Dvornik’s book as ha been peer-reviewed and set forth in my prior posts is full of holes.
His thesis has certainly been the subject of rigorous examination, no academic work on that subject will escape criticism, but I don’t see it being full of holes at all. On the contrary, most of the criticism has been quite measured. But the fact remains that almost 70 years after publication, it remains the go to source for those researching the issue, from both the East and West. I can’t ever recall reading anything on the subject from any reputable source who did not cite Dvornik’s work. That is itself a powerful testament.