our friends'?
Third element. Like other so-called demilitarized 'safe havens', Srebrenica was in reality an area used by the forces of Izetbegovic to regroup, the UN protecting them from total defeat. Astonishingly, Oric's troops retreated from Srebrenica just a week before the massacre. French general Germanos: "Oric had widely declared that they had abandoned Srebrenica because they'd wanted Srebrenica to fall. The 'they' was Izetbegovic."
And why? It is interesting to return to a curious UN report, written a year and a half earlier by Kofi Annan: "Izetbegovic had learned that a NATO intervention into Bosnia was possible. But it would happen only if the Serbs forced their way into Srebrenica and massacred at least 5,000 people [sic]." A massacred predicted a year and a half before it happened! (UN Report of 28-29 November)
General Morillon also informed us that "It is Izetbegovic's people who opposed the evacuation of all those who had asked to be taken out, and there were many." His conclusion: "Mladic fell into a trap at Srebrenica."

10 FIRST VICTIMS
Were the first victims of the war killed by Serbs?

NO. June 28, 1991, the Slovenian police executed (at least) two unarmed soldiers of the Yugoslav national army who had surrendered at Holmec, a post on the Austrian border. This was acknowledged by the newspaper Slovenske Novice. It has also been 'established from the very beginning' that three soldiers of this same Yugoslav army were executed at a post on the Italian border after surrendering themselves. (Facts and testimony reported to the ICY at The Hague, cfr Forgotten Crimes, Igor Mekina, AIM Ljubljana, 11/02/99).



11 CONCENTRATION CAMPS?
Was the famous image of the 'concentration camps' false?<7i>

YES. Fabricated by Bernard Kouchner and Médecins du Monde, this image showed some 'prisoners' held, seemingly, behind barbed wire. One of them had terribly protruding ribs. Kouchner had pasted beside the photo a guard tower from Auschwitz and the accusation 'mass extermination'. To hammer home the message "Serbs = Nazis". He thus abetted a campaign of demonization launched by the US public relations firm Ruder Finn.
But the whole thing was faked and taken from a report by British TV channel ITN. The trickery became obvious when one viewed the footage shot at the same time by a local TV news crew. In reality, the British camera had been deliberately placed behind the two lonely strands of barbed wire that formed a fence surrounding an old enclosure for farming equipment. The 'prisoners' were on the 'outside' of the barbed wire. Free because they were refugees in this camp to escape the war and the militias who would force them to fight. In the complete film, the only prisoner who speaks English declares to the ITN journalist three times that they are being well treated and are safe. The man with the protruding ribs (gravely ill) was called to the foreground when all his mates looked to be in too good a shape. Kouchner's montage was a gross falsehood. (Cfr Liars' Poker, p. 34)
There certainly were camps in Bosnia. Not for extermination, but rather for the preparation of prisoner exchanges. Violations of Human Rights were committed here. But why were the UN reports on this subject hidden from us? They accounted for six Croat camps, two Serb camps and one Muslim camp.

12 SARAJEVO
Were we given the true stories on the three large massacres in Sarajevo?

NO. Three times Western public opinion was shocked by these terrible images: dozens of victims blown to bits in front of a bakery or in the marketplace of Sarajevo. Immediately the Serbs were accused of having killed civilians by bombarding the city. This despite numerous contradictions in official communications.
But never was the public informed of the results of inquiries made outside the UN. Nor of the reports which accused the forces of president Izetbegovic. Furthermore, high Western officials knew about them but kept them carefully hidden. It was only much later that the editor-in-chief of the Nouvel Observateur, Jean Daniel, admitted: "Today I have to say it. I heard, in succession, Edouard Balladur (French Prime Minister at the time), François Léotard (Minister of the Army), Alain Juppé (Foreign Minister) and two 'high-ranking' generals, whose confidence I will not betray by naming them, tell me (. . .) that the shell fired on the marketplace was itself also from the Muslims! They would have brought carnage upon their own people! Was I afraid of this observation? Yes, the Prime Minister answered me without hesitating... "(Nouvel Observateur, August 21, 1995)
Why these manipulations? As if by chance, each massacre took place just before an important meeting to justify some Western measures: an embargo against the Serbs (92), a NATO bombing (94), a final offensive (95). NATO and Izetbegovic applied an essential principle of war propaganda: justify the offensive with a media lie, a 'massacre' to shock public opinion.
The official version of the siege of Sarajevo hides several points: 1. The Serb forces certainly committed serious crimes. But the civilians who wanted to flee through a tunnel that permitted them to leave the city were stopped by the Izetbegovic regime. He wanted to maximize the clientele for his black market, hijacking international aid money. 2. It was especially important to present a black and white image of a victim people and their aggressors. In reality, even in Sarajevo, Izetbegovic's snipers regularly killed the inhabitants of Serb sections of the city without anyone ever speaking of it. 3. Some equally grave atrocities went down, for example, at Mostar. But here they were due to fighting between the Croat and Muslim forces who had long before run off all the Serbs.

13 THE LARGEST "CLEANSING"
Was the largest ethnic cleansing of the war committed by the Croat army?

YES. On August 4, 1995, a hundred thousand Croat soldiers, a hundred and fifty tanks, two hundred troop transports, more than three hundred pieces of artillery, and forty missile launchers attacked the Serb population of the Krajina. More than 150,000 Serbs were forced to leave this region which they had inhabited for centuries. The worst atrocities of the war were committed: the Croat forces killed the elderly who could not flee, and burned 85% of the abandoned houses.
Clinton called the offensive 'useful'. His Secretary of State said: "The retaking of the Krajina could lead to a new strategic situation which might be favorable for us." Worse yet: the United States advised Croatia in carrying out its offensive, according to an admission by the Croatian foreign minister. Furthermore, it was Washington that took charge of the 'democratic' training of this army. (Liars' Poker, pp. 193-194)

14 URANIUM BOMBS
Did the US use depleted uranium weapons also in Bosnia? <7i>

YES. At an international conference, "Uranium, the victims speak", organized in Brussels in March 2001, a Bosnian doctor presented a Bosnian Serb forest ranger, a victim like many others of multiple atypical and fast moving cancers. after having been exposed to DU in areas of US bombardment.
A Bosnian health official laid out some statistics : the population of a Serb neighbourhood of Sarajevo bombed by US planes in 1995, (a population later expelled from that city), showed a five-fold increase in various types of cancer.
The weapons using depleted uranium allowed the US - but also France and Great Britain - to get rid of waste materials from their nuclear plants. These by-products seriously pollute the earth as well as the underground water table, causing cancer, leukemia and monstrous birth defects (including babies born to contaminated GIs). In short, use of these depleted uranium arms transformed several countries into nuclear waste dumps for eternity. (video and brochure "Uranium, the victims speak").

15 THE ONLY "GOOD WAR"
Was the war against Yugoslavia the US's only good war?

NO. The United States tried to make believe that it had fought a humanitarian war. And to present itself, for once, as a defender of Muslims. But in reality Washington and Berlin provoked this war. Deliberately. In the selfish interest of conquering certain strategic objectives: the economic colonization of the Balkans, gaining control of the routes for transporting oil, and the fight for world domination.
The USA has never fought a humanitarian war. And it was not the fireman in this war against Yugoslavia, it was the firebug. It was the most guilty of inflicting suffering on all the people. The USA can not be, on the one hand, the friend of the Muslims in the Balkans, and, on the other, their worst enemy in Palestine and Iraq. The US is the Muslims' enemy everywhere.
And the most dangerous enemy of all the people of the world. It threatens Syria, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and some day even China. Because its war strategy has no other goal than to maintain an unjust economic order, to dominate and exploit every country on earth to the end of further enriching a small handful of super - billionairs.
This is why it is so important to unmask all the media lies and to make the truth known about the war against Yugoslavia: It was a war of aggression.

[Carsten Wiethoff]

From http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/gc-53.html

[TABLE="width: 98%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 165"] [URL="http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/archive.html"]
[/URL][URL="http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/patrons-cvs.html"]
[/URL][URL="http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/british-eurofederalists.html"]
[/URL][URL="http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/what-you-can-do.html"]
[/URL][URL="http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/links.html"]
[/URL][/TD]
[TD="width: 798"]

MORE PROOF OF GERMAN DESTRUCTION OF YUGOSLAVIA

INTERVIEWER JUERGEN ELSAESSER FOR THE LEFT WING GERMAN DAILY NEWSPAPER JUNGE WELT QUESTIONS ANTON DUHACEK OF THE YUGOSLAV SECRET SERVICE

Translation by Edward Spalton 13th November 2003
INTRODUCTION (Rodney Atkinson). From the early 1980s under the leadership of Klaus Kinkel (the future German Foreign Minister) the German Secret Service (BND) had been infiltrating agents into Yugoslavia seeking the break up that country and in particular the re-establishment of its fascist war time ally Croatia. In Erich Schmidt Eenboom's book on Kinkel and my own book Fascist Europe Rising the evidence has long been compelling. But this interview with an operative in the Yugoslav Secret Service at the time, while confirming what others have already written, provides further damning and conclusive evidence.
No other crisis in post second world war Europe has so conclusively proved the return (through the European Union) to the fascist and German imperialist 1940s than the destruction of Yugoslavia and the re-establishment of precisely those petty statelets which were then allies of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. They were among the worst perpetrators of war crimes and even provided escape routes for Nazis fleeing Europe in 1945. The activities then and now of the Vatican's "Jewel in the Crown", Croatia, shows how the old adage that "when Germany and the Vatican have interests in common the whole of Europe should be wary" has not lost its historical significance. At a rally of Croatian nationalists in Zagreb May 1992 Franjo Tudjman declared "If we had not wanted it, there would have been no war" (Source: Berliner Zeitung 13 December 1999).

Particularly damning in this interview is the revelation that the German Secret Service when it took over demanded the expulsion from the Croatian Secret Service of any Croatian "partisans" who had fought the Nazis during the war. Behind the smiles of the rapacious German political class as it re-establishes German hegemony in Europe lies the obnoxious reality of its own ruthless secret services. But since the dangerously ignorant British political class and their "Little Englander" mentality do not even know what is happening in superficial continental politics they know nothing at all of the hidden reality!

Question: Milosevic is in the dock at the Hague but actually are Helmut Kohl and Hans-Dietrich Genscher, then respectively Chancellor and Foreign Minister of the German Federal Republic most guilty of the destruction of Yugoslavia?
Duhacek: Germany had been trying to do that for a long time. It went into its decisive phase towards the end of the Eighties. The Bonn government was supported in this by Austria, Italy and the Vatican. The German Secret Service (BND - Bundesnachrichtendienst) coordinated the support for the republics of Croatia and Slovenia which wished to secede from Yugoslavia.
Q. What factual, firm information have you about this?
D. At the end of the Eighties the BND took over the direct operational command of the Croatian foreign intelligence service. De jure it was still part of the all-Yugoslavia service UDBA but de facto it had been practically outside Belgrade's control since the early Seventies. In February 1990 in the run-up to the election in Croatia, still then part of Jugoslavia, there was a personal meeting between the German Foreign Minister and the Croatian Chief of Secret Service, Josip Manolic. At this meeting Genscher promised 800 million marks. Manolic wanted to take the money straight away. Franjo Tudjman (later President) and his then comrade in arms, Stipe Mesic (President today) were in urgent need of the money. Finally the money flowed after the elections of March 1990. People from the BND handed over the 800 million marks in Zagreb - in cash.
Q. That must have been rather a heavy suitcase.
D. The Germans obtained a service in return. In February 1990 Manolic had concluded a far-reaching secret agreement with the BND. Essentially it contained three points. First: Cooperation between the BND and the Croatian service controlled by him in the action against Yugoslavia and Serbia. Secondly: The BND placed at the disposal of its Croatian partners all the intelligence reports which it and its allied NATO services had collected in and concerning Yugoslavia; for example - the situation in the Yugoslavian army, its troop movements and so on. That would be an enormous advantage for Zagreb in the military conflicts which were soon to start. Thirdly: Manolic placed a part of his informants and informal colleagues, for example in Belgrade, directly under BND control.
Q In his book "Der Schattenkrieger" (Shadow Warrior) Erich Schmidt-Eenboom draws a veil over the BND activities of Klaus Kinkel at many points. He asserts however that already " immediately before the death of Tito" in Zagreb "All decisions on strategic matters were only agreed in coordination ...with BND authorities and Ustashe representatives" (NB The continuation of the Croatian War Time Ustashe - the Nazi Allies that ran Yugoslavia -ed). That was at the beginning of the Eighties.
They were close contacts but they had to be developed under cover. The hot phase first began at the end of the Eighties, as the organisation which Manolic and his Godfather, Ivan Krajacic (NB in the 1940s he defended the Nazi Kurt Waldheim who had been indicted as a war criminal by the Yugoslav Government. Later research showed that Waldheim's record was at best ambiguous - ed) after he, had built up in secret became the official Secret Service of the new Croatian state. From around May 1990 this service functioned as a dependency of the BND. The German side demanded the total subordination of the Croatian service in return for its assistance - and they got it too.
For instance in 1993/4 the BND demanded a total cleansing of the Croatian service. All who came from the Partisan tradition had to go (i.e. the anti-Nazi Yugoslavs during the second world war -ed). You have to understand that the whole Tudjman Project of the new Croatian State and all its institutions was first and foremost a compromise. Croatian nationalism and enmity towards Yugoslavia were the common denominators. On this platform forces met which had been enemies during the Second World War, namely national Communists (Tito was a Croatian communist - ed) and Ustashe Fascists. Now the BND demanded that the first should be cleared out. Thus Joseph Manolic was rendered powerless within the secret service structures and Stipe Mesic, who left with him and a few others, frustrated the Tudjman Party (HDZ) and founded one of their own.
Q Are you sure the BND demanded that?
D. Tudjman himself admitted as much. In 1994 he wrote this about his break with Manolic "As things came to such a situation with Mr. Manolic, I have to add this. In 1992, after we had been formally recognised but had no real friends, representatives of one of the leading world powers came to me and said "Mr. President , you are apparently aware that you need to build up a new defence and security structure. We are ready to help you but, please, not with Joza Manolic".
Q. But what could the BND have against Manolic? He was the one who had first made the Croatian service available to the Germans in 1990.
D. The BND mistrusted those who came from the Partisan tradition. After all, they had fought the Germans for four years. They appeared unsafe to them, at any rate in the long run. Just remember this about Manolic. He was awarded the Partisan decoration "Fighter from the First Day".
Q But the quotation from Tudjman is not clear about this. Who had demanded the replacement of Manolic? He says only "representatives of one of the Great Powers of the world". Could that not have been the Americans?
D. No. The Americans had no sort of influence. The Germans were absolutely dominant. When the American military advisors directed the conquest of the Krajina (and expulsion of its population) in 1995, they did so at the wish of the Germans. Kohl and Genscher did not want to get their hands dirty. A German military operation then would have been unpopular with domestic opinion. But the Germans supplied the weapons, above all army surplus from the former socialist countries - Poland, Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic.
Q. In the meantime the Tudjman Party HDZ has been voted out. In 2002 Mesic was elected President. Have the Germans therefore lost their influence? After everything you have described, Mesic must feel rather bitter against the BND.
D. People have accommodated themselves. Mesic can do nothing without the Germans and the Germans can do nothing without Mesic, at any rate for the time being. Tudjman is dead, his right hand man Gojko Susak, the first Defence Minister is dead. That Mesic is now trying to recall some of the 300,000 expelled Serbs to Croatia is significant for Germany as his main economic partner. Since ethnic cleansing by Croatian nationalists, districts like the Krajina and Slavonia remain depopulated. A third of the country is lying waste.
Q. With your knowledge would you be an important witness in the Milosevic case at The Hague?
D. I would go if I were invited although I have already received death threats on account of this.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


[TABLE="width: 98%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 175"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[Magda Hassan]

Understanding the Balkan Wars

By Pierre-Marie Gallois
Sunday, 5 Sep 2010

Address given by the late General Pierre-Marie Gallois on March 25, 2009, at Salle Lumiere in Paris, at a commemoration marking the tenth anniversary of NATO's bombing of Serbia.
Today we meet over a very unfortunate anniversary ten years since 1999, when western democracies, lead by Germany, England, USA and France, bombed the state of Yugoslavia, severely violating the international justice, UN Charter, Helsinki Accords and rules of border inviolability, when they entered the war, without the UN Security Council mandate and consultation of their own parliaments. In short, this series of violations of international justice, is a black mark on the morality of western countries which behaved like autocracies, ignoring their own employer.
It should be noted that the dismemberment of Yugoslavia was an operation long prepared in Germany. This was not merely about anticipating President Tito's departure in 1980 but it was also necessary to prepare the subsequent period, exploiting his absence, dislocating the territories Germany considered not to be national but territories composed of various ethnicities and religions. Of course, Germany was very eager to get support for the intended territorial secession.
It happens that I was indirectly involved in the course of these talks by frequently attending the meetings of Franz Josef Strauss, German Defense Minister and later a Minister of Finance, which have regularly been taking place in 1976 and 1977 in Germany, on a small farm near Munchen. The discussions usually lasted for two or three days and were attended by a dozen of figures and dealt with world affairs. There was the British representative, Brian Crozier, the Spanish representative, a former minister Sanchez Bella, the Vatican representative… M. Violet, a lawyer. I was the French representative. We talked about everything and nothing for the whole two days. I still well remember the discussions when my German neighbors regarded Yugoslavia as inanimate and considered that the different kind of territorial organization should be prepared after Tito's death. In my opinion, the reason why Germans, otherwise very good geopoliticians, expressed particular sensitivity in regards to this matter, were as follows:
First of all, German desire to get back at Serbs who fought on the side of Allies in WWI and WWII against Germany. Besides, in 1941, Serbs, initially led by Mihailovic and then Tito, managed to hold off numerous German divisions, which were otherwise very precious for the Moscow front and then Leningrad. So, Berlin, at the time it was Bonn, thought that Serbian resistance contributed to German defeat in world wars. These people were to be punished.
Secondly, the next German idea was to reward Croats and Muslims who joined Germany and occupied certain positions in France during the war, to thank them because they chose German side. Thus, to favorize Croats and Bosnian Muslims.
Thirdly, the third German idea was for Croatia and Slovenia to enter economical sphere of EU, which, at the time was presided over by Germany. In this way, a possibility would open up for Germany to further its interests in the Dalmatian coast and thus gain access to the Mediterranean.
In addition to these reasons, there's a German conviction in American intervention considering the importance of leading position in NATO. In military terms, it was a well-planned campaign.
In my opinion, these were the motives which caused Germany to play its role. It was also necessary to bring the US and France onboard. Back at the time, Mr. Kohl had a certain influence over Mitterand, who, exhausted and sick, was preoccupied with the struggle for public opinion over the actual Constitution. In February 1994, along with his Foreign Minister Juppé, he joined German military coalition on behalf of Croat-Muslim federation. The purpose of this federation was to expel Serbs from the territory they inhabited for centuries, to reduce their territory in Bosnia from 64% to less than 40%. I'll comment on the accompanying powerful propaganda campaign a bit later. It was this famous French démarche which followed a German one.
The US intervention ensued. The US initially hesitated suspicious of the future landscape. There was also a doubt considering the 1939-1945 war and the resistance of Serbian people under German occupation. They suspected embarking on a very delicate and difficult adventure. Above all, they were the hostages to Saudi and Iraqi oil much more than the hostages of the future traffic of oil via Danube and Belgrade, down the Corridor 8 stretching from Caspian Sea to the Durres on Albanian coast. All this seemed so far away and they were not interested. Finally, under German pressure, they recognized that there was an interest for their engagement.
What kind of interest?
First of all, to prove Europeans that they are not capable of acting on their own; because, if the US kept out of it, there would be a chaos, disorder, the war, which would force them once again to return to that place. Such display of force would merely demonstrate the need and necessity of NATO.
On the other hand, there was Russia which needed to be humiliated in advance as much as possible. At the time, Russia was in the hands of Yeltsin and Harvard brainiacs who were supposed to implement the market economy in place of the old planned economy. The entire venture was supposed to be undertaken in a way to test the expression of Slavic solidarity.
Since Germany matured quite a bit at the time, one idea was that it would be interesting to occupy a certain area in the Balkans. Hence, the famous Bondsteel. Which area to give priority to; whether Albania, Durres or the pipeline junction of Corridor 8, which, some day, would be transporting oil from the Caspian basin to the Adriatic Sea? For these reasons, Americans got interested and soon completely took charge of the operations. German, English, Italian and French troops are placed under the command of American Mediterranean Fleet. This whole operation was of huge significance to them because it, essentially, represents the precedent for their future operations in Iraq.
Balkan operations were conducted in a following manner; primarily, the loudness of disinformation campaign: telling utter lies in a way to establish a fixed victim in public so that its defense would be conducted with the full consent of public opinion. This is why it was necessary to fabricate Serbian crimes. One of the first fabricated crimes was the rape of 48,000 women. American experts on Balkans later changed this figure into 4,000 women, later on it turned into 40 and these 40 probably turned into 4 after the investigation was underway. The fabrications went on, from the bomb explosion in Vasa Miskin St. to the Markale Market massacre which was blamed on Serbs, even though Muslims were targeting their own, on purpose, in order to accuse Serbs of this crime.
A myth was also concocted on how Serbian army invading Sarajevo, getting ready for an imminent destruction which was absolutely necessary to prevent, of Sarajevo being occupied and demolished by the Serbs. All this was a lie and I was personally one of the witnesses because I went to Sarajevo at the time and was received by a municipal president whom I joined for lunch. The city was split in two, a Bosnian Muslim zone and a Serbian zone. There was no siege; that was a pure lie which still remains ever since it was launched.
Then, there was Racak, claiming that Serbs committed a crime, which, again, was not true, but it served marvelously as a pretext to begin the bombardment.To go into action and bomb this unfortunate country, including its civilian population and to use depleted uranium without taking into account fatal consequences of such operations, in short, means to sacrifice the people.
This entire scheme was conducted in planned stages. First of all, extreme maltreatment of the nation accused of crimes; secondly, the destruction of economic resources in order to break the spirit of resistance which eventually happened; thirdly, bomb the economic apparatus of the country, so it would have hard time consolidating later on; fourthly, conduct a full-scale occupation as suggested by Rambouillet Agreement and, once there, profit from the misery the people were plunged into, establish political leaders that would be sympathetic to the aggressor's cause.
This four-stage system was conducted consecutively, industriously, intelligently and some of its elements were employed in Iraq. It's fair to say that the Balkans were American strategic lesson for Iraq. As we all know, all this in Iraq ended up in bombing, torture, wounds, prisons and maltreatment, all the things to some extent used for experimentation in the Balkans. All this was to the benefit of the West which in both cases behaved autocratically. To save one by oppressing the other? This was the operation which deeply shocked me because it was a kind of model based on the public opinion which could absorb all this disinformation, which is really disturbing because it allows for all kinds of incidents in the future.
Today, we reflect upon a tragic decade when Europeans demonstrated their willingness to kill each other, partly incited and supported by this broad German initiative, which was only recently unified in 1990 and 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and found no other options but to commence this famous war. Anyways, in 1999, following the Dayton Agreement, after Mr. Milosevic refused the Appendix B which called for NATO occupation of Serbian territory for an unlimited period of time, offering the aggressor all possible benefits, airports, roads, railways and everything free of charge, all of which was refused, this Rambouillet charade then ended up in bombardment.
An unfortunate epoch, an unfortunate period, we today reflect upon with great sorrow because the western world demonstrated its capability of utter perversions in order to conform to a German obsession which put an end to all that was left of the treaties of Versailles and Trianon, which, first of all, means Yugoslavia and then Czechoslovakia, which is exactly what happened in order for Germany to erase the map of territorial and political organization, drawn out by the Allied victory in a way that nothing remains of it. And France, certainly, joined this, allowing Mr. Kohl to say that Dayton Agreement and everything that ensued was a great victory for Germany.
Provided that Mr. Mitterrand understood this, which was not the case, he should've added that this was a great mistake for France. The grave mistake of the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the removal of results of dearly paid military victories through massacres and sacrifices in order to justify operations which were not supposed to have taken place by all means and under any circumstances.
In this case, the westerners performed absolutely unethically, which caught me off guard because I didn't expect this from the creators of the concept of human rights, from France, England and even Germany. Nevertheless, this old demon, summoned mostly by Germany, reemerged and turned to the already existent chaos in these lands, whether it is Republika Srpska or Kosovo.
In Kosovo, of course, the very heart of Serbia, in a very short time, Muslims destroyed dozens and dozens of religious art masterpieces of Serbian people which basically amounts to the massacre of Serbian people, the same way French would be massacred by the destruction of Loire Valley and its castles or Ile-de-France. So we live in very unfortunate times and I'm not sure how we're going to pull through morally. In any case, we have proven our deceitfulness. That's not something to be proud of.
http://www.balkanstudies.org/articles/un...alkan-wars

[David Guyatt]

Well, this tells you everything you really need to know about the break up of the former Yugoslavia. It was a German plan, based on Nazi era anger and merging the motives of revenge with American interests in oil (their only interest in taking part).

It also, very clearly, was a major Le Cercle plan. Franz Josef Strauss, always very right-wing, was a member of Le Cercle, as was Britain's Brian Crozier (likewise right-wing). Ditto Sanchez Bella and M. Violet, representing the Vatican.

This is a great find Magda.

[Magda Hassan]

Well, this tells you everything you really need to know about the break up of the former Yugoslavia. It was a German plan, based on Nazi era anger and merging the motives of revenge with American interests in oil (their only interest in taking part).

It also, very clearly, was a major Le Cercle plan. Franz Josef Strauss, always very right-wing, was a member of Le Cercle, as was Britain's Brian Crozier (likewise right-wing). Ditto Sanchez Bella and M. Violet, representing the Vatican.

This is a great find Magda.

Yes, I noticed that and knew you would too David. General Pierre-Marie Gallois is not some bleeding heart peacenik. He is a Bildeberger attendee and a big kahuna in the creation of the French nuclear arsenal.

[David Guyatt]

Well, this tells you everything you really need to know about the break up of the former Yugoslavia. It was a German plan, based on Nazi era anger and merging the motives of revenge with American interests in oil (their only interest in taking part).

It also, very clearly, was a major Le Cercle plan. Franz Josef Strauss, always very right-wing, was a member of Le Cercle, as was Britain's Brian Crozier (likewise right-wing). Ditto Sanchez Bella and M. Violet, representing the Vatican.

This is a great find Magda.

Yes, I noticed that and knew you would too David. General Pierre-Marie Gallois is not some bleeding heart peacenik. He is a Bildeberger attendee and a big kahuna in the creation of the French nuclear arsenal.

I forget who said it, but I was told (or perhaps read?) that Le Cercle was the active arm of Bilderberg. They do the dirty stuff. Crozier also headed the 61, a right-wing private intelligence outfit, funded by millionaires and billionaires and provided there intelligence product to western governments.