Been a while since you posted, but if your questions still stand...
Before I start, I suggest you look for Colonel Stewart's book 'Broken Lives'. I imagine it's long out of print, but it's the closest thing you'll get to the 'book of the film', since it's the account of the commander who took the first British peacekeepers into Bosnia. Many of the events of this tour were clearly the basis of events in 'Warriors'.
>>>1) Am I correct in my assumption that in the first part (until the boy has to be handed over to the Serbs), the Serbs are the main agressors, and in the second part, the Croats are?
Hmmm... In fact, the Serbs have a pretty low profile in this film. Serb troops shell the village at the end of part 1, but apart from that most of the atrocities and atagonism in this film are committed by Croats.
There is a reason for this - the location of the film. The story is based on events that happened to the first British soldiers serving in Central Bosnia, just as the Croats turned on their erstwhile Muslim allies. So, the troops were exposed to this side of the conflict a lot more. Some critics argue that the British press gave a false impression of the war by focussing on what was happening to the British troops, caught up in Croat-Bosnian fighting, overlooking the more widespread Serb aggression that British soldiers weren't involved in.
>>>Seeing this movie, one might believe that the muslims in Bosnia were in general victims, attacked by Serbs and Croats.
Indeed you could, which is something the film has been criticised for. The argument goes that Muslims are not shown to do ANYTHING negative in the film, which is contrary to reality. However, the fact is that the Serbs and Croats both had support from Serbia and Croatia, including military equipment and regular army personnel. The Bosnian Serbs had less manpower than the Bosnian Government forces, but they had inherited most of the Yugoslav Army artillery, tanks and weaponry when the Serb-dominated JNA withdrew from their Bosnian barracks. The Bosnian government was woefully equipped at the outset, and did pretty much nothing throughout the war EXCEPT lose. Even their ultimate victory wasn't so much of a victory, more of a mitigated defeat. In this respect it's easy to see them as victims. However, you could certainly argue that the civilians in this film are somewhat black-and-white in that Muslims=Victims, Croats=Hateful Crowds.
>>>Is this realistic (for the stage of the war depicted here?) Surely there must have been muslim armed groups attacking civilians as well?
Yes, it's a matter of record that Muslims committed warcrimes too. On the other hand, it's worth remembering that a) war crimes are usually a fact of life in a war zone, for all we like to ignore it, and b) it's a lot harder to ethnically cleanse when you're losing. It seems that after a certain point all sides were intent on 'cleansing', but it's pretty obvious that in strict proportionate terms the Muslim forces did a lot less of it. Whether this is through lack of opportunity, or through ethical superiority, I wouldn't care to guess... but I'm a cynic, so...
>>> So yeah, I'm asking whether this movie favours muslims.
Some would say yes. I would say it favours Civilians over Warmongers... but it could do a better job of illustrating the complications of the war. Like, if one of the interpreters had been Croat or Serb, or something. I mean, at the outset of the war, the Bosnian Government forces included Serbs and Croats who felt their loyalty was to Bosnia, not to Serbia or Yugoslavia or the Croatian Republic, since they primarily Bosnian. It was never quite as simple as is often implied.
>>>2) Is there any obvious ethnic difference between Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks?
Racially? Many would say no. There are differences in linguistic conventions, in surnames, in religion of course (Catholic Croats, Orthodox Serbs, Muslim Bosniaks), and perhaps in general cultural politics. They were all three inheritors of differing imperial influences - in some respects Bosnia is like a faultline between three religious empires, the Russian/Orthodox, the Catholic/Austro-Hungarian, and the Muslim/Ottoman. But so far as I'm aware, they're all Slavs. I have my doubts as to what detectable difference might be found among the people - especially when you consider that intermarriage was commonplace. To use a famous example - the actress Milla Jovovich is Ukrainian by birth, has a Russian mother, and a Serbian father. Her name is, in fact, very prestigious in Serbia (she's descended from a long line of Turk-Fighters, apparently). Americans would say she's American, Ukrainians consider her Ukrainian, some Serbs would consider her a fellow-Serb, and Russia is kind of fond of her too. What the hell is she? That's up to her, but I suspect she'd say 'American'.
>>>The muslims adopt a quite secular lifestyle as well
Yes, many of the Urban Yugoslavs considered their society to be too intermixed, harmonised and cosmpolitan for the idea of a race war to be realistic. Sadly nationalism often cuts through civilisation, especially once blood has hit the floor.
>>>(they are shown drinking alcochol, the women don't wear a veil,...). An outsider like me might naively ask where the hatred comes from...
Well, yeah... but have a look around your country, and wonder how many rednecks you have, and how many terrorist atrocities it would take for the fear and hate to turn a lot of your fellow-citizens into rednecks too. Being attacked, or feeling attacked, does that. Look at the US after 9/11 - most people were not in the mood to be patient and thoughtful - lots of people just wanted blood, ANYBODY'S blood so long as they were foreign and Muslim. And that was just ONE massacre.
There's more to it than this of course. The various nationalisms of Yugoslavia had never gone away, and were just waiting to resurface... and the nationalist politicians actively exploited and aggravated this. Serbian propaganda tried to frighten Serbs into believing that the Croats and Muslims were going back to World War 2, when their respective nationalist movements were pro-Nazi - there was even a Muslim SS Division. Serbs were themselves the victims of mass-murder during WW2 (not to say that their own nationalist movements weren't guilty of the same... though I should say that lots of Serbs and Croats fought the Nazis tooth and nail too). So, in the 1990s these things were still within living memory. It was pretty easy to get people frightened.
>>>3) Who WAS shooting at the end of part I (the shooting begins when that one guy is shaving and the kids are gazing at him)?
The Serbs.
>>>The Serbs claimed that it were Muslims bombing their own (that's what they told the UN guy), but didn't they later quite explicitly admit is was them?
I think it's common sense that it WAS the Serbs. In fact there are still claims that Muslim forces sometimes bombarded their own civilians in order to cause outrage in the world community at the evils of the Serbs, and bring in global assistance on the Bosniak side. The most famous disputed one is the marketplace shelling in Sarajevo that led to UN airstrikes on the Serbs.
While this is certainly possible, I don't think I can be called cynical for suggesting it may ALSO a load of old crap pedalled by people who are happy to drop bombs on civilians but don't want to accept the blame for the consequences. n.b. even the US does this - Baghdad was bombarded in 2003, but as soon as news came in of a lot of civilians dying in one hit, it was blamed on an Iraqi missile crashing on take off. Some might see this as unlikely, perhaps even disingenuous.
Anyway, in Warriors, I think that whole scene is there to show what a load of lies were routinely told by the people running that war. Apparently it was a source of great frustration to the Western Diplomats that the various politicians and commanders they dealt with never seemed to keep their word...
>>>{the interpreters} What are they (not British I guess?). Croats, Serbs , Muslims, and why did they side with UN?
Well... it's a job, in a difficult time. Plenty of locals worked as guides for journalists in a similar way. Plus, I suspect most of the civilians in the firing line probably thought that the UN were there to help, at least at first (I'm sure they were better than NOTHING). Theoretically helping the UN might be a patriotic or humane act if you wanted to end the war, or at least help civilians.
>>>5) Why didn't the muslims see it coming (and how could the Croat militias verify whether or not those people in the marked house really were Croat?)
Well, it's a matter of record that being of the same ethnicity as a racist murderer was no protection. In one case prosecuted at the ICTY, a Croat war criminal mainly rounded up and murdered Serbs, but he also killed a lot of Croats if they did anything or had any opinions he didn't like. Being a political moderate could get you killed. I imagine most people just stayed low in their houses, regardless of who they were, and hoped they wouldn't be on the list.
>>>and the fighters just run between the houses and the tanks and keep shooting ( it is then when the driver of their tank gets shot).
The circumstances of this man's death are pretty much taken from life. Lance Corporal Wayne Edwards was the name of the guy in reality. His warrior went half over a bridge, exactly as Skeeter's does. Edwards was the first British peacekeeper to die in Bosnia.
>>>That the UN were completely ignored?
Oh, totally - more than that, you'll notice they were used as cover in that firefight. The local fighters held them in contempt. The peacekeepers were under excruciatingly strict instructions - they were not allowed to shoot at anybody, until they were being directly fired upon themselves... and perhaps not even then. At this point in time most of the countries willing to contribute peacekeepers were not remotely willing to actually FIGHT a war, because the folks back home didn't like their kids coming home dead, and that wasn't good for election results. Wayne Edwards' death alone led to newspaper headlines saying that British troops should come home. Also remember, around this time the 'Black Hawk Down' debacle in Mogadishu had made even the US very wary of getting involved in foreign wars. If you want to keep the peace there has to actually BE a peace. If you want to MAKE a peace... you have to go in there and fight the war yourself, which was the line the US crossed so disasterously in Somalia (the 'Mogadishu Line' as it has been called). Nobody was prepared to do that, until about 1995, when a lot of embargo-breaking secret arms shipments, and a few well-placed airstrikes turned things round rather sharply.
>>>The militia depicted in this film don't seem to fear the UN that much
Absolutely not - the UN were regularly abused, fired on, that kind of thing. The UN was totally geared against doing anything that resembled taking sides, or actually fighting the war. The Srebranica Massacre happened in large part because the UN soldiers in that 'safe area' were not in a position to fight off the Serbs, and had not been given orders allowing them to do so. So, the Serbs marched in and committed the biggest war crime in Europe since World War 2 - right under the UN's nose. They even picked up some of their victims by wearing captured blue helmets and posing as UN troops. The UN was completely humiliated.
>>>they even start clearing a house when an UN car is just parked across the street (when they shoot the dog).
Yep. They didn't care. Not to say that the UN didn't bite back occasionally, but mainly they were played by the locals. When the UN first really lost it and ordered air-strikes the Serb solution was simple - they captured UN staff and tied them to UN targets.
>>>7) Wasn't there an alliance in Bosnia between Croats and Muslims against the Serbs?
That's correct. Bear in mind, the Croats in Bosnia already had a strong nationalist movement, The Croat Defence Council (HVO), as did the Bosnian Serbs. At the outset of the war, the Croats and Bosnian Government shared a common enemy, but it wasn't long before the Croats adopted the same agenda as that of the Serbs - grabbing land from the Bosnian government. Later, however, an alliance was constructed between Bosniaks and Croats - a major factor in turning the war against the Serbs.
At the time 'Warriors' is set, the Bosniak-Croat war is in full swing.
>>>So as you can see, I have quite a lot of questions.
You may find that the book 'Broken Lives' by Colonel Bob Stewart answers many of your questions. Many of the incidents in his book are very clearly the source of scenes in the film. For example, Colonel Stewart was present when British troops discovered the burned out buildings at Ahmici, and describes scenes very much like those shown in 'Warriors'. His account of Wayne Edwards' death will also read very much like Skeeter's in the film.
reply
share
fredbel6
18 years ago
Yes all my questions were all still standing (due to exams that are just recently over I couldn't read and respond earlier). Thansk for a very well written response.
Minor remark, I am not sure about the exact definition of redneck, but as far as I know, we can't have any of them in Belgium :).
You speak of Bosnian government losing? You mean in keeping the country together or as in protecting muslims? I mean, were they mostly muslims?
Srebrenica is quite well known here, but as far as I know, the Dutch UN soldiers actually helped the Serbs in separating the muslim men from the rest. A few days later, there were images of them partying in Zagreb, causing outcry over what appeared to be indifference towards the fate of the muslims they left. But why was Croatia (at that time an independent country) hosting UN soldiers at all?
This is a very subjective question, but as you apparently followed events in the Balkan quite close, your opinion might give insight : what do you believe of the allegations that Milosevic's death was 'partially caused' by the UN or other parties? Lately I have been hearing more and more rumors that the UN or the United States wanted to prevent him from demonstrating the true events in 1999. While I do not believe Milosevic has been a man of peace (as he has proclaimed himself) I do know by experience not to believe everything the US government says (like Weapons of Mass Destruction or Al Qaeda ties in Iraq)
Thanks,
fredbel6
reply
share
LookinGood
17 years ago
Fredbel,
If you are able to read German there is an excellent book (it has 5 stars, 100% in all shops and reviews I know of). It is called "Balkan-Chronik" by Michael W. Weithmann (ISBN 978-3791714479, 583pp). Not available in any other language, I checked the different Amazons. It does contain some chapters on the 1990s Balkan Wars, but it is mainly a brilliant overview of the Balkan history since Roman times and of the reasons that led to the slaughter (table of contents: http://tinyurl.com/2n6dko). What I found amazing is that even "Yugoslav" reviewers gave it a thumbs up and considered it an important book for their own understanding of the conflict (they didn't tell their nationality, just wrote "I have been there").
--
"I was born to speak all mirth and no matters."
reply
share
fredbel6
17 years ago
Hi,
thank you for the tip. I do know some German, but it's like my fourth language, so that would be quite hard,....but who knows- it could be possible.(if I learn a bit more first)
Have you read the book? Do you think the writer tends to favour certain sides or not?
Plz visit my profile to take a look at unsolved threads.Plz use relevant title,SOLVED if so.
reply
share
LookinGood
17 years ago
Yes, I have read it and it's on my "to be bought eventually" list (@ 40€ not exactly a bargain).
It's written in a clear style, not so much that convoluted German scientific style, which even Germans have difficulties to understand!
The author tried to keep a very objective eye, and I think he pretty much succeeded. There is blame to be put on certain persons and actions and he does that, but also points out the roots of these actions in history (for example the battle at Kosovo Polje and Milosevic' 1986 speech at the battlefield) and the consequences (todays' "Kosovo problem").
--
"I was born to speak all mirth and no matters."
reply
share
cabellero_006
17 years ago
To go a bit deeper into Srebrenica:
There were only 300 DUTCHBAT soldiers in Srebrenica because the Serbs had surrounded the conclave (which is in a totally undefendable position) and wouldn't let supplies or replacements go in. There were no heavy weapons and the whole unit was suffering from the Stockholm Syndrom. Ironically the only Dutch casualty was because some muslims threw a grenade into a Dutch bunker. When the Serbs attacked the French High Commander of the UN forces refused to start the promised bombings and in the end only 2 Dutch F16s made 1 sortie.
However there is alot of guilt in the Netherlands, a Cabinet fell because of Srebrenica.
reply
share
overninethousand
15 years ago
Not bunker and probably not grenade.
The Dutch gvt report (http://srebrenica.brightside.nl/srebrenica/):
The Attack on OP-F and the Death of Raviv van Renssen
The centre of the battle on 8 July was still located in the south-eastern corner of the enclave at OP-F. By midday, VRS tanks were firing at ABiH positions approximately two-hundred metres from OP-F. That resulted in a heavy exchange of fire between the ABiH and the VRS; not only at OP-F, but also at the nearby posts of OP-U and OP-S.
Shortly prior to the start of the actual attack on OP-F, the OP sergeant in command, Sergeant Van Rossum, discussed an evacuation plan with the personnel of the OP. A sketch had been drawn of the route that was to be used as a retreat by the APC in the case of an emergency.
The exchange between the ABiH and VRS started soon thereafter in the vicinity of the OP. Various explosions a few hundred metres from OP-F terrorised the crew of that OP. The OP Commander, Sergeant van Rossum, then reported to the Battalion Command (Franken) that he wished to evacuate the OP; however, the OP was under fire and they were faced with the problem of safely reaching the APC. They did not receive permission to evacuate the OP. Franken would not agree to the advice of the Company Commander, Captain Groen, to allow the OP crew to withdraw towards the location of the VRS soldiers. A witness to that conversation heard Franken say on the radio; ‘You know how I feel about that. I do not want to discuss it any further.’ The unit was informed that they were not permitted to evacuate the OP ‘under any circumstances’. Consequently, the Company Commander, Captain Groen, also refused permission to withdraw in the direction of the VRS lines. The battalion staff did however send another message to the OP crew, namely; ‘Try to give the Serbs hell’; which attested to a general lack of understanding of the situation. The final decision was to remain in the OPs and to allow the VRS to advance.
A VRS tank subsequently broke through the ABiH lines and approached to within a hundred metres of the OP. The VRS additionally opened fire with an M-46 130mm Field Gun at ABiH positions nearby. UNMOs then determined that the VRS was making preparations to attack the OP. Two tanks were used to blow a hole in the defence wall of the OP to allow VRS soldiers to force their way inside, and a VRS tank, positioned a hundred metres away, kept its barrel aimed at the OP and the withdrawal route. One of the crew wrote the following about the situation: ‘At that point everyone panicked. There was no way we could escape’. To top it all, Franken, at some point instructed Groen to the effect that OP-F should fire a TOW anti-tank missile to eliminate the tank. The Battalion Commander also instructed them to take the AT-4 anti-tank weapons with them in case of demolition of the OP. At that point the VRS soldiers approached the OP from the surrounding bush. Waving white flags, they attempted to establish contact with the OP crew. Initially they would not approach the OP as a result of which it was impossible to establish contact. The VRS then tried to get the OP Commander, Van Rossum, to meet them at a house located a hundred metres in front of the OP, but Van Rossum refused. After that two VRS soldiers approached the OP and, after an exchange of gestures, more followed. The soldiers were in a festive mood, for the simple reason that they intended to take over OP-F.
The VRS was prepared to let the OP crew go once they had surrendered all weapons and flack jackets. After some negotiation Dutchbat was allowed to keep their flack jackets. The VRS then demanded the crew’s departure within ten minutes. The VRS did indeed let them go by APC without further problems. Karremans notified Nicolai in Sarajevo and Brantz in Tuzla that the VRS had taken OP-F.[4] The assault on and occupation of the OP played out in a matter of approximately one hour. This put the VRS inside the borders of the enclave for a second time - this time in control of an OP.
The APC left the OP-F at high speed, but soon slowed down and eventually came to a halt approximately 200 metres further.[5] At the foot of the hill ABiH soldiers were putting together a barricade to stop the APC. This was the second time the ABiH had witnessed a take-over of an OP by the VRS. It meant that, after the occupation of OP-E, more than a month earlier, another piece of the enclave was under threat of being nibbled away by the Bosnian Serbs. The ABiH wanted to prevent that, which is why they endeavoured to stop Dutchbat from beating the retreat. The crew of the APC feared that the ABiH was planning to use them as a shield against the Bosnian Serbs; which, understandably, motivated them all the more to retreat as soon as possible. Having established that no anti-tank weapons were aimed at the APC and after obtaining permission from the command post (in military terms: the Ops Room) of B Company, the APC broke through the barricade while the occupants under the command of the APC commander took shelter behind the armour plating. Soldier Van Renssen, who was slow in taking cover because of his length, was hit by pellets of a shotgun fired by an ABiH soldier – others, however, mentioned a handgrenade – of which small metal parts entered his skull beneath the rim of helmet.[6]
Van Renssen collapsed inside the vehicle. A crew member wrote the following passages: ‘Once again everyone panicked and everyone tried to help him – he had a large wound behind his left ear. The emergency bandage we applied was almost immediately saturated with blood.’ A hastily summoned armoured casualty evacuation vehicle raced Van Renssen to the sickbay at the compound in Potocari: In spite of heart-massage and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation by two medics, while a third applied a drip and administered atropine , Van Renssen died.[7] His remains were sent to the Netherlands and arrived there the following day. The negotiations to move his body from the enclave, and the medical treatment Van Renssen received at the compound in Potocari, are covered in more detail in the Appendix, ‘Dutchbat and the local population: medical issues.’
Van Renssen was the 67th victim to be mourned by UNPROFOR. Karremans wrote the following in his book: ‘Once again time stood still. Victim to a war that is not our own.’[8] In those words Karremans also expressed the consequences of Van Renssen’s death for the battalion; morale, which had not been high for various reasons, now fell to new lows. Dutchbat increasingly fell victim to a gnawing sense of doubt in the value of their continued presence. They were hostages in the enclave and there was no visible end to their sojourn. Worse still, in the days to come things would only take a more dramatic turn.
A Closer Look at the Assault on OP-F and the Death of Raviv van Renssen
The events surrounding OP-F led to action in a number of places in the UN hierarchy. In Tuzla, Brantz wrote to the Commander of the 2nd Corps of the ABiH, General Sead Delic, that if the ABiH were going to treat UNPROFOR as an enemy, as had happened at OP-F, this simply illustrated the kind of problems facing UNPROFOR. Brantz also asked for an investigation into the ABiH soldier responsible for Van Renssen’s death.[9] That was followed by a meeting with the 2nd Corps. It was only at that point that Brantz learnt that the real reason for the pullback from OP-F had been a deliberate attack by the VRS. After that meeting, the ABiH in Tuzla sent an order to the 28th Division to do everything in their power to get the body of the late Van Renssen out according to the wishes of the Dutchbat commander,[10] even though that was really an issue for the VRS.
After Brantz’ request to the ABiH for an investigation, the 2nd Corps ordered the Commander of the 28th Division, Ramiz Becirovic, to investigate the circumstances of the wounding of Van Renssen and to issue a written report.[11] The Commander of the 282nd Brigade of the ABiH, Major Ibro Dudic, thereupon declared that he had conducted an interview with the ABiH soldiers in the direct vicinity of the APC. According to them, Van Renssen had not been wounded by the ABiH, but by a grenade launched at the APC by the VRS.[12] A witness of the attack on Van Renssen, VRS Colonel Vukota Vukovic, attributed responsibility for the events to an ABiH rifleman.[13] Inhabitants of the enclave also ultimately assigned blame to a Bosnian Muslim rifleman, one Alija hailing from Glogova.[14]
Btw, during the general retreat to Potocari base:
People were standing or sitting on anything mobile.[2] An old man on a stretcher was carried into the APC and an old woman was helped inside. Many people were riding on the APC.[3] Some had to be left behind as well, even though Dutchbat tried to take as many people as possible. People left each other behind and were hanging on to the vehicles. There were people on the front of the APC that fell off the vehicle and were probably run over.[4] Part IV will come back to the later investigation in the Netherlands on incidents of people being run over.
(...)
It turned out that everything could get even worse. The APC was past Milacevici. Mulder, who drove, sat in the APC with the signaller and the gunner. Two soldiers walked behind the APC and one walked in front. The trip was not progressing and Mulder was afraid all the refugees would cut him off from the compound, there was also the threat of running out of fuel: it was driving, stopping, driving, and stopping. Mulder tried to lead the procession with the APC. He had been ordered to keep the people behind the APC. He stopped occasionally to climb on top of the APC to show that they were still there: ‘if we stood still, everybody stood still.’ However, the APC was not able to stay out front because more and more people joined the procession along the way. Therefore, there were gradually many refugees in front of the APC too.
At this stage of the trip, a steep wall ran along the right side of the road and there was water with a steep slope behind that on the left. Mulder was just standing on top of the APC again to reassure the people when shots were fired from the north with a .50 machinegun. Refugees fell from the APC; Mulder was unable to judge whether that was due to the scare or because they were hit. A huge panic arose. Mulder called his personnel inside, turned on the APC’s lights and sounded the horn. When the road was reasonably clear, Mulder started to drive while honking the horn over a distance of approximately 300 metres. He drove fast to escape the fire, which, according to him, was aimed at the APC and this presented danger to the refugees as well. However, people were still walking in front of the APC at that point. They had nowhere to go on the narrow road and the APC drove faster through here than the refugees could walk.
Mulder felt as if he was driving right over people. When the APC stopped, he reported via the radio that he had possibly hit people with the APC during the move. Upon arrival at the road between Potocari and Srebrenica, Mulder reported to Captain Groen who maintained the blocking position there. He ordered him to continue driving directly to Potocari, where refugees had also arrived in the meantime. Ultimately, between 3,000 and 4,000 people arrived in Potocari with the group from OP-M, including quite a few able-bodied boys between the age of 16 and 17, according to Mulder. The wounded were dropped off at the sickbay, and then the British JCOs received Mulder with a cup of tea.[1]
(...)
A number of drivers and soldiers escorting the trucks who took their human cargo to Potocari, already had a definite impression along the way that people fell from the trucks and ended up under the wheels or were run over by following trucks, or that they themselves hit people who fell off trucks ahead of them. Shocked and deeply disturbed they told colleagues about their experiences even when they first arrived at the compound. Members of the KHO team who left the enclave on July 15 as the first to be allowed to do so, were debriefed following their arrival in Zagreb and already then told the team of psychologists as well as general Couzy who was also present about the stories regarding the possibility of people being hit by the Dutchbat trucks.[4]
Later suggestions of Dutchbat personnel deliberately keeping quiet about this subject were incorrect. The stories became public knowledge very quickly. On July 22, emotional Dutchbat soldiers in Zagreb openly talked to journalists about the events. A journalist of Het Parool (Dutch daily newspaper), for instance, recorded the experiences of corporal D. Pijfers with a truck full of refugees on the journey to Potocari: ‘Perhaps there were 80 people on the truck, you just don’t believe it when you see that truck. They were hanging from it, they were on it, under it. Two small boys were lying on the batteries. There were people who got under the wheels, but I couldn’t stop, I had to keep going’.[5]
The really major publicity on this subject came a month and a half later. Appearing on the television programme Zembla on 6 September 1995, Sergeant W. Reussing said: ‘we have made it clear in Zagreb, in writing, that people fell under the wheels of our truck and that we simply ran over them and killed them’. Reussing, whose willingness to speak in all candour cannot be faulted, also said in the same Zembla programme that as far as he was concerned ‘everything can be out in the open’.[6] However, Zembla producer R. van den Hout said the Ministry of Defence had known about this for nearly two months but did not wish to comment as long as its own major debriefing investigation was still in progress.
reply
share
overninethousand
15 years ago
Absolutely not - the UN were regularly abused, fired on, that kind of thing.
Disarmed, forced to participate in round-ups, taken hostage, used as a human shields literally (chained to potential NATO airstrike targets)...
reply
share