The Yugoslavia Wars

Yugoslavia was a multi ethnic state where components of people have a history of hating each other. The present troubles are a continuation or resumption of the civil war during the period of occupation by Nazi Germany, 1941-1945, when a Nazi-sponsored Croatian state massacred Serbs. This was a response to the Serbian dominated royal state of Yugoslavia which had suppressed non-Serb nationalities or, at least some them thought it had.

While ruled by the strong dictatorship of Josip Broz, these national groups suppressed their hatred. Since his death they have revived. The conflict is mostly heightened by the collapse of the communist economy and the resulting unemployment. The northern republics were economically more successful than Serbia and the southern republics.

Word Count : 645

Actual fighting began with the attempted secession from Croatia of ethnic Serbs living in the Krajina area during early 1991. The proclaimed secession of Slovenia and Croatia at the end of June 1991 led to an attack by the Serb controlled Yugoslav Federal Army and Air Force on targets in Slovenia and later in Croatia.

The fighting in Slovenia ended when the "federal" forces withdrew, though the Serbs did not recognize Slovenia's independence and war seemed still possible. However, as Slovenia has since been recognized by the European Community as an independent state, any attack would be regarded as an international war.

War in Croatia spread to every area. In particular the Serbs tried to occupy parts of eastern Croatia where there are mixed populations of Serbs and Croats. Fighting broke out in Bosnia after it declared itself independent and some of the constituent Serbs declared themselves independent of Bosnia. The destruction in Bosnia was even worse than in Croatia. The savagery was unusual even by the standards of 20th century wars. There were concentration camps, mass killings, systematic rape of "enemy" women, mostly by Serbs. However, Croats also tried to annex parts of Bosnia and drove Muslims and Serbs from their property. Macedonia seemed likely to become involved too with the added complication of problems with Greece and Bulgaria, but did not become involved. War also broke out in Kosovo. The involvement of Turkey and Iran as protectors of Muslims seemed also possible. In this case Greece would have been involved as an ally of Serbia.

Some people feared that the war would prove a foreshadowing of much larger conflicts in the former Soviet Union. Could a Third World War be beginning here, where the First began? Such a war might not be a simple conflict, but a generalized breakdown of peace into a sea of civil wars. These would be especially hard to suppress. Out of it might come a "World Army" as the only force capable of suppressing civil and regional wars and maintaining world peace. Such seems unlikely at present.

A peace agreement was signed in Dayton, Ohio in November 1995 to end conflict in Bosnia. Will it last any longer than others? Many of the parties claim they have given away "sacred" territory. The test would be if the refugees go back. How can they be protected from massacre? NATO troops are to keep order in Bosnia. Is this possible, without casualties? They claim they will stay only a year.

A new phase of the war broke out in March 1999 when NATO troops bombed military sites in Serbia as a response to ethnic cleansing in Kosova. The wars have been suppressed by the presence of peacekeeping troops from NATO.

In December 2007 there remain two potential sources of conflict, Kosovo and Bosnia. The Albanians in Kosovo continue to want independence. Serbia, backed by Russia, continue to resist the idea. In Bosnia the Serbs continue to refuse to cooperate with the other groups. Kosovo has declared independence, protected by NATO, but the Serb minority in the state still don't willingly recognise the government and demand to be connected to Serbia.

The Yom Kippur War

The war, which started on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, the Day of Atonement, was the fiercest Arab-Israeli war since the 1948 War of Independence. Egypt and Syria attacked Israel, catching Israel off guard. The war was so called the Yom Kippur War because it started on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, the Day of Atonement, October 6, 1973. It came almost as a complete surprise and warning notice was given too late for an orderly call of the reserves, but was it all worth it?

Egypt, which at first had refused a cease-fire, now accepted it avidly, as did Syria. Considering the adverse circumstances, the speed and the thoroughness with which the IDF, or Israeli Defense Force, had been able to reverse its fortunes was remarkable. The Yom Kippur War went down in Israel's history as a qualified failure. The surprise failed and the cost was heavy, 2,688 soldiers fell.

Intelligence was faulted for failing to sound the alarm in time. The Chief of Staff, David Elazar and his Chief of Intelligence had to resign. Too many airplanes were lost to Russian made missiles. Some experts reached the conclusion that the tank had seen its day because of its vulnerability to missiles and infantry operated RPG's. Of the 265 Israeli tanks in the first wave of troops, only 100 survived.

The branch that mostly distinguished itself during the Yom Kippur War was the Navy, which only now just of age. Without a single loss of its own, it had sunk 34 enemy vessels, secured the coasts of the country, and had succeeded in restricting the enemy to his bases. This was indeed the Navy's War.

The IDF deterrent capacity had been weakened as a result of the war. However it was partially restored in a spectacular and successful operation, the Entebbe Raid of 1976, renamed Operation Jonathan, after the young commander of the ground forces who was its only military casualty. The Jewish and Israeli passengers of a hijacked Air France liner carefully selected by the hijackers were rescued from the hands of a German group of terrorists, in far away Uganda. The resourcefulness and daring of the operation down to the transportation by plane of a black Mercedes of the sort used by Uganda's dictator to confuse the enemy, aroused the imagination of the world.

The Yom Kippur War was followed by a series of Separation of Forces Agreements with Egypt and Syria. These created a strip of territory in which no troops would be allowed, backed by another strip, where the presence of troops were carefully restricted.

The agreement with Syria is still in force and UNDOF, the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, is still there to supervise its implementation. The agreement with Egypt has been replaced after lengthy negotiations which began with the dramatic visit to Jerusalem of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in November 1977 by the Egypt Israel Peace Treaty of 1979. This was first to be signed between Israel and one of its Arab neighbors. It was based on the withdrawal of Israel from the whole of the Sinai peninsula and its demilitarization in return for full recognition of Israel by Egypt and establishment of embassies and full trade and tourist relations.

Word Count: 536

The Taking of Peleliu: Necessary? NO Unavoidable? YES

The island of Peleliu is only one of the islands in the island nation of Palau and was also a stage for one of the battles of WWII. The battle at Peleliu is still questioned today. Was it avoidable? Was it even necessary? Many answer yes and many answer no to both of these questions.

What advantages to the United States' war effort grew from the battle of Peleliu? It assured total and complete control of all the islands in the Palaus to the security of General MacArthur's right flank as he continued westward, then northward from New Guinea into his Philippines campaign. Within the Palaus group, it destroyed facilities which survived Admiral Marc A. Mitscher's devastating strike of March 1944. It insured total denial of support to the enemy from other submarine basing facilities, also decreasing the Japanese submarine capability east of the Philippines. The United States position on Peleliu completed the neutralization of 25,000 Japanese troops in northern Palau. The landing on Peleliu did not contribute to the seizure of Ulithi. Admiral William F. Halsey had believed that his forces could seize Ulithi without first seizing Peleliu.

The taking of Peleliu contained many benefits towards the United States. The biggest benefit of seizing Peleliu laid in its use as a link in the flight path and line of communications from Hawaii to the Philippines. The holding was a convenience, but not a necessity. Also having United States troops on Peleliu led to the rescue of the survivors from the sinking of the Indianapolis ship. They were only rescued because one of the naval pilots working on Peleliu managed to spot them while patrolling. They were rescued four days after the sinking.

What did the seizure of Peleliu cost? Marine casualties numbered to 6,526, including Navy corpsmen and doctors, of whom 1,252 were killed. The 81st Division totalled up to 3,089 casualties, of whom 404 were KIA (killed in action). Total U.S. troop casualties were 9,615 with 1,656 dead.

The costs at Peleliu held warnings for the remaining allied operations to be issued across the pacific to Japan. Even with local air and naval superiority, heavy naval gunfire, bombs, and napalm weaponry, the seizure of Peleliu consumed one American casualty and 1,589 rounds of heavy and light troop ammunition for each single Japanese soldier killed or driven from his prepared position. A few months later, the attacks on Iwo Jima and Okinawa would confirm this miserable and dark effort of war against determined Japanese soldiers.

The question of whether seizing Peleliu was necessary remains flat even up to today. The heroism and brave acts of the 1st Marine Division and the soldiers of the 81st Infantry Division on the miserable island are spoke of and told everywhere. The capture of Peleliu was essential, in the view of Admiral William F. Halsey's recommendation through Admiral Nimitz to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 13, 1944, which was two days before D-Day, that the landing should be cancelled, however by then, it was too late and Peleliu was added to the long list of battles in which marines fought, suffered, and prevailed.

Word Count: 521

Lenin's New Economic Policy

During this point in time, Russia had just been through a civil war. This left the Russian economy in shambles which required some form of modernization. In order to reach this goal the job was to unify the whole country, which was mainly made up of peasants and farmers. Fewer than 20 pople out of 100 lived in the cities. Out of that many people Russia still had no industrial equipment to work with. The only people in the country that were producing some kind of resources were the Kulaks who were very rich in farming. Two main people sought out to try and acheive this goal of whom were Lenin and Joseph Stalin. Lenin created the New Economic Policy (NEP), while on the other hand Joseph Stalin Created his 5 year plan. Lenin's idea focused more on a system that worked on a kind of schedule like clockwork. It didn't really involve any kind of dictatorship. Stalin's 5 year plan however focused more on him ruling as a dictator and having things his own way instead of trying to make this society a better and happier place. Which idea worked better? Which idea left the people of Russia in a richer and happier society? Who was more successful?

At the time of the bolshevik communist seizure of power in October 1917, Russia had been involved in the first world war. The turmoils associated with this major war produced much economic dislocation and many shortages of essential items including food, fuel, and clothing. Agricultural and industrial production were down from the levels of 1913. Perhaps a third of Russia's working horses had been diverted towards direct services associated with the war. The railways were suffering from disrepair and part shortages. Wartime inflation had seriously broken down the purchasing power of the Russians. In rural areas across Russia, a peasant revolution had taken place that tended towards the seizure of landed estates and the establishment of peasant ownership of small plots that would be worked with limited equipment virtually on a subsistence basis. This new system however tended to produce less of a marketable product than was required to provide the needs of the urban population. A bolshevik policy of control over the peasants newly assumed lands and actual seizure of any marketable product from the peasants resulted in a complete lack of incentive to produce any surplus in the first place.

Lenin had already been contemplating the adoption of a new approach towards the encouragement of production and had even submitted a draft outline of such a new approach to the central committee of the communist party. The serious implications of the Kronstadt revolt led to urgent political motivation to attempting to acheive some confession with the peasantry if Russia was to progress towards the revolutionary goal of communism. Given these realities, Lenin's draft outline provided the basis for the development of what became known as Lenin's New Economic Policy. The early stages of the development of this policy questioned how the peasants could be more encouraged to produce more food for the towns and, in the later stages of planning, was extended towards encouraging economic exchange between the town, country, and to encouraging industrial production.

Lenin was prepared for some adaptation away from any attempt to immediately establish communism as he fully accepted that Russia had not yet gone through the "Bougeois Capitalist" phase of the ordering of economic relations in society that was held to be strictly necessary in marxist theory in order to provide the right conditions to demand communism. As far as the encouragement of agricultural production went, the new economic policy accepted that peasants should only suffer a graduated proportion of any product they produced. It was implied that the remainder of the product was eligible to be freely marketed to the benefit of the producer. The return of the free market caused by the new economic policy gave rise, before long, to the rise of a class of whole salers known as the nepmen who soon controlled the majority of retail trade in Russia. A recovery of economic activity in both rural and urban areas and between country and town was thus facilitated.

WORD COUNT : 695