Talk:Battle of Vukovar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

(old) POV

This article is blatantly written from a Croatian point of view, and glorifies this battle - "most celebrated". Don't remove the tag, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Morwen - Talk 10:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

That should be fixed now. --Joy [shallot] 21:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

(old) Numbers

We need sources and references for the numbers. --Joy [shallot] 00:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

military casualty figures

Military casaulty figures are ridiculous! Serbian army used massive shelling to avoid casaulties and advanced slowly for the same reason. How did the Croatians manage such a devastating kill ratio? Both sides were highly engaged in propaganda and especially inflating enemy military fatalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.119.26 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 11 September 2005

It is completely normal for attackers to lose more troops than defenders, specially in street combat, anybody who knows anything about warfare knows that. 8,000 Serbs killed in combat is a realistic assesment. If they were so succesful at avoiding casulties how come a GENERAL can get killed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.139.82.249 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 November 2005

As far as I know the general was killed by one of relatively few air strikes of makeshift Croatian Air Foorce (either a lucky hit or an example of good intelligance warfare). Yugoslav army was better equipped and more numerous. Croats could have claimd higher morale, but that is not enough to inflict such casaulties in face of YA advantages. What are your sources for the casaulties? Besides, there are numerous examples of attackers taking lighter casaulties than the defendants. A besieger has an advantage in initiative and supplies. See retaking of Hue during Vietnam War for instance - this is a fine example as armies had similar set of advantaes and disadvantages as in the case of Vukovar. - Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.119.230 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 14 November 2005

The article is somewhat misleading about the relative strength of the opposing sides. The JNA did indeed have somewhere around 50 thousand men around there, but they were not actively engaged in the battle. The guys storming Vukovar were not JNA, but various paramilitary units and volunteers. All the JNA did was shell the town from a distance. When the JNA finally decided to storm Vukovar itself, it fell very quickly. The figures given for tank losses and plane losses are false, although I don't have the reliable figures either. The figures given for JNA deaths may or may not be accurate, I don't know, although if the 8000 figure is true, only a very small portion of those would be JNA losses. The rest would be volunteers and other paramilitaries. One gets the impression from reading the article that the JNA was actively trying to take the town the entire time and was unable to and lost thousands of men and hundreds of tanks. I will try to fix some parts later if I can find some reliable figures about losses. And lastly, the article presents this battle as purely a Serbs vs Croats thing, when in fact the JNA was still a multi-ethnic force at this time. Edrigu 16:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the truth, JNA storm Vukovar all the time, what are you talking about man? You wasn't there and you don't know. It's not 8'000 serbs killed-more then 15 000 and about 30 000 was injured. Croats had only easy weapons(riffles and stuff plus some anti-tank weapons. Vukovar was in compleat enclosed so three months in that kind of storm was only a victory. JNA wasnt a multi-etnic force.all generals,majors and most of lower ranks was Serbs and there was a very very small group of Croats in JNA. This is a big shame for you all, Why not talking about things that you didn't know: let start with this:in almost every Croatian village and smaler citys who was occupied- Serbs and JNA killed the civilians(women,children and most of the was old people),its classic etnic cleaning)What more should i say, i think that this is clear enough.

Croatians didn't attack the Serbia,but all the Serbian forces from all sides in Serbia was in Croatia and killied about 12 000 people-thats the main reason why Croatian forces won the war. With all their weapons JNA should defeat the Croatia in few days but they didnt cuz that wasnt their country,the main motive was on Croatian side,its much easier to defend your country from other cuz this is your place,your own home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.133.204 (talk • contribs) 29 November 2005

Cut the propaganda crap and learn some English - I barely understood a word you had written. This is supposed to be an Encyclopedia. And to support Edrigu`s claim that JNA was multiethnic at the time, see an archive in Encarta Encyclopedia 2003 (or newer) labeled "Current Macedonian problems" which, amoung other things says:

I have my own confusions about Macedonians. This is the Balkans, after all, where chauvinism often passes for history and facts are obscured in ethnic and religious murk. But I know how closely Macedonians identify with their church, so early in my four-week stay I drive into the hills north of Skopje with my guide, Elena Damjanoska, a cheerfully argumentative college student, to visit the monastery of Gorni Sveti Ilija.

The isolated monastery was built in the 12th century, when Macedonia was part of the Byzantine Empire, and it has survived Tito's communists as well as the Ottoman Turks, whose 500-year rule of the Balkan Peninsula ended only in 1913.

Its caretaker is Tome Bonevski, a retired machinist bent like a question mark from rheumatism. He gives us the key to the church and, later, as we sample wine and yogurt beneath a beech tree, shuffles over and unfolds himself onto a bench beside us. He wants to talk about his family.

“Nine of them are in Sweden as guest workers,” he says, “but when war broke out, my grandson came down from Sweden to do his duty in the Yugoslav Army. He ended up in Croatia, in Vukovar, where the worst fighting was. He shook for a month after we got him out of there.”

Besides, you claim to have been there? So you are an ex-JNA prisoner then? (if the city was indeed completely surrounded).

Croatia won pritty much more because of the international (mostly US and German) support. Weapons embargo was placed on both Croatia and FRY, but Croatia still purchased 25 mig 21-s by 1995, but FRY obtained nothing of the kind (and that`s just one example). Republic of Srpska Krajina was formally under protection of UN, but nobody tried to stop the operation "Storm", and it was even helped by some NATO air strikes (on Udbine airfield and other targets).

By the way, why didn`t Croatia stop the Hungarians to conquer it in the middle ages if it is so easy to defend your own country?

And finally, Serbs in Krajina had to defend themselves from the very same ethnic cleansing you blame on Serbs against Croats. This is untrue? Half a million Serbs had to flee Krajina, the place where they had lived for centuries, after operation "Storm". This looks more like a conquest then defending "your own country".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.119.4 (talk • contribs) 9 December 2005

hey guys, its true, the numbers he has written are simply insane. The JNA shelled the whole town and i cannot understand that they could still lose about 8000 soldiers?!Even if the croatians had an nuklear bomb, they couldn't have killed so much soldiers.Even if they tried to take the town by an assault, they could't lose so many soldiers.Besides, the JNA used Airstrikes to weaken the enemy. It's quite easy to understand why the autor wrote such nonsense:1. because he is an big nationalist 2. because of that, he has complexes that his country was attaked and taken by PARAMILTARIES ,and not by the JNA, the JNA was fighting in Bosnia,not in croatia, otherwise there would not be any croatia. Sorry about my bad english:(

PS:Croatia hadn't won the war, they simply forced the civilians to leave the region, there was no resistance. another thing....how could they have shot down 20 airplanes without having any antiairweapon?atrange, very strange... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.185.64 (talk • contribs) 30 December 2005

Ok, I`m from Serbia, and to be fair they DID have AA weapons (they certainly damaged at least one G-4 Super Galeb possibly with a "Stinger" missile, but the aircraft landed to a friendly airfield safely - the damaged tail section is in the Belgrade Aeronautical Museum. I don`t have Yugoslav air force losses (I do belive they did shoot down a few aircraft), but I know that there were huge overclaims on the part of Croatians (par example they and the muslims claimed that they had shot down 2 and later 4 Mig-29-s during the course of the war, but that was simply untrue - the 29s didnt have ANY losses during the wars before 1999). This 20 aircraft claim I certainly dispute.

Hey, they`re not alone in that: we calimed to had shot down 63 NATO aircraft during the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, but that was also untrue. Only two combat aircraft were proven downed and several more damaged. (I dunno, perhaps a few more that fell in the NATO-friendly neighbouring countries were concealed but I don`t think they would amount even to 15 let alone 63. The differance just seems to be that people here know the meaning of the word "propaganda" slightly better than those in Croatia. Oh well, the more you belive in dreams, the more you will be dissapointed when realitty strikes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.119.183 (talk • contribs) 1 January 2006

The casualties listed currently in the article are already the closest current estimates (Recent research in estimates for casualties in the wars in Croatia and Bosnia based on cooperation between Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia produced new, lower estimates. The number of Serbs killed in Operation Storm was reduced from 1900 to under 600, the number of JNA and Serb forces killed in Vukovar was reduced from 14000-15000 to 6000-8000, and the number of people killed in Bosnia from 250,000 to 102,000). Reasons for why the JNA and Serb paramilitary casualties were much higher than the Croats' (There are many historical precedents for something like this as has already been noted above) include the JNA's Soviet-like invasion tactics vs. Croats' guerilla tactics, Croats already being entrenched, Croats being able to fall back and form a secondary defensive line faster than the JNA could push through the first one, Croats having enough anti-armor weapons to destroy a large number of tanks which accounts for many of the JNA casualties (see Heroji Trpinjske ceste in the fourth source), etc. As to how the Croats' could destroy over 20 aircraft, remember that the number includes helicopters (it's not that difficult to bring down helicopters as the war in Iraq has shown) and that the JNA jets flew low and slowly when attacking making them susceptible to AA fire and surface-to-air missiles (see the second source for an example), and that yes the Croats in Vukovar did have those kinds of weapons. So my point is, the numbers that are already on the Battle of Vukovar page are the closest ones available currently, and untill official figures are released they should remain unchanged, and that yes, it is possible to have a small army inflict a lot of casualties to a larger army. (BTW all these numbers include losses in Vukovar and the surrounding suburbs and areas like Borovo Naselje, which, although not really a part of Vukovar proper, are counted as being part of the Battle of Vukovar. This may explain why some people thought the numbers were too high). I heard the numbers 6-8000 on an episode of the Croatian TV program Otvoreno last summer, don't remember who said it, some military official or military historian, but read the first source on why there are no official numbers yet. As for where I got the information regarding Croat tactics and weapons information, I have VHS tapes and DVDs that include Vukovar veterans describing the situation during and after the battle (the videos below are just a fraction of what I have). Sorry, but it's kind of hard to post that stuff on Wikipedia for you all to see and hear. The VHS and DVDs are amateur footage so I can't provide references. Sources - http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2120 - Translation of an article on the controversy surrounding war casualties from the Serbian paper Vreme (8 September 2005) Note that this article says the number of Serb soldiers killed in Slovenia, Croatia AND Bosnia is 2,300 (the number of Serb soldiers killed just in Bosnia is 21,399, according to a December 2005 report, see Bosnian War article for source). Should provide some insight on how and why numbers are inflated/deflated, and some of the points made in the article can and have been applied to any peoples and any war. http://www.croatianworld.net/Letters/oba_su_palaWarInCroatia1991.mpeg - Footage of two JNA J-1 Jastreb light strike fighter jets being shot down, one by AA fire, one by a missile, within twenty seconds, outside Sibenik, Croatia 21 September 1991 http://www.lijepanasadomovinahrvatska.com/folder/klek_030705.htm - Collection of Serbian broadcasts regarding the siege of Vukovar from the Serbian point-of-view. http://www.hrt.hr/arhiv/vukovar/video.html - Collection of Croatian videos regarding the siege of Vukovar from the Croatian point-of-view. UPDATE I found some more recent numbers from here - http://www.vecernji-list.hr/system/galleries/pics/051113/bitka.jpg and http://www.vecernji-list.hr/newsroom/news/croatia/Vukovar/416661/index.do The numbers are about the same but the number of JNA and Serb paramilitary forces' casualties is lowered to 5000-7000 and the number of armored vehicles destroyed is lowered to about 300. http://www.vecernji-list.hr/newsroom/news/croatia/Vukovar/416663/index.do and this website is about how the Croat forces armed themselves, which includes making the weapons from scratch and buying them from Serbs in Bosnia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KG1200 (talk • contribs) 5 March 2006

One of examples of misuse of numbers by Croatian agitprop is number of missing. All together there are 1000 missing Croats in Croatia and less than 500 from Vukovar, but they put numbers over 1.000 only for Vukovar.--KHasek 21:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In Vukovar there is less than 500 missing(In all Vukovar-Srijem county there are 600 missing). That contradicts to "over 1000 missing" stated in article and therefore please dont be stubborn in defense of one-side propaganda. Proof:http://www.hrv.hr/stranice/nestali/nestali.php. All numbers are cooked like that one.--KHasek 23:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. It confirms what you say about the number of those missing. However, it is a logical mistake to assume that a single wrong figure means that all the figures are wrong. Therefore, I'll return the other figures until you prove they're wrong. --Zmaj 08:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at foolowing article:http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2120 You see that altogether in all wars in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia there are around 2300 killed soldiers from Serbia.--Medule 11:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Look you saw that I proved that there are no more than 500 missing. Now from article http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2120 you see that there are no more than 2300 soldiers from Serbia killed in all wars. I think that you must admit that Croatian numbers are really propaganda or at least we must write neutrally like: Croatian sources said .... Serbian sources said.... Without compromise we will always block each other. We have intension to find truth. Therefore discuss and write neutrally.--Medule 13:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've included the paragraph about Serbian sources. Of course, the count in the infobox stays as it is, since the number of 2,300 speaks for itself about the accuracy of Serbian sources. --Zmaj 13:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be 2 infoboxes. Misuse of Croatian sources I have demonstrated with mentioning over 100- for missing, while we see there are officially less than 500.

You dont have any proof for 20.000, except gossips from Croatian sources.--Medule 13:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Medule, are you sure you are familiar with the war in Croatia? Because you certainly don't sound like it. There WERE more than 1,000 missing people, but as more and more mass graves have been found and bodies identified over the past years, that number has been reduced to 500. So the old number was not wrong, but simply obsolete. Do I have to explain the basic facts of war to you? --Zmaj 13:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

How obsolete numbers you have? I remember mentioning 200.000 in Bosnia and 30.000 in Croatia, what was shown to be incorrect.

What evidence is for 8.000. Only gossip. Nothing more.Serbian sources know much more about their killed soldiers.But for killing or dissapearance of Serbs in Vukovar there are even police investigation about it.--Medule 08:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It was me in last change. I have just not made login. Just to know.--Medule 11:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK somebody put that this was a pyrric victory for the Serbs, it was not, loosing only 5 to 10 percent of the attacking force is hardly pyrric, also somebody put 5,000 killed Serbs and 15,000 wounded, c'mon people how dum is that. They bombed the crap out of Vukovar and progresed in fases. It says that that is the croat figure. Then we showed maybe put the Serbian figure of Croat dead which is much larger than the "official" 900 or so killed.--Top Gun 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have returned the Croat ver of casualty figures and the pyrric victory term.

• Top Gun, hat you have done is taken out the Croat figures leaving only the JNS (read here Serb) figures. That makes the article POV. Pls also read the earlier doscussion on this matter and you'll see that both figures are there for valid reasons, including the fact that the Vukovar casualty figures include outlying areas such as Borovo selo; attacker are generally more exposed & thus suffer greater losses; because the advance was not multiple but single & in phases, they were more prone to ambush; the guerilla warfare tactics employed by the cities defenders;
• The victory was a pyrric because of a number of reasons - the losses suffered by the JNA was dramatic 7-15 percent. The campaign failed strategically - General Kadijevic expected them to roll through Eastern Slavonia easily, link up with the Banja Luka corpus in Western Slavonia, make a beeline for Zagreb and overthrow the government thereby able to dictate the western border of Serbia. Vukovar saw this objective fail and the high casualty count resulted in many desertions and conscript dodging in Serbia as well as protests by mothers whose sons had fallen on the front line in Eastern Slavonia.

You will also notice that the article has had both items there for a while now. For this & the reasons stated above, I respectfully request you refrain from unilateral changes to the article as it is currently NPOV. Thanks in advance, iruka 13:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK listen up again it is not pyric loosing 7-15 percent, what do you expect it was war if that was the case than a number of Allied victories in world war two should be pyrric and what is that stuff about Zagreb, the target was never Zagreb there was a standing agreement that Zagreb was not to be taken. The target was Vukvoar, and the Croat defenders there were defeted totaly, I actualy think the result should be Croat devastating defeat. Also where did you get that propaganda crap about desertions and conscript dodging in Serbia as well as protests by mothers whose sons had fallen on the front line in Eastern Slavonia. Maybe there was some desertion by some cowards but people did their duty and also do not talk about protests by mothers whose sons had fallen on the front line in Eastern Slavonia. That is pure propaganda by the Western powers and the Croats. There was no such thing. My father was killed fighting in Vukovar. And his mother did not protest against the war as well did not the other mothers. That would just tarnish their names and the thing they were fighting for. And all that you said is not NPOV. It's not NPOV to just put the Croat figures of Serbs killed then we should put also the Serb figures of Croats killed which is much larger than the Croat official 900 killed.Top Gun 22:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

First, let me extend condolences on the fact that you lost a parent in that war.

Having said that, I think my points are still valid. I have tried to included some sources which support my edits below:

With regard to phyrric victory:

From Pyrrhic victory: A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with devastating cost to the victor...the term is used...to describe any similar struggle which is ruinous for the victor. I put to you that it was ruinous for the JNA's campaign in Croatia i.e. setting the boundary at the Virovitica, Karlovac Karlobag line. It was ruinous for the Serbs international reputation (and part of the reason they could not intervene in 1995), as well as devastating on the morale of the JNA with many generals being replaces, the JNA reformed into a VJ and SFRJ replaced by the Yugoslav Federation.

On going to Zagreb, Veljko Kadijevic in Moj vidjenje raspada (1993) Kadijevic is quoted as saying that ...the strongest group of armoured mechanized forces to liberate eastern Slavonia and to continue towards Zagreb and Varazdin ...

With regard to the morale of the JNA and desertions:

From (Serbian Source)[[1]] Instead of waging war properly and advancing to Zagreb, which it could with a minimum loss of life, the JNA deployed in Croatia and hesitated. The army had huge draft problems: an extremely low response and constant rebellions by reserves. Its men wouldn't wage war without a clear goal; without a state of war which was never declared.

With regard to the mothers protests:

From [[2]]

The Mother’s Protest-1991

During the summer of 1991, women concerned about their sons in the Federal Yugoslav Army organized protests against the war. At the beginning of the war all regular soldiers belonged to the Yugoslav National Army, whose responsibility was to stop moves for independence by Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia. Croat mothers did not want their sons fighting with Serbs to prevent Croatia’s move for independence-which would put their sons on the "wrong" side of the war. Serb mothers did not want their sons fighting in Croatia, a land that they didn’t perceive belonged to them anymore. The women used their role as mothers to express concern for their sons and call for peace. The women stated their opposition to the war,

"We refuse that our sons become the victims of senseless militarists. It is not clear what are the goals for which we should sacrifice our sons. Our sons have been deceived: they have to participate in a war for which they are not the least bit responsible, in a war that has not even been declared. That they should give their lives for imperialist purposes is the project of politicians. It is a disgrace to win a fratricidal war" (Mothers of the Soldiers of Belgrade 20 July 1991, 8).

The first large protest against the war was held by several hundred parents, mostly mothers of conscripted men, in the Serbian National Assembly in Belgrade on 2 July 1991. In their statement they said, "The protests of mothers is a feminine spontaneous reaction to the disgrace of the civil war" (Mother’s Movement July 1991, 7). Repeatedly, throughout the summer, in letters to officials and public statements, the mothers called for an end to the war and a return of their sons.

Whilst the statements don't match with your anecdotal experience, they certainly are sourced and verifiable. FOr that reason, I am putting back in the term Phyrric Victory.

With regard to the figures, the JNA figures are unofficial so this is offset by equivalent figures from one of the leading Croat Generals of the time. Hence I have returned these figures. Again, I request you read the previous discussion by other users that debate this subject. iruka 06:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Job well done

I'd have to say job well done on the impartial and accurate information presented. I'm Croatian and do not feel that the article "blatantly" shows Croatian point of view but merely presents the facts. The numbers (will we ever know exactly?) seem correct from numerous articles that I've seen over the years.

Thank you

Some Info http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CAT.C.16.Add.6.En?Opendocument

Or even (many many articles)... http://www.un.org/search/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkol (talk • contribs) 31 December 2005

I don't know much about the battle (despite being Croatian), but the last 5 or so edits are obvious vandalism from both sides. Reverted. Tapir

About the numbers. One of the most popular videos on Croatian public television (HRT) was 1 minute long video with flight of two JNA ground attack aircrafts in the coastal area of Dalmatia, both beeing shoot down in short sequence. First one by light AA guns and second one missile by hand launched SAM, probably Strela 2M. One must know that all Croatian males were also conscripts before the war in JNA and because of better tehnical education than conscripts from (poorer) south-east parts of Yugoslavia (e.g. Kosovo) were often sent in army more technical demanding branches (navy, air force and air defence units had much larger average of Croats than other army branches) so these wepons were familiar to them. Both, Strela 2M and light 20 mm and 30 mm AA guns used by croatian AA defence in the war are all ex-SSSR origin and were often captured (latter in the war, after the fall of JNA barracks in Croatia in especially great numbers). Also weapons were smuggled into the country. It is no secret that Russian origin weaponery could be easily found in the black market after the fall of communism and economical and military desintegration in eastern Europe. The reason why I mentioned video is to prove that there are many solid proof evidence about JNA aircrafts beeing shoot down over Croatia. Although it is very common for numbers of enemy casualtys (or typs like MIG29)to be exaggerated in war, I found the number of 20 aircrafts shoot down quite realistic. There were no laser or TV( were several TV guided ones but because uf their scarcity they were used very rarley, just for high value targets. Moreover only case I know of is failed assasination of croatian president when his residance was bombed in surprise air raid) quided bombs in JNA arsenal at the time and because of street fights aircrafts had to adjust their attacks. By this I mean that they had to fly low, certanly in the range of any existing AA defence and also, to throw their bombs with adequate precision (to avoid hitting own troopw which were at close quaters combat) they had to slow down and pop up directly in front of the target to have clear view at it. This, also with small size of battlefield of several square km included, made their line of aproach very,very predictable. Also to avoid flying over enemy held teritory they most probably aproached directly from the east, from direction of Serbia. As some of the guys here I'm also Croat but I was just a kid at that time and of course was not there during the battle. Neverthless, if I was there, knowing something about air defence and holding portable SAM in my hands, I would have no difficultys to choose proper positon and send nice explosive postcard to any aircraft tail passing by...

About 8000 dead. I agree that they were many paramilitary forces with JNA, often poor led. But I do not understand how did so many tank and APC wrecks came to Vukovar streets on TV(and on west european ones). I understand that someone can arm paramilitary formation with light wepons or someone can have Ak-47 at home, but if they have column of T-54/55 tanks deployed than I would not imagine that it is paramilitary force. I would say that it is armoured formation, where crews are trained to properly run and use their vehicles and where all tanks are coordinated and every armoured vehicle has its place in battle formation, something that requiers months and months of training. By other words, it was normal army formation or JNA, not a slightest doubt about it. Was there really 8000 dead at JNA and paramilitary side it is hard to tell. JNA was equiped with ex-SSSR weapons and was organised in similar fashion as other SSSR army (of course on much smaller scale) and did employ more or less same tactic. More than 5 years after Vukovar battle Russian army had similar expiriance as JNA did when it tryed to enter Gorky. Several thousad dead and wounded and large quantity of armour lost only when they entered town directly with tanks and met mines and light but highly mobile groups of defenders (on ground familiar to them) armed with hand rocket launchers and submashine guns (btw. these wepons were also Russian origin).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.130.114 (talk • contribs) 11 January 2006

Ha, Ha, Ha... Just love when people write nonesense... I mean lets face it people: The war is over, and thanks to no small part of the Western intervention the Croatian side managed to come slightly ahead, all things considered. But as far as Vukovar is concerned, it was a tough fought fight, and the Serbs did prevail. As far as the casualties, I bet that they are about equal on both sides when it comes to manpower loses... This whole deal about the Serbs losing 4-5 times as many soldiers and equipment is typical talk of a defeated side... Let it go, the war is over. This is a , a place to educate people on the embarassment that both the Serbs and Croats went through. Stop with the hatred and the lies already. Speak the truth for once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.215.219 (talk • contribs) 11 January 2006

This is correct. But, one must know that we learn from history and that facts must be rightly deduced so that the lessons learned would be valid. To someone in States or perhaps in GB or France this may look just like unrelevant conflict of some far away tribes but to us is our recent and very much alive history. And fight for liberation and our independance to. Also, I would like to sincerely thank international community for their help during 1995. which helped us to prevail and liberate occupaided parts of our country. It came only 5 years late. It is nice to feel good and to say "we stoped the war and genocide" to domestic public, isn't it? It ends stupid questions like why did West take 5 years of destruction in the country practicly between EU borders, hundreds of thousands deaths and over few milions of refugees to react? Why was embargo on weapons import placed on whole Yugoslavia theater when it was well know that the only party that had any hevy wepons was agresor JNA and JNA sponsored forces? Was that really in intrest of peace or just another Nuremberg ought to alowe stronger one to prevail? It seems that only the chosen ones have right to human rights and democracy. And this Western reaction, this help was so massive and decisive that it alowed for Srebrenica massacre to happen in Bosnia. Massive shootings of unarmed people in front of the Dutch soldiers eyes and under NATO full controled sky. Not to forget concentration camps. God saves us from your help next time. To go back local, the war is over more than 10 years ago, there is no place for hate now but just for reconciliaton. One who lives in this area sees that it allready happens on large scale, that people live normally together again, especially younger generations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.242.7 (talk • contribs) 12 January 2006

Quote: Neverthless, if I was there, knowing something about air defence and holding portable SAM in my hands, I would have no difficultys to choose proper positon and send nice explosive postcard to any aircraft tail passing by...

Oh, I`m sure that if you were there armed with a Strela 2m this current 20 aircraft claim would have been truthful (but, then there would probably be 80 aircraft claimed), but fortenutely for JNA aircraft you were not, so prove to me that 20 were shot down. Where are the photos of wrecks of 20 aircraft? That movie about shooting down two aircraft in Dalmatia (They were either older Galebs or Jastrebs) I recall I saw some years ago, but if you filmed two downed over Dalmatia that doesn`t PROVE 20 over Vukovar. (this is supposed to be an encyclopedia so nobody here is interested about what somebody thinks is realistic, the one who states something should also prove it, othervise he provided nothing but a speculative information). Croatian press is not a neutral source. That unhcr source I searched looking for words "KIA", "killed", "casaulties", but saw none refering to JNA or Croatian army KIA. As the text is really too long for me to read, please quote the part concerning military casaulties.

May I remind you that Croatian converted ex-crop dusters also flew some missions over Vukovar (probably killing the Serbian general) and, while a number has been shot down, quite a few survived (or at least that was my impression). So, if they could, why couldn`t JNA combat designed aircraft?

JNA used mostly Soviet-style doctrine? Ok, but Croats did as well (soldiers of both combatants had trained in the same army)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.121.169 (talk • contribs) 18 January 2006

First of all I am Croatian, some thigns that have been said here are not true. It is true that the JNA lost a lot of tanks and armored transports underastimating the capabilities of the defenders. . . The JNA did shell the city from a far, and most regulars were not included in the battle until the end, those who did fight were volonteres from JNA (armed by the JNA, trained by the JNA and wore uniforms of the JNA). . . JNA was the 5th stongest army in Europe before the war, but loses that were inflicted by the Vukovar defenders severly crippeld it. . . The city was sorrounded by the JNA from the east and south east but, and by serbian milita (again equiped by the JNA) from the other sides. . . there were corridors trough which the defenders got their supplies but for the last month of the siege they were completly cut off . . . And no Croatia did not use Soviet styl doctrine, some of our generals werent even proffesional soldiers, some were ex officers of JNA, but our best general was trained in the French Foregin Legion. . . I will not go in to the debate who did more crimes caus not enough time has passed since the war and the memorys of murders and shellings are still strong, both sides comitted crimes, every side had its reasons but a crime is a crime. . . And to say that the Croats didnt won the war, that they just had a slight advantage, well sorry but that just makes you, lets say, unfair... The operation storm is learned today on West Point as the best millitary operation in recent history... And you say that there wasnt any resistance? SO youre saying that Croatian soldiers died from what?... There was recently on HRT1 ( and brodcasted by the CNN) a documentary about the training of so called Republica Srpska Krajna Soldiers, and fortifying their borders so your statment about no resistance is false . . .

Luka Marić sorry for the bad grammar and the typos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luka Maric (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 January 2006

It is always good to see 8600 Croat casaulties out of 1800 engaged —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.120.238 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 25 February 2006

comment from RedBarDragon

Sorry to write my note just here, but I would like to add my comment. So here it goes: How is that you (=Serbs and Croatians) fought a war not learning a single thing about tolerance? There are clear proofs of either Serbs and Croatians doing the same kind of crap (sorry to call it that way, but how would YOU call killing women, children, and old people?) so why do you not just try to be more tolerant and move on? You have some children yet? Or you will. DO you want another Vukovar for them?

                                                                            Thanx

                                                                             RedBarDragon@seznam.cz

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBarDragon (talk • contribs) 01:26, 1 March 2006

POV

The text of the article could have been taken from Tudjman era Croatian propaganda press. The consequence is that we either have to question its impartiality, or revalue the widely accepted view of Croatian wartime propaganda being nationalistic and biased. Some crucial pieces of information are obviously missing (particularly the plight of the city's inhabitants of Serbian nationality - about half of the total number - in the city subject to Croatian military rule, or the very existence thereof) parts of the text are clearly self-contradictory (the Croatian forces are claimed to be lightly armed, yet they still manage to down 20 warplanes) and full of dubious propaganda cliches (the backbone of JNA was broken at Vukovar). One does not need to be an expert on war in the Balkans to note these shortcomings. Naturally, this does not mean that we should subscribe to the Serbian propaganda of the time - an effort should be taken to compile a realistic picture from ICTY proceedings, from well known western reporters present at or near the scene (Misha Glenny), and from other sources. Actually, merely citing these sources will do a better service to the reader than this. Dervan 21:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm, starting a comment by exclaiming "Long live Arkans Tigers..!" immediately disqualifies a person as impartial. For the less-informed, Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan was a notorious Serbian war-criminal and his "Tigers" were responsible for countless massacres of the civilian population during the war in Croatia, and later in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Marx1980 10:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Exclamation "Long live Arkan's Tigers...!" was an act of foreign vandalism, which has nothing to do with the original text of the comment, as clearly evidenced in the page edit history. Removed. Dervan 17:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous vandalization

An anonymous user is starting a rv war on numerous articles relating to Croatia, with a malicious intent. I've called for freezing this page until dispute can be resolved. Please discuss below. Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 23:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This prelude to battle was full of Croatian side of story. I have added important facts about terror agains Serbs done during June and July 1991. These facts had been described by Serbs side and by Croat side(independent journalist). I added these 2 links but in rw war they have removed even Croatian independent journalist story. http://www.ex-yupress.com/feral/feral193.html There is one book done by Vojin Dabic, and link to it is also removed: http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/politics/war_crimes/vukovar/index.html Independent Croatian journalist and Serb have very similar story about killed 80 Serbs before August 1991. There is also third link in Croatian newspaper (but in Croatian), supporting same story http://www.novilist.hr/Default.asp?WCI=Rubrike&WCU=285E2863285B2863285A28582858285C286328962897289E2863286328612859285F285E285828632863286328582863J Freezing this story only to nationalistic Croatian point is really like freezing truth. --Medule 00:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Belive me, I'm no nationalist, I'm just trying my darndest to keep some order and objectivity in these articles. I welcome the addition of those links, and am sorry they were deleted (accidentaly, I assure you). However, I don't belive the additions to the text of the "prelude to the battle" were written from a NPOV or in good faith. As valid as those journalist stories are, 3 articles, 2 of them from a Serbian POV do not represent the general consensus. And in view of the controversy surrounding this article I think we should tread lightly and not add anything that may start addittional rv wars. So let's just try and stick to that which we can all agree on, include the links in "external links" section and let readers decide for themselves. And please, lets keep a cool head and try to resolve this temporary partial freeze ASAP. Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 01:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you agree with addition of links. But I added from Croatian and Serbian sources something that was really prelude to battle. Killing of 80 Serbs in Vukovar was prelude to battle. That event was mentioned in a letter not only to Tudjman but to all important political parties in Croatia. From neutral point of view it is important to mention all major crimes that could explain background of battle of Vukovar. Killing of 80 Serbs in Vukovar happened. Croatian (not only Serbian) sources support that fact. I Think you agree that is fact. It is important fact and should be mention, specially because numbers presented on that page are biased and only support that exist Croatian civilan victims.--Medule 15:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Cite the Croatian sources and I'll gladly support those additions. However, keep in mind the Wikipedias NOR and Verifiability policy. --Dr.Gonzo 15:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added previously

Between April 15 and July 30 1991, numerous Serb houses were blown up, as well as cafes "Krajisnik", "Sarajka", "Tufo", "Brdo", "Mali Raj", "Popaj", "Tocak", "Cokot bar", and "Sid", and dry cleaning businesses owned by Serbs. In his letter to Tudman Marin Vidic Bili warns that such Mercep's activities are creating "psychotic fear among local Croats and Serbs, which has prompted many to leave the town". Executions of 80 Serbs civilians from Vukovar, conducted by Mercep's groups started in June and July 1991.

Croatian sorce http://www.ex-yupress.com/feral/feral193.html has following

"Between April 15 and July 30 1991, numerous Serb houses were blown up, as well as cafes "Krajisnik", "Sarajka", "Tufo", "Brdo", "Mali Raj", "Popaj", "Tocak", "Cokot bar", and "Sid", and dry cleaning businesses owned by Serbs. In his letter to Tudman Marin Vidic Bili warns that such Mercep's activities are creating "psychotic fear among local Croats and Serbs, which has prompted many to leave the town".

While the Hague investigators know almost everything about the murders and disappearance of about eighty Serbs in Vukovar, Croatian judiciary has only recently initiated its investigation.

So I litterally copied 2 sentences from that source and third sentence you could get from that source.

I hope now you agree with what I added previously, because that is from Croatian sources.--Medule 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the "Prelude to Battle" additions but kept the links. Please refrain from editing unless mutually agreed upon! This is a partially protected article, will have to request full protection if we can't solve this amicably.

It's my opinion that, although Mercep harrasment and killing of Serbs is significant, putting it into the Prelude to Battle section makes it seem like pretext for Serb agression which is certainly not true. While these incidents may be true, it is also true that the pretext for the siege was the Croatian declaration of independance following the Plitvice incident. I suggest creating a new section somewhere further down entitled "Serb perspective" or something similar so those issues can be dealt with properly. Let's not forget that the title of the article is "Battle of Vukovar", and facts about the battle itself should be kept topmost. --Dr.Gonzo 21:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought you agreed with sentences and I have added them. Sentences are as you said from Croatian independent sources.

Now when I have satisfied your criteria you tried to change only part that takes into account 80 dead Serb civilians inside Vukovar. That was really prelude to battle. Why to have "Prelude to Battle" section if we could not add such big crimes inside like killing of 80 Serbs inside Vukovar. By the way section with dead inside Vukovar is biased. You could not see dead Serb civilians.--Medule 23:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agreed it should be added, now we have to agree how to best incorporate it into the article. As tragic as those deaths are, they do not belong in the "Prelude" section because that section is not concerned with civilian casualties but rather with the course of the battle. There is really no existing subsection where it can just be appended, so I think you should create a new subsection entitled "Serb casualties" or something like that and put it there. Don't put it at the top of the article though because it is confusing for readers, it can be interpreted as pretext for the Serb attack which is, I'm sure you'll agree not the historical truth. --Dr.Gonzo 23:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Realy these events had been used as pretext for attack. I admit I have previously added sentence with explicit link to battle, but I agree not to insist on that. With several sentences will be implicit link to battle. These events had been used by Serbian propaganda to state that Croatian side is fasist side and that army units should protect Serbs from Croatian police.

So these events had big role in battle.--Medule 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so we can compromise on this. Let's include the Serbian civilian deaths in the "Overview" section, possibly even as a subsection, point out that they occured in the weeks before the actual battle began, mention it was partialy used as a pretext by Miloshevic propaganda machine, and if anything else needs to be added we can discuss further. How does that sound? --Dr.Gonzo 01:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No you misunderstood me. I still insist on 3 sentences from independent Croatian newspaper. You agree with these sentences as I understand. I will not add some sentence change that I wanted to mention explicit pretext.

But we could add as you say sentence that these events had been used by Milosevic propaganda as a partial pretext to battle.

We could add or not. I dont care too much for that, but I think it should be in prelude to battle. It is really prelude to battle.--Medule 01:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Gle ovak neide, pol te ne kuzim. Ajd lijepo kazi sto zelis ubaciti i gdje pa cemo nesto smisliti. Ali bojim se da nece ici bez malo veceg prckanja po clanku... --Dr.Gonzo 01:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to add following 3 sentences to Prelude of Battle.

"Between April 15 and July 30 1991, numerous Serb houses were blown up, as well as cafes "Krajisnik", "Sarajka", "Tufo", "Brdo", "Mali Raj", "Popaj", "Tocak", "Cokot bar", and "Sid", and dry cleaning businesses owned by Serbs. In his letter to Tudman Marin Vidic Bili warns that such Mercep's activities are creating "psychotic fear among local Croats and Serbs, which has prompted many to leave the town". Executions of 80 Serbs civilians from Vukovar, conducted by Mercep's groups started in June and July 1991. ". You could add sentence that says that this was used as partial pretext if you want. --Medule 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You may add it if you insist. But if you do, I'll have to add some more background like the Plitvice incident, the declaration of independance and serbian reaction and point out that the deaths of those Serbs were used by Serbian propaganda to justify razing the town to the ground and killing or wounding another 20000 people and exiling at least twice that many. And then this article becomes even more controversial. Not to say it wouldn't all be true. Your call. --Dr.Gonzo 23:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me barging in, Gonzo, but this guy is trying to trick you. He wants to include the names of Serbian cafes that were blown up. What a laugh. Then we should include every single building in Vukovar that was shelled by Serb forces. It's so absurd I won't event discuss it. Executions of 80 Serb civilians? And he justifies that "fact" with a newspaper article? It was never proven before a court of law, so it's pure gossip. Newspapers, and especially newspapers from the area of former Yugoslavia, are by no means a reliable source. Until you bring some real proof for the executions, Medule, you can forget about that. And EVEN if you find proof, it's still disputable whether it should be included, since the total civilian death count is around 1,000 (and the great majority of those civilians were NOT Serbs). --Zmaj 07:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not disputed even by Croatian police that executions of serbs happened. See- http://www.ex-yupress.com/feral/feral193.html Independent Croatian journalist and Serb have very similar story about killed 80 Serbs before August 1991. There is also third link in Croatian newspaper (but in Croatian), supporting same story http://www.novilist.hr/Default.asp?WCI=Rubrike&WCU=285E2863285B2863285A28582858285C286328962897289E2863286328612859285F285E285828632863286328582863J --Medule 14:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

For Gonzo, I think you expanded quite satisfactory and neutral. Thank you. I will not change that part. Although I could tell you that "Croatia's secession from Yugoslavia, a possibility explicitly allowed by the new Yugoslav constitution of 1971" it is not correct. constitution is from 1974, and that constitution is contraversial. It had inside teritorial integrity of SFRJ what opposes right of nations for selfdetermination. But you see Serbs had been nation in Croatia until 22.12.1990, so Serbs had same right. Right for seldetermination is opposed to teritorial integrity of SFRJ. There are at least 2 facts that are again right of Croatia to make secession. --Medule 21:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The constitution can be argued, but the right to selfdetermination is definately there. Legal implications are something else entirely. You may consider it controversial, but that's your POV. What's important is that the Croatian secession was done lawfully, to the letter, YNA intervention was, on the other hand, illegal. I chose to omit that to avoid further controversy, and it is mentioned elswhere anyway. Let's just leave it at that and end this dispute already. --Dr.Gonzo 21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't let Gonzo's version stay because of the reasons I stated in my last post. I will also remove a large portion of the "referendum" paragraph because it's superfluous here - it's all explained in detail in the History of modern Croatia article. --Zmaj 09:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please you could not say that is gossip that 80 Serbs had been killed. For that crimes exist Croatian police file filed under number KR-DO 624/02. Hague investigation was also present about that crimes. See 3 presented evidence above.--Medule 13:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've seen your evidence. It says those people disappeared. Not killed. Disappeared. It's quite possible they left for Serbia or even joined Serbian paramilitary forces. --Zmaj 19:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What you need in that part of 80 killed and dissapeared Serbs to be acceptable to you. Look that part Gonzo has written, not me. Look how much time we spend to make compromise, but then you entered in story. You could not any more sell stories like "gossip". See again 3 proofs. If you say that that is not true, all numbers in that story of Vukovar are really only blatant propaganda. Like 8.000 killed Serbian soldiers.--Medule 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbian casualties again

Just one link more, to the already existing ones numbered above: http://www.aimpress.ch/dyn/trae/archive/data/199711/71128-026-trae-beo.htm It is perfectly understandable for Serbian apologists to try to minimize the Serbian death toll (in battles- civilian Serbian casualties are, as usual, inflated beyond & beyond..). The reason ? High military casualties figure speaks of Serbian military incompetence (as contrasted to their self-image of a Ramboid nation); also, it is a sign of heavy Yugoslav involvement in agression on Croatia. Anyone's national sensibilities aside-it is clear that all realiable and available sources put the Serbian military death toll at the lowest level of 8.000. Mir Harven 13:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is signed by Stipe Sikavica (a typical Croatian name) so it again represents a Croatian press POV.

Here's another nice example of nationalist logic. What you're basically saying is that this journalist cannot possibly be objective because he is Croatian, is that it? Infact, you are drawing this conclusion solely out of the man's NAME. What if he changed his name, maybe he would be more neutral then, what do you think? --Dr.Gonzo 01:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Even in that link you could not see that anyone from serbian side states something like 10.000.

According to Serbian sources regarding the number of Serbian soldiers who died or went missing during all the wars in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, the number often mentioned is 2,300.[3], and most of them, around a half, are believed to have died in the battle for Vukovar. The cited article states also that "most experts agree with the figure". There are no reason to put 8.000 or 10.000 as official data. These data are contraversial.--Medule 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Croatian sources, ie. general Anton Tus, put the Serbian military casualties figure around 10.000. Other sources, like brigadier general Mile Dedaković, in his book "Bitka za Vukovar", put the highest limit around 12.000. Therefore, chief Croatian estimates revolve around 10 k Serbian military casualties. This page is not about what Serbian sources say-exclusively. Without going into details of questionable veracity of Serbian sources re this battle, the most correct approach is to state what both sides have to say. And, in the cited article by a journalist named Sikavica, it is clear for anyone who is not deaf, blind and mute that some Serbian military figures agree with general Tus's estimates. It is explicit. Therefore, reverted. Mir Harven 22:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this later

It's not just the number of Serbian military casualties (after all, these were mainly puzzled conscripts sent to the slaughterhouse). It's this sick worldview prevalent in some Serbian circles: Croatian paramilitaries, secession, liberation of Vukovar,...then liberation of Srebrenica, faked Markala, lies about everything and everyone (for those conversant with Croatian, just a slice: http://www.hic.hr/books/jugoistocna-europa/dedijer.htm#kraj%20mita).Mir Harven 22:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What a bunch of croat nonsense. These figures are completely bogus. In 1995 Dayton Accords, European inspectors verified all weapons stocks of both FRY and Republika Srpska so the exact numbers of tanks/planes/whatever are known. Comparing these figures with official JNA figures before the civil war reveals the exact amount of losses. About 30 M-84 tanks were lost from 1991 until 1995. A larger number of older T-55 tanks were lost but still not nearly 400. About 20 airplanes were shot down during the WHOLE 1991-95 war, this article claims they were all lost in Vukovar. Actually most plane losses occured in 1995 by which time the Croats had obtained more modern and higher-reaching anti-aircraft missiles. The figures this article gives for JNA losses in Vukovar are even higher than the combined losses of all serbian forces from Croatia, Bosnia, and even Allied Force. This is not subjective, because the exact losses can be calculated simply by comparing pre-war JNA data with what the inspectors found after Dayton, so there is nothing to argue about, no opinions, only facts. The figures given in this article are complete BS. Also, I would like to point out that all the sources provided for these figures are Croatian sources, and they're not exactly known for their credibility. Doctor Robotnik 14:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

TYPE OF VICTORY

Why write Pyrhhic victory. Write Serb victory. And thats it. If we want to talk like that we can write "Croatian Moral Victory". The facts speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalyst in Society (talk • contribs) 9 May 2006

Dear Croat Aussie, seems you`re little late to do service for the "war of independance", but hey, better late than... Serbian estimates of losses were deleted as I see, and may I ask you, how do you expect anyone to take this article seriously when it shows so blatantly a Croatian point of view? Take a look at the very first comment in this discussion! It was not written by a Serb, but someone who is curious about the subject, but also experianced/educated enough to see differance between propaganda and a history article. Somebody keeps reverting a false claim that there are Serbian analysists that agree with Croatian estimates of Serbian casualties. And I could find nothing like that even in the very reference given for the claim. It quotes mostly Croatian general Anton Tus and the article is written by a Croatian! So the claim is a plain lie!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.121.157 (talk • contribs) 14 May 2006

Croatian strength/losses

So, Vukovar. Branili su ga: 204. brigada sastavljena od Vukovaraca. sastav- 1. bojna ( Sajmište)470vojnika, topništvo =1 ZIS , 3 MB 60 mm, 2 MB 82 mm - 2. bojna (Mitnica) 300 vojnika topništvo- 1 MB 120 mm, 1 RL 128 mm, 1 B1 76 mm, 1 ZIS - 3.- bojna. (Borovo naselje) vojnika 980 topništvo= 3 MB 120 mm, 2 Mb 82 mm, 1 B1 76mm, NTT 82 mm -4 bojna. - Vukovar, Lužac, Bogdanovci vojnika 340 topništvo 3 B1, 1 ZIS, 1 MB 60 mm, 1 MB 82 mm, 1 T-12 MTRD- vod haubica 155, vod MB 120mm, vod MB 82 mm, Vod RL 128 mm, 3 topa B1, 2 ZIS 76 mm

Osim 204. brigade: - policija 4. bojna 3. brigade ZNG-a (422 vojnika) HOS 58 vojnika Uz naoružane civile sveukupno manje od 4000 boraca. U gradu se nalazilo oko 15000 civila. Hrvatski gubici do 10XI. 1991. 600 vojnika , 1100 civila. Nakon pada oko 3000 nestalih i ubijenih. Srpski gubici: 236 tenkova i oklopnih transportera, 18 aviona, 1 helikopter; 5-6 topničkih bitnica, 2 zapovjedna mjesta ranga brigade; oko 5100 vojnika Izvor: Hrvatski vojnik XI, 2001.

The "Serbian" loss estimate is not first hand. But the Croatian losses/strength are clearly well advised from this source.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.132.71 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 16 May 2006

Reboot

I've decided to reboot this article. Although it was a good start, it had a number of major problems - particularly the near-total lack of sources (which is very unsatisfactory as far as WP:CITE and WP:V are concerned) and the distinctly POV tone of parts of it. From the point of view of a military historian, it was also rather unsatisfactory in explaining the tactics and political issues involved. And of course, it's not helpful that the article had become the subject of an edit war.

I've rewritten the article from scratch, incorporating elements from the previous version. It is much more heavily sourced than before, and it includes a lot more information than before. I'd welcome comments on what people think of it. -- ChrisO 23:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it, it's well sourced and objective, unlike the previous version. However, as you can see, there are those who won't be satisfied until serbian war-crimes are downplayed to smallest possible extent, and Milosevic himself absolved of any guilt whatsoever. --Dr.Gonzo 13:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rules of engagement

I think it might be worth reminding people of the basic rules of Wikipedia. A lot of the arguments over the previous version of this article were, I think, largely due to these policies not being followed. I've rewritten the article to make it strictly wikipolicy-compliant, and I intend to ensure that those policies are followed on this article:

• Don't add partisan commentary, and ensure that your contributions are written in a neutral tone. We're here to write an encyclopedic article, not a partisan screed. (WP:NPOV).

• Any additions must be sourced, cited and verifiable. (WP:CITE, WP:V).

• Any sources must be reliable. Newspaper reports, government documents, books and reports from well-known international organisations are generally regarded as good sources. Commentary on ersonal websites or the personal views of individual editors are not. (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR.

If we follow these policies we should be OK. -- ChrisO 07:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well that's all fine in theory, but there seems to be no way of sanctioning the offenders. They can just go on butchering the articles until every decent wikipedian just gives up on a lost cause... --Dr.Gonzo 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You're forgetting that I'm an administrator. I can enforce the rules if need be... -- ChrisO 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make you partisan, since you're editing the article yourself? --Dr.Gonzo 00:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Only up to a point. Blocking a user to gain an advantage in an editing dispute is forbidden, obviously, but I'm talking here about strictly enforcing Wikipedia's fundamental policies. I'm not a Croat or a Serb, so I don't mind if someone adds a statement that Franjo Tudjman ate babies or that Milosevic was an alien from Alpha Centauri - but they must provide a reliable verifiable source for that statement. If they do, fine - if they don't, their addition comes out. If they repeatedly ignore the fundamental policies then I'll encourage them to change their behaviour. Think of it as being like toilet training. :-) -- ChrisO 00:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol, ok, I'll keep that in mind ;) Anyways just wanted to say I'm glad to have you here, and I hope you can help get this article in shape like you did with Borovo Selo killings, that would be absolutely marvelous. I look forward to working with you ;) Cheers! --Dr.Gonzo 00:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the article

Here I list the problems with present POV of the article.

• It ended with the defeat of the local Croatian National Guard, the near-total destruction of Vukovar and the massacre or expulsion of its defenders and non-Serb population. Although the battle was a significant loss for Croatia, which did not regain control of the town until 1998, it proved a Pyrrhic victory for the JNA and was a crucial turning point in the overall war.

totally biased and factualy inaccurate. Not only non-Serbs left Vukovar. "Crucial turning point" and "phyrrhic victory" are POV and disputed. Number of killed is also inaccurate. A total of 2300 federal forces were killed in all operations in 1991, Slovenia etc. The figure of 1300 (or 1100, as it was quoted in article and by a leading military expert Miroslav Lazanski) for Novi Sad corps is actually for the federal army, as Novi Sad corps were responsible for that area. So, there are possibly some dead in TO (teritorial defense), but the estimates of Tus and non-Serbian sources are here taken to be reliable.

• civilians: there are both Serbs and Croats in Vukovar. Serbs have been massacred inside Vukovar. Why you count civilians on the Croatian side? You deny Croatian crimes. The fact that anti-Serbian propaganda menaged to whitewash the Serbian victims is not reason to be biased here.

I think this is already alluded to in the reference to reports of killings and disappearances of Serbs in Vukovar. -- ChrisO 07:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• At this stage in the Yugoslav conflict, the objectives of Milošević and the JNA were somewhat different. Milošević sought to support the efforts of the rebel Serb communities to secede from an independent Croatia and associate with a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia. The JNA leadership also supported the Serb rebellion but went further, aiming to decisively cripple or overthrow the new Croatian state. According to its former head, Veljko Kadijević, it planned to advance deep into Croatia, capture the capital Zagreb and destroy its armed forces. Having done this, the new Yugoslavia could dictate its western borders, leaving Croatia as a rump state shorn of much of its territory. A key element in this plan was the use of heavy armored forces to capture the Serb-populated region of Eastern Slavonia, and then to advance west from there to Zagreb.

this paragraph is totally POV. It seems to be taken from Kadijevic, but that is his POV. Milosevic strictly never claimed to have wanted Serbs to secede. That is pure propaganda. You cannot just put anything and state it as fact. Milosevic ivolvement in the whole affair is very contraversial! WuBaja 05:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Kadijevic's statement of the JNA's battle plans closely matches what actually happened on the ground, so I think we can take it as accurate. As for Milošević's objectives, that is the general view of most Western historians and analysts - I'll attribute that appropriately while noting Milošević's denials as well. -- ChrisO 07:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• By the spring of 1991, paramilitary militias from Serbia proper – reportedly supported by Milošević through the Serbian Interior Ministry (MUP) – had established themselves in a number of localities in Eastern Slavonia. The "White Eagles" group commanded by Serbian Radical Party leader Vojislav Šešelj established a base in the Serb-populated suburb of Borovo Selo on the outskirts of Vukovar. Militant propaganda from both Belgrade and Zagreb added to the tension, radicalising many of the local population and encouraging each side to view the other in the worst possible light.

This is sheer nonsense, and blatant POV. Seselj had nothing to do with Beli Orlovi. This sort of falsifications were exposed during his testimony at ICTY. I suggest you check your facts first, and dont take just any source in this subject full of propaganda lies. WuBaja 05:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Beli Orlovi were definitely said to have been there. The Šešelj mention may be a mistake, though, I'll check. -- ChrisO 07:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• when Šešelj's paramilitaries took hostage two Croatian policemen in the suburb of Borovo Selo. A detatchment of Croatian Interior Ministry (MUP) police was sent in to rescue them but was ambushed by the paramilitaries, suffering twelve fatalities and another 31 injured. The bodies were mutilated and put on display by the paramilitaries. The event caused panic among the Croatian government but prompted reprisal attacks on Serb civilians in the area, including rocket propelled grenade attacks on Serb houses, led by the hardline Croatian interior minister Gojko Šušak. Similar attacks against Serb communities took place in a number of other places in Croatia over the following months.

this is very POV, and also inacurate. See Borovo Selo raid

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WuBaja (talk • contribs) 22 May 2006

It's cited from reputable sources. That's sufficient for our purposes. -- ChrisO 07:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Croatian KIAs

They did not lose 1000 soldiers, they lost around 700. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.112.74 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 28 May 2006

comments from 70.246.75.204

December 1990. Serbs are begining to disapeare from the VU police, threatening phone calls are everyday thing. In early 1991 Vupik is setteled with Croats from Hercegovina.

- 1991 - summer Couple of croats entered Borovo Selo and killed the guy patroling in front of the City Hall. Immediatly they were killed wich was the call for 2 busses full of Zengas to attack Borovo Selo. However, most of those guys were killed in Borovo. During 1991 my grandfather a serb was beaten by Croats and forced to sing Ustaske songs. Thanks to his croat friend he manages to escape from Vukovar.

Once freed or occupied by JNA - many croats died, young guys in their 20's.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.75.204 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 31 May 2006

Battle of Vukovar

Finally someone got it right and changed the battlebox so ESTIMATES is showned because when theres no real hrd evidence of the numbers of killed in Vukovar all wikipedia can present is estimates and serbian casulties is estimated from 5000 - 8000 killed and Croatian 700 - 1100 killed. Other numbers are just biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvana77 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 31 May 2006

NEUTRAL?

Croatian casualties are from CROATIAN official and semi-official sources (not estimates as claimed) Serbian casualties are from CROATIAN estimates. Is this neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.120.153 (talk • contribs) 30 June 2006

If you have any Serbian estimates, please feel free to add them and give a citation. -- ChrisO 21:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As I recall the Serbian official casualties (of 4.600 if I recall correctly) had been posted some time ago, but they were later removed. They should be found amoung the archives.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.121.185 (talk • contribs) 5 July 2006

HEY,

The Serb casualties in the Battle of Vukovar greater than in the whole Croatian War of Independence?--TheFEARgod 14:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Did Serbia/Yugoslavia ever issue an official casualty figure? If so, where and when? We're really lacking in reliable figures, so if you can find anything please feel free to add it here. -- ChrisO 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

TheFEARgod: The fate of the people of Vukovar is well established and documented. I'm sorry that the article doesn't push a rosy Serb POV, but the article gives an accurate description of what happened, without the use of inflammatory language. The tag goes. --Mihovil 15:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also: I've added a reference in the captives and war crimes section; take a look at page 266 of Tanner's book. --Mihovil 04:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

The exact numbers of casualties at Vukovar is still unknown. According to Croatian general Anton Tus, about 1,100 of Vukovar's defenders were killed, and another 2,600 defenders and civilians were listed as missing. Another 1,000 Croatian soldiers were killed on the approaches to Vinkovci and Osijek. The intensity of the fighting can be judged by the fact that the losses in Eastern Slavonia between September-November 1991 constituted half of all Croatian war casualties during the whole of 1991.[8] The Central Intelligence Agency estimates Croatian casualties at around 4,000-5,000 dead across Eastern Slavonia.[5]

Estimates of JNA losses are complicated by a lack of official figures. The only published losses on the JNA side were some 1,300 dead in the Novi Sad corps alone. Tus cites foreign estimates of 6,000-8,000 JNA and Serb losses in the whole of eastern Slavonia and Croatian estimates of at least 5,000 dead. Around 600 armoured vehicles and heavy weapons and more than 20 aircraft were also destroyed.'

The Casualties in the box are presented in a very biased way (and the estimates are also ill-sourced): Croatian ones are ONLY FROM THE BESIEGED CITY while JNA casualties are FROM THE WHOLE EASTERN SLAVONIA. The very article contradicts itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.121.222 (talk • contribs) 6 August 2006

I've reverted continuous inclusion of unconfirmed reports.--TheFEARgod 12:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Casualties (once again)

Figures of "5-8" thousands killed are impossible in a modern war and such disproportion of men and firepower, it would be a success if they killed several hundred. Compare even with civilian casualties (after destruction of the city - 1,000-2,000 dead, including these murdered later). Also most of the time JNA was just firing artillery into the city, then paramilitaries broke through defences and surrendered Croats in a pockets. There was some disastrous initial storming by armor, including the famous destruction of an armored column (which is even included on the article's featured photo), but it's just not enough. For a simple comparision, Russians lost about 2,000 men killed in the New Year's Eve assault on Grozny, and I think this would be hard to beat. Another: Serbs lost 24,000 military dead in whole Bosnian War, 1992-95 - only 3 times more than in one Croatian city, defended by up to 2,000? Another still: Serbs say they lost less than 5,000 in the whole war in Croatia, and this even including civilians. My guess is, maybe, for example, someone in a Croatian propaganda office added one zero to their estimates of a Yugo losses. --HanzoHattori 09:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Croatian propaganda office"? You've seen one too many James Bond movie. The fact is - Serbs never released their official estimates, unlike Croats whose estimates come from the highest military sources. So, until such time that the Serbs deem it neccesary to set the records straight we have to rely on Croatian estimates. --Dr.Gonzo 12:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What, do you think propaganda exist only in movies? --HanzoHattori 15:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Anton Tunks" figures

The ref links refer to the nothingness, so somebody give a book or article or whatever it is based on. --HanzoHattori 10:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It was there until some edit-warring twit deleted it a while back... I've restored it. -- ChrisO 11:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Here`s an OK from Serbia

Finally, (at this moment) the article looks pretty much OK. I just propose removing the "Klacemo Hrvate" quote, as such slogans were common on both sides at the time so focusing on just one adds a POV, but otherwise it seems all right.

Veljko Stevanovich 9. Sep. 2006. 16:45 UTC+1

I'm glad everything looks OK, but I have to disagree about the quote. Maybe such slogans were common on both side; I don't know, since I wasn't in Vukovar. -But the quote is relevant, if for no reason other than the fact that is was widely seen by "westerners" on BBC. I also think that it is relevant in that it is symptomatic of the JNA's general attitude about the war; they thought that it would be an easy victory, with few casualties. It is also especially damning in light of what happened at Ovčara. For these reasons, I think it should stay. Mihovil 01:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Reset Battlebox

There are many problems with the casualties section, i have just noticed. But the Battlebox itself is a little bit out of context.

a)The overall JNA Official Casualties of the War of Croatioan Independece are lower that the casualties sustained only at Yukovar.

b)The article is using as a reference, 2 Croatian estimates, to get the conclusion of a Serb/Yugoslav Phyrric Victory,(Same problem of Battle of Crete).Estimations are no realliable sources, only for the estimator, croatian POV.

c)The number of JNA (Regulars and Para) casualties that engaged in the zone are the same number of the casualties sutained by the serbs at Yukovar.(Extrange).While Croatians casualties sustained in the same zone are bigger than yukovar itself.

I strongly recomend to change the battlebox just to JNA Victory because the JNA army, not the serb paras, took the city. Try to add official casualties from each side to the battlebox, to avoid estimates and possible assumpsions of Croatian POV in the article. Is much more better to keep the battlebox clean and add all the estimated and effects to the aftermath of the trivia section.

Miguel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.62.146.244 (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

The JNA at that time was significantly Serbianised. Approx. 70% of the officer corp was Serb as was the majority of the field troops.

The JNA was fighting for Serb national goals (redrawing borders to include all Serbs in one state i.e. a Greater Serbia, when the JNA should have been protecting all national identities and the integrity of the federalised structure of the country. But how could it, given the Serbian character of the army.

The Serb paramilitary units such as the Chetniks and white eagles took the city in conjunction with mechanized divisions and other infantry. The biggest problem the JNA had was finding men that were willing to provide infantry support for the "cavalry". This was the role played by the Serb paras in addition to "cleaning up" resistance.

The support for a phyrric victory not only comes from the casualty statistics, but more importantly, the impact the resistance had on the original goals of the general staff headed by General Veljko Kadijevic, the impact on manpower from Serbia, and the protests by mothers of conscripts.

I strongly recommend we leave the article in it's current NPOV state. iruka 23:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Lazanski's casualty figures

Regulars only, or all Serbian forces? --HanzoHattori 22:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

All Serbian forces --Top Gun 02:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Croatian casualties in the battlebox

It lacks the number of POWs.

Veljko Stevanovich 29. Dec. 2006. 20:47 UTC+1

This is a good point. Also some of the killed at Ovcara were wounded soldiers. --HanzoHattori 21:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Serb paramilitary & JNA casualties in the battlebox

The unofficial Croatian figures are sourced, & attributed by an analysis by Croat chief of staff Antun Tus of the figures for the Battle of Vukovar (not Eastern Slavonia).

Hanzohattori, disagreement with the figure is not sufficient to remove them b/c they are sourced from a senior military figuire from one of the two sides in the conflict. If there is disagreement, then mention it in the article (with source) & link back to the battlebox. Thanks for your understanding. iruka 02:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, I'll write this IN CAPITAL AND BOLD LETTERS:

THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE BATTLE OF VUKOVAR ONLY

Read this slowly, if needed repeat until you understand. --HanzoHattori 03:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

HanzoHattori, pls refrain from personal attacks or you will be reported. In my post, I am telling you that those figures quoted refer to the "Battle of Vukovar" only, not Eastern Slavonia as you claim. I have also provided a source to that effect. Now stop avoiding the issue with your strawman, and leave the article be unless you can show the source is unreliable (and considering it comes from the Chief of Staff in the Croatian military at the time, that will be as reliable as the unofficial Yugoslav figures). iruka 04:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just saw your post below - ignore above & see my post below. iruka 05:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Harrison's Flowers (Les Fleurs d'Harrison)

If one wants to mention somewhere or anything, there's a French movie about Vukovar (not documentary). [4] --HanzoHattori 21:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In the clearest way possible

THIS VERY ARTICLE reads:

The attacking force was a mixture of JNA soldiers, conscripts from the Serbian territorial defence force (teritorialna obrana or TO), chetniks (Serbian nationalist and royalist paramilitaries) and local Serb militiamen. At its largest, it numbered about 36,000 troops.

You write:

36,000-65,000, depending on the phase of the battle

Left as is. iruka 05:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The article reads:

Tus cites foreign estimates of 6,000-8,000 JNA and Serb losses in the whole of Eastern Slavonia. Tus himself estimated enemy losses in the region in the order of 10,000 dead; the destruction of 600 tanks, armoured vehicles and heavy weapons, and 23 aircraft.

You write:

Unofficial Croatian figures: 5000 dead, 15,000 wounded, 600 armoured vehicles, 25 aircraft

At the same time, you leave only official Croatian losses INSIDE Vukovar (while Tus himself says they lost another 1,000 in the area, making this at least 2,000 killed, another Croat says more like 2,500, and foreign estimates are ranging 4,000-5,000). But no, with you it's still 921.

See below for citation - they refer to the siege of Vukovar i.e. the same definitional criteria applies. More than happy for you to provide these accounts in the body of the article (with sources). The problem with the Serb losses is that the figures are unofficial so it is natural to put a couple different figures to reflect the ambiguity of the matter. W.r.t to the Croatian casualties, the government has completed a study (needed for the ICTY, veteran services & war reparation cases before the ICJ) & provided official figures. If these are doubted, then pls reference & cover in the body of the article with sources. iruka 05:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't cite even foreign figures, unless relating to the siege of Vukovar. --HanzoHattori 03:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

From the external source cited:

Tus stated that the backbone of the Yugoslav army was broken in Vukovar, since during the three months of war it lost 10,000 soldiers, 600 armored vehicles and 23 airplanes.

An unequivacal reference to the siege of Vukovar & associated casualties - no mention of Eastern Slavonia.

No, it's mention of "the three months of war". The Croatian War of Independence is < there (don't forget to check the war box on figures). Also, he says "10,000 killed and 25 planes", not "5,000 killed and 23 planes". Come on. Or maybe he changed his estimate? 5,000, 10,000... what a difference? --HanzoHattori 11:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that there are some inconsistencies - I don't where the citation of Tus for

6,000-8,000 JNA and Serb losses in the whole of Eastern Slavonia

comes from - is there a source? Will leave it in & put on a citation required tag.

His book appearantly. --HanzoHattori 11:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I will rectify battlebox & clarify part in article referring to Tus's figures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marinko (talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Completed - also back in the video footage link & category that seemed to be cut out in all the reverting. iruka 05:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and also: according to the BBC (The death of Yugoslavia), 15,000 died in the war until the peacekeepers arrived. Are you trying to tell me out of all these people, including Croatian soldiers everywhere, all civilians, the Serb soldiers elsewhere, 2/3 were Serbs in Vukovar? Please. Serb losses from the Bosnia's 3-years-long slaughter were 14,000 soldiers (Muslim and Croat 34,000). --HanzoHattori 16:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Vukovar had some of the biggest losses for both sides. That's why the figures are labelled unofficial & we include both. Where did the BBC documentary cite it's figures from? I think citing a Croatian chief of staff @ the coalface is more reliable because it references the specific battlefield. Hence returned the figures to the battlebox. iruka 06:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Go and see the figures for the whole war. More dead in 2 months, in one city, than in the whole conflict, these 2 months included - a paradox? Bosnia too, 14,000 in about 44 months. Just apply some plain logic. Also, you should understand the war is not like in old Yugoslavian partisan movies, where after a firefight only few of one side are left standing and the other side are all dead. The most important factor here in "breaking the offensive" was the effect on the Yugoslavian morale, or so the article says. --HanzoHattori 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)