ArnoldRimmer said:
Why are trying to prove that mai is wrong about Helena Ranta, when in fact he didn't even mention her? And trying to whitewash Helena Ranta seems quite absurd to me. You may be right that she was actually never convinced that it was a massacre, but there is absolutely no doubt that back at the time she consciously provided a very different impression to the public. Years laters, for example in her biography, she admitted that back at the time she was under heavy pressure by Walker and certain governments to give a certain impression that would place the blame solely on the serbs. But the point here is not that she was actually never really convinced of the massacre - by succumbing to pressure and consciously misleading the public opinion in a certain direction, she consciously played a highly questionable role in the preparation of a war. In that respect, I think her role and responsibility was quite similar to Colin Powell's infamous UN speech. Colin Powell probably knew very well that he was expected to mislead the public opinion despite knowing better, but for whatever reasons (probably pressure) he did not have the courage to refuse doing so. |
He did mention her though. Indirectly, in talking about the independent study.
However, she admitted that she was under heavy pressure to give that impression BUT also maintains she didn't cave to that pressure. Anywhere.
There were no findings to suggest it wasn't a massacre, and that's what she said more or less, refusing to say it definitly was a massacre because there wasn't really any way to prove it definitivly.
Her opinion then, and now, was "Nothing to suggest it wasn't a massacre, but no definitive proof it was. If I had to guess, it was".
Vs what they wanted which was "This was definitly a massacre."
There wasn't anyone who would of be it wasn't a massacre, based on the lack of any evidence of them fighting back. Traces of gunpowder not found using superior techniques etc.