3 questions about the war in Bosnia and NATO intervention?

Hello Folks,

When war broke out between Bosnian-Serbs and Bosnian-Muslims, serb forces under the command of General Ratko Mladic seized over 70% of Bosnia and half of the capital, Sarajevo. Then, towards the end of 1994, NATO under the Clinton Administration started to get involved. This was largerly due to the shelling of the market in Sarajevo, which is now believed to have been fired from a Bosnian Government tank in an effort to prompt NATO and UN intervention.

2 questions:

1. If the US and NATO do not intervene, would have the serbs won the war?

2. Do you think the US knew that the Bosnian government was staggaing massacres against its own people to prompt intervention, or maybe even the US played a role in helping to do this?

3. I think the NATO intervention was unfair. I play chess, which is basically a war between 2 parties. Who is better, cleverer, wins. To think that some third, fourth, etc. parties would get involved and give victory to the loosing side seems very unfair and immoral to me. NATO took victory away from the voctiroes and gave it to the loosers. Opinion?

Thanks 

Update:

Sorry ment to say "victors"

5 Answers

Relevance
  • ?
    Lv 6
    1 month ago

    All done with. It's been 25 years since. The dead are dead and some who have judged as criminals are in jail. Even those who where young adults then are now old.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Biff
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Pictures like the one below taken in 1992 by an ITV journalist of Bosnian Muslims in a Bosnian Serb concentration camp is something I remember from the time. If anything NATO should have intervened earlier to end the ethnic cleansing. Even when NATO was involved, the Srebrenica massacre in 1995 was the worst wartime atrocity on European soil since 1945. Ratko Mladic wasn't convicted of war crimes for being a general conducting warfare in accordance with the Geneva Convention. 

    Attachment image
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 month ago

    1. I don't think the Serbs would have been able to capture the land where the overwhelming majority of the population were Bosnian Muslims, but they would have been able to hang on to large portion of the country.

    2. Don't know.

    3. I wouldn't have intervened because I would never aid Muslims against Christians regardless of the circumstances, but what you are describing isn't how the world works in the modern age. The world won't allow a big country to attack and annex a small country with their only justification being the fact that they are stronger or smarter. The countries that intervened did not see it as a Civil War between Bosnian Muslims and Serbs, they saw the Serbs as an extension of Serbia which meant Bosnia was being invaded and they felt obligated to come to their defense against an aggressor.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 2 months ago

    Keep telling yourself all the atrocities committed by the Serbs were false-flag operations. 

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    The serbs wer committing genocide, there are justifiable reasons to go to war. There was no justifiable reason to go to the war in Iraq. There was no justification for abandoning our allies the Kurds in Syria.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.