Part Thirteen Excerpts from ANTO KNEZEVIC'S AN ANALYSIS OF SERBIAN PROPAGANDA Justifications of Aggression The war against Croatia is justified by the defense of the Serbian minority. However, some Croatian regions (such as Konavli, etc.) are occupied where there are and were no Serbs. Dubrovnik is under attack, that "indubitably Croatian city," as the October statement of the European Community calls it. "European Community Faults Serbian Forces on Truce", The New York Times, October 28, 1991, p. A5.) When the attack on Dubrovnik went on into the month of November, 1991, Lord Carrington (hardly a rabid supporter of Croatia) sharply condemned the attacks on Dubrovnik in the name of the European Community in the following words: "There are no Serbs in Dubrovnik. It never was a part of Serbia and this attack is absolutely unjustified." (From the editorial "Serbia's Spiteful War," The New York Times, November 6, 1991.) The military aggression against Croatia is further justified by the "threat to the Serbs" in Croatia. How, then, do we explain the fact that areas where the Croats are in the overwhelming majority (eastern Croatia, the Croatian coast) are more destroyed than the narrower region around Knin with its majority Serbian population? The war against Croatia is also justified by the intention of breaking the blockade of barracks of the Yugoslav People's Army in Croatia, but areas are attacked where there are no army barracks. The aggression is justified by the struggle against "the fascist powers" in Croatia, but at the same time Croatian territories which elected Communists rather than the Croatian national parties are occupied and destroyed (Baranja, the city of Vukovar). The war is also justified by the need to correct the "unjust" Croatian-Serbian boundaries, for, Balkan specialist David Martin asserts, "the existing frontiers between Croatia and Serbia were arbitrarily drawn by Marshal Tito, a Croat, after he came to power in 1944" and that to the detriment of Serbia (D. Martin, "Croatia's Borders: Over the Edge", The New York Times, November 22, 1991). Five days later Martin's text was reprinted in the Cleveland daily Plain Dealer, but with a new headline: "Yugoslav Internal Borders Invalid." Martin's pro-Serbian text in Alex Machaskee's Plain Dealer provoked this reply from the scholar C. Michael McAdams, which among other things calls the southern (formerly autonomous) province of Kosovo by its Albanian name, Kosova: In 25 years of South Slavic studies, I have never read anything so devoid of fact as David Martin's "Yugoslav internal borders invalid" ([The Plain Dealer's] Forum, Nov. 26). His basic thesis, that borders "arbitrarily drawn by Marshal Tito, a Croat..." resulted in Croatia gaining Serbian territory after World War II is absurd. Serbia has increased its borders after every one of its many wars since 1813. The present eastern borders of the Croatian republic reflect those of 1848, and its entry into Yugoslavia in 1918 minus eastern Slavonia, which was seized by Serbia in 1939. After World War 11, Serbia retained the city of Zemun and eastern Slavonia, Croatian lands for more than 1,000 years. Serbia today controls more territory than it has in its entire history. In the north it has annexed the lands of Hungarians and Croatians. In the south, 200,000 Serbs rule over almost 2 million ethnic Albanians in an absolute police state of Kosova. Montenegro is a Serbian fiefdom. (C. Michael McAdams, "Yugoslavia's borders," The Plain Dealer, December 11, 1991, p. 4C.) Not a single justification of the aggression against Croatia can be supported by the facts. Thus some facts remain which cannot be disputed: Croatia did not begin the war; Croatia did not attack Serbia (except in Professor Longinovic's nightmares); Croatia has not set out to defend the rights of the Croatian minority in Serbia with weapons. (According to the 1981 Census, 149,368 Croats live in Serbia.) It is for these reasons among others, that the European Community eventually imposed sanctions against Serbia, and not against Croatia.