The Old Bridge in Mostar

[Guest]

Can someone tell me why the Croatian forces blew up this piece of History? And why has the rebuilding been paid for by the EU and not Croatia?

[carthan81]

The Stari Most was built by the Ottomans (under Suleiman the Magnificent I think) in 1566, and as such was a piece of muslim architecture.
Thats probably why it was destroyed.

One side of the Neretva river was mainly Croat and the other side mainly Muslim, another reason for the bridges downfall.

The rebuild cost $15 million, and was mainly paid for by the UN (UNESCO) and the World Bank.
There were also donations by France, Turkey, Italy, the Netherlands... and Croatia.

I have a soft spot for old buildings and architecture, and Croatia and Bosnia are full of important examples.
(Karlovac Dubovac and Dubrovnik are amazing - yet to visit Mostar though...)

[valiant 1]

i respect old buildings and all that, i like history , archaeology etc.. . 5oo year old bridges etc... but to me, 1 persons life is worth more than all the old bridges in the entire world.i dont get what all the fuss is about a symbolic bridge . its a shame it was blown up . but its nothing compared to one person being blown up.

[carthan81]

Guest-valiant said:

i respect old buildings and all that, i like history , archaeology etc.. . 5oo year old bridges etc... but to me, 1 persons life is worth more than all the old bridges in the entire world.i dont get what all the fuss is about a symbolic bridge . its a shame it was blown up . but its nothing compared to one person being blown up.

Eh?
Have I missed something?
Who was comparing bridges to people dying?

The whole country is trying to rebuild itself - peoples houses, churches, mosques, entire villages...
...so why not an historically important bridge?

As you said yourself, it's "symbolic".
It is a link between the Christians and the Muslims.

The locals won't really progress (in terms of integration) if they have to look at a ruined bridge everyday - it's kind of a reminder!

In the pre-war days, Mostar was hugely popular among tourists, mainly for its Ottoman architecture.
(and the tradition of jumping off the bridge in your speedos to prove you were a man)
It even featured among Dan Cruickshanks most important "things" in BBC's "Around the World in 80 Treasures"

Now the tourists are returning and bringing in money to the area. This is good.
Of course you can't forget the fact that too many innocent people died, but that's not what this thread is about.

[Shannon]

I think valiant was referring to why it was blown up in the first place, not the reconstruction. That it is much more important to save people's lives, than worry about how it's a shame to blow up an old bridge.

But if I interpreted that wrongly valiant, please correct me.

[carthan81]

Thanks for pointing out the obvious, guys!!

"People are more important than buildings."

My God! People on this forum must be really grateful for such enlightenment!

I've never learnt so much!

[carthan81]

Guest-Shannon said:

...That it is much more important to save people's lives, than worry about how it's a shame to blow up an old bridge...

True.

But tell that to the locals of Mostar who, when the war broke out and the town was first being battered by the Serbian JNA, covered the bridge in car tyres to try and protect it.

It would be a shame if the bridge was destroyed by accident; as collateral damage of war.
It wasn't though, was it.
Weeks of shelling from the hills by the HVO only slightly damaged it. In the end the Croat army brought in civil engineers to decide which bricks they should be targeting to make it fall.
It only collapsed when a Croat tank fired a shell at point blank range at a weak point in the structure.

This is cultural cleansing. Not an accident.

As soon as the bridge fell, local engineers and architects who had fled the town formed a network with the aim of restoring their special bridge.

If it was that important to the locals (while their own houses were being destroyed, and their friends and family killed) then it must be important to us.

[Old Guest]

Just one question ... who was the locals ?

[Old Guest]

This is indeed interesting story.

There was investigation, and it short:

The Old bridge in the city of Mostar, synonymous to be the link between the east and west, Islam and Christianity, destroyed on November 11th 1993 under unclarified circumstances, by Croats (the crew of a Croatian tank). That crew by all available data had been paid to destroy the bridge for three TV crews who were filming it to have a breaking news story. The crew of the tank was identified, they were indicted, the trial has started but it has never finished.

It is interesting that nobody ever questioned TV crews about it ... and also it was interesting how whole "accident" was filmed from 3 angles. There was no "strategical" interest for HVO to destroy bridge (they "armed" it in first place) ...

Also, there is fact that "mafia on the field" (or second lines in command) was stronger then anything else. And they was making deals with anybody for decent amounts of money.

This was proved in Blaskics case, on repeated trial, and court accepted it.

But fact is that "same story" which never got becked up with evidences turned into "truth", and it is repating itself even on this forum.

Personaly, I am surprised why Hague Court havent prosecuted anybody for it with such hard eveidences you presented ... Or maybe TV crews have "imunity" and are protected with "non-extradiction" articles ... hmmmm. Really interesting subject.

[Old Guest]

Guest-Guest said:

....And why has the rebuilding been paid for by the EU and not Croatia?

It seams beloved EU wasn't so generous as it is usualy ...

The International Development Association—the arm of the World Bank Group that lends to low-income countries—contributed with $4 million, local governments contributed $2 million, while additional $6.5 million were provided by other donors: Italy $3 million, the Netherlands $2 million, Croatia $0.5 million and the Council of Europe Development Bank $1 million

[valiant 1]

shannon understood me. sorry for the enlightenment .