Thirty years ago, the three-year war in Bosnia ended. It was the bloodiest ethnic conflict in Europe since World War II. Estimates suggest around 100,000 people died and millions became refugees. This conflict is marked by two episodes that especially stand out for their staggering brutality and death toll: the Siege of Sarajevo and the Srebrenica massacre, the latter officially classified as genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). This chapter of history left another unhealed wound on society.
We will reference these and other tragic events of the Balkan wars throughout this article. However, it’s important to acknowledge upfront that this war was a complex conflict where all sides committed crimes and were later convicted. Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats alike participated in grave violations of Geneva Conventions and other breaches of international humanitarian law.
Many researchers, military experts, judges, historians, social psychologists, and journalists have examined the causes and consequences of the 1990s Balkan Wars from various angles. A recurring question is how society allowed genocide in Srebrenica while the region was under UN “safe area” status.
- The United Nations designate a “safe area” as a territory free from “armed attacks or any other hostile acts” during conflicts, intended to protect civilians, refugees, and humanitarian aid delivery. In 1993, the UN Security Council declared Sarajevo, Goražde, Srebrenica, and other Muslim enclaves as protected safe areas. However, by July 1995, everything changed for Srebrenica.
The Srebrenica massacre was part of an ethnic cleansing campaign. Over ten days, approximately 8,000 Bosnian male civilians were killed, the youngest aged 8, the oldest over 80. Women and children were among the victims, too. That was the largest massacre in Europe since World War II. As the ICTY trial chamber concluded, the events in Srebrenica “defy description in their horror and their implications for humankind’s capacity to revert to acts of brutality under the stresses of conflict” 1.
From court rulings 2, hearing transcripts 3, military tribunal documents, books by historians, research articles, and testimonies of survivors and witnesses, one learns much and feels profound shock. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence available globally, debates about the war’s true instigators and potential triggers persist. In our research, we encountered vast amounts of material analyzing the policies of governments involved, military leadership decisions, and the actions of all warring factions. In other words, public attention has largely focused on the perpetrators of war crimes. But only a handful of researchers have examined the ideological and informational underpinnings of this tragedy, which largely escaped broader scrutiny. This underexplored dimension will be our focus herein, supplemented by previously overlooked facts in the context of those events.
Role of Nazi ideologists in wars
As we delve into the depths of this historical episode, centered on Bosnia and Herzegovina, a striking parallel emerges, one that mirrors the rise of the NSDAP in Hitler’s Germany before World War II, as well as the current climate in present-day Russia. At the heart of this comparison lies the role of ideology and propaganda before and during a war, along with the presence of apologists for anticult Nazism within the inner circles of power. These figures exert ideological, informational, and psychological influence over the government, the public, and directly over the military, subjecting officers and soldiers to psychological conditioning and indoctrination before deploying them to war.
Publicly, these anticult Nazi apologists are known for their crusade against “cults” and “sects” under the guise of “protecting society.” In reality, they are the architects of terror, war, and intolerance. They are conceptualizers of the Nazi doctrine, whose core ideology has always been and remains the supremacy of one group over another.
In Nazi Germany, the key ideologist leading the fight against free thought was Walter Künneth, an antisemitic Protestant theologian and self-proclaimed fighter against “sects and “cults”. In Russia, this role is filled by Alexander Dvorkin, repeatedly exposed in investigations by independent journalists at actfiles. In Serbia, this function was carried out by neuropsychiatrist, colonel Bratislav Petrović. While Petrović will be the central figure of this article, it is crucial to first examine the cases of Walter Künneth and Alexander Dvorkin. These illustrative examples will more accurately convey the idea of how they are linked with the situation in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.
Walter Künneth and his Nazi legacy, persisting to this day
In 1932, Bavarian antisemite and theologian Walter Künneth took charge of the Apologetic Center for combating “sects” — a precursor to modern anticult organizations. The center operated through lectures, articles, and public speeches.
On April 26, 1933, at the Federal Church Administration in Berlin, Künneth presented his report, “The Church and the Jewish Question” (“Die Kirche vor der Judenfrage in Deutschland”), where he called for the annihilation of Judaism which he described as a ”foreign cell in the body of Germany.” The report had the greatest influence on the final approval of antisemitic policy. Künneth’s campaign extended beyond Jews and targeted religious and political minorities, as well as dissidents of any kind. All persecuted groups were branded as “sects” or “cults” and then blacklisted by the Apologetic Center.
On December 16, 1933, the Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei) noticed and praised the work and methods of the Apologetic Center. Künneth himself reported his satisfaction with their interest in a memo to the Reich Church government:
“The Gestapo expressed great interest in the Apologetic Center’s archive of sects and in our work against free thought, Marxism, and Bolshevism. The Gestapo expressed a desire to lead the fight against illegal free thought in the future, together with the Apologetic Center. The exchange of materials between the Gestapo and the Apologetic Center has already begun.”
From that moment on, the Apologetic Center started supplying the secret state police with intelligence data on religious and political groups, as well as organizations deemed undesirable. Walter Künneth’s Apologetic Center also collaborated with the Reich Ministry of Propaganda headed by Joseph Goebbels and the Reich Ministry of Interior. The center’s work focused on developing materials targeting Jews and “sects.” Lists of so-called “sects” were compiled, encompassing any groups deemed by anticultists as dangerous to national ideology. The fight targeted many non-Christian movements, including anthroposophy, Darwinism, monism, spiritualism, occultism, and others. Interestingly, years later, similar organizations would appear on the lists of Serbian anticultists, including those compiled by Bratislav Petrović’s close anticult colleague, Serbian police captain Zoran Luković, but we’ll talk more on that later.
The brutality demonstrated by the Gestapo during World War II was a direct outcome of the practices, materials, and methods adopted from the Apologetic Center which also included representatives of the Protestant Church. The church and the Apologetic Center’s long-standing radical views, including antisemitism toward Jews, had formed long before the Gestapo’s establishment and even before Hitler’s own radical beliefs. Historians emphasize that it was church-driven antisemitism that shaped the character of German nationalist movements, i.e. Nazism itself.
Detailed information about Walter Künneth and the transmission of knowledge and methods from Nazi ideologists is available in our articles on actfiles.org and “The IMPACT” documentary.
After World War II, the perpetrators of Nazi terror were punished, and the Nazi regime in Germany was defeated. However, the main conceptualizers and key ideologists of Nazism continued their activities unpunished, ensuring survival of the ideology of supremacy. The knowledge and methods of terror as well as techniques for influencing human consciousness and subconsciousness were passed along a direct line of succession: Walter Künneth → Friedrich Wilhelm Haack and Johannes Aagaard → Alexander Dvorkin — and thus survived to this day.
Nazism as a phenomenon perservered and reemerged in a more sophisticated form, repeatedly leading to brutal bloodshed and deaths of innocent people. Evidence of this can be seen in the current situation in Russia, the war in Ukraine, and the events in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
Tracing the historical continuity from Künneth, it is worth noting that Danish theologian Johannes Aagaard, along with Friedrich Haack, initially transmitted knowledge and methodology through the missionary theology institute Dialog Center (DC) founded in Aarhus, Denmark, in 1973. In 1981, they expanded their efforts by establishing Dialog Center International (DCI), also based in Denmark.
Aagaard trained individuals from many countries, who adopted knowledge, methods, terminology, and practices, continuing Künneth’s work in their homelands. The Danish Dialog Center became the launching pad for the establishment of similar centers in other countries where Nazi methods were practically applied to combat undesired groups. For example, in Serbia during the 1990s, the Belgrade Dialog Center operated in collaboration with the Serbian Orthodox Church. It was led by neuropsychiatrist colonel Bratislav Petrović, along with his colleagues from the Military Medical Academy. This center and its members later became a foundation for the creation of the Serbian anticult organization CAS that joined FECRIS. More details on the Belgrade Dialog Center will be explored later in this article.
Alexander Dvorkin, a devoted disciple of Johannes Aagaard, held the position of vice president of Dialog Center International (DCI) for many years. In 1993, with the support of the Russian Orthodox Church, he established the Irenaeus of Lyons Center in Russia, a direct replica of the Nazi Apologetic Center led by Künneth since 1932. As we can see, Künneth’s legacy repeated itself, but this time it expanded far beyond the borders of one country.
Now, let’s turn our attention to Bratislav Petrović, his activities, and the consequences of those in the former Yugoslavia.
Facts about neuropsychiatrist colonel Bratislav Petrović and his anticult activities have previously been partially compiled in reports and articles by researchers and human rights advocates 4, 5. Those materials served as a starting point for deeper investigation and analysis. We acknowledge the work of the experts and provide links to the sources at the bottom of this page 6, 7.
In turn, we faced a more humble task: to connect these and other separate facts and, based on the existing expertise in studying the phenomenon of anticult Nazism, uncover its deeper, previously undisclosed ideological and informational role in the Balkan conflicts, including the origins of propaganda, disinformation, and dehumanization of opponents as an integral part of subsequent armed confrontation and bloodshed.
Colonel professor Bratislav Petrović and his colleagues at the Military Medical Academy (MMA)
Colonel professor Dr. Bratislav Petrović became the head of the Institute of Mental Health and Military Psychology at the Military Medical Academy (MMA) in 1990. He held this position throughout the ten years of military conflicts in the Balkans. However, he worked at the MMA, part of the Serbian Ministry of Defense, long before the appointment. His thesis titled “History of the Problem of Psychological and Psychiatric Selection of Pilots” (dated 1983) focused on the selection and psychological training of military pilots. In the thesis, Petrović acknowledged and expressed gratitude to colonel professor Dr. Gojko Kapor, his mentor and colleague not only in working with the armed forces, but also in combating so-called “cults” and “sects.” Colonel prof. Gojko Kapor headed the clinic for mental and nervous disorders until 1983. Notably, in addition to his medical education completed in 1948, he studied psychology at the Faculty of Philosophy and graduated in 1951.
Colonels Kapor and Petrović played a key role in the ideological indoctrination and conditioning of soldiers under Slobodan Milošević’s regime before sending them to war. They also provided pivotal training in anticult terror methodologies, terminology, and practices to MMA (Military Medical Academy) personnel. The training extended to military personnel through lectures and meetings.
It’s important to clarify that before 1992, the armed forces included military men from across the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) that comprised six republics: Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Macedonia, and Montenegro, and two autonomous provinces. After 1992, anticult training was provided to the military of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), i.e. officers and soldiers from Montenegro and Serbia.
Those lectures on combating “cults” and “sects” were delivered by MMA staff. Bratislav Petrović also trained military doctors, psychologists, and educators on the topic, beginning from 1993. He would later confirm this at a FECRIS anticult conference in Barcelona in 2002. 7 (We will later return to the involvement of Bratislav Petrović and his Serbian colleagues from the WMA in FECRIS.):
“Colonel Petrović claimed at a conference organized by FECRIS in Barcelona in 2002 that from the time he started to fight ‘sects’ in 1993, he has trained medical doctors, psychologists, and teachers on this subject.”
The anticult activities of professor Gojko Kapor were also recorded in Bratislav Petrović’s own recollections 8:
“Professor Dr. Bratislav Petrović shared his memories of professor Kapor whose retirement did not hinder his pedagogical work and the transmission of his vast knowledge to younger colleagues. During difficult times for our people, starting in 1991, prof. Kapor selflessly and nobly engaged within the Serbian Medical Society’s Crisis Headquarters, educating civilian psychiatrists on military and wartime psychiatry during numerous professional gatherings of the Psychiatry Section of the Serbian Medical Society, particularly in psychological trauma prevention. He also initiated a scientific symposium organized by the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Serbian Medical Society on the topic ‘Sects and Health,’ recognizing the harmful influence of sects, especially on youth.”
“Prof. Kapor authored or co-authored over 130 professional and scientific works, eight chapters in monographs and textbooks, and four books: Mental Hygiene (1960), Anxiety and Neuroses (1961), Psychiatry or Personality Disorders (1980), and Military Psychiatry (1982). He was a mentor or a member of the defense committee for 15 doctoral theses.”
Let’s turn to the detailed 2005 report “The Repression of Religious Minorities in Serbia,” which examines the activities of neuropsychiatrist Bratislav Petrović and his colleague, colonel prof. Gojko Kapor 7. Here’s an excerpt:
“Colonel neuropsychiatrist Gojko Kapor, who used to be the head of the Clinic of Psychiatry (1975–1983) and chief of Bratislav Petrović, wrote in his book Military Psychiatry: ‘In the contemporary army, men are included in the process of educational work. This process is performed through training, education, and indoctrination. The ideology of every social establishment requires the development of the so-called model type of personality.’ ‘The awareness of the goals of combat is always related to the values which represent the ideology and indicate the degree of indoctrination of the personality of the combatant’.”
After taking charge of the Department of Mental Health and Military Psychology, colonel Bratislav Petrović became an expert in selection and psychological conditioning, essentially indoctrination, of soldiers before their deployment to war. He led a group of military psychiatrists who supported the dominant ideology. Let us briefly recall the indoctrination process which the WMA leadership and staff engaged in.
What is indoctrination?
Indoctrination is an intentional and systematic implantation of specific beliefs or ideologies into the minds of individuals. Its purpose is to shape the required patterns of thinking and behavior while suppressing critical reflection. Indoctrination exerts a one-sided influence on a person’s consciousness and subconsciousness, excluding alternative viewpoints. The process of indoctrination can be applied on a mass scale to society or through specialized educational programs which, instead of fostering critical thinking, impose specific beliefs and tasks on a targeted group. Tools for mass indoctrination include media and religion.
The indoctrination process penetrates much deeper than any propaganda, even the most subtle one, as it affects fundamental values, convictions, and beliefs, eliminating doubt. Ideas implanted through indoctrination become part of a person’s identity. While propaganda may have a short-term effect, indoctrination is long-lasting, often for a lifetime. In Nazi Germany, the process of indoctrination was used in educating young people.
In regimes that suppress free thought, indoctrination is a commonplace phenomenon. Historical examples of the emergence of totalitarianism and Nazism in various countries have revealed a striking similarity: the source and perpetrator of the indoctrination process are often mind control specialists involved in anticult activities: fighters against so-called “cults” and “sects” and their trained colleagues from psychiatry, psychology, journalism, educational science, law enforcement, and the military.
In the case of Belgrade’s Military Medical Academy, one of its main focuses was research into the needs and activities of the armed forces and their indoctrination. This context is critical for understanding the outbreak of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the dominant ideology and propaganda disseminated at that time, including through mass media.
Role of mass media in the wars of former Yugoslavia
Mass media represented a crucial battleground in this war, just like in many others. In provoking the tragedies that unfolded in the Balkans, it wasn’t the actual events leading up to the Yugoslavian conflict that played the most critical role, but rather how those events were portrayed in the media. That portrayal relied not on facts, but on falsified facts, fake stories, and deliberate creation of an atmosphere of hatred.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) acknowledged the significant role of media propaganda in the genocide during its verdict against Milan Gvero. On July 19, 1995, Gvero issued a press release claiming that the actions of Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica were aimed at “neutralizing Muslim terrorists, not civilians.” The court found that by disseminating false information, Gvero contributed to a joint criminal enterprise aimed at “ethnic cleansing” of Srebrenica.
While the trial targeted an individual within mass media, it is essential to highlight another critical fact: as of September 1991, control over Bosnian television and radio stations was firmly in the hands of Serbian military forces. From that moment forward, broadcasted programs were designed to instill fear in non-Serbian populations. This information is well-documented, including in the trial of Momčilo Krajišnik. 9 Additionally, there was a systematic purge of Serbian radio and television that took place several years before 1990. This suggests that control over Serbian media by the military apparently began well before September 1991.
In April 1990, during the change of power in Croatia, Serbian media gained a “rival” — Croatian media. Croatian media underwent a purge of the same scale as had occurred in Serbian media a few years earlier, putting the two countries’ media outlets on a path of extreme conflict. The vicious cycle of informational confrontation became fully shaped and still remains unbroken even years later.
The convicted media representatives who became mouthpieces of propaganda were justly brought to trial. On the other hand, what else could media outlets under complete control of the Serbian armed forces broadcast, given that the military themselves had been systematically indoctrinated and brainwashed by MMA experts under the leadership of neuropsychiatrist and anticult Nazi colonel Bratislav Petrović? What fate could such media expect if they showed even the slightest disobedience?
An illustrative example of that occurred during the Kosovo War in March 1998 when five independent newspaper editors were accused of disseminating “disinformation” for referring to Albanians killed in Kosovo as “people” instead of “terrorists.” This kind of humane portrayal of Albanian Muslims was deemed unacceptable within the atmosphere of hatred and dehumanization that had been cultivated. The incident was documented by Human Rights Watch.
We’ll give a few more illustrative examples of black propaganda in mass media. A report in the Serbian tabloid Večernje Novosti included an illustration allegedly depicting a Serbian child whose entire family had been killed by Bosnian Muslims. In reality, the report was fabricated, and the illustration was actually a painting by Uroš Predić from 1888.
Another example is the Ovčara massacre, also known as the Vukovar hospital massacre. The day before the tragedy, Serbian media reported that 40 Serbian infants had allegedly been killed in Vukovar, which was an outright fake. Dr. Vesna Bosanac, head of the Vukovar hospital, later stated that, in her opinion, this lie about murdered infants had been deliberately spread to provoke Serbian nationalists into executing Croats. This disinformation directly led to the execution of 264 Croatian war prisoners and civilians. 10, 11
War in Bosnia and Herzegovina
The official history of the armed conflict in Bosnia begins in February 1992 when the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina announced a referendum on independence and secession from the SFRY. Independence was supported by most Bosnian Muslims who then made up nearly half of the population, as well as by the majority of local Croats. Only Bosnian Serbs comprising about one-third of the population boycotted the referendum. The Serbs declared the referendum illegitimate and announced the creation of their own Republika Srpska which was supported by the Serbian government under Slobodan Milošević. Armed conflict ensued shortly after. This is the official narrative of how the Bosnian War began.
The referendum for independence in Bosnia and Herzegovina was the final spark that provoked the conflict and acted as its catalyst. However, ideologically, this was far from the beginning. By that time, Serbian nationalism had already become well-developed. Statements advocating for a “Greater Serbia” were being made, including by political leaders such as Serbian President Slobodan Milošević (“This is Serbia, Greater Serbia”) and Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić (“Our optimum is a Greater Serbia, and if not that, then a Federal Yugoslavia”). 2
In the ICTY ruling against Radovan Karadžić, it was noted that Bosnian Serb leaders emphasized the illegitimacy and unconstitutionality of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s declaration of sovereignty as a threat to Serbian interests in creating a homogeneous Greater Serbia. This vision involved uniting all Serbian lands and removing non-Serbian populations. 2
Here’s an excerpt from the report “The Repression of Religious Minorities in Serbia” 7:
“At that time, ethnic cleansing had started to create an ethnically and religiously pure Greater Serbia, first in the territories of eastern Croatia with the cleansing of Vukovar in 1991 and in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992.
Several reports had been published by Tadeusz Mazowiecki, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. His report dated November 6, 1992, stated, among other things, that ‘ethnic cleansing’ undertaken by Serbian forces did not appear to be the consequence of the war, but rather its goal.”
Here’s another telling passage from that report:
“The intention was to create a Greater Serbia, by taking over and creating ethnically and religiously pure Orthodox Serb zones in eastern Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina which could be tied to the actual territory of Serbia.
It is on the same ideological basis that Colonel Petrovic initiated in 1993, whilst ethnic and religious cleansing was underway in Croatia and Bosnia, his fight against religious minorities within Serbia he labelled as ‘sects’, accusing them, like the Muslims, of being terrorist organizations.”
Mass indoctrination of the Serbian population and dehumanization of non-Serbs were carried out under the guidance of colonel Bratislav Petrović and his colleagues who were involved in anticult terror. Anyone deemed undesirable for the “Greater Serbia” was automatically labeled as a dangerous “sect.” Alongside Muslims, those groups, as defined by the ideologues of anticult Nazism, were branded as terrorist organizations. The ideological enemy for the people and their nurtured nationalism had been clearly identified.
Supporters of Serbian nationalism: Ideological role of the Serbian Orthodox Church
In the context of Serbian nationalism, it is essential to mention Serbian leader Slobodan Milošević who became President of Serbia in 1989 and the transformation of his political views. Milošević began his career in the Communist Party, but later on, in the late 1980s, at a time of already existing growing nationalist sentiments in society, he adapted his policies and supported Serbian nationalism, which was a turning point for ethnically multiethnic regions in the former Yugoslavia. His turn to nationalism was not so much an ideological choice as a political strategy with the typical goal to retain and increase personal power. Historical analysis suggests he wasn’t the architect of nationalist ideology but its amplifier, a mouthpiece who later became its instrument in conflict. The ideological impetus in the former Yugoslavia was driven by other forces.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, nationalist sentiments were actively supported by the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC) that had historically been intertwined with Serbian national identity. The gradual decline of Yugoslav communism and the rise of competing nationalist movements in the 1980s benefited SOC. Those developments were encouraged by its representatives who provided cultural and historical foundations and played a significant role in national propaganda.
Mass media were used in the propaganda, popularizing the idea that Orthodoxy was a spiritual foundation and a vital component of Serbian national identity 12. During that period, several pseudo-scientific Orthodox works were republished, containing numerous historical inaccuracies and distortions about Croats, Serbs, and Serbian Orthodoxy. Those works were used by SOC as historical arguments to justify the wars in Croatia and Bosnia. A detailed analysis of the propaganda and ideology promoted by SOC may be found in the academic article “Outline of a Serbian Orthodox Doctrine of Righteous War” 13.
Presented below are examples of actions and radical statements by Patriarch Pavle (head of the Serbian Orthodox Church during the Yugoslav Wars) in support of Serbian nationalism and Serbian political leaders in their wartime efforts. However, as it turns out, beyond the patriarch himself, an independent and extremely radical faction operated within SOC. This faction consisting of several metropolitans and bishops led the ideological support for war, terror, and violence.
Despite the radical pro-war statements by the SOC head, Patriarch Pavle was effectively removed from decision-making within the church, even though he formally retained his title. In practice, the Serbian Orthodox Church was controlled by other individuals — several lower-ranking metropolitans and bishops.
An excerpt from the article “Outline of a Serbian Orthodox Doctrine of Righteous War” 13 sheds light on this dynamic:
“In Tomanić’s book, ‘Srpska crkva u ratu i ratovi u njoj’ (The Serbian Orthodox Church in War and Wars within it), he described the imbalance of the SOC and the many positions on the war that existed within the church. The patriarch of SOC at the time, Patriarch Pavle, was, according to Tomanić, isolated as an ineffective leader, while three metropolitans — the war ‘hawks’ as Tomanić called them — were de facto in control of the church and in general supported the war effort of the Yugoslav state (de facto Serbian by 1992). The Serbian Synod therefore issued statements that called on the Serbs to defend their homeland, which could be read as incitement to the Serbian military actions towards Croats and Bosnian Muslims in Bosnia (see Aleksov 2010 for an analysis of these statements).”
This scientific work also states that “other metropolitans signed the program of the Association of All the Serbs of the World (in Serbian: Savez svih Srba sveta) in 1990, which argued that ‘Its [Serbia’s] boundaries are marked with the Serbian monuments and temples and Serbia must not give up an inch of its territory’ (Pavković 1994, p. 454). This statement’s view on Yugoslavia was simply that the Serbian minority in the Federal Republic of Croatia, Bosnia, and in the province of Kosovo was de facto part of Serbia and should be part of a Serbian nation state. As such, the Yugoslav (de facto Serbian) military’s action in Bosnia and Croatia, and later Kosovo, was, seen from the ideological point of view of this document, a defensive war for the Serbs and the SOC.”
This is a striking example of what happens when the church becomes a tool in the hands of Nazi ideologues and “war hawks,” abandoning its original spiritual mission.
In his book “Srpska crkva u ratu i ratovi u njoj” (“The Serbian Orthodox Church in War and Wars within It”) 14, 15, Milorad Tomanić says:
“The entire menagerie of characters who appeared from who knows where and thundered across Serbia’s public scene for years, along with the heap of nonsense spoken during that time, forced me, just like the proponents of Greater Serbia, to come back down to earth and adopt much more modest intentions. It became clear to me that this was an enormous undertaking requiring teamwork that could result in a multi-volume encyclopedia of Serbian fervor, madness, and suffering during the 1980s and 1990s. That’s why I chose to focus on just one segment, one link in the chain wrapped around the neck of the Serbian people, slowly but surely strangling them. That link was the ‘men in black,’ i.e. the bishops and clergy of the Serbian Orthodox Church.” 14, 15
Orthodox clergy met with Serbian paramilitary leaders, offering advice and urging the defense of Croatian Serbs, then Bosnian Serbs, and later Kosovo Serbs. In May 1993, Patriarch Pavle received a letter from Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić, thanking him for his “advice and support” in the “righteous fight” of the Bosnian Serbs.
The clergy’s propaganda against their opponents included stigmatization of “neo-fascism” and drew historical parallels to the genocide of Serbs by the Croatian Ustaše fascist movement during World War II. By the 1990s, opponents of “Greater Serbia” began to be labeled as Ustaše, and the war was framed not as aggressive, but as “defensive” and “liberating,” and thus “blessed.” This is mentioned in the article “Outline of a Serbian Orthodox Doctrine of Righteous War” 13 about Patriarch Pavle and SOC during the Kosovo War:
“In 1999, the aging Patriarch Pavle repeated this position in an interview on 4 June 1999 (during the Kosovo war), with the magazine Svetigora. Here, the Patriarch remarked that a ‘just war’ could not be aggressive. Such a war could not receive God’s blessing, but ‘An aggressive war is not only unacceptable for Christians but also subject to condemnation, while a defensive, liberating war is blessed’ (Pavković 1994, p. 457). This statement was made in direct reference to the war in Kosovo, which the patriarch saw as a defensive one, perhaps even ‘blessed’. In so, Patriarch Pavle saw both wars (Kosovo and Croatia / Bosnia-Herzegovina) as a ‘defensive, liberating war’ for the Serbian people and church, and therefore, it was ‘blessed’.”
Origins of disinformation and propaganda in the rhetoric of political and religious leaders
A key point in the statements by Patriarch Pavle and Slobodan Milošević during the Bosnian War is worth noting. Patriarch Pavle supported Radovan Karadžić’s claims that there were no Serbian-run rape camps where Muslim women were held, instead accusing Bosnian Muslims and Croats of such atrocities.
Later on, Serbian president Slobodan Milošević echoed similar claims in his defense at trial. In fact, the only evidence supporting the assertions of both Patriarch Pavle and president Milošević was a report presented at the 47th UN Assembly in 1992. The report portrayed Serbs solely as victims, while Bosnian Muslims and Croats were portrayed as aggressors and criminals. The author of that report was neuropsychologist and anticultist colonel Bratislav Petrović who at that time headed the Institute of Mental Health and Military Psychology at the Military Medical Academy (MMA). The report was submitted to the UN by Dragomir Djokic, Ambassador Chargé d’affaires a.i.. In essence, this document justified and legitimized the brutal violence perpetrated by Serbian forces against non-Serbs.
Below is a quote from Slobodan Milošević’s own statement at the court hearing where he cites this report and personally mentions the anticultist colonel Bratislav Petrović with reverence.
From the transcript of Slobodan Milošević’s court hearing 17:
“Q. Well, relating to Serbo Chetnik, I saw in the report about the questioning of Miro Bajramovic, that he explained that there was no problem for him to cut the throats of women and so on because he wanted to kill them all. As far as we were concerned, they were all Chetniks, and then things just went on automatically from there. So please tell me, since you talked about this yesterday, about the ways in which Serbs were tortured in camps and prisons. Since I have a report here which, based on the examination of a number of prisoners who were exchanged, and these examinations were conducted by the institute for mental health of the military hospital in Belgrade, and it was signed by Colonel Dr. Bratislav Petrović himself. So this analysis of medical and psychological examinations by experts of these people who came from these camps, is this something that…”
The judge interrupted Milošević’s statement as it was unrelated to the case under discussion and referred to other crimes committed by a different party during another conflict, at a different time, and on a different scale.
As mentioned earlier in this article, all parties committed crimes during the war. However, the number of casualties in Sarajevo (over 12,000 people), Zvornik (estimated between 3,500 and 5,000 Muslims), and Srebrenica (approximately 8,000 Bosnian Muslims) is incomparable to other events. The scale of atrocities committed during these specific tragedies by Bosnian Serbs and their allies from the Army of Republika Srpska, as part of their “ethnic cleansing” campaign and later in Kosovo, stands out as the most severe and cannot be equated with or justified under the pretext of opposition to Bosnian or Albanian Muslims. International law clearly defines accountability for such acts, regardless of a conflict context. Moral equivalency in these cases is unacceptable. That is to say, genocide and crimes against humanity, especially those committed off the battlefield and targeting unarmed civilians, can never be justified by pointing to crimes committed by the opposing party.
At the same time, Serbs were indeed victims, but not of Bosnian or Albanian Muslims or Croats. Instead, they were victims of anticultists who instilled Künneth’s legacy — the ideology of superiority — into the national consciousness, the minds of Serbian political leaders, and the very soul of the Serbian nation, particularly its Orthodox Christian Church. By exploiting the Serbian people’s aspirations for spirituality and faithfulness to their religion, manipulating historical examples, and applying real tools of mind control, ideologists of anticult Nazism turned the entire nation into a tool for further bloodshed.
Yet, let’s return to the report authored by neuropsychologist colonel Bratislav Petrović, which Slobodan Milošević referenced during the trial. That report is also mentioned in the report “The Repression of Religious Minorities in Serbia” 7, from where we’ll cite two excerpts:
“Colonel Petrović submitted his report at the 47th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations in an attempt to document that the Serbs were the ones being aggressed, not the aggressors. His report was alleging the rapes of Serbian women in 15 brothels held by Muslim and Croat Armed Forces in Bosnia, 6 of them supposedly located in Sarajevo.
This report appears to be total fantasy when compared to the real situation in Sarajevo at the time. All the reports of the UN and the media have long since evidenced that Sarajevo was a city of civilians besieged by the Serbian Armed Forces of Karadžić.”
“Colonel Petrović, when he established his report in December 1992, very well knew what the real situation was in Sarajevo. He nevertheless made a report to the UN alleging the existence of 6 brothels for Serbian women supposedly held by Muslim and Croat Armed Forces in Sarajevo.
But Colonel Petrović did not only make this allegation, he also asserted that a genocide was being perpetrated against the Serbs by alleging the existence of concentration camps for Serbs. He stated in the same report that ‘Apart from these 15 brothels, on which we have gathered information and where about 800 women of Serbian nationality are being raped by members of the Moslem TD of BH and Croatian Army, an unprecedented terror of women and girls of Serbian nationality is carried out in all concentration camps for Serbs.’
Both the reports of the UN and the indictments of the ICTY have long since demonstrated that the policy of holding concentration camps and perpetrating systematic raping was implemented by the Serbian forces in Bosnia and Croatia as a means of ethnic cleansing.”
A whole group of psychiatrists from MMA (VMA in Serbian) worked to assist the neuropsychiatrist Bratislav Petrović in creating propaganda. Let us quote an excerpt from the same report titled “The Repression of Religious Minorities in Serbia”:
“This propaganda and false information on the Serbs was a strategy elaborated by a group of psychiatrists at the VMA, as Dr. Psychiatrist Mladen Loncar stated in a report he made for the ICTY in 1993.
Dr. Loncar was a psychiatrist in Serbia before the war. He named a few of these army psychiatrists who researched and published on the subject of special warfare. Their books can be found at the library of the VMA. For example, on the spreading of rumours: ‘The creation and propagation of rumours is a very strong weapon in the activity of psychological propaganda,’ and hatred: ‘Hatred finds fertile ground in environments overloaded with prejudice concerning another nation or group. Hatred conditioned by prejudice provokes, in most cases, aggressive behaviour directed towards the other nation which is blamed for all of the misfortunes and problems of society’.”
Despite all the UN reports on the true perpetrators of genocide in Bosnia and the existence of documented evidence, neuropsychologist and anticultist colonel Petrović played a significant role in creating and spreading false propaganda, portraying the perpetrators and aggressors solely as victims. Incidentally, this tactic of accusing others of one’s own sins is a standard method employed by all ideologists of anticult terror and systematically applied by them for decades.
Let’s draw the first conclusion. The nationalist ideology of “Greater Serbia,” the role of the church (SOC) in wartime propaganda, the existence of a radical pro-war faction within SOC among the clergy whose decisions overruled even those of the patriarch; and, most importantly, the role of key ideologists of terror and anticult Nazism — public “fighters against cults and sects” who stand behind political leaders, advising them on whom to accuse of sins and how to justify themselves, as well as the anticultists’ involvement in all stages of tragedies (from propaganda and dehumanization of an enemy to indoctrination of soldiers) — all of this leads to a single outcome. These are markers directly pointing to the presence and active work of representatives of anticultism in the Balkan region. These are symptoms of a societal illness caused by the infection with Künneth’s legacy. The same situation occurred in Nazi Germany, and a similar scenario is currently unfolding in Russia where the main ideologue of terror and key anticult fighter is Künneth’s principal successor, Alexander Dvorkin.
The following excerpt from Serbian historian Milorad Tomanić’s book “Srpska crkva u ratu i ratovi u njoj” 14, 15 gives an impression that the author has a deep inner understanding of the events. These conclusions by the author reflect the degree of propaganda, indoctrination, and overall brainwashing of the Serbian population at that time. These lines resemble a kind of honest confession by a Serbian citizen attempting to call things by their proper names, as someone who directly witnessed the machinery of propaganda, terror, hatred, and genocide. In his book “Srpska crkva u ratu i ratovi u njoj,” Milorad Tomanić comes to important conclusions regarding the causes and consequences of such a nationwide madness 14, 15:
“It took a great deal of effort to convince Serbs of the righteousness of everything that some members of their people did during the wars of the 1990s. The Serbian people had to be persuaded that they always fought defensive and just wars which were always initiated by others. It was no small task to get an ordinary, average person to leave a peaceful family life, go to the battlefield and start killing, and to further make them believe that leveling Vukovar to the ground and holding Sarajevo under siege for more than a thousand days were God-pleasing acts of Serbian righteous men.
For all of this, a well-developed ideology was essential. Without it, the attitude of most Serbs towards everything that was happening during the 1990s would likely have been entirely different. Or, as sociologist Leo Kuper puts it, ‘At least, when operating collectively, they need an ideology to legitimize their behaviour, for without it they would have to see themselves and one another as what they really are — common thieves and murderers’.”
Events in Serbia in 1996–1997
Let us highlight another important aspect. In 1997, SOC Patriarch Pavle participated in massive anti-government protests in Belgrade. On St. Sava’s Day, January 27, he led the protesters in breaking through a police cordon on Kolarčeva Street. This was the first time the patriarch openly opposed Milošević’s government. Later, Patriarch Pavle publicly held Milošević responsible for the Yugoslav catastrophe and called for his resignation. After the change of power in Serbia, Patriarch Pavle continued cooperating with the new government.
Two points are noteworthy here. Firstly, given the Orthodox clergy’s full support for the government and armed forces throughout the Yugoslav Wars, such a sudden reversal by SOC’s spiritual leader may seem surprising. However, if you examine other similar historical examples, it will turn out that it’s a natural progression. The radical faction in the church, closely intertwined with anticult ideologues, has historically acted as a single driving force, not only elevating rulers to the throne, but also overthrowing them and dismantling entire empires.
Secondly, during 1996–1997, another significant event involving SOC and the Military Medical Academy occurred. That was the period of active operation of the Belgrade Dialog Center led by Bratislav Petrović and the gradual international emergence of Serbian anticultists. A key event was the World Congress on Rehabilitation in Psychiatry held at the Sava Center in Belgrade in August 1997, where the main topic was “victims of totalitarian and destructive cults and sects, guru movements, and psycho-organizations.”
Concluding this part, we would like to mention that the Belgrade Dialog Center was established at the Orthodox Missionary School of the Church of St. Alexander Nevsky (SOC, Cara Dušana, 63B, Belgrade) and the Institute of Mental Health at the Military Medical Academy (MMA), still headed by colonel Petrović. The Belgrade Dialog Center’s work involved priests, military officers, lawyers, psychologists, and criminologists. Psychologists and neuropsychiatrists from the MMA Institute of Mental Health also participated. All of them had been trained for years by Petrović in the same practices he applied during the wars in the former Yugoslavia.
Although the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina ended in 1995, it continued in the minds of people, fueled by incessant indoctrination and imposition of the ideology of superiority, which was never ceased by anticultists even after the end of the armed conflict. The World Congress on Rehabilitation in Psychiatry held in August 1997 under colonel Petrović’s leadership took place only six months before the outbreak of a new armed conflict in Kosovo which resulted in many more victims.
To be continued.
Sources:
1. https://www.icty.org/x/cases/krstic/tjug/en/krs-tj010802e.pdf
2. https://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/tjug/en/160324_judgement.pdf
3. http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/documents/trial
4. https://www.academia.edu/21732719/Freedom_of_Religion_or_Belief_Anti_Sect_Movements_and_State_Neutrality_A_Case_Study_FECRIS
5. https://europeantimes.news/2022/03/how-the-anti-cult-movement-has-participated-to-fuel-russian-anti-ukraine-rhetoric
6. https://freedomofbelief.net/articles/the-concept-of-spiritual-security-and-the-rights-of-religious-minorities
7. https://freedomofbelief.net/sites/default/files/documents/Report-Serbia-27.07.05.pdf
8. https://amnsld.in.rs/wp-content/uploads/monografije/Biografije_dugogodisnjih_clanova_AMN_SLD_2016.pdf
9. https://www.icty.org/x/cases/krajisnik/acjug/en/090317.pdf
10. https://web.archive.org/web/20090325013142/hague.bard.edu/reports/de_la_brosse_pt1.pdf
11. https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokolj_vukovarske_djece#cite_note-RdlB-2003-1-1
12. https://books.google.sk/books?id=diuNDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
13. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/15/12/1473
14. http://www.safaric-safaric.si/knjige/2001%20Tomanic%20SPC%20u%20ratu%20i%20rat%20u%20njoj.pdf
15. https://biramdobro.com/milorad-tomanic-srpska-crkva-u-ratu-i-ratovi-u-njoj
16. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/159804?ln=en&v=pdf#files
17. http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/documents/trial/2002-10-04.html
