That's what it says. Doesn't guarantee a word of it is true.
This is a *very* interesting argument, coming from a denier.
Who then goes on to quote a very few individuals, out of hundreds of millions of historians -- most of whom either disagree or do not consider the matter worth their time.
Let us be clear, and I believe Dr. Terry will concur: this sort of "everything we thought we knew about XXX is wrong" is exactly the kind of thing that historians *live* for. These are the things that would, if true, would make an historian a part of that history we care so much about.
Now, note the the words "if true".
This is why we are so careful to double-check ourselves and others -- because if we assert something that is not true, that can be verified as not true, we become a laughingstock such as pretty much every denier is considered to be.
This is why -- this part is *important* -- we don't rely on just one source unless there is no other choice, as sometimes happens.
So, even if -- only for the sake of arguing this point about historiography -- we grant that this particular source cannot be considered reliable on this matter.
You know what?
IT ***DOESN'T*** MATTER.
Because we still have many Many MANY other sources, which all indicate the same things.
This is a point that deniers never seem to get: established history is not a house of cards. If one detail about one event is shown to be wrong, it very very seldom changes the overall picture.
So, let's say -- for the sake of argument -- these pictures did not come from the chain of sources Dr. Terry has asserted.
Does that change the reliability of, say Michael Berenbaum's relatively recent reproduction of the actual order for "Yids to report for 'resettlement'" in The World Must Know on pages 97–98?
Does it change the fact that there are absolutely *no* records of any such resettlement taking place -- not from the Nazis, not from anyone where they were resettled commenting on better than 30k people who only spoke Ukrainian suddenly appearing in their community? Does it change the reports made by the Nazis -- reports never handled by the Hamburger Institut -- talking about their surprize that the whole 'resettlement' gag had worked so well? Does is change the fact that 29 survivors of this horror have all come forward with very similar narratives about what happened that day -- despite never having known each other, and relating those narratives in ways that show they could not have known what each other were saying?
And what about the documentation regarding Sonderaktion 1005? Why was that even needed?
Tell me about your problems -- other than simply not having known about any of that before -- with the entire body of evidence (only some of which Dr. Terry or I have mentioned) and *then* you may have the beginnings of a basis from which to question whether this happened or not.
If your problems with every piece of that body of evidence are valid, I would be more than happy to co-author the book spelling them out -- as I said, that sort of thing is what an historian lives for.
Let me get it clear, a simple yes or no answer will do: it is your position that on September 28 only the Germans hung out posters in a newly captured city, and in a time without Facebook or cellphones managed to reach 33.700 people (a full footballstadium) to turn up the next day for this popular event on a single streetcorner, this mass being an undoubtedly massive yet poorly documented spectacle, to be led away by foot on the outskirt of the city, to be shot in groups of ten over the course of two days, with several thousands not being unaccommodated at night and guarded by 700 or so Einsatzkommandos?
Well, first: the notices started going up closer to the 26th, there were many Ukrainians involved in the execution (pardon the pun) of the plan who were not EK, not to mention Germans who were SD, Sipo, Shupo and SS and there are mountains of documentation.
So other than being almost completely wrong, spot on.
Second, do you think, just maybe, the fact that the non-Yids had all of the guns and that those notices explicitly said "if you don't show up, you will be shot" *might* just have played a role in the "popularity" of the process?
Not to mention that this ravine is known to have been used in the same way to kill many many other groups that just Jews by the Nazis and collaborators.
I'm not going to hold my breath that that book is ever going to be written.
