Replies

Welcome to the world of Orwell's 1984 when those that attack with arms first are called the victims of a war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-Day_War

27 June 1991

(First blood) In the afternoon of 27 June, the Slovenian TO shot down two JNA helicopters over Ljubljana, killing the occupants (one of whom, ironically, was a Slovenian pilot).

The TO also took up position around JNA barracks in various locations, effectively besieging them, and launched a series of attacks on JNA forces across Slovenia. At Brnik, a TO unit attacked the JNA troops holding the airport, and at Trzin a firefight developed in which four JNA soldiers and one TO soldier were killed and the remainder of the JNA unit was forced to surrender. Attacks were also launched by Slovenian TO units on JNA tank columns at Pesnica, Ormoz and Koseze, near Ilirska Bistrica.

---------------------

I think the fact that the war ended quickly with Yugoslavs kind of mislead the Euros and Clinton era State Dept hacks into thinking that would be the result throughout Yugoslavia. They did not have the foresight to realize that if Yugoslavia was torn apart in areas where there was overlap in ethnic peoples who have a history of tension with each other (and cultural/religious incompatibility) there would be bloody fighting.

In my opinion, that is the unintended consequences of the Slovenian war that fooled the West into a full steam on drive to break up Yugoslavia without much thought.

I didn't get your response until late today. However, as I was working on something else, I recall that the version I remember came from the Slovenes. The account stated that yes, they seized the arsenals and factories making the weapons first, but only when the Serbs moved to counter this did actual shooting begin. So, it appears that the definition of aggression depends on who made the first threatening moves. Was it Slovenia in a seizure of the arsenals, or the JNA in moving in, or the Slovenes in shooting first?

I understand your strong feelings, but I wouldn't apply the word "Orwellian." Rather, it's the same distinction that happens in every civil war; was the act of secession the act of aggression, or the countering move by the central government the act of aggression?

I have no dog in this fight, but I do believe that had the Serbians had the attitude they show now, that it was a three-way or six way civil war, they would have more international sympathy. I do hope that things remain stable there.