Oordelen in uitersten

Abstract

Judging in the extreme, J. C. H. Blom, B. G J. de Graaff, D. C. L. Schoonoord
This article is a reply to the remarkably different contributions from J.W.L. Brouwer, J.W. Honig and P. Lagrou. Against this differing background in terms of appreciation for the Srebrenica report and the point of view taken, attention is given to the manner in which the enquiry was conducted. The researchers never intended to produce a definitive history of what happened at Srebrenica, rather their aim was to provide a thorough and meaningful contribution to the debate. A convincing study, both from an international, Dutch and local perspective, could only be produced in the light of the violent disintegration of the Former Yugoslavia and the subsequent involvement of the international community and organisations. Only within that framework could the role of the Netherlands Government and the Dutch military be surveyed.

But the main focus of the report is not Dutch history in the making, even if a lot of attention was paid to the Netherlands. It would lead too far afield to agree with Lagrou that the researchers had an unshakeable belief that the verified facts would speak for themselves. Nevertheless, the essence of their enquiry was to work according to the traditional methods of their trade, i.e. to rely on the sources. With regard to Honig's alternative interpretation, there are no grounds for stating that the mass murders and the attack on Srebrenica would have required more advance planning. The available sources point in a different direction

This response is part of the discussion forum 'Srebrenica, een "veilig" gebied' (J. C. H. Blom, B. G J. de Graaff, D. C. L. Schoonoord).