That's what it says. Doesn't guarantee a word of it is true.
Why wouldn't it be true? These are colour photos taken in terrain whose topography clearly matches what we can see in other photos of Babi Yar, eg the 1943 black and white photos of the same terrain. They feature men in contemporary Nazi uniform as well as Soviet POWs. The level of sunlight is compatible with an early-autumn Indian summer such as one would expect at the end of September in the Soviet Union, and not with the winter or anything.
The chance that someone would stage them is basically nil. The valley has memorials in it today; has done since the 1960s. In the early 1960s, the area was heavily affected by a flood. This backdates any 'staging' to before the 1960s, yet it's well known that the Soviets didn't give a monkey's about the site until there were protests by local intellectuals in the 1960s. Any attempt by another actor to stage photos on this terrain could not possibly have succeeded while the Soviet Union was intact, and by the time the USSR collapses, the site's landscape had changed fundamentally.
So either way, the argument that these photos aren't real fails
even before we consider other evidence.
By contrast, the provenance of these photos being hidden from the Nazis by their photographer, then kept private in postwar West German society which was extremely uncomfortable about the Nazi era, until the turn of the millennium by which time the taboos of the Adenauer era were thoroughly broken, is completely logical and coherent.
Why are you insinuating forgery anyway? Isn't that an admission that the photos are rather incriminating?
In color or not? I'm not going to spend 30 euros buying the exhibition catalogue just to find out.
They're in colour, just like the online images I linked to on a Ukrainian website earlier. Their publication in 2002 was mentioned only to shut you up with your blether about different websites in 2006.
It also matters because forged photos and mislabeled captions are among some of the allegations against the material displayed by the Hamburger Institut für Sozialforschung:
This is a double travesty of the real situation. Firstly, there were no forged photos in the first Wehrmachtausstellung, rather there were some photos that had been miscaptioned
in archives, pictures of NKVD atrocities in Lwow which were mislabelled as Nazi atrocities in Lwow. Both totalitarian regimes, it is accepted, committed massive atrocities in Lwow in the space of the same month. That's all. The 'scandal' - mainly in Germany, due to the controversial impact of the exhibition on a society which was still coming to terms with what grandpa had actually done - was used to replace the director of the original exhibition, and led to the design of the second exhibition, which included the BY photos. Neither HIS nor the organisers of the 1st exhibition 'forged' anything.
How you get from that to 'maybe the Hamburger Institut faked the Haehle photos' or whatever you are insinuating is beyond me. There are multiple hoops to jump through before such a claim would stand up.
It is also weird you claim it is there since I previously found this press release of 2000 by the very same Hamburg institute:
Why is it weird? The Haehle photos were sold to HIS in 2000. A press conference in November 2000 discussed the curation of the 2nd exhibition, and one of the curators/researchers used BY as an example. Then 2 years later the catalogue is published.
Seriously, what is your problem here?
Let me get it clear, a simple yes or no answer will do:
There are never any 'yes or no' answers in history.
no, it's the position of everyone who has ever examined the facts properly.
that on September 28 only the Germans
which Germans? Kiev was the HQ for 6th Army and was filled with 10s of 1000s of Germans.
hung out posters in a newly captured city,
why is that a problem?
and in a time without Facebook or cellphones
well, duh, they used posters.
managed to reach 33.700 people (a full footballstadium) to turn up the next day for this popular event on a single streetcorner,
LOL. Have you ever visited a formerly Soviet city?
We're talking about a major boulevard.
this mass being an undoubtedly massive yet poorly documented spectacle,
Six years ago someone pointed out there were no fewer than
nine Nazi documents about the BY massacre, and that was before I noticed five more cited in other research. Which is probably not exhaustive.
Nor does that count include all the subsequent reports of executions of Jews in hiding. Or the subsequent wtf references from the commander of one of the police battalions involved, or indeed subsequent reports noting SK4a's bodycount ticking upwards.
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, most serious observers would note the presence of two full police battalions (each of 500 men) along with Sonderkommando 4a, which would mean about 1,100 armed men, not counting Ukrainian auxiliaries who were also involved in the action, so all in all we could be talking 1,500 armed men before we even mention the Wehrmacht security forces stationed in the area.
I fail to see a meaningful issue here. Kiev had 200,000 Jews before the outbreak of war. Due to Soviet evacuation measures and the flight of refugees, this was reduced by well over 75% by the time the Nazis occupied Kiev. It is known from Nazi documents that they executed hundreds, maybe even thousands, of Jews
after BY, i.e. Jews in hiding. Presumably others hid themselves and succeeded in escaping to the countryside, or fled and were killed elsewhere. We don't know.
What we do know is that the SS liquidated 16% of the Jewish population of Kiev over a period of days. This percentage is decidedly lower than the kill rates achieved in, say, Brest-Litovsk on the border.
Compliance with the order was evidently not 100% even just looking at the Jews in Kiev at the end of September. It was higher than we might expect because the Soviet press was not properly publicising Nazi atrocities against Jews at this time, rumours did not convince everyone, and because there were many older Jews who remembered the Wilhelmine occupation of 1918 with fondness, disbelieving the spreading stories of atrocities. Those that did believe atrocities evidently got the hell out before the Nazis arrived, or tried hiding.
Others who believed atrocities were probably not in a position to try hiding or resisting. Those that complied with the order knew they were living in a city which was occupied by 10s of 1000s of German soldiers at this time, and knew there were many Ukrainians helping the Nazis, making it hard to work out how to avoid the order. But some did. The ones that complied amounted to 16% of the population, and would have been disproportionately elderly, or less mobile (mothers with small children) and also had a disproportionate number of naive, stupid or ill-informed people among them. 84% of the Jews of Kiev didn't comply, because they either weren't there, or they decided to try hiding.
Since the Jewish population of Kiev wasn't 33,000, you have to look at the social profile and the historical context. But you guys
never, ever do that. It's why you make rookie mistake after rookie mistake, when you're not simply misrepresenting or flat-out lying.
