Diagnosis / East Europe - Asia / NATO War Crime Yugoslavia

NATO War Crime Yugoslavia - 6 text pieces for overview

Looking back at the twentieth century, today September, 2017: 

NAZI Germany committed genocide in Yugoslavia 1944-45. And NATO, Germany with US & Europe committed genocide in Yugoslavia (on Serbs) in the 1990ties, only this time Western politicians, media and academics deliberately lied and blamed the Serbs as culprits of genocide. Read the text pieces below to understand this NATO war. - The war on Yugoslavia as a Big lie supported by total Western 'coverage' is a prism for the later wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria etc. It shows the ability to cover the truth completely from the Western peoples.

"Europe died at Pristina. () British SAS and Americans were attacking Serbian Churches, Monasteries, Refugees." Jacques Hogard, Colonel in the French Foreign Legion

"Jacques Hogard was one of the first Western officers who entered the territory of Serbia after the signing of the Kumanovo Agreement in 1999, and there he saw that the information he was given by NATO command does not correspond to the truth.

He realized that there was no humanitarian war, but on the contrary – as an field officer he saw that KLA terrorists were constantly under control of German and British military services, even when attacking Serbian churches, monasteries and refugee columns just after the end of the NATO bombing. - This is why his unit on several occasions got into armed conflict vs. both KLA and Brits who were often seen with KLA units. "United States had the interest to weaken and break up Yugoslavia and Serbia, since Serbia is a natural support for Russia in the region. Destruction of Yugoslavia was a step closer to Russia. The consequence we see today in Ukraine. Also, the Germans had traditional interest in destruction of Serbia as well." Hogard interview about his book / Hogard Wikipedia.fr / Video Interview / Book L'Europe est morte à Pristina, 2014

“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Walter J Rockler

 
"For the United States, alias "NATO," the planning and launching of this war by the president heightens the abuse and undermining of warmaking authority under the Constitution. (It seems to be accepted that the president can order his personal army to attack any country he pleases). The bombing war also violates and shreds the basic provisions of the United Nations Charter and other conventions and treaties; the attack on Yugoslavia constitutes the most brazen international aggression since the Nazis attacked Poland to prevent "Polish atrocities" against Germans. The United States has discarded pretensions to international legality and decency, and embarked on a course of raw imperlalism run amok."
 
"As the bombs, smart and dumb, fall ceaselessly on Serbs, Montenegrins and sometimes Albanians, on bridges, waterworks, electric generation plants and factories, and on trains, trucks and homes, the remorseless crusade for "humanitarianism" presses forward to the applause of journalistic and academic shills. To paraphrase the Roman historian Tacitus, we are busy creating a desert, which we can then call peace." May 17, 1999, Letter by Walter J. Rockler, Former prosecutor, Nuremberg war crimes trials 

'It Began With a Lie': German TV report refutes government propaganda in Balkan War, March 2001, by Dietmar Henning

"Germany's Social Democratic (SPD)-Green party coalition government employed fabrications and manipulated facts to overcome popular opposition to the participation of the German armed forces in NATO's war against Yugoslavia two years ago. A German TV report by journalists Jo Angerer and Mathias Werth entitled “It Began With a Lie” provides proof of this. 
 
The report, which was first broadcast on the nationwide ARD public channel on February 8, set off a large-scale public discussion in Germany. It was the subject of a parliamentary debate in the Bundestag [the German federal parliament] on February 16. (...)"
 
"In the TV report, the authors juxtapose step by step the results of their own meticulous research to the statements made at the time by Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, Minister of Defence Rudolf Scharping (both SPD) and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer (Greens)."
 
'... the strength of the report is that it unequivocally shows how the German government, which includes the Green party that was once at the fore of the pacifist movement in Germany, pushed through the first combat deployment of German troops since the demise of the Nazi regime. To achieve this aim, the government employed a propaganda apparatus that has also not seen its like since 1945.

NATO spokesman Jamie Shea, who is featured repeatedly in the report, was and is fully aware of the role of propaganda in whipping up support for the war. “The political leaders played the decisive role with regard to public opinion,” said Shea with a self-satisfied grin.

Shea continued: “They are the democratically elected representatives. They knew which news was important for public opinion in their country. Rudolf Scharping did a really good job. It's not easy, particularly in Germany, whose population for 50 years had known only military defence, meaning the protection of their own country, to send German soldiers hundreds of miles away. Psychologically, this new definition of security policy is not easy. Not only Minister Scharping, but also Chancellor Schröder and Minister Fischer provided an outstanding example of political leaders who don't just run behind public opinion, but know how to shape it.

“It makes me optimistic to see that the Germans have understood that. And despite the very unpleasant side effects, the collateral damage, and the long duration of the air raids, they stayed on course. If we had lost public support in Germany, we would have lost it throughout the alliance.”  

"The majority of the local media [in Berlin] then described Slobodan Milosevic as they describe Muammar al Gadhafi today. Take your pick: Either he was a megalomaniac, evil, genocidal, yes, even a new Hitler. You were part of his defense team. What was it like?"

"Lord David Owen, former EU Special Envoy for the Balkans, described Milosevic as a "Yugoslav” who was anything but an ideologue for a Greater Serbia or promoter of "ethnic cleansing." I agree with Owen. Milosevic often took Croats and Bosnian Muslims under his protection, and he stressed how they were used by the West and misled. He also mentioned in his defense the support of the Bosnian Muslim forces by foreign mujahideen. However, he was opposed to any overestimation of the "Islamic terror." He stressed instead that the U.S. was responsible for the importation of Islamic fighters. It was no coincidence that the non-Serbs facing charges also respected him.

I was impressed by the reports of the defense witnesses, with whom I had close contact. They were Western politicians, diplomats, military officers, journalists who, in one way or another, witnessed the war. And all of their statements they confirmed that the allegations against Milosevic were as false as everything else that has been reported about Yugoslavia." ‘Milosevic put his accusers on trial’ / »Milosevic brachte seine Ankläger auf die Anklagebank«.' March 2011, Rüdiger Göbel interviews Cathrin Schütz, Junge Welt Link German  

The Dismantling of Yugoslavia (Part II) The UN in NATO’s Service. Monthly Review, 2007, by E. S. Herman and David Peterson

"A striking feature of U.S. policy since the collapse of the Soviet deterrent is the frequency with which it relies on the Security Council and the Secretariat for its execution—before the fact when it can (Iraq 1990–91), but after the fact when it must (as in the cases of postwar Kosovo and post-invasion Afghanistan and Iraq). Even though the Security Council never authorized these last three major U.S. aggressions, in each case the United States secured degrees of council assent and ex post facto legitimation. 
 
No Security Council resolution has ever condemned these U.S. wars as contrary to the UN Charter or recognized the rights of the Serbs, Afghans, and Iraqis to resist alien subjugation. Instead, after each of these “supreme international crimes,” the Security Council simply revised its extant mandates to accommodate the supreme international criminal, and instructed the Secretariat to mitigate their inhumanitarian consequences. (...)"
 
"Neither UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s An Agenda for Peace (June 1992) nor its Supplement (January 1995) advocated “humanitarian” war, much less the right to take sides in civil wars; and yet before the end of the decade, “humanitarian” war and the related notion of a “responsibility to protect” had been placed near the top of his successor Kofi Annan’s agenda. “The logic of peace-keeping flows from political and military premises that are quite distinct from those of enforcement,” the Supplement asserted. “To blur the distinction between the two can undermine the viability of the peace-keeping operation….”42

The UN struggled to respect this distinction throughout the wars in Croatia and Bosnia. But as the United States became the dominant player in these theaters, it pushed the UN’s “peacekeeping” mandate toward “enforcement”—toward becoming a “party to the conflict,” invariably taking sides against the Serbs of Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia itself.
 
Even at the time of the crisis in late May 1995, when two hundred UN personnel had been taken hostage by Bosnian Serb forces following NATO air strikes against them, Boutros-Ghali insisted that “UNPROFOR is not a peace-enforcement operation,” and blamed the demands that it act on the “ambiguities” and “confusion” that followed from the frequent reference by Security Council resolutions to Chapter VII of the charter.43

But just three months later, when NATO conducted an extensive bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serbs, the distinction was obliterated. In To End A War, his memoir of the time he spent as the chief U.S. negotiator for Bosnia, Richard Holbrooke recounts an episode when Kofi Annan, then the head of UN peacekeeping, “won the job” to succeed Boutros-Ghali some fifteen months before the event. With Boutros-Ghali “unreachable on a commercial aircraft,” Annan “instructed the U.N.’s civilian officials and military commanders to relinquish for a limited period of time their authority to veto air strikes in Bosnia. For the first time in the war, the decision on the air strikes was solely in the hands of NATO.” The result was Operation Deliberate Force, the “largest military action in NATO history.”44

The United States and NATO had found a crack in the door, and rushed through it. In a very short period—maybe three months at most—the UN went from a peacekeeping to a warmaking mode in Bosnia, with NATO its enforcer. As one U.S. National Security Council officer later described Annan, he “[understood] that the U.S. military is not the enemy.”45

In contrast with Boutros-Ghali, whom Washington denied a second five-year term,46 Annan’s long tenure can only be understood as a recognition of his willing service to the United States and NATO. In what Michael Mandel calls an “emotional defense of unilateral interventionism, using Kosovo as the example of the next intervention,” Annan warned in June 1998 that “all our expressions of determination to never again permit another Bosnia…will be cruelly mocked if we allow Kosovo to become another killing field. (...)”
 
"York University professor of international law Michael Mandel argues convincingly that the ICTY’s main function was to allow a claimed pursuit of justice to avoid the settlement of the armed conflicts until NATO’s objectives could be met. With the ICTY’s help, Serb targets were more fully demonized, and their leaders declared untouchables at the negotiating table. ICTY president Antonio Cassese openly bragged about how ICTY indictments had prevented the Bosnian Serb political leader Radovan Karadzic and general Ratko Mladic from participating in negotiations at Dayton in 1995—“Let us see who will sit down at the negotiating table now with a man accused of genocide,” Cassese told L’Unita newspaper. Such brazenly politicized use of indictments was a prime modus operandi of the ICTY. The most spectacular was the indictment of Milosevic and four others in May 1999, in the midst of NATO’s seventy-eight-day bombing war on Yugoslavia. (...)
 
But perhaps even more remarkable is the fact that this indictment was compiled hastily, on the basis of unconfirmed “evidence” supplied to her office by the United States and United Kingdom, and issued just when NATO was coming under criticism for having turned to targeting Serbia’s civilian infrastructure. Thus the ICTY was providing a public relations cover for NATO war crimes carried out within the framework of NATO’s UN Charter violation of aggression—the “supreme international crime”!"
 
"Language and imagery derived from the Nazi’s attempt to destroy Europe’s Jews were applied on a regular basis to events in Bosnia from the summer of 1992 onward, then reprised in Kosovo beginning in early 1998 (see section 10). In both accounts the perpetrators and victims were defined according to ethno-religious categories: Serbs against “Bosniaks” and “Kosovars.” Armed conflicts were translated into strictly racist pogroms; victory lay not in the surrender of an enemy but in the cleansing or purifying of the victim-race from the Serbs’ living-space. The series of indictments of Milosevic et al. for Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo illustrate well the role that the example of the Nazis played for the ICTY, and shared by historians and journalists."
 

"The question is: why are the Western powers pressing for the expansion of NATO? Why is NATO being renewed and extended when the “Soviet threat” has disappeared? There is clearly much more to it than we have so far been told. The enforcement of a precarious peace in Bosnia is only the immediate reason for sending NATO forces into the Balkans." By Sean Gervais, former advisor to JFK:

"By any standards, the sending of a large Western military force into Central and lSastern Europe is a remarkable enterprise, even in the fluid situation created by the supposed end of the Cold War. The Ball:an task force represents not only the first major NATO military operation, but a major operation staged “out of area”, that is, outside the boundaries originally established for NATO military action.

However, the sending of NATO troops into the Balkans is the result of enormous pressure for the general extension of NATO eastwards. 

If the Yugoslav enterprise is the first concrete step in the expansion of NATO, others are planned for the near future. Some Western powers want to bring the Visegrad countries into NATO as full members by the end of the century. There was resistance to the pressures for such extension among certain Western countries for some time. However, the recalcitrants have now been bludgeoned into accepting the alleged necessity of extending NATO."
 
Read on: 'Why Is NATO In Yugoslavia?'  "This paper was presented by the late Sean Gervasi at the Conference on the Enlargement of NATO in Eastern Europe and the Mediterrenean, Prague, 13-14 January 1996. It was published on Global Research when the Global Research website was launched on September 9, 2001.

The late Sean Gervasi had tremendous foresight. He understood the process of NATO enlargement several years before it actually unfolded into a formidable military force. He had also predicted the breakup of Yugoslavia as part of a US-NATO project." Sean Gervasi’s 1993 video interview
 

 

 

 

 
 
 

Academic Documentation: all info was lies and propaganda

Links on Syria page, will be here later
 
 
German Gov lied for NATO to destroy Yugoslavia, 2001 / German TV-report
 
 
J Hogard: la Serbie, colloque de l'Ass. pour l'Histoire, 2015

The Dismantling of Yugoslavia (Part I-4+), Recomm.: Part 2 UN corruption_2007, E. Herman
 
The ICTY Karadzic Judgement and Milosevic: Victims of “Fascist Justice”, 2016, by Int. Criminal Lawyer, CS Black

'The Disneyfied Narrative of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia', 2016, M Djurasovic

NATO in the Balkans: Voices of Opposition. 1998 R. Clark et al. Pdf.

The Bogus ‘Humanitarian’ War on Serbia, Aug, 2016, John Pilger

Nikos Sarantakos site with info on the war in Yugoslavia

"The Great Leap Backward: America’s Illegal Wars on the World." 2016 Bohne
 
How the IMF Dismantled Yugoslavia, by Michel Chossudovsky

Bombs for Peace: NATO's Humanitarian War on Yugoslavia, 2014, G Szamuely

Queen of Chaos. The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton. 2015, D Johnstone

'NATO’s Full-Spectrum War against Yugoslavia: Demonization of Serbs Was Key'. Mar 2016, Herman

Travesty: The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic and the Corruption of International Justice 2007, J Laughland

'The Exoneration of Milosevic: the ICTY’s Surprise Ruling'. Aug., 2016 A. Wilcoxson
 

Media Lies and the Conquest of Kosovo, 2007, M Collon

Liar's Poker: The Great Powers, Yugoslavia and the Wars of the Future. 2004, M Collon

'Controlling History: The Sordid Story of the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia and NATO Aggression'. Apr. 2016, J Steppling

To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia. 2001, M Parenti

The Politics of Genocide. 2010, E Hermann
 
 

'The Legacy of Slobodan Milosevic', Sep, 2017, M Papadopoulos