By Holocaust Denial on Trial’s (HDoT) own admission, there is no physical evidence of the alleged Babi Yar massacre. But that’s ok because according to HDoT the eyewitness evidence is more substantial than the physical evidence, or lack thereof. Notice the language here, they say ‘more substantial’, which is not incorrect in this circumstance as there is more witness testimony than physical evidence. However, more substantial doesn’t not mean it is more valid. When it comes to investigating crimes when there are discrepancies between testimony and physical evidence, the physical evidence trumps the testimony. HDoT also blames a natural disaster that happened in 1961 for the inability to conduct investigations today but they don’t answer why no thorough investigations were done in the nearly two decades between the end of the war and the disaster. Because of these things the narrative of Babi Yar relies on witness testimony.
Here HDoT says that Holocaust revisionists claim that the witness testimonies contradict each other and made outlandish claims. HDoT does not deny these allegations instead they implicate that the revisionists are not responsible historians. What is actually irresponsible, however, is cherry picking through contradictory and outlandish witness testimony to support your narrative.
HDoT focuses on an article by Herbert Tiedemann throughout their article. They complain that Tiedemann used non-authoritative and dubious sources as evidence. One of these sources being reports from underground organizations. I find this humorous due to the fact that HDoT also used underground reports as evidence for the existence of of Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec. HDoT also wants to ignore the fact that witnesses that make false claims are unreliable therefore rendering all of their testimony as unreliable.
The next section deals with the testimony of Dina Pronicheva, Riva Kogut (Riassa Genrichovna Dashkevih), Nesya Elgort and Yelena Yefimovna Knysh. They justify their testimony by simply repeating it without criticism or comment, hoping you will put your thinking hat away while you read their heartbreaking stories.
“The eyewitness accounts provided by survivors of Babi Yar suggest high amounts of similarity in key ways.” Once again we have this idea that as long as the testimony is similar in some ways the rest of testimony, no matter how contradictory and outlandish, can simply be swept under the rug.
I would consider a key similarity to be the method in which the alleged victims were allegedly executed. Here is an example of a discrepancy in this matter. Riva Kogut claimed that machine guns were fired upon the victims from across the ravine. Dimitri Orlow testified that the victims were shot at point blank range.
Here HDoT recounts yet another method of execution, that the alleged victims were standing on a ledge with a wall of sand behind them to absorb the bullets. Even on it’s own this sounds implausible. Did the Germans build a huge wall of sand, or was it part of the ravine? How big was this sand wall and how did they deal with the bodies that would have quickly amassed in front of this wall of sand? And most importantly, why do only revisionists ask such questions and scrutinize the witnesses that are making allegations of serious crimes against the German people?
Continue on to The Witnesses of Babi Yar Part Two