Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:50, 17 December 2006

The Arbitration Committee has placed the Kosovo article on probation. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

Military history: European / French Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  European military history task force French military history task force

Statement that aim of the mission was to protect Albanian people from Serbian agression has not been trough. Simply, because Kosovo Has been part of Serbia and Serbian people used to live over there. The intervention - NATO forces killed more Albanianns than Serbian police did it. And after the interevention there is not more Serbian population on Kosovo.It was a big ethnic clearsing - Serbs were expelled from their homelend.

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|April 2006|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

Yes, people. This article sucks. I dunno where to begin, and, frankly, I don't know enough. --Penta 00:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

NATO's proclaimed goal was to stop "humanitarian catastrophy" as i can recall... or i am wrong ... am i? Did they? I would say that big catastrophy is avoided by another (this time efficient) cleansing. On the second thought... who cares... --JustUser 21:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the purpose of this whole war to make the American public forget about the Lewinsky affair? --serbiana - talk 05:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is horribly bad, I'm sorry to say. It should be merged with the Kosovo War article or expanded. There is practically no mention of the actual targets hit all over Serbia, of its effect on the military (how much did the bombing achieve in terms of destroyed tanks, planes, etc.?) and the effects on the civilian population, and so on. An outside observer gets no idea of the geographic relations: it was about Kosovo (a small province in the south), but "strategic" (read: civilian) targets all over the entire country were hit, e. g. in Novi Sad, in the autonomous northern province of Vojvodina (a traditional anti-Milosevic stronghold!). Absolutely no mention of the well-documented accidental (or not so accidental) bombings of refugee treks, trains, hospitals, the bridge in Varvarin, ...

85.125.227.15 13:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, barely a mention of the other NATO troops that participated! This article doesn't need to be merged or even cleaned up....as it stands it is misinformation. Risker 22:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No clean up

I believe we added enough reliable information, there is no need for clean up.

Indeed a bad article, as it doesn't reveal it's sources, it can't be verified. Apparently this wasn't the work of an objective,honest and mindfull historian, but the work of just somebody who wrote something. Indeed there is no need for a cleanup or a merging, the only thing that really has to be done is change the title into 'somebody's view of some things that maybe could have happened during the NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.'

NEW name

any thoughts on moving this page to NATO bombing of Yugoslavia?--TheFEARgod 21:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No the page should stay like it is, since it has additional information.

Citation needed

<A small amount of people believed it was one MiG-29 vs. 3 F-15s and that Slobodan Peric shot down and F-15C, and then 2 other F-15s shot him down in reaction. This story was never proven true, and the official dogfight is therefore written above these two sentences.>

Is this sentance even nessesary... what small amount, where is the source? And I'm not good at all the wiki commands like placing citation needed. Drew1369 15:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am just going to remove this as it is just clutter on the screen Drew1369 15:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

...see Operation Horseshoe article: Op. Horsheshoe was the name given by the German government to an alleged Serbian plan to expel the entire Albanian population of Kosovo. It was cited in support of NATO's bombing campaign during the Kosovo War. Although it has since been raised in trials at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, its veracity remains uncertain. Discuss it there. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't strictly about Horseshoe, and I'm not charging the Serbian government with wanting the mass expulsion of Albanians. But the point is that there was ethnic cleansing. To what degree is something that we can discuss, but to deny it outright is a little bit disingenuous.UberCryxic 16:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interesting paper for you read UberCryxic:

Democracy and Propaganda: NATO’s War in Kosovo by Dr. Mark A. Wolfgram, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Oklahoma State University original (doc) google cache (html) // Laughing Man 06:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Here's an even better source: Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo: An Accounting by the US State Department.

Among other things written,

Many bodies were found when KFOR and the ICTY entered Kosovo in June 1999. The evidence is also now clear that Serbian forces conducted a systematic campaign to burn or destroy bodies, or to bury the bodies, then rebury them to conceal evidence of Serbian crimes.

Forcible Displacement of Kosovar Albanian Civilians: Serbian authorities conducted a campaign of forced population movement. In contrast to actions taken during 1998, Yugoslav Army units and armed civilians joined the police in systematically expelling Kosovar Albanians at gunpoint from both villages and larger towns in Kosovo.

Looting of Homes and Businesses: There are numerous reports of Serbian forces robbing residents before burning their homes. Another round of robbery occurred as Serbian forces stole from fleeing Kosovars as they crossed the border to Montenegro, Albania, or Macedonia.

Widespread Burning of Homes: Over 1,200 residential areas were at least partially burned after late March, 1999. Kosovar Albanians have reported that over 500 villages were burned after March, 1999.

Use of Human Shields: Refugees claim that Serbian forces used Kosovar Albanians to escort military convoys and shield facilities throughout the province. Other reporting indicates that Serbian forces intentionally positioned ethnic Albanians at sites they believed were targets for NATO airstrikes.

Identity Cleansing: Kosovar Albanians were systematically stripped of identity and property documents including passports, land titles, automobile license plates, identity cards, and other forms of documentation. As much as 50 percent of the population may be without documentation. By systematically destroying schools, places of worship, and hospitals, Serbian forces sought to destroy social identity and the fabric of Kosovar Albanian society.

And it goes on and on....UberCryxic 17:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And you consider the US State Department an unbiased and reliable source? When the US was the main attacking country? Are you actually being serious? --estavisti 17:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The US State Department is the most reliable and comprehensive source in this case. Nothing even comes close, although you might try this site for a wide variety of reports coming both from the State Department and news agencies and organizations, like the Human Rights Watch.UberCryxic 17:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The US State Department is a biased propaganda machine. --estavisti 17:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In some cases I'd agree with you, but this report is just about the most comprehensive source we have on the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. The report is obviously not a propaganda piece; you can criticize its validity all day long if you want, but one the premises in your argument should not be that this is propaganda. That's basically admitting that you don't want to have a serious debate because you're discarding an important piece of information.UberCryxic 17:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

An important piece of information provided by the United States government, a interested party. Should we treat Serbian government sources with the same blind faith? --estavisti 17:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The US State Department started the war against Yugoslavia. Of course it is going to use any means available to create an impression that the war was neccesary. Any report or any other information by it is therefore completely worthless. In particular, your citations from it are obvious propaganda. As an example:

Many bodies were found when KFOR and the ICTY entered Kosovo in June 1999. The evidence is also now clear that Serbian forces conducted a systematic campaign to burn or destroy bodies, or to bury the bodies, then rebury them to conceal evidence of Serbian crimes. - Many bodies. How many? 10? 100? 1000? 100000? Were that bodies of Albanian civilians? KLA terrorists? How many of them might have been legitimately killed? How many of them might have been killed by someone other than Serbian authorities? (Apparently none according to the "report".) Why would reburying the bodies implicate that some crimes happened? Maybe it happened in order to conceal the evidence of legitimate operations (which NATO would misrepresent as crimes)? Nikola 18:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

result

Why do you (User:UberCryxic) keep changing: NATO victory; Yugoslav troops pull out of Kosovo to: NATO victory; Serbian troops pull out of Kosovo.

If so, shouldn't you also rename article? NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to NATO bombing of Serbia?

Please do not add nonsense to this article. // Laughing Man 03:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the title “1999 NATO bombing of Serbia” is more suitable for the article, because NATO during the opertaion never dropped a bomb or fired a bullet in Montenegrin territory, which were economically and politically de facto separated from Belgrade since the coming of Milo Djukanovic to power. As we can see in this image, he even went to the Pentagon months after the bombing to talk to U.S. Secretary of Defense:

So the “Operation Allied Force” was not against Yugoslavia per se; the bomb attack was against Serbia, most specifically to weaken the Milosevic government and take the Serbian military and paramilitary troops out of Kosovo.--MaGioZal 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Military installations in Montenegro were hit and there was no Serbian army but Army of the FR Yugoslavia.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Addition

I think somebody should add the following, my time does not allow me...

Military casualties and losses

Military casualties on the NATO side were light — according to official reports the alliance suffered no fatalities as a result of combat operations. However, in the early hours of May 5th, an American military AH-64 Apache helicopter crashed not far from the border between Kosovo and Albania. The crash according to the BBC occurred about 40 miles (75 km) northeast of Tirana, Albania's capital, very close to Albanian/Kosovo border. According to CNN the crash happened 45 miles (75 km) northeast of Tirana . The two American pilots of the helicopter Army Chief Warrant Officers David Gibbs and Kevin L. Reichert died in that crash. They were the only NATO casualties during the war. There were other casualties after the war, mostly due to landmines. After the war, the alliance reported the loss of three helicopters, 32 unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) and five aircraft — all of them American, including the first US stealth plane (a F-117 stealth fighter) ever shot down by enemy fire. Several of these were lost in accidents and not by enemy action. The Yugoslav armed forces claimed to have shot down seven helicopters, 30 UAVs, 61 planes and 238 cruise missiles. However, these figures were not verified independently and have little support among non-Yugoslav analysts.

Despite the heavy bombardment, NATO was surprised to find afterwards that the Serbian armed forces had survived in such good order. Around 50 Serbian aircraft were lost but only 14 tanks, 18 APCs and 20 artillery pieces. Most of the targets hit in Kosovo were decoys, such as tanks made out of plastic sheets with telegraph poles for gun barrels. Anti-aircraft defences were preserved by the simple expedient of not turning them on, preventing NATO aircraft from detecting them but forcing them to keep above a ceiling of 15,000ft (5,000m), making accurate bombing much more difficult. Towards the end of the war, it was claimed that carpet bombing by B-52 aircraft had caused huge casualties among Serbian troops stationed along the Kosovo–Albania border. Careful searching by NATO investigators found no evidence of any such large-scale casualties.

Name

Name should be moved back to NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. There was no discussion.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

also, we do not need the year as it was the only NATO bombing of Yugoslavia--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

also, actually, it was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, there were other Yugoslavias--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Nikola 00:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If I could come in, what's the problem with Serbia? It might have actually been the called the FR of Yugoslavia at the time, but if I remember correctly, Serbia was the only part of the country which NATO bombed. -Patstuart 06:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't remember correctly, Montenegro was bombed too. Nikola 07:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I was about to make the move when I saw 1995 NATO bombing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This needs to be resolved in the naming (perhaps reinclude the year?) so that these two articles apply the same rationale to their naming. So I'm relisting this request to allow for more time for discussion. —Doug Bell  02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm now I saw another example: Bombing of Iraq (December 1998), let's try Bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We don't need here the year because it's the only bombing of FRY in history (Iraq had three) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I must say, I overall oppose. There's no need to use an overly long official name just because it's official. Yugoslavia seems to work fine, or we could do Serbia and Montenegro. But Federal Republic of Yugoslavia sounds choked and overofficial. We don't say Bombing of the Republic of Iraq (December 1998), we say Bombing of Iraq (December 1998).Patstuart 19:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Patstuart’s position. There’s no practical reason to change “Yugoslavia” with the long official name “Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”. In 1999 the only Yugoslavia that existed was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, so in the same way that people usually says “2006 World Cup in Germany” instead of “2006 World Cup in the Federal Republic of Germany“, the article should keep the title “999 NATO bombing in Yugoslavia”.--MaGioZal 19:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

yes but we had MANY Yugoslavias and ONLY ONE Iraq. Disambiguation works here, pals. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

hmm the users above never heard for the SFRY and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

and of course the FRY which is what was proposed and I agree with -- I don't know why anyone would want the ambiguous version in the title of an encyclopedia article. // Laughing Man 23:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose in general. The current title, with the year included, is simple and clear, even for readers not familiar with the details of the Balkans: it gives a precise time and mentions the parties involved. If a change must be made to comply with the naming conventions on military subjects, it could be 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia or NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (1999). - Evv 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Since the current name doesn't follow the WP:Milhist naming rules, I propose two names for the article, two ideas given above. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

doesn't need the year, because we know here WHICH Yugoslavia

• Support --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bombing of Yugoslavia (1999)

the year is here to differ the period from another bombing of Yugoslavia, during the 1941 April War.

1. Officially confirmed/documented NATO helicopter losses.
2. Two die in Apache crash, BBC News, May 5, 1999
3. U.S. helicopter crew killed in crash in Albania, CNN, May 5, 1999
4. Lambeth, Benjamin S. (2006-06-03). "Kosovo and the Continuing SEAD Challenge". Aerospace Power Journal. United States Air Force. On the fourth night of air operations, an apparent barrage of SA-3s downed an F-117 at approximately 2045 over hilly terrain near Budanovci, about 28 miles northwest of Belgrade- marking the first combat loss ever of a stealth aircraft. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
5. "The Kosovo Cover-Up" by John Barry and Evan Thomas, Newsveek, May 15, 2000.

• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Start-Class French military history articles
• French military history task force articles