ThePest179
Banned
Suppose that for whatever reason, the UN soldiers at Srebrenica make a stand against the Serbs. What happens?
WI: UN soldiers make a Last Stand at Srebrenica?
- Thread starter ThePest179
- Start date
You have two very different possibilities. Either the Serbs back down and there is no Srebrenica massacre, at least not that day, or the Serbs kill and/or capture all the UN soldiers and then massacre the civilians afterwards.
Last edited:
I'd lean towards the latter more then likely; and if that happened then the Serbs are getting the hammer from the international community (moreso then OTL I mean)
I was just watching a BBC doc on this and had to stop watching it for a while
Well if the Serbs back down then they lose a lot of face particularly the leaders - I see this as a good thing and may take some of the heat out of the local situation. I remain to this day bitterly disappointed that this did not happen - I'm not blaming the Dutch (they did enough of that themselves) but instead the lack of leadership among the UN Commanders.
If instead they don't and a single Dutch soldier is killed as a direct result then I can see the Blue berets and helmet covers getting ditched a lot earlier than OTL and NATO's first tier 'giving a learning' to the Bosnian Serbs.
Perhaps instead of Dutch Soldiers have Dutch Marines/French Paras or Legion/British forces/US Forces at Sebrenica.
See what happens then.
Cryhavoc has a good point.
Quality varies widely depending upon which country supplied the "peacekeepers."
First World nations tend to "come heavy" with APCs, mortars, medics, signallers, supply chains, intelligence analysts and the latest weapons (e.g. attack helicopters). First World Armies tend to lose money during UN missions, but they also lose few soldiers.
OTOH, third world nations like Nepal, Kenya, etc. tend to turn a profit on UN missions because they only send light infantry with minimal equipment (radios, helicopters, etc.). Since they are "light on the ground" peace-keepers are often forced to back down.
Quality of peace-keepers also varies widely within one country and varies widely form year to year. For example, Canadian General Romeo Dalaire went to Rwanda with few troops and even less support from UN headquarters. As a result, General Dalaire could only witness massacres.
But when General MacKenzie went to the former Yugoslavia, he "went heavy" with M113 APCs, mortars, etc. When Croatian soldiers tried "ethnic cleansing" in the Medak Pocket (1994), Canadian soldiers refused to back down. Canadian "peace-keepers" stayed in their trenches, shot back and inflicted dozens of casualties on Croatian forces.
Which brings up another issue: "peace-keepers" can only keep the peace if shooting has stopped. The Medak Pocket marked a major change in Canadian peace-keeping operations because Canadian soldiers had to become "peace-makers" imposing peace where none existed before.
IN a similar incident a Danish Leopard tank commander was asked why he fired 40 rounds to destroy a Serbian tank that was shooting up Croatian civilians in a valley. He replied "I ran out of ammunition." The Serbian tank was reduced to shrapnel!
Hah!
Hah!
Quality varies widely depending upon which country supplied the "peacekeepers."
First World nations tend to "come heavy" with APCs, mortars, medics, signallers, supply chains, intelligence analysts and the latest weapons (e.g. attack helicopters). First World Armies tend to lose money during UN missions, but they also lose few soldiers.
OTOH, third world nations like Nepal, Kenya, etc. tend to turn a profit on UN missions because they only send light infantry with minimal equipment (radios, helicopters, etc.). Since they are "light on the ground" peace-keepers are often forced to back down.
Quality of peace-keepers also varies widely within one country and varies widely form year to year. For example, Canadian General Romeo Dalaire went to Rwanda with few troops and even less support from UN headquarters. As a result, General Dalaire could only witness massacres.
But when General MacKenzie went to the former Yugoslavia, he "went heavy" with M113 APCs, mortars, etc. When Croatian soldiers tried "ethnic cleansing" in the Medak Pocket (1994), Canadian soldiers refused to back down. Canadian "peace-keepers" stayed in their trenches, shot back and inflicted dozens of casualties on Croatian forces.
Which brings up another issue: "peace-keepers" can only keep the peace if shooting has stopped. The Medak Pocket marked a major change in Canadian peace-keeping operations because Canadian soldiers had to become "peace-makers" imposing peace where none existed before.
IN a similar incident a Danish Leopard tank commander was asked why he fired 40 rounds to destroy a Serbian tank that was shooting up Croatian civilians in a valley. He replied "I ran out of ammunition." The Serbian tank was reduced to shrapnel!
Hah!
Hah!
If the French continued to withhold air support,things will be disastrous.If not,they might be able to repel the Serbians.
If the UN forces gets slaughtered,I'd imagine France will get under great scrutiny once it's been revealed that the French general intentionally withheld air-support because of French backroom deal with the Serbians in exchange for French hostages.
If the UN forces gets slaughtered,I'd imagine France will get under great scrutiny once it's been revealed that the French general intentionally withheld air-support because of French backroom deal with the Serbians in exchange for French hostages.
I think a lot of the problems with UN "peacekeeping" is with the rules of engagement (ROE) that are applied.
I get it is a means of reducing possible conflict of UN peace keepers with the conflicting sides, an issue when resources are aren't available - i.e. doing it on the cheap with a low capability/resources.
But when the aim is to provide a buffer/protection for/of civilians, as with the Yugoslavian civil war, and when using high calibre troops, then the UN ROE should facilitate a more aggressive stance - or just be ignored.
The BBC drama Warriors attempted to show how the ROE meant that the troops were unable to act.
It may be a simplistic argument, but I would suspect that a more forceful response to earlier incidents/provocation by the Serbs, and others, would have prevented much worse things later on.
I get it is a means of reducing possible conflict of UN peace keepers with the conflicting sides, an issue when resources are aren't available - i.e. doing it on the cheap with a low capability/resources.
But when the aim is to provide a buffer/protection for/of civilians, as with the Yugoslavian civil war, and when using high calibre troops, then the UN ROE should facilitate a more aggressive stance - or just be ignored.
The BBC drama Warriors attempted to show how the ROE meant that the troops were unable to act.
It may be a simplistic argument, but I would suspect that a more forceful response to earlier incidents/provocation by the Serbs, and others, would have prevented much worse things later on.
Pangur
Donor
The problem is some what more than how well equipped the UN forces are. Its going to set by the mission as defined by the UN which in turn is driven by the Security Council. Regardless of what happens in Serbia its difficult to see Russia either voting for a hard response to the Dutch being butchered - crap, yes but thats how it is. A far more agressive NATO response is quite possible however that may be confined to pushing the Serbs out of Croatia and Bosnia
Agree, but 3/5 of the permanent members of the SC are involved in the western deployment, so they should have pressed for a more aggressive ROE - or ignored them. I can't see Russian troops putting up with that sort restrictive response to provocation, UN ROE or not - I would expect a more pragmatic approach applied by them.
Isn't Russia, at this point, a basket case, and in the end NATO went in hard on the Serbs anyway.
A massacre of Dutch troops defending civilians is not going to be ignored, no matter what Russia says. At the very least NATO/WEU will bomb the crap out of Serb C&C, and more likely go to a more aggressive stance hostile to ground forces, they had the capability - I believe a UK Warrior was quite capable of taking out a T72 for example.
Even pushing the Serbs out of Croatia and Bosnia doesn't stop the ethnic cleansing within their own borders though, so there would be pressure to to prevent that as well.
Last edited:
Pangur
Donor
They can't ignore them, it gets put to a vote. One goes no and that it, its all over.
Yes NATO did go in and thats part of the point I am trying to make. The response would have to come from either NATO or WEU. Either way the Serbs get one heck of a spanking
RodentRevolution
Banned
Sadly if the Dutch had mounted a defence there would have been only two variants of one outcome. The Serb nationalists would have either backed down or they would have laid siege to Srebenicia either way so long as the UN held its ground no massacre...the Serb nationalist forces never once attempted a defended locale by storm.
Admiral Beez
Banned
In the above comments, insightful as they are, there seems to be an avoidance of any focus on the Dutch commander on the ground. Whatever his orders from above he should have taken action anyway. And if he was unwilling to do so, officers under him should have disobeyed orders and directed their troops to open fire. We are always talking about the "good" Germans; maybe that concept should be extended to other countries--not just the Dutch but also the U.S., which has a less than sterling record on stopping genocide (e.g., Ruanda) and has even encouraged it (Guatemala in 1983). What is more shameful: outnumbered and underequipped troops standing down at Srebrenica, or politicians making cynical decisions from the comfort of the White House?
abc123
Banned
Indeed, "peacekeepers"...
"Thanks" Canada for assisting in occupation of our country and terrorising of our civilians made from Medak Pocket area, you were not so very efective in stopping the Serbs during their previous attacks from that area...
MrHola
Banned
Defense of Srebrenica was impossible due to an insufficient mandate, inadequate arms, and lack of UN support. They were outnumbered and lightly armed and under restricted rules of engagement. Plus, the idea that Srebrenica was an easily defendable safe haven is ridiculous – you only have to look at a map of where it was positioned – well within Serb territory and located at the bottom of a valley, surrounded by mountain ranges. So imagine the situation these soldiers and commanders were in: surrounded already for months by vastly superior Serbian troops, you see the Serbian tanks actually coming to the town’s perimeters. You're running out of food and medical supplies, most of your men are too sick to stand on their feet. You beg for air support which is not forthcoming, because your supposed allies - the Brits, the French and the Americans - have effectively stabbed you and your government in the back.
And it's not just the Serbs - the Bosniaks aren't being helpful at all: stealing your supplies and handing them over to Muslim fighters such as this guy who uses Srebrenica as a staging ground for launching raids in Serb territory - something the locals neglected to tell Dutchbat. Morale is at an all-time low; the Bosniaks just murdered one of your own and their troops basically launched a blockade around the enclave themselves - telling any blue helmet who'd attempted to evacuate will be killed.
And they expect you to die for these people?
But anyhoo - let just assume Karremans loses his mind or something and basically tells the Serbs to fuck off. The Serbians start to shell the village with death toll in the thousands. 80%-85% of Dutchbat are dead. The surviving blue helmets managed to crawl out of that deathtrap where they get hunted down by furious Bosnia milita who blame them for the fall of the enclave. The OTL deathtoll is surpassed as the Serbs pretty much wiped out everything instead of 'merely' 8000 adult males.
The Dutch get blamed for letting things getting out of hand. The British gutter-press will use a few "Dutch Courage"-jokes and Karreman's mutilated corpse will get a fancy medal. And noone will ever know he probably prevented a genocide. The rest of the world will shrug - business as usual. The Dutch Labor-led government will fall, triggering new elections. The new government will really put the army to the axe. This means no troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. In ATL, the Srebrenica-fuckup will known as the beginning of the end for the Dutch armed forces.
And it's not just the Serbs - the Bosniaks aren't being helpful at all: stealing your supplies and handing them over to Muslim fighters such as this guy who uses Srebrenica as a staging ground for launching raids in Serb territory - something the locals neglected to tell Dutchbat. Morale is at an all-time low; the Bosniaks just murdered one of your own and their troops basically launched a blockade around the enclave themselves - telling any blue helmet who'd attempted to evacuate will be killed.
And they expect you to die for these people?
But anyhoo - let just assume Karremans loses his mind or something and basically tells the Serbs to fuck off. The Serbians start to shell the village with death toll in the thousands. 80%-85% of Dutchbat are dead. The surviving blue helmets managed to crawl out of that deathtrap where they get hunted down by furious Bosnia milita who blame them for the fall of the enclave. The OTL deathtoll is surpassed as the Serbs pretty much wiped out everything instead of 'merely' 8000 adult males.
The Dutch get blamed for letting things getting out of hand. The British gutter-press will use a few "Dutch Courage"-jokes and Karreman's mutilated corpse will get a fancy medal. And noone will ever know he probably prevented a genocide. The rest of the world will shrug - business as usual. The Dutch Labor-led government will fall, triggering new elections. The new government will really put the army to the axe. This means no troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. In ATL, the Srebrenica-fuckup will known as the beginning of the end for the Dutch armed forces.
Last edited:
abc123
Banned
Considering their love for Serbs they showed in Croatia, yeah, it would be really interesting to see...
Admiral Beez
Banned
For once the Canadians had competitive kit, with their Leo I tanks up to the task.