The Bosnian civil war, 1992-1995, was characterized by a massive and unprecedented US government/media propaganda war. US and Western media reporting from Bosnia was not objective and accurate journalism, but advocacy journalism, war propaganda. The Bosnian civil war demonstrated the power and impact of war propaganda on a massive scale. American news reporting ceased to be journalism. What we witnessed was a massive infowar campaign, the planned and systematic manipulation and control of the thinking and thoughts of US citizens. The US infowar was aimed primarily at the US audience. US citizens were the ultimate targets. The inevitable result was that Americans were manipulated and bombarded by infowar techniques. Americans were like lab rats or guinea pigs. The US government/media were testing out their new techniques of persuasion and “education” and behavior modification. This was propaganda in the Information Age. But what Americans were inundated with was misconceptions and fallacies about the history and background to the Bosnian civil war.  US infowar techniques fostered ignorance on the part of Americans. There was a dumbing down and a degradation of analytical or critical approaches to the conflict.

Media “experts” fostered misconceptions and fallacies about the Bosnian conflict. In the article “Hoaxed by friends, humiliated by foes”, in the December 12, l994 issue of U.S. News & World Report, analyzing the Bihac offensive/breakout by the Bosnian Muslim forces during the Bosnian civil war, Fouad Ajami mischaracterized the history of Bosnia-Hercegovina. His analysis was based on misconceptions and fallacies about Bosnia. Ajami, the Majid Khadduri professor at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University is also the director of the Middle East Studies Program. He has authored Dream Palace of the Arabs and The Vanished Imam. He is a contributing editor to US News & World Report, a magazine owned and published by Mort Zuckerman. Who is Mort Zuckerman?

Zuckerman owns and edits both U.S. News & World Report and the New York Daily News. He thus controls what we read and see. Zuckerman, however, is what Vance Packard called The Hidden Persuaders. Zuckerman is also a member of the International Crisis Group (ICG) founded by George Soros and the Council of Foreign Relations and the Institute of Strategic Studies. He makes policy on Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Serbia. He is on the board of the Chase Manhattan Corporation, Loews Cineplex, and WNET/Channel Thirteen. He is on the Advisory Board of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley. He is also the Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which describes itself as “the voice of organized American Jewry” representing 52 national Jewish organizations.

Here we see how a “hidden persuader” achieves his goals. What is troubling here is that Zuckerman is a member of several key US government foreign policy “think tanks”. He wears two different hats, a media hat and a quasi-US government hat. Furthermore, he is a backer of a foreign state, Israel. One has to wonder, is his primary allegiance to the US or to a foreign state, Israel. This is not such a far-fetched question. Susan Sontag, one of the key proponents of the anti-Serbian policy in the Bosnian conflict, for example, has stated that she is first a Jew, then a writer, and then an American. Sontag was a major propagandist of the Alija Izetbegovic regime and argued for US military intervention against the Bosnian Serbs and later against Yugoslavia. But why was she backing Bosnian Muslims? Why wasn’t she showing the same concern and compassion for the approximately 4 million Palestinian Muslim refugees ethnically cleansed from Palestine? What about the demolition of Palestinian houses by Israeli forces? What about the policy of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza?  Wasn’t a genocide occurring in Israel by Sontag’s own criteria? How is one to distinguish between Ariel Sharon and Slobodan Milosevic? How is one a war criminal and the other is not? Why the moral hypocrisy? Why the selective morality? Why are Bosnian Muslims deserving of unconditional support and sponsorship while Palestinian Muslims are not? Thus, her primary allegiance is to Zionism/Israel, not the US. The important point is that these anti-Serbian, anti-Orthodox advocates are guided by or motivated by supra-national concerns and can be termed ultra-nationalists. What is the role of Zionism in the Bosnian civil war?

Zuckerman, moreover, owns media conglomerates and is a corporate actor. How can the media be independent and objective and a free media or free press when that media is owned and controlled by someone who is making policy on behalf of the US government and US corporate concerns. In other words, Zuckerman is making the news and reporting on the news. There is a conflict of interest. For example, the goal of the ICG is to devise strategy and foreign policy agendas for the Balkans. This policy is anti-Serbian, anti-Orthodox. How can Zuckerman report objectively on events in the Balkans when he has taken a side and a position? He can’t. He uses his control of the media to manipulate and control our behavior and our thinking. Zuckerman is a hidden persuader.

The danger in so-called democracies is that the erroneous illusion is created that there is a free and independent media. In fact, the media is controlled in democracies, perhaps even more so than in totalitarian regimes and societies. Moreover, the hidden persuader blends into the environment. He is not detected. He can get away with it. Kenneth Boulding of the University of Michigan warned about how even in democracies our thought and behavior is controlled as in totalitarian societies: “A world of unseen dictatorship is conceivable, still using the forms of democratic government.” Knowing what we know about Zuckerman, we can predict the content of what appears in the media. The “hidden” background is a reliable indicator or predictor of policy. For example, Zuckerman is in a symbiotic relationship with the US government and corporate interests. Therefore his views and the views of those “contributing editors” in his media outlets will reflect this posture. Secondly, Zuckerman is a “hidden” Zionist and part of the massive Israel lobby in the US. One of his primary allegiances is to the state of Israel. Israel/Zionism colors all his thinking. Therefore, his views and the views of contributors to his media outlets must reflect these views. And indeed, such is the case. Ajami, a Lebanese Muslim, is a staunch supporter of Israel/Zionism, US government policy, and the US corporate structure. Ajami, like Zuckerman, is anti-Yasser Arafat, anti-Palestinian, anti-Serbian, anti-Orthodox. What is so remarkable about the US media is its predictability. Once we discover what motivates the “hidden persuaders”, it is child’s play to determine their positions and policies.

Ajami is the favorite of the establishment media, he is the establishment Muslim in the US media and intellectual circles. Why is Ajami the favorite of the US media? Because he tells them what they want to hear. Ajami professes to be objective, neutral, and independent. But in fact, he is an “insider”, a hidden persuader, an “expert” that always supports the US government/corporate/Zionist/Israeli position on whatever foreign policy topic he analyzes. We know his views even before we listen to him. That is the beauty of US media. That is the charm of the hidden persuader. There is a certain amount of self-delusion and a suspension of disbelief. Do we really expect these so-called media experts to say anything other than what the government and their hidden backers want them to say? When has US media “military expert” Anthony Cordesman ever said anything critical of the Pentagon or US government? The US media is preconditioned on our self-delusion and denial. Ajami is no different. His views are staunchly pro-Israel, pro-Zionism, pro-US corporate concerns, and pro-US government. Why else would Zuckerman make him “contributing editor” of U.S. News & World Report? He has been called a darling of the US media and has been on endless TV news programs as the Middle East expert or expert on Islam. He is the spokesman for Arabs and Islam in the US. But are his views and opinions representative. He has been attacked in the Arab/Muslim world. He has been dismissed as an opportunist and a lackey.

The salient features of his analyses of the Bosnian civil war are his bigotry and racism. Ajami can only see the world in stereotypical polarities, Good versus Evil, the West versus the East, Muslims versus Serbs, Us versus Them. It is a simplistic approach. In this article, Ajami launched a bigoted, racist, and defamatory diatribe against all Serbs based on inaccuracies and fallacies.

 First, Ajami stated that Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Kemal Pasha, outlawed the fez six decades ago. He then castigated/harangued the Bosnian Serbs for mocking and ridiculing the fez: “But the Serbs know no better.” Ajami has an overweening intellectual arrogance and conceit that is both patronizing and supercilious.  Ajami totally mischaracterized the symbolism and significance of the fez in Bosnian history. He also showed his profound ignorance of Islamic history.

Serbs do know better. In fact, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk outlawed the fez seven decades ago, not six, in the famous l925 Turkish Hat Law. But what Ajami does not know is that the Bosnian Muslims, one of the most reactionary Muslims in the Islamic world, did not outlaw the fez until after World War II, not until about l950. All Serbs know this, but apparently not Ajami. Where did he learn his history of Bosnia-Hercegovina? How is he an “expert” on Islam and the Arab world? His analysis demonstrated abject ignorance and a total misreading of Bosnian history.

The fez was never a symbol of the Islamic religion as Ajami implied: “The fez is extinct in the domains of Islam.” The US media quickly equated the fez of the Ottoman Empire with the Jewish Star of David, equating the two as the symbols of Islam and Judaism respectively. The US media implied that like German troops in World War II, Bosnian Serb troops were attacking and ridiculing the symbol of all Muslims everywhere, the symbol of Islam itself, the fez. This was merely a continuation of the US Holocaust/genocide propaganda strategy that had been employed with such success by the US media.

Ajami, however, shows a profound ignorance of the history and evolution of the fez in Islam. The fez or tarboosh, a conical felt hat with a tassel originating in Morocco, i.e., Fez is a city in Morocco, was and is a symbol of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Following the Tanzimat reforms, the fez was adopted to replace the turban. The objective was to abolish the turban, which was perceived by the Ottoman Turks as “Asiatic”, backward, and non-European. The fez was seen as more secular and more progressive. The fez then became a symbol of the Ottoman Turkish Empire, but not of Islam as Ajami incorrectly maintained. Ajami seemed to be ignorant on this point. The Bosnian Serbs are mocking and ridiculing, if that is indeed the case, for good or ill, the legacy of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey as a political actor in the Balkans, not Islam as a religion. The Turkish Ottoman Empire represented to Bosnian Serbs an oppressive and tyrannical regime, under whose rule they were virtually slaves, or rayah. There are very few historical analyses of the roots and background to the Bosnian civil war. Almost none examined the origins of the fez and the history of Ottoman rule in Bosnia.

The fez was introduced in l830 to replace the turban by Turkish Sultan Mahmoud II as part of the Tanzimat reforms which sought to abolish the reactionary and feudal nature of the Ottoman Empire. The Bosnian Muslims reacted against these “Westernizing” reforms by launching a revolt in l831 and continued to wear the outlawed “Asiatic” turban. To illustrate the reactionary nature of the Bosnian Muslims, they were the last to accept the fez and the last to abolish it. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk outlawed the fez, perceived as a “conspicuous symbol of pious reaction”, in the l925 Hat Law. The reactionary Bosnian Muslims, however, did not abolish the fez until about l950.

For Bosnian Serbs, their collective memory of the fez is associated with a non-secular, reactionary Bosnian Muslim population that rejected Kemal Pasha’s reforms. Ajami is ignorant of this fact: The Bosnian Muslims were anti-Ataturk. The Bosnian Muslims continued to wear the outlawed fez long after 1925. The fez was worn by Bosnian Muslim troops in the Ustasha military formations, the Domobranci, and the two Bosnian Muslim Nazi SS divisions. The fez was the distinctive attire of the two Bosnian Muslim Nazi Waffen SS Divisions of World War II, the l3th Waffen Gebirgs Division der SS “Handzar” and the 23rd Waffen Gebirgs Division der SS “Kama”. The 18,000 Bosnian Muslim troops in Handzar wore a field-green fez, while divisional commander Karl-Gustav Sauberzweig and the highest ranking Bosnian Muslim in the division, Hussein Biscevic, wore a maroon or red fez of the officer corps. On the fez itself appeared the Totenkopf (Death’s Head) insignia of the SS and the Hoheitszeiche (a white or silver eagle and the Nazi swastika). Serbs must be forgiven for wondering out loud: What kind of people outlaws its own national attire and symbols? This presupposes that the attire was representative of a repressive regime/society/culture, that is, something shameful or disgraceful. In modern times, the Nazi swastika, the Confederate flag, and the fez have been outlawed. But Serbs continue to proudly retain and wear their national attire and symbols, including the shajkach, the Serbian national hat. This is because Serbs are a free people. A free people does not reject their past. Only those ashamed and guilty of their past crimes and misdeeds outlaw their national attire and symbols and repudiate/reject their history.

Second, Ajami spoke of the “horrors of twentieth century European history” but then terms Sarajevo “an oasis of cosmopolitanism” and Roman Catholicism as “enlightened Latin Christendom.” Apparently, Ajami does not know any better. He seems to have forgotten that during World War II the Croatian Roman Catholics and the Bosnian Muslims formed the Independent State of Croatia, NDH, (Nezavisna Drzava Hrvatska), headed by Ante Pavelic, the Poglavnik or President, and Dzafer Kulenovic, the Vice-President, a Bosnian Muslim. This Ustasha Nazi-fascist state, sponsored and established by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and the Vatican,  was a state with two official state religions: Roman Catholicism and Islam. Both Croat Roman Catholics and Bosnian Muslims formed the armed forces of this state, organized into Ustasha units, the Home Guards (Domobranci), and the Croatian Army, German-Croat “Legion” Infantry divisions, such as the Devil Division, the Tiger Division, and the Blue division. The Croat Catholics in these forces wore a cap with the checkerboard  and “U” symbol while Bosnian Muslim members wore a fez with a “U” symbol on the front of the fez. Mile Budak, Minister of Education and Cults, declared on July 6, l941 that “the Croatian State is Christian. It is also a Moslem state where our people are of the Mohammedan religion.” On July 22, l94l, Budak stated that “the basis for the Ustasha movement is religion. For minorities such as Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies, we have three million bullets.” In l993, the Croatian government would honor Mile Budak by naming a street after him in Zagreb. From l94l to l945, an estimated 500,000-750,000 Serbs and over 60,000 Jews and 20,000 Gypsies were exterminated by the Croat Roman Catholics and Bosnian Muslims in a systematic and planned genocide. The Vatican and the Croat Catholic Church and Catholic priests were implicated in this genocide of the Serbian population in Bosnia and in Croatia. Pope Pius VI himself was implicated in this genocide. After the war, the Vatican and Roman Catholic clerics were crucial in allowing the mass murderers to escape. At Jasenovac, an Ustasha death camp, hundreds of thousands of Serbs were exterminated. After the war, Catholic Archbishop Alojsius Stepinac of Zagreb was tried and convicted of war crimes for his involvement in the mass murder of Serbs. Ajami says nothing of this when he speaks of the “horrors” of twentieth century European history. Instead, he terms Catholicism “enlightened Latin Christendom”! He conveniently forgets not only the Catholic Church’s involvement in the World War II genocides against Serbs and Jews, but about the Crusades and the Inquisition. Is he disingenuous and dishonest or just ignorant? Is he just stupid? A talking head? An educated fool?

Third, Ajami mischaracterized the history of Islam. He maintained that Islam was defensive when in fact Islam was expansionist in nature. He forgets that as far as Serbs are concerned, Muslims have always been aggressors and invaders in Europe. From the invasion of Ejup-ul-Ensari Halit bin Zeyd of Constantinople in 669 AD to the final defeat of the Muslims at Vienna in l683, Muslims have always sought to conquer infidel Christian Europe and to bring the continent under the green banner of Islam. Following the battles of Maritsa in l37l and Kosovo in l389, Serbia would be invaded and occupied by the Ottoman Turkish Muslims. Is this not Muslim aggression and Islamic expansion and conquest?

Ajami said nothing about Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el Husseini (l893-l974), one of the most prominent and influential leaders of the Muslim-Arab world, known as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Husseini came to Europe in l94l and rallied the Muslim world in support of Adolf Hitler and Nazism. He was instrumental in the formation of the two Bosnian Muslim SS Divisions, Kama and Handzar, which committed wide-scale massacres against Bosnian Serbs. In the Brcko and Bijeljina regions of eastern Bosnia, units of Handzar “butchered everyone not wearing a fez”(klali su sve sto nije nosilo fes) from eyewitness accounts. Heinrich Himmler made Husseini an SS Gruppenfuehrer and wanted to place him in direct control of SS recruiting. Simon Wiesenthal and Joseph B. Schechtman maintained that Husseini visited Auschwitz and the other Nazi death camps and was the main proponent for the Final Solution, the extermination of European Jews. Husseini supported this policy because he wanted to create an ethnically pure, Muslim state of Palestine. He sought the complete extermination of Jews. Ajami says nothing of this.

In Bosnia, of the 14,000 Jews before the war in l941, about 12,000 were killed, with the collusion and assistance of Bosnian Muslims and Croats. In l941, the Muslims and Croats destroyed the newly-constructed Jewish Sephardic synagogue of Sarajevo. By l945, almost all the Jews of Muslim-controlled Sarajevo were killed. After the war, Husseini was listed as a war criminal, wanted for the mass murder of thousands of Bosnian Serbs, but never tried due to the intense pressure of the Muslim-Arab countries. Ajami speaks of the “horrors” of the twentieth century, but oddly says nothing of Haj Amin el Husseini, nothing about the Catholic-Muslim NDH Ustasha state, headed by Pavelic and Kulenovic, nothing about the Bosnian Muslim Nazi SS Divisions Kama and Handzar, nothing about Jasenovac, nothing about the mass murder and extermination of 500,000-750,000 Serbs, 60,000 Jews. Then Ajami has the arrogance and conceit to claim: “But the Serbs do not know better.”

Finally, Ajami stated that the Bosnian Muslim leaders wished to create a “multi-religious, pluralist republic”. But do the facts support such a claim? President Alija Izetbegovic is a radical Muslim nationalist and extremist who spent 6 years in a Yugoslav prison for advocating the creation of an ethnically pure Muslim Bosnia and for racist attacks against Serbs. Ajami is totally wrong. Izetbegovic wanted to create a Muslim state for Muslims. His model was never Kemalist Turkey, but actually Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran. Is this that difficult to grasp? Izetbegovic even made an official state visit to Iran during the civil war in Bosnia. Iran was the principal backer and ally of the Izetbegovic regime. Moreover, Izetbegovic strongly rejected the secular vision for the Islamic state that Kemal Ataturk advocated. Indeed, Izetbegovic opposed anything having to do with Kemal Ataturk. Why does Ajami miss this? Isn’t he supposed to be an “expert” on Islam? Ajami also never said anything about Izetbogic’s activities during the Holocaust and World War II.

In the l940s, Izetbegovic was a key member of what has been termed a Nazi-collaborationist group, the Young Muslims (Mladi Muslimani), a fanatical/radical Islamic nationalist group which collaborated with the Nazi German occupiers and adopted many Nazi principles and doctrines. He made his views clearly known in The Islamic Declaration (Islamska Deklaracija in Serbo-Croat) which was published in 1970 and re-published in 1990. By re-publishing this book, Izetbegovic indorsed the views contained therein. Ejup Ganic, the Vice President, is a “former” hard-line Communist apparatchik of Yugoslavia. These two leaders, an Islamic radical/fanatic who was the member of a Nazi-Muslim terrorist group and a former hard-line Communist apparatchik, are odd choices for leadership roles in the New World Order, a Brave New World of ascendant “universal liberalism” and democracy!

Ajami based his discussion on fallacies, inaccuracies, and falsehoods. He then went on to attack the Serbian people in a racist, bigoted, and defamatory diatribe. This is not the proper role of a responsible journalist. A responsible journalist should present accurate, unbiased, and objective reporting and discussion. It is troubling when journalism fails in this responsibility.

The US media/government never presented in-depth and extensive analyses and discussions of news events from Bosnia. A thorough and accurate presentation of the news from Bosnia was lacking. During the Bosnian civil war, 1992-1995, US and Western journalists, reporters, news agencies, and the US media networks distinguished themselves for their lack of commitment to journalistic integrity and accuracy. US journalists were not reporters, but government propagandists. US/Western reporters even admitted candidly that propaganda was the goal all along. They had taken sides in a civil war. The objective was to induce US military intervention against the Bosnian Serbs. To do so meant that the Serbian people had to be demonized in racist, stereotypical terms.

US/Western coverage of the Bosnian civil war was one of the largest propaganda campaigns of the 20th century. But what did it achieve? The US propaganda/infowar only prolonged the needless conflict and ensured that more persons would die. Instead of seeking to prevent war, the US government and the media encouraged war. US/Western governments/media sponsored conflict and enmity between Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Muslim constituents of Bosnia-Hercegovina. Instead of seeking reconciliation and compromise, the US/Western media unconditionally backed the Bosnian Muslim faction. The goal of the US/Western media was to then engage in war propaganda to support their side, their faction, the Bosnian Muslims. What resulted was a needless waste of human life, senseless carnage and death instigated by US/Western governments/media. The policy was divide and conquer. The only way for the US to gain a foothold in the Balkans and to obtain military control of the region was to obtain client states, proxies, and allies. The Serbian people did not want to be lackeys and subservient to the US. The Serbian people opposed the Balkanization of Yugoslavia and the transforming of the Balkan states into Banana Republics. Thus, the choice for who were to be client states of the US/Germany/NATO/Vatican was obvious. Is this that difficult to understand?

In news coverage of the Bosnian civil war, concern arose over the accuracy and neutrality of media reporting of the war from the outset of the conflict. Allegations of biased and manipulated and distorted news reporting, however, have been met by denials by the media. The United Nations forces in Bosnia accused the Muslim/Croat Federation of shelling its own civilians to precipitate NATO air attacks against Bosnian Serb forces. The New York Times as well as other publications have revealed that the UN has a report that implicated the Muslim forces in the so-called Marketplace Massacre. These recent revelations tend to lend credence to Bosnian Serb claims that the Muslims have staged many of these massacres mainly for media consumption. Former US President Jimmy Carter echoed these same concerns on his visit to Bosnia.

President Jimmy Carter made the following statements: l) the Bosnian Serbs genuinely seek peace and a peaceful resolution to the conflict; and, 2) the media has told only one side in the war. According to President Carter, the media has failed to tell the entire story. These allegations by President Carter lend credence to the Serbian claim that the media, mainly in the U.S., has been consciously and systematically distorting, manipulating, and falsifying the news coverage.

US news reporting from Bosnia raised troubling questions about the objectivity and accuracy of US journalism:

l) How is one to address President Carter’s allegations of media bias and manipulation, which is an indirect rebuke and condemnation of U.S. media coverage;

2) Did the media bias and manipulation and falsification, if true, have the result to prolong and exacerbate the conflict leading to even more bloodshed and suffering; and,

3) How is one to rebut and address the allegation by President Carter that the Bosnian Serbs genuinely seek peace, which is an indirect rebuke and criticism of U.S. State Department and Administration policy on Bosnia, which portrays the Bosnian Serbs as “warmongers” and “aggressors” who oppose peace?

The historical background to the Bosnian civil war was largely falsified and manipulated to support the US media propaganda war against the Bosnian Serbs. US propaganda/infowar strategy was to use a Holocaust/genocide propaganda scheme against the Bosnian Serbs. The Holocaust/genocide propaganda by the US obscured and covered-up the real genocide that had occurred in Bosnia during World War II. Moreover, the history of the Holocaust in Bosnia during World War II was suppressed, censored, manipulated, and distorted. In the article “Genocide in Yugoslavia during the Holocaust”, which appeared in the November/December l994 issue of the Holocaust Museum Update published by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Christopher R. Browning sought to present the roots and background to the Bosnian civil war. This article accompanied the controversial Faces of Sorrow: Agony in the Former Yugoslavia exhibit and attempted to present the historical roots and background to the civil wars in Bosnia and in Krajina. Museum Director Jeshajahu Weinberg explained the purpose of the exhibit as an “educational mandate to teach the lessons of history.” Weinberg stated that “it is important for the public to understand the roots of the current conflict.” This is indeed an important goal .The article by Browning, however, contains many inaccuracies, fallacies, and omissions which make any understanding of the Bosnian conflict all but impossible.

First, the article failed to mention that the Serbs were the only indigenous group in Yugoslavia targeted for a planned and systematic genocide and ethnic cleansing campaign and that this genocide was carried out principally by Croats and Bosnian Muslims and Albanians. Many of the worst massacres against Serbs occurred in Bosnia. Bosnia was the largest killing field during World War II and the Holocaust. The largest number of victims were Bosnian Serbs. This fact was censored and deleted out from the history texts. The Serbs were always the largest ethnic group in Bosnia-Hercegovina. The World War II genocide against the Serbs made the Bosnian Muslims the largest group. How did this population shift occur? Could the genocide and systematic murders and expulsions of hundreds of thousands of Bosnian Serbs have something to do with this dramatic change in demographics? The Muslims were active participants in this genocide and benefited from it. This is relevant to understanding the civil war in Bosnia yet nothing is said of it in the article.

Estimates of the total number of Serbs exterminated during the war range from 400,000 to l,200,000. An estimate generally accepted is 750,000 Serbs exterminated by Croats and Bosnian Muslims. Yet Browning states unhesitatingly that 400,000 Serbs were exterminated by Croats and Muslims, the low end figure: “Some 400,000 Serbs were murdered outright.” It is not clear why Browning would underestimate and undervalue the extent of the genocide committed against Serbs. It is reminiscent of the “enlightened historical scholarship” exhibited in the writings of Franjo Tudjman, who claims that 900,000 Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust and that the 6,000,000 figure is “Judeo-Nazi propaganda.” Browning seeks, oddly much like the Communists, to apportion guilt and responsibility equally among all of the groups in the former Yugoslavia. But is this an accurate and fair presentation of historical events?

In The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry, 1933-1945 (1968) by Nora Levin, the Serbian war against Nazi Germany is described as follows: “The overthrow of the collaborationist government set loose an outburst of popular enthusiasm...The Serbs had flung their defiance at Hitler at the moment of his greatest power...Hitler personally felt a violent hatred for the Serbs.” In a definitive and authoritative text on the Holocaust, Levin gives the following figure for the number of Serbs exterminated during the war: “One source estimates that 770,000 Serbs...were done to death in the Jasenovac camp.” Yet, Browning chooses to ignore this source and instead offers his own figure.

Second, the only mention of the Bosnian Muslims in the article is as follows: “The Bosnian Muslims were not Turks, but indigenous Slavs.” This is an appalling and shocking statement by way of omission. It implies that the Muslims played no role in the Holocaust and genocide against Serbs and Jews. It creates the false impression that the Muslims were passive innocents with no political goals or agendas. The Muslims were, according to this view, merely bystanders and innocents who at worst were duped and manipulated by the Croats and Germans. Many prominent Yugoslav Communist historians have supported this view. Aleksa Djilas has maintained that the Bosnian Muslims “remained passive through most of the war.” Such a false and inaccurate picture implies that the Muslims played no role in the Holocaust and World War II. But let us examine the facts.

During the war, the Bosnian Muslims formed two Nazi SS Divisions, the 13th Waffen Gebirgs Division der SS “Handzar” and the 23rd Waffen Gebirgs Division der SS “Kama”. None one, but two Nazi SS divisions were formed by the Bosnian Muslims. The Nazi Handzar Division was the third largest of all the Nazi SS divisions and was the first non-German/non-Germanic Division in the SS. Handzar was made up of 18,000 Bosnian Muslims in l943. The divisional commander was SS Brigadefuehrer Karl-Gustav Sauberzweig, formerly of the German Wehrmacht, while the highest ranking Bosnian Muslim in the Division was Hussein Biscevic. Kama was commanded by Hellmut Raithel and was made up of 3,793 men in l944. Each battalion had an Imam and a mullah and the Divisions observed Islamic religious customs and wore the fez. The Muslim Nazi SS Divisions were formed for a specific reason. The Bosnian Muslims sought to create an autonomous ethnically pure Muslim Bosnia. The two Nazi SS Divisions were the armed forces which were to secure this Nazi Protectorate of Bosnia-Hercegovina. These divisions committed massacres and rapes against Bosnian Serbs and sought to ethnically cleanse eastern Bosnia of Serbs. The Bosnian Muslims formed other pro-Nazi formations, such as the Muhammed Hadzieffendic Legion, the Young Muslims (Mladi Muslimani), Zeleni Kadar, and Huska Miljkovic’s formations.

Accompanying the Browning article published by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, was a photograph of the Bosnian Muslim 13th Waffen Gebirgs Division der SS “Handscar/Handzar”. The photo was a still from a 1944 German newsreel, the Weekend Show, which showed SS Reichsfuehrer Heinrich Himmler reviewing the Bosnian Muslim troops in the Handschar/Handzar SS Division. But remarkably and inexplicably, the photo caption described this famous SS division from World War II as a “Croat Volunteer SS Division.” But this was not the name of the Handzar division. The division was known by that name only in the early formation stages. Factually, the division was made up almost entirely of Bosnian Muslims. Indeed, the photo showed Bosnian Muslim troops only, all wearing fezzes. How could Browning, a Holocaust historian, be so ignorant and mistaken? Of course, the caption served the purpose of obfuscating the fact that the division was made up principally of Bosnian Muslims and was in fact a Bosnian Muslim division.   Browning, a Holocaust “expert”, was ignorant of the fact that Heinrich Himmler formed the Handzar division as a purely Bosnian Muslim division. Indeed, Himmler formed two Bosnian Muslim SS divisions, not just one. The Roman Catholic Croat troops in the division were only token members meant to appease the Ante Pavelic regime. In fact, the Handzar division was controlled by Himmler and was commanded by German Wehrmacht officers. Was this a conscious falsification of history by the US Holocaust Museum? Was this profound ignorance by a Holocaust “expert”? Why didn’t they know anything about the Holocaust in Bosnia? Was it that difficult to find out? Or was it a purposeful manipulation meant to cover-up the fact that the Bosnian Muslims had played a role in the Holocaust?

The Croatian Ustasha state is mischaracterized. In fact, the NDH or Ustasha state was a Croat-Muslim state. The President or Poglavnik was Ante Pavelic and the Vice-President was Dzafer Kulenovic, a Bosnian Muslim. That is, the Muslims were part of the Ustasha genocide against the Serbs. Mile Budak, the Minister of Education and Cults, declared on July 6, l94l that the “Croatian State is Christian. It is also a Moslem state where our people are of the Mohammedan religion.” Far from being “passive”, the Bosnian Muslims were part of the leadership of the NDH and made up a large part of its armed forces. Muslims made up the Ustasha death squads, the Domobranci (Home Guards), and the Croat Army. Muslims were also in various security formations of the Ustasha State, the German Army, and the SS. Bosnian Muslims were, for instance, in the 373rd German Wehrmacht Infantry Division. In The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, l932-l945, Leni Yahil maintained that the Bosnian Muslims even sent their soldiers to fight on the Russian Front as part of the German forces: “One of their units later joined the German forces fighting in Russia.” Thus, the Muslims were hardly passive during the Holocaust. In fact, the Muslims committed many massacres of Serbs and Jews and thus played an important part in the Holocaust.

There is no mention in the article about the fate of Bosnian Jews. Why? In l94l, there were l4,000 Bosnian Jews, l2,000 of whom lived in Muslim-controlled Sarajevo. During the war and Holocaust, the Germans (with their allies the Croats and the Muslims) exterminated virtually all the Jews of Sarajevo. In l945, only 800 Jews were left in Bosnia. Isn’t this fact deserving of mention in the article? The Muslims and their allies burned down the Sephardic synagogue of Sarajevo in l941. It is odd that these facts do not appear in the article. Thus, it is difficult to claim that the Bosnian Muslims were passive during the Holocaust. The Muslims were active participants in the genocide of Serbs and Jews and had concrete political goals and agendas: The creation of an ethnically pure autonomous Muslim Bosnia, first as part of the NDH, but later in the war, as a Nazi Protectorate. The Muslims were not dupes and innocents. Their goal was an ethnically pure Muslim Bosnia. The Muslim extermination of hundreds of thousands of Bosnian Serbs made the Muslims the largest group in Bosnia and made the creation of an ethnically pure Muslim Bosnia much more likely of realization.

Finally, while Miles Lerman has maintained that the Museum “is not an advocacy group, we do not choose sides in political feuds,” nevertheless, this disingenuous statement is belied by the facts. The Museum has allowed Croat and Muslim political leaders to use the Museum as a forum for advancing their political agendas. Haris Siljadzic and Franjo Tujman were invited for propagandistic purposes by the US State Department. This should not be the role of the Museum.

The only mention of the Bosnian Muslims in the article is to note that they were not Turks. This statement is disingenuous and highly misleading. The statement implies that the Muslims played no role in the Holocaust. But the Muslims played a major and significant role in the genocide of Serbs and Jews and Gypsies.

The Bosnian Muslims formed two Nazi Waffen SS Divisions during World War II,  “Handschar/Handzar” and “Kama”. In l943, Handzar was made up of 21,065 men, 18,000 of whom were Bosnian Muslims. The division also was made up of several hundred Muslim Albanians or Shqiptars from Kosovo-Metohija, and German/Austrian officers.

Not all journalists jumped on the anti-Serbian propaganda bandwagon. A. M. Rosenthal in The New York Times presented highly critical and accurate analyses and discussions in the On My Mind editorials which had appeared in The New York Times. He had consistently refused to be swayed and duped by the pack and advocacy journalists who had exacerbated and prolonged the tragic conflicts in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia. In rebuking the pack journalists, he had demonstrated his commitment to journalistic professionalism and integrity. Rosenthal was perfectly juxtaposed with Anthony Lewis, who was rabidly anti-Serbian and anti-Orthodox, consistently presenting a pro-Bosnian Muslim, pro-Croatian, pro-Albanian viewpoint. From the start of the Bosnian civil war, Lewis argued for the bombing of Belgrade. His analogy was with Iraq and Kuwait. Serbia was Iraq, while Bosnia was Kuwait. Slobodan Milosevic was Saddam Hussein. Serbia had invaded Bosnia, just like Iraq had invaded Kuwait in 1990. A massive bombing of Belgrade, like Baghdad in 1991, would expel the foreign aggressor and invader from Bosnia, just like occurred in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The fallacy of Lewis’ paradigm is that in Bosnia there was a civil war, not an invasion from a foreign nation. Bosnia was like the civil war in Lebanon where Muslim and Christian factions fought for control of territory and for control of the country itself. But Lewis was determined to foist his inaccurate and inapplicable paradigm onto the Bosnian civil war with disastrous consequences for human life. But what did Lewis care for human life? If Serbs died, so much the better. We were witnessing the realization of the New World Order in the Balkans. The cost in human life was worth it to armchair pundits and hypocritical humanists such as Lewis, Susan Sontag, and Madeleine Albright.

In a cynical and amoral age guided by ratings and tabloid sensationalism, the courage and unwavering dedication to truthful reporting and discussion and journalistic integrity of a minority of dissenting journalists stood out. All conscientious and free people applauded their efforts. They upheld the values of the First Amendment and of free speech. They rebuked the media conspiracy of silence. They were guided by the adage: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

 In a media frenzy unprecedented since Nazi propaganda against Jews, the voice of dissent and opposition was all-but silenced. Such developments do not augur well for journalism or “democracy” in the United States.

The pack journalists had attacked the Serbian people in a frenzied racist and bigoted assault ironically reminiscent of the German media attack against German Jews during the 1930s. Serbs were attacked and vilified in the global media. Everything associated with Serbian history and culture--- the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Serbian role in World Wars I and II, the Kosovo Battle of 1389--- was attacked. This anti-Serbian assault was reminiscent of Kristallnacht (Night of Glass) in l938 Nazi Germany, when an oddly similar attack was directed against German Jews and Jewish businesses and synagogues. There were few dedicated journalists who maintained a rational and evenhanded viewpoint on the Bosnian conflict. In an age of tabloid/trash and sensationalist pack journalism, very few journalists dissented from the US State Department infowar scenario for the Bosnian civil war. The news reporting was consistent, repetitive, and uniform. The conclusion was obvious. Somebody or something was directing a massive propaganda war. Who was behind the inforwar campaign? Was this a mystery? The US State Department orchestrated the entire propaganda war in Bosnia. Once the US government gave the green light, then it was a propaganda free-for-all and a media feeding frenzy. The so-called free and independent media of the US and the Western world became the willing propagandists for the US State Department. The US media was anything but free and independent. What resulted was a carefully organized and meticulously planned out infowar campaign in Bosnia. The US State Department and the media were in a symbiotic relationship of collusion. The reasoning was that what was good for the US State Department was also good for the global media. It was profitable and prestigious to be part of the US State Department team. ITN, CNN, the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, all garnered high ratings and amassed large profits from the Bosnian civil war. Moreover, Pulitzer Prizes were won and reputations were established. Journalists became like rock stars and in an age of moral hypocrisy, depravity, and decadence, could espouse humanitarian goals. Humanitarianism became the catch-word. US journalists got to be famous, wealthy, and strident advocates of humanitarianism? Who wouldn’t want to be part of that?

 The dedication to integrity and truth of a small minority of reporters and analysts was vindicated. Even during the war itself many of the media lies and manipulations were being exposed. In The New York Times itself, it was reported that the UN had accused the Muslims of shelling their own positions and civilians to provoke NATO attacks against the Bosnian Serbs. Earlier, Sir Michael Rose accused the Muslims of provocative attacks solely for the purpose of creating “media images of war” meant for media consumption and to provoke NATO air attacks against the Bosnian Serbs. More significantly, the UN has revealed a report which they allege implicated the Bosnian Muslims in the so-called Marketplace Massacre which killed 68 civilians. Thus, the truth eventually began to slowly emerge.

What has aided the pack journalists in their media disinformation campaign has been an almost complete lack of any discussion of the roots and background to the Bosnian civil war. The medieval history of Bosnia-Hercegovina was suppressed and manipulated. The Turkish Ottoman period was likewise suppressed and covered-up. The World War II history of Bosnia, however, was totally and completely censored and deleted. Why was this so? The history of the Holocaust in Bosnia and the Balkans was similarly suppressed, deleted, and covered-up. Why? The US government, media, and historians argued that any discussion of the origins of the Bosnian conflict was meant to exonerate or rationalize the current actions of the parties in the conflict, but not merely to present the historical background. In their frenzied racist attacks against the Serbian people, the pack journalists have falsified, distorted, and manipulated history in a shameful conspiracy of silence.

There was no accuracy and integrity and a deep commitment to journalistic professionalism and ethics in US media reporting from Bosnia. Instead, there was only manipulation and infowar techniques. What resulted were misconceptions and fallacies about the history and about the conflict in Bosnia. The inevitable result was the unnecessary loss of life. That was the price to be paid. But there was another price as well. Americans were manipulated and assaulted with infowar techniques and war propaganda that degraded our intelligence and our dignity as human beings. This was the price we all paid for the war propaganda and media infowar during the Bosnian civil war.