Was Henry Ford right?

[Plane]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1787

 ".....seven interview sessions cited in the footnotes of "Supreme Commander" could not have occurred  — he says Eisenhower was either meeting with other people at the times indicated or actually travelling to another part of the country. "The whole story just kind of unraveled from there," Rives told the Guardian.

The fallout from Rives' discovery won't likely be confined to the "Supreme Commander." As Richard Rayner notes in the New Yorker, more than half of the books in Ambrose's 32-title roster of publications deal with Eisenhower-related material."

Henry Ford is supposed to have said that "History is Bunk" of course I know he said this because historians tell me he did.
'

[Michael Tee]

I just finished reading that New Yorker article yesterday and I was really shocked.  His Eisenhower bio was on my reading list (I'm an admirer of the General, not the President, although even as Prez, he's far from the worst) but now I don't know what to read.  Maybe Ike's own "Crusade in Europe" unless he had another biographer.  I certainly don't plan to spend my time or money on any of Ambrose's stuff now.  What a fucking crock.

No, Henry Ford was NOT right.  History isn't bunk, just histories written by Ambrose and his ilk are bunk. 

But this is sure gonna make the work of publishers' fact-checkers that much more exhausting and painstaking, just when publishers are cutting back due to competition with Amazon and e-books.  (Same New Yorker issue, different article.)  Maybe history WILL be bunk, in the near future.