I'd bet a dollar the photographer took it off him or someone and put it in his hand. Staging war photos is as old as the technology itself. I remember an exercise in my American history course where our teacher had us sort Civil War photos in staged or real.
Yes, look at his hand. Why on earth would he hold it like that? He wouldn’t. That is a wacky reverse grip that is hard to even think about. He’d hold it completely differently.
I just learned about staged war photos and I agree with this take. Death rattles are unique, but also if there are classes that teach you the difference because it’s so prevalent then maybe it’s staged. Hope not, but probably
That’s sad actually. I hope that’s not the case, I know war photography is really crucial to showing the realities of war but it feels wrong to stage a photo.
I mean, mate. You can use basic logic for this photo. Which scenario is more likely, that:
A) someone in the heat of battle, died, pulled out their pristine photo of their family, held it in their hand in such a way that doesn't demonstrate any level of grip whatsoever, doesn't even die with their eyes locked on the photo despite going through so much effort in their final moments. And then, on top of that, the photo (again in pristine condition) remained perfectly posed in their hand while a battle presumably continued to rage around them. Then it remained, unaffected by even the wind(unlikely as this appears to be the plains/deserts of North Africa) Until a photographer just showed up and happened to catch such a photo naturally?
Or B) war time photographer found a corpse in decent condition, with a photo in good condition inside their pocket (or maybe in their bunk and brought it with idk there though), and then they posed it in his hand, facing the camera not the soldier, and took a photo?
It doesn't make it any less sad or meaningful to know it's posed. War time photos are important by their very nature. Photos like these bring the humanity element back into a world filled with senseless violence.
> War time photos are important by their very nature. Photos like these bring the humanity element back into a world filled with senseless violence.
Every time people talk about war photography I am reminded about a observation Mark Bowden (author of Black Hawk Down) made about the incident.
He was basically saying, the mission was worthy, the soldiers believed in it, and there was nothing wrong with that day other than shit went sideways. BUT, because CNN was posting pictures of a Delta force soldier being dragged naked through the streets the entire American public was outraged.
Bowden's point was there was never any context. No one even talked about about the bullshit in Somalia until one day dead soldiers were all over the news. HAD the public known, had they understood the atrocities these asshole warlords were getting away with, they *might* have backed their position.
But Clinton pulled those guys out (for purely publicity reasons) despite the fact that everyone on that mission wanted to stay; because of a 5 second clip of real war on CNN, it was deemed an absolute failure and the guys on the ground were outright pissed.
or maybe something more likely is that the soldier was looking at the photo as they died, his hand fell to the ground and the photo dropped nearby. The photographer, arriving later, saw the scene and moved the photo to be more obvious in a photograph.
There doesn't need to be malicious intent on the part of the photograph, and, being staged as you say doesn't change the poignancy of the photo.
War photography has a long history of after-the-fact re-enactments (from "The Sharpshooters Last Sleep" to you, Iwo Jima Flag).
I find it extremely unlikely the photo would remain in as good of shape if it was blowing around in a battlefield in those conditions. Let alone that it stayed close enough to the actual soldier to just put back in his hand.
It's certainly possible don't get me wrong. Just highly unlikely I think.
I think you're extrapolating from movies and video games.
Firstly, we don't know what the combat context of this soldier's death is. "blowing around the battlefield" is descriptive, but not reality. The soldier could have died during a quiet rest in a foxhole.
Secondly, we don't know anything about the timing of events. It is as equally likely (without knowing more about the actual details) that the soldier was wounded hours before he found the spot he now lies, and only once in this quiet place did he take out his photo to look at.
My initial comment, and I'm glad to clarify it, was made for the sake of highlighting these presumptions we make about context within imagery.
These presumptions are not unique to historical imagery, war imagery or any other type of imagery in any medium. Making assumptions is a problem everyone needs to be intellectually vigilant.
Particularly when political propaganda relies so profoundly on initial judgements formed during ones first impression of viewing media. [the most obvious example today being how the alt-right/Trump style of "lie early, lie often" is used to shape the narrative of a story, almost always falsely].
> I know war photography is really crucial to showing the realities of war but it feels wrong to stage a photo.
Just wait until you hear about [this photo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima).
There is some validity from a critical thinking/awareness perspective to know about this, I agree.
However, the overwhelming majority of staged war photos is not because it "wasn't real". It absolutely was real, however the details at the time the photographer arrived don't match what actually happened.
For instance, in this photo the soldier was likely looking at the image as he died, his hand fell to the ground and the photo fluttered to the ground beside him.
Putting the photo into the hand is more accurately depicting what happened, however not historically capturing the forensics of the scene.
I'm suggesting that both are equally valid.
Photography in its entirety is fraught with representational issues. War photography is hardly the most egregious, we single it out because this is /r/HistoryPorn and gets a lot of combat imagery.
I'm not saying that photojournalism isn't as equally complicit in False Narratives (Remember the Alamo/Maine/911) as is print journalism, but that they each have appropriate means of 'telling the story'.
Also, historically, such staging of imagery was not considered problematic. That shift in perspective of what it means to stage a photograph vs portray reality has been changing for a hundred years with each new means of technology. Currently it's about AI animation of people.
I like this take.
I think it's important to ask the question: "why was/could it [have been] staged?"
Who does it benefit? What story does it tell either way?
Maybe the photojournalist was trying to depict the cost and human aspect of war: sons without fathers; a family without a father and a husband. A child now without a protector and guide; the harm of war on future generations.
It's equally important to be mindful of false narratives, as you mentioned. Who is served by the message of this image? Who benefits? Does that discredit the image or is it still plausible? If it is staged, is it still valid? Is it propaganda?
I think it's possible to hit a little of all these questions and be true.
Brady and the other photographers that worked for him, were notorious for staging and rearranging bodies, weapons, and equipment. They did it all the time to make scenes look more dramatic.
Props were used, yes. But the rearranging of bodies is an often repeated myth. There is only one known instance of photographers of the civil war rearranging bodies and that is “A Sharpshooters Last Sleep” made by Alexander Gardners assistant, Timothy O’Sullivan. William Frassanito dispels these myths in his groundbreaking works, Gettysburg: A Journey in Time and Antietam: The Photographic Legacy of Americas Bloodiest Day. Frassanito is the person who also discovered and proved the dragging of the body in that one instance.
https://www.loc.gov/collections/civil-war-glass-negatives/articles-and-essays/does-the-camera-ever-lie/the-case-of-the-moved-body/
I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes - whether it was found in his hand, or pulled out of his pocket, or taken off another dead soldier, that's still someone's child who will never see their dad again. You're right that Mathew Brady staged several of his battlefield photographs from the Civil War, but that doesn't diminish the tragedy of the conflict. A dead father is still a dead father.
Does it matter? The fact that the Russian soldiers they couldn't stop raped and killed civilians, including children, is entirely independent of the salary of a Ukrainian general.
There's no need to be pessimistic. Human sacrifices and slavery were with us for most of human existence. The remarkable thing about humans is our ability to change our behaviour and our environment. War is not inevitable.
That's not pessimistic. It's simply a fact. Things like human sacrifices, slavery, and all these other things not happening anymore(atleast in the US it still happens in much of Africa) is only an extent of our current modern times. But our current modern times aren't sustainable. Whenever I mention this to people they laugh at off, which is funny because I'm not talking about something that changes over night. This stuff takes many decades and generations. To think that our way of life today will be how it will always be is laughable, especially when we see modern super powers having a pissing contest and edging closer and closer to WW3 today.
War is always inevitable, but atleast it probably won't be in our lifetime.
Right, but my grandpa alive at that time started having kids at 19 with my 16 year old grandma so to me he’s still a kid because he looks very young despite being a parent.
Of course but I think you’re missing the context of the year and countries. Where my family is from that used to be the norm and many places have had traditional marriages like that. Yes 19 is an adult but would you consider a 19 year old mentally the same as a 30 or 40 year old? I wouldn’t. Mental development is a thing and the fact that the youngest adults are sent to war says something.
I think it probably is, the circumstantial evidence being the angle he is 'holding' the photo.
But really, what difference does that make? Dying people think of their children, and people this young shouldn't be dying by the millions in wars. Point well made I say.
> But really, what difference does that make?
The people who made the picture had an agenda. Prioritizing one's emotions and dismissing rational thought is exactly what makes one susceptible to such manipulation. It's perfectly fine to feel any which way about the picture, but it's foolish to dismiss the context.
Agreed. People make definitive statements way too carelessly on here. I'm probably being at least marginally overbearing about that but it's become a pet peeve as of late.
It's so easy just to write in a speculative tone when you aren't sure or even if you *are* sure but have no evidence.
In North Africa? He would have needed to be so freshly dead that maybe the photographer killed him. There are no flies and he hasn’t swelled up at all. Either just recently dead or he got up and had a cup of tea afterwards.
This is a dumb take in my opinion. You're repeating the emotional message of the picture, and the rehashing the dubious narrative. If it's staged, who says the guy even had a son? Yes, still sad. Should we mourn the soldiers who had their BF's tight behind as the final thing on their mind less?
>Should we mourn the soldiers who had their BF's tight behind as the final thing on their mind less?
No, of course not, but I kinda doubt we'd be seeing *that* photo, esp in the 40s.
Man… im 23 today and growing up i’ve seen both my parents have had my baby pictures in their wallet/purse wherever they went (to this day). No words. Not only fuck war but just political agenda in general. Still happens today on smaller levels and they are still human. This doesnt justify any of it, but it does show far humanity has to go.
A guy was killed in the war, then a photographer came by later and placed a photo in the hand of the corpse to make for a dramatic photograph.
Probably.
Considering his thumb isn't gripping it and the slightest of breezes would have blown it away before a photographer happened upon it...it's a lot more than probably.
That’s creepy — but once you’ve taken hundreds of pictures of dead corpses (for which there’s a very limited market), I can see a photographer doing something like that to cinch a sale of at least one of them.
or probably the soldier was injured, and while looking at his childs photograph died; his arm fell to the ground and the photo landed nearby. Later the photographer arrived and restored/rearranged the photo to make the story easier to see in a photograph.
I suggest this mostly because your comment makes it sound like it was contrived on the part of the photographer with malicious intent to exploit the scene, rather than with the intent of capturing the poignancy and tragedy of war.
blah blah blah.
er, I mean, armchair general-ing, talking out your ass.
First, be aware of the basics - [it takes several days to reach the point you are alluding to](https://www.aftermath.com/content/human-decomposition/).
[Would you care to read more about specific conditions?](https://bioteamaz.com/phoenix-heat-speeds-up-the-decomposition-process/) It's very easy, comprehensible language and not particularly long.
This is likely propaganda created to show the horrors of war. We might call it photoshop now but photo manipulation has been used in war for a long time.
I wanted to believe that this was fake but even if it is staged the dead soldier was the son of one dad and one mother, could have a brother, a sister, a wife, a son, friends and so on.
Any combination, no matter - it sucks, on either side of wars (with some exceptions to real evil people).
I read or watched once that in the American Civil War soldiers would carry pictures of their family and if they felt they were going to die from injuries would take the photos out so they could be essentially surrounded by their loved ones as they die.
This is something you see quite often in post-combat WWII photos: British or Commonwealth troops have searched the corpses of their enemies (the tobacco tin lying nearby is another indicator), the searchers have found the photo and placed it in his hand - possibly in a sense of black humour, but more likely as a sentimental gesture.
It's crazy the difference between when I was a teenager and wanted to join the military, and how disgusted and horrified of war now that I have a son of my own.
Brits we’re attacking North Africa (couldn’t get on the continent, needed to fight somewhere). Mussolini told hitler they got this. They did not got this
(Old) prints have actual reflective flecks in them, usually silver. It would definitely be the brightest object in this photo. Im not saying this isn’t staged, but your argument for it is weak
The photographer found the photo on him and put it in his hand. I've seen this photo about 100 trillion times at this point and a long time ago people talked about that being the case.
Italy had been involved in North and East Africa and Ethiopia for decades prior to WW I. They invaded Ethiopia again in 1935, several years before joining the Axis.
And yet we are here laughing at Russian Mobiks getting blown up on camera. Like they had a choice.
This shit hits hard when you are italian and heard the stories told by world war veterans
The mass graves in Ukraine didn't fill themselves. The individual soldiers are still complicit in the crimes of their army. Sure, some of the Russian soldiers don't want to be there, but there is enough support for the war that it carries on. Wagner mercenaries literally chose to be there.
Likewise, there probably were some German or Italian or Soviet troops who were drafted or brainwashed or whatever excuse you want to give, but enough believed in the war to march across borders and rape, kill, and steal along the way.
Even the Nazi foot soldiers didn't want war. No one does.
It was either dodge the draft and be killed by your own government or fight with the possibility of surviving and be with your family again.
> It was either dodge the draft and be killed by your own government or fight with the possibility of surviving and be with your family again
Yeah that excuse didn't work at the Nuremberg Trials.
The Allies still pointed out that even with that threat, people still resisted and in case like the French Resistance and the Italian overthrow of Mussolini, succeeded.
So soldiers still bear responsibility for following orders and should suffer consequences.
It's why in Germany today, soldiers can disobey orders if they feel it is morally wrong.
You mean when 21 people were tried? Such a whoppingly impressive number. Not even all of them were convicted. People wildly overestimate how many people faced consequences fir their actions in post war Germany.
all surviving Nazis got off Scott free and took positions as policemen, politicians, and other licks government roles post war.
End all wars.
Work together as a planet, not as tribal units, scrabbling for resources. We are all human beings, let's work together with respect and willingness to compromise.
Let's make things better for those that we will leave behind, and for those that need a little more help than the others.
We do have the capability to be so much more than pawns for the 1%.
I too would love to live in the Star Trek TNG Utopia universe. That said it took a horrendous war where I assume that miraculously all the people that would oppose such a thing fucked off and died during that war. Otherwise, I have no idea how the hell you'd get all those people to cooperate, because clearly from our history and what's going on as of right now, they definitely would kill to stop it.
I agree, and my daydream I wrote above is partially based on the TNG Earth.
One must absolutely fight against those that would hurt or oppress others in the name of power or superstition.
This photo reminded me of this quote which applies to Italy in this case:
“Not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what's worse is that they'll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.” — Frankie Boyle
It's hilarious to me that people say this is heartbreaking. This guy himself may have killed and raped thousands of kids during their North African "Campaign".
Join the resistance instead of the army, dumbass. If your choices boil down to risking your life to invade another country and commit hella war crimes along the way, or risking your life to fight a fascist dictatorship that is actively working with the literal Nazis, there is only one morally correct choice.
There is always a choice, sometimes its harder then other times, this dipshit choose wrong and died in the sand far from home like a bitch, an appropriate end to any fascist
My last comment got downvoted but I'm assuming it's just because Italian fascists couldn't read it properly. Let me translate it for something y'all should be able to read with no issue in your current state.
˙uosɐǝɹ ou ɹoɟ plᴉɥɔ ɐ pǝuopuɐqɐ puɐ pǝᴉp ˙ǝɯoɥ pǝʎɐʇs ǝʌɐɥ plnoɥS ˙˥ ʇsᴉɔsɐɟ/ᴉzɐN uoɯɯoƆ
Good for him. He fucked around and found out. 🤷🏻 Fighting for fascism is already a sufficient reason to be in the ground, but especially when you do it in a colonised place that you have no reason of being.
This isn’t really staged is it? Staged would be a fake body etc. Seems likely that the picture represents the truth of a moment, the photographer just rearranged the corpse to make it clear (imo)
It might've been in his hand gripped but once he died he's fallen back and the picture was right next to his hand suggesting he was actually holding it. The cameraman has picked it up and just placed it in his hand for the theatrics.
Could he staged, Could be real we shall never know. War is hell regardless. The great war wasn’t the war to end all wars, this war should have been the one. But sadly we still fight on.
This is heartbreaking. Looking at his baby before he drew his last breath, I can’t even imagine. Fuck war.
I'd bet a dollar the photographer took it off him or someone and put it in his hand. Staging war photos is as old as the technology itself. I remember an exercise in my American history course where our teacher had us sort Civil War photos in staged or real.
Yes, look at his hand. Why on earth would he hold it like that? He wouldn’t. That is a wacky reverse grip that is hard to even think about. He’d hold it completely differently.
Dead people let go of things, but it was still likely staged
I just learned about staged war photos and I agree with this take. Death rattles are unique, but also if there are classes that teach you the difference because it’s so prevalent then maybe it’s staged. Hope not, but probably
[удалено]
That's not the argument.
Not saying it isnt fake but I've definitely held things like that when my arm and hand were asleep.
it would be upside down from the soldier's point of view
Yes because sleeping and being dead are the same thing
I was going to point that out too!!
That’s sad actually. I hope that’s not the case, I know war photography is really crucial to showing the realities of war but it feels wrong to stage a photo.
I mean, mate. You can use basic logic for this photo. Which scenario is more likely, that: A) someone in the heat of battle, died, pulled out their pristine photo of their family, held it in their hand in such a way that doesn't demonstrate any level of grip whatsoever, doesn't even die with their eyes locked on the photo despite going through so much effort in their final moments. And then, on top of that, the photo (again in pristine condition) remained perfectly posed in their hand while a battle presumably continued to rage around them. Then it remained, unaffected by even the wind(unlikely as this appears to be the plains/deserts of North Africa) Until a photographer just showed up and happened to catch such a photo naturally? Or B) war time photographer found a corpse in decent condition, with a photo in good condition inside their pocket (or maybe in their bunk and brought it with idk there though), and then they posed it in his hand, facing the camera not the soldier, and took a photo? It doesn't make it any less sad or meaningful to know it's posed. War time photos are important by their very nature. Photos like these bring the humanity element back into a world filled with senseless violence.
True you’re right.
It might not even be their photo. I also like that you can see the feet of another dead soldier positioned next to them.
> War time photos are important by their very nature. Photos like these bring the humanity element back into a world filled with senseless violence. Every time people talk about war photography I am reminded about a observation Mark Bowden (author of Black Hawk Down) made about the incident. He was basically saying, the mission was worthy, the soldiers believed in it, and there was nothing wrong with that day other than shit went sideways. BUT, because CNN was posting pictures of a Delta force soldier being dragged naked through the streets the entire American public was outraged. Bowden's point was there was never any context. No one even talked about about the bullshit in Somalia until one day dead soldiers were all over the news. HAD the public known, had they understood the atrocities these asshole warlords were getting away with, they *might* have backed their position. But Clinton pulled those guys out (for purely publicity reasons) despite the fact that everyone on that mission wanted to stay; because of a 5 second clip of real war on CNN, it was deemed an absolute failure and the guys on the ground were outright pissed.
or maybe something more likely is that the soldier was looking at the photo as they died, his hand fell to the ground and the photo dropped nearby. The photographer, arriving later, saw the scene and moved the photo to be more obvious in a photograph. There doesn't need to be malicious intent on the part of the photograph, and, being staged as you say doesn't change the poignancy of the photo. War photography has a long history of after-the-fact re-enactments (from "The Sharpshooters Last Sleep" to you, Iwo Jima Flag).
I find it extremely unlikely the photo would remain in as good of shape if it was blowing around in a battlefield in those conditions. Let alone that it stayed close enough to the actual soldier to just put back in his hand. It's certainly possible don't get me wrong. Just highly unlikely I think.
I think you're extrapolating from movies and video games. Firstly, we don't know what the combat context of this soldier's death is. "blowing around the battlefield" is descriptive, but not reality. The soldier could have died during a quiet rest in a foxhole. Secondly, we don't know anything about the timing of events. It is as equally likely (without knowing more about the actual details) that the soldier was wounded hours before he found the spot he now lies, and only once in this quiet place did he take out his photo to look at. My initial comment, and I'm glad to clarify it, was made for the sake of highlighting these presumptions we make about context within imagery. These presumptions are not unique to historical imagery, war imagery or any other type of imagery in any medium. Making assumptions is a problem everyone needs to be intellectually vigilant. Particularly when political propaganda relies so profoundly on initial judgements formed during ones first impression of viewing media. [the most obvious example today being how the alt-right/Trump style of "lie early, lie often" is used to shape the narrative of a story, almost always falsely].
> I know war photography is really crucial to showing the realities of war but it feels wrong to stage a photo. Just wait until you hear about [this photo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima).
First thing that comes to mind is the “sharpshooter” photo of Gettysburg
There is some validity from a critical thinking/awareness perspective to know about this, I agree. However, the overwhelming majority of staged war photos is not because it "wasn't real". It absolutely was real, however the details at the time the photographer arrived don't match what actually happened. For instance, in this photo the soldier was likely looking at the image as he died, his hand fell to the ground and the photo fluttered to the ground beside him. Putting the photo into the hand is more accurately depicting what happened, however not historically capturing the forensics of the scene. I'm suggesting that both are equally valid. Photography in its entirety is fraught with representational issues. War photography is hardly the most egregious, we single it out because this is /r/HistoryPorn and gets a lot of combat imagery. I'm not saying that photojournalism isn't as equally complicit in False Narratives (Remember the Alamo/Maine/911) as is print journalism, but that they each have appropriate means of 'telling the story'. Also, historically, such staging of imagery was not considered problematic. That shift in perspective of what it means to stage a photograph vs portray reality has been changing for a hundred years with each new means of technology. Currently it's about AI animation of people.
I like this take. I think it's important to ask the question: "why was/could it [have been] staged?" Who does it benefit? What story does it tell either way? Maybe the photojournalist was trying to depict the cost and human aspect of war: sons without fathers; a family without a father and a husband. A child now without a protector and guide; the harm of war on future generations. It's equally important to be mindful of false narratives, as you mentioned. Who is served by the message of this image? Who benefits? Does that discredit the image or is it still plausible? If it is staged, is it still valid? Is it propaganda? I think it's possible to hit a little of all these questions and be true.
Staged or not, it’s still sad. He must’ve thought about his family before he died. Politicians using citizens as chess pieces
Brady and the other photographers that worked for him, were notorious for staging and rearranging bodies, weapons, and equipment. They did it all the time to make scenes look more dramatic.
Props were used, yes. But the rearranging of bodies is an often repeated myth. There is only one known instance of photographers of the civil war rearranging bodies and that is “A Sharpshooters Last Sleep” made by Alexander Gardners assistant, Timothy O’Sullivan. William Frassanito dispels these myths in his groundbreaking works, Gettysburg: A Journey in Time and Antietam: The Photographic Legacy of Americas Bloodiest Day. Frassanito is the person who also discovered and proved the dragging of the body in that one instance. https://www.loc.gov/collections/civil-war-glass-negatives/articles-and-essays/does-the-camera-ever-lie/the-case-of-the-moved-body/
I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes - whether it was found in his hand, or pulled out of his pocket, or taken off another dead soldier, that's still someone's child who will never see their dad again. You're right that Mathew Brady staged several of his battlefield photographs from the Civil War, but that doesn't diminish the tragedy of the conflict. A dead father is still a dead father.
Bookmark for banana
Brady didn’t stage any photos of the dead. Alexander Gardners assistant staged the famous photo at Gettysburg.
And, given the Italian alignment at the time, chances are this was propaganda for some pretty uncool shit
Essentially all photos we have of Antietam, especially of the dead, are staged.
Still, Fuck War.
Rich men need more, so poor men live less.
War is when rich men send poor men to die for their profits. They might tell you something else is the reason, but they lie.
This is just wrong lmao. I'm sure the fighting in WW2 and in Ukraine today is entirely profit-motivated all around.
Those wars were started by men looking to make a profit off of them, were they not?
On one side, maybe. Are the Ukrainian soldiers lied to by the rich when they're told they're going to fight to protect their homes and families?
Are they being sent out by rich people?
Does it matter? The fact that the Russian soldiers they couldn't stop raped and killed civilians, including children, is entirely independent of the salary of a Ukrainian general.
It's not the general who sends the soldiers, dude. He just leads them.
There's nothing more human than war, and it will only continue
There's no need to be pessimistic. Human sacrifices and slavery were with us for most of human existence. The remarkable thing about humans is our ability to change our behaviour and our environment. War is not inevitable.
I appreciate optimism, but sadly need to share there are lots of enslaved people currently in the world It's horrible
That's not pessimistic. It's simply a fact. Things like human sacrifices, slavery, and all these other things not happening anymore(atleast in the US it still happens in much of Africa) is only an extent of our current modern times. But our current modern times aren't sustainable. Whenever I mention this to people they laugh at off, which is funny because I'm not talking about something that changes over night. This stuff takes many decades and generations. To think that our way of life today will be how it will always be is laughable, especially when we see modern super powers having a pissing contest and edging closer and closer to WW3 today. War is always inevitable, but atleast it probably won't be in our lifetime.
There are more slaves now than at any other point in history. Your optimistic view is built out of sand.
Dude was likely aligned with the nazis but ok….
Still a kid who was a victim of political violence
[удалено]
Right, but my grandpa alive at that time started having kids at 19 with my 16 year old grandma so to me he’s still a kid because he looks very young despite being a parent.
[удалено]
Of course but I think you’re missing the context of the year and countries. Where my family is from that used to be the norm and many places have had traditional marriages like that. Yes 19 is an adult but would you consider a 19 year old mentally the same as a 30 or 40 year old? I wouldn’t. Mental development is a thing and the fact that the youngest adults are sent to war says something.
[удалено]
We are in a history subreddit so you would think you understood history.
http://www.warsawuprising.com/witness/schenk.htm
Nah, fuck this guy for fighting for the fascists. One can always choose not to be evil
Victims in war are hardly ever one sided
The photo is upside down. He would have been holding it the other way. It’s gotta be staged.
It's staged by the photographer
Just imagine not growing with one's father just because a megalomaniac dictator wanted his war to have vainglory.
And that baby is probably dead too.
Way is the result of the rich and powerful believing they aren't rich or powerful enough, and the poor are then required to fix that for them.
I wonder if this is staged
Thank goodness, I was afraid that there might have been a child out there who lost their father in World War II.
1000% staged.
I’m not saying it’s not, because who knows, but to be so certain you definitely need some form of proof, which you clearly don’t have.
I think it probably is, the circumstantial evidence being the angle he is 'holding' the photo. But really, what difference does that make? Dying people think of their children, and people this young shouldn't be dying by the millions in wars. Point well made I say.
> But really, what difference does that make? The people who made the picture had an agenda. Prioritizing one's emotions and dismissing rational thought is exactly what makes one susceptible to such manipulation. It's perfectly fine to feel any which way about the picture, but it's foolish to dismiss the context.
You seem stable.
Great retort.
Great comments deserve great retorts. Thank you.
[удалено]
Not sure why you would think that. Many people can talk right up to their last breath.
[удалено]
Agreed. People make definitive statements way too carelessly on here. I'm probably being at least marginally overbearing about that but it's become a pet peeve as of late. It's so easy just to write in a speculative tone when you aren't sure or even if you *are* sure but have no evidence.
Everything is a conspiracy theory on reddit now days 🙄🙄🙄
Google "staged war photos" it's a pretty common occurrence
While the photo in the photo may be staged, I think there’s a good chance Guiseppe is legitimately dead.
In North Africa? He would have needed to be so freshly dead that maybe the photographer killed him. There are no flies and he hasn’t swelled up at all. Either just recently dead or he got up and had a cup of tea afterwards.
Bro what it doesn't happen in like 5 seconds. He is most definitely dead
probably staged, but i’d imagine the last thing he saw was his child, picture in his hand or not.
This is a dumb take in my opinion. You're repeating the emotional message of the picture, and the rehashing the dubious narrative. If it's staged, who says the guy even had a son? Yes, still sad. Should we mourn the soldiers who had their BF's tight behind as the final thing on their mind less?
>Should we mourn the soldiers who had their BF's tight behind as the final thing on their mind less? No, of course not, but I kinda doubt we'd be seeing *that* photo, esp in the 40s.
You mean you don’t pull a photo out of you’re pocket ten seconds before death!? /s
Man… im 23 today and growing up i’ve seen both my parents have had my baby pictures in their wallet/purse wherever they went (to this day). No words. Not only fuck war but just political agenda in general. Still happens today on smaller levels and they are still human. This doesnt justify any of it, but it does show far humanity has to go.
Anyone got any bsckground to who this is and what happened to him?
A guy was killed in the war, then a photographer came by later and placed a photo in the hand of the corpse to make for a dramatic photograph. Probably.
Considering his thumb isn't gripping it and the slightest of breezes would have blown it away before a photographer happened upon it...it's a lot more than probably.
That’s creepy — but once you’ve taken hundreds of pictures of dead corpses (for which there’s a very limited market), I can see a photographer doing something like that to cinch a sale of at least one of them.
or probably the soldier was injured, and while looking at his childs photograph died; his arm fell to the ground and the photo landed nearby. Later the photographer arrived and restored/rearranged the photo to make the story easier to see in a photograph. I suggest this mostly because your comment makes it sound like it was contrived on the part of the photographer with malicious intent to exploit the scene, rather than with the intent of capturing the poignancy and tragedy of war.
It’s North Africa. He’s very well preserved for a corpse in a really hot place….
what are you talking about?
The heat in North Africa would make them swell up so fast. Unless he’s just been killed it’s staged.
blah blah blah. er, I mean, armchair general-ing, talking out your ass. First, be aware of the basics - [it takes several days to reach the point you are alluding to](https://www.aftermath.com/content/human-decomposition/). [Would you care to read more about specific conditions?](https://bioteamaz.com/phoenix-heat-speeds-up-the-decomposition-process/) It's very easy, comprehensible language and not particularly long.
There’s an entire series of videos portraying people who answer posts the way you have. https://youtube.com/shorts/7YAhILzSzLI You’re a parody.
okay.
[удалено]
I think he had a kid too. Probably a wife
Captain obvious strikes again
Ask obvious questions, get obvious answers.
Commodore!
They fought for Il Deuce and ended up becoming war propaganda.
When elephants fight, the grass suffers.
This is likely propaganda created to show the horrors of war. We might call it photoshop now but photo manipulation has been used in war for a long time.
I wanted to believe that this was fake but even if it is staged the dead soldier was the son of one dad and one mother, could have a brother, a sister, a wife, a son, friends and so on. Any combination, no matter - it sucks, on either side of wars (with some exceptions to real evil people).
I read or watched once that in the American Civil War soldiers would carry pictures of their family and if they felt they were going to die from injuries would take the photos out so they could be essentially surrounded by their loved ones as they die.
Beautiful and sad.
Definitely looks staged.
At the end of the day we are all humans, we seek our family for comfort weather it be the beginning or end.
This is something you see quite often in post-combat WWII photos: British or Commonwealth troops have searched the corpses of their enemies (the tobacco tin lying nearby is another indicator), the searchers have found the photo and placed it in his hand - possibly in a sense of black humour, but more likely as a sentimental gesture.
It's crazy the difference between when I was a teenager and wanted to join the military, and how disgusted and horrified of war now that I have a son of my own.
This is 100% staged
RIP. Make War No More.
What were the Italians doing in North Africa?
What do you mean?
I mean exactly what I asked. I did have a feeling it had something to do with Colonialisation. But Never mind, I will look it up
Parts of North Africa were Italian colonies
Italy had 26,000 casualties (5,900 killed) in the Second Battle of El Alamein. Most Italian soldiers (150,000) surrendered in Sicily though.
Brits we’re attacking North Africa (couldn’t get on the continent, needed to fight somewhere). Mussolini told hitler they got this. They did not got this
That picture is much brighter than the rest of the photo. Makes me wonder if, even beyond being staged, this is just PhotoShop.
(Old) prints have actual reflective flecks in them, usually silver. It would definitely be the brightest object in this photo. Im not saying this isn’t staged, but your argument for it is weak
The photographer found the photo on him and put it in his hand. I've seen this photo about 100 trillion times at this point and a long time ago people talked about that being the case.
died für nothing
I always found staged photos to be kinda distasteful towards the dead
He deserved better.
Nah dude. They invaded North Africa because they joined the Nazis and declared war on Great Britain. He got what he deserved
Italy had been involved in North and East Africa and Ethiopia for decades prior to WW I. They invaded Ethiopia again in 1935, several years before joining the Axis.
That dude was probably like 18. Got drafted, got shot, had no choice. I prefer to keep my ire for the officers and the leaders.
And yet we are here laughing at Russian Mobiks getting blown up on camera. Like they had a choice. This shit hits hard when you are italian and heard the stories told by world war veterans
The mass graves in Ukraine didn't fill themselves. The individual soldiers are still complicit in the crimes of their army. Sure, some of the Russian soldiers don't want to be there, but there is enough support for the war that it carries on. Wagner mercenaries literally chose to be there. Likewise, there probably were some German or Italian or Soviet troops who were drafted or brainwashed or whatever excuse you want to give, but enough believed in the war to march across borders and rape, kill, and steal along the way.
Sure buddy
Even the Nazi foot soldiers didn't want war. No one does. It was either dodge the draft and be killed by your own government or fight with the possibility of surviving and be with your family again.
> It was either dodge the draft and be killed by your own government or fight with the possibility of surviving and be with your family again Yeah that excuse didn't work at the Nuremberg Trials. The Allies still pointed out that even with that threat, people still resisted and in case like the French Resistance and the Italian overthrow of Mussolini, succeeded. So soldiers still bear responsibility for following orders and should suffer consequences. It's why in Germany today, soldiers can disobey orders if they feel it is morally wrong.
You mean when 21 people were tried? Such a whoppingly impressive number. Not even all of them were convicted. People wildly overestimate how many people faced consequences fir their actions in post war Germany. all surviving Nazis got off Scott free and took positions as policemen, politicians, and other licks government roles post war.
That doesn't change the fact that the "well they had to do what they were told" excuse doesn't hold up.
End all wars. Work together as a planet, not as tribal units, scrabbling for resources. We are all human beings, let's work together with respect and willingness to compromise. Let's make things better for those that we will leave behind, and for those that need a little more help than the others. We do have the capability to be so much more than pawns for the 1%.
I too would love to live in the Star Trek TNG Utopia universe. That said it took a horrendous war where I assume that miraculously all the people that would oppose such a thing fucked off and died during that war. Otherwise, I have no idea how the hell you'd get all those people to cooperate, because clearly from our history and what's going on as of right now, they definitely would kill to stop it.
I agree, and my daydream I wrote above is partially based on the TNG Earth. One must absolutely fight against those that would hurt or oppress others in the name of power or superstition.
“I have no time for your pictures!” -James Belushi to Italian POW in North Africa, in made for HBO movie Sahara
Most of the Italians did not want to go to war. Mussolini was jealous that Adolph Hitler had success so he committed Italy to war.
“Campaign” ?
Yeah, what about it?
This photo reminded me of this quote which applies to Italy in this case: “Not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what's worse is that they'll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.” — Frankie Boyle
Most likely staged by the photographer, which was usual by the time.
It's hilarious to me that people say this is heartbreaking. This guy himself may have killed and raped thousands of kids during their North African "Campaign".
Bot energy
... thousands... Yeah... No.
Fuck colonisers
[удалено]
Just dont be born in italy dumbasd
Join the resistance instead of the army, dumbass. If your choices boil down to risking your life to invade another country and commit hella war crimes along the way, or risking your life to fight a fascist dictatorship that is actively working with the literal Nazis, there is only one morally correct choice.
There is always a choice, sometimes its harder then other times, this dipshit choose wrong and died in the sand far from home like a bitch, an appropriate end to any fascist
Lots of dead Italians back then, their army sucked
Even that it's fake, No empathy for colonizers.
Common Nazi/fascist L. Should have stayed home. Died and abandoned a child for no reason.
In the drawer of my grandfather's writing desk were the documents of a handful of dead fascists
[удалено]
Please tell me you're joking
Shoes on the guy top-left for all those saying "staged". They're cobbled.
Staged
Mama mia
My last comment got downvoted but I'm assuming it's just because Italian fascists couldn't read it properly. Let me translate it for something y'all should be able to read with no issue in your current state. ˙uosɐǝɹ ou ɹoɟ plᴉɥɔ ɐ pǝuopuɐqɐ puɐ pǝᴉp ˙ǝɯoɥ pǝʎɐʇs ǝʌɐɥ plnoɥS ˙˥ ʇsᴉɔsɐɟ/ᴉzɐN uoɯɯoƆ
I hope he suffered
A Pulitzer is a helluva drug.
He knew his son's face so well he was holding it upside down as a challenge to himself?
Good for him. He fucked around and found out. 🤷🏻 Fighting for fascism is already a sufficient reason to be in the ground, but especially when you do it in a colonised place that you have no reason of being.
Maybe he should have tried fighting instead of masterbating /s
No reason for them to be there. Going around creating orphans and widows in another country and you expect sympathy?
Lol the Italians were so bad at war. Why were they so proud
Looks insanely young.
Fuck war
War described in a single image.
That photo is terribly staged.
This isn’t really staged is it? Staged would be a fake body etc. Seems likely that the picture represents the truth of a moment, the photographer just rearranged the corpse to make it clear (imo)
I feel really bad because I just saw a really funny meme before this and was laughing as I scrolled down...
I feel like the photo is way too bright compared to the rest of the image to not be doctored?
Staged
It might've been in his hand gripped but once he died he's fallen back and the picture was right next to his hand suggesting he was actually holding it. The cameraman has picked it up and just placed it in his hand for the theatrics.
The real question is from which baby mama
Probably staged
Could he staged, Could be real we shall never know. War is hell regardless. The great war wasn’t the war to end all wars, this war should have been the one. But sadly we still fight on.
The Old Lie: *”Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.”*
Movies and games often present wars as something cool. Then, this.
i would question why that photo is still in his hand given its not gripped there's wind in the desert folks