"Famous Hitler rally picture probably faked"

[Eddy Marz]

Most damningly, Krumeich found a different version of the picture in the Hoffmann photo archive in Bavaria. In that image, Hitler’s characteristic lock of hair over the forehead looks clearly different – suggesting the photo had been retouched.

Gerd Krumeich must have it, in Düsseldorf

[ChristopherPerrien]

The photo looks legitimate to me. Hitler looks slighty "dis-heveled" and enthusiatic. And young too.

What his mustache looked like on any given day , only denotes when he last trimmed it.

Historian Gerd Krumeich has studied the picture and its history and concluded that Hitler was superimposed into the picture to promote the image of the Nazi leader as a patriot and a man of the people.

Gerd can conclude whatever bs he prefers. I await how he will "conclude" somehow, that Hitler did not petition the king of Bavaria and join the army IN THE FIRST MONTH of the war, to futher conclude that Hitler was not a German "patriot".

[OpanaPointer]

The photo looks legitimate to me. Hitler looks slighty "dis-heveled" and enthusiatic. And young too.

What his mustache looked like on any given day , only denotes when he last trimmed it.

Historian Gerd Krumeich has studied the picture and its history and concluded that Hitler was superimposed into the picture to promote the image of the Nazi leader as a patriot and a man of the people.

Gerd can conclude whatever bs he prefers. I await how he will "conclude" somehow, that Hitler did not petition the king of Bavaria and join the army IN THE FIRST MONTH of the war, to futher conclude that Hitler was not a German "patriot".

I'll reserve a declaration of BS until I get a better idea of the evidence to be presented.

[Helly Angel]

of course is him.

[OpanaPointer]

of course is him.

"of course" sets off all kinds of alarms for me.

[ChristopherPerrien]

of course is him.

"of course" sets off all kinds of alarms for me.

Well , the fact that this "hypothesis" was first posted in a GERMAN periodical/tabloid by a supposed GERMAN scholar,
should set off alot of alarms, TO ANYONE, as it against the law in Germany to say otherwise at this time.I look at this as an indentical anti-thesis to the mass admiration of Hitler before Germany lost WWII. Why should anyone have to prove or disprove it ,the evidence should be plainly posted online.

I see no proof as to this picture being a fake than other a story with no proof posted in a German tabloid.

Besides, So what if the picture is a fake, which I seriously doubt, would that matter at all? Does that a mean a thing as to Hitler's pre-desposition in1 914? Are Roberts Evans, Shirer, et al. total fools? Or does Gerd merley wish to rewrite Hitler himself to make a buck in Germany's MSM and to push some bogus German government sponsored agenda.

More alarms should go off , in that the supposed controversy cooked up by this, is directly tied to the Hitler exhibit in Berlin(Hitler and the German people) at this time. Which if you bother to read of the motivations behind the curators of this exibit/museum, is obviously suspect. They are trying to fight off what Mrs Merkel refered to as the failure of multiculturalism in Germany. Hitlers need to be divorced from the "common" German again.

I hope your friends, OP, do a good/tactful job of analyzing the authenticity of this picture. Of course given the thrust of this picture in connection with the whole exibit, they should take care not to do/say "the wrong thing" as far as the government of Germany is concerned. No use getting locked up by the new and improved "anti" nazis, if they visit Germany, in the future.

[Geoff Walden]

I thought some might like to see some better / close-up versions of the photo in question. To me, it doesn't look fake at all, and it looks like it could very well be Hitler in 1914. Why not? Sure, it could be a fake photo (but as Adam pointed out, it doesn't look it, given the technology of the period), and the story could have been invented, but isn't the simplest explanation the most likely? So you can make up your own mind ...

Here is the photo as it was published in Hoffmann's book Hitler wie ihn keiner kennt ("Hitler as No-one Knows Him), Berlin, 1932:



Here is an enlargement of the crowd scene:



Here is an enlargement where Hoffmann zoomed in on Hitler's face:



Here, Hoffmann points out Hitler in the crowd:



Here is a colorized version that was published in Hoffmann's "cigarette card" book Kampf um's Dritte Reich Altona-Bahrenfeld, 1933). Obviously, in the process of colorizing there was also some touch-up, but it doesn't appear to me that this face was added or radically changed ("faked").



Geoff

[OpanaPointer]

I hope your friends, OP, do a good/tactful job of analyzing the authenticity of this picture. Of course given the thrust of this picture in connection with the whole exibit, they should take care not to do/say "the wrong thing" as far as the government of Germany is concerned. No use getting locked up by the new and improved "anti" nazis, if they visit Germany, in the future.

They have to put up with me, so they'll do a good job. Haste is not a factor here, so it may take a while to get results.

[uhu]

In Hoffman's post war book,

Hitler was my friend

, 1955, Hoffman mentions finding Hitler in the photo. One would think Hoffman would enjoy telling the story even more if he faked it.

"When I told Hitler of the vast Munich crowd I photographed on the declaration of war in 1914, he exclaimed, "I was in that crowd." After meticulous search, we picked him out.

An interesting book if you have the chance to pick up for a few bucks. Of course quite a few photos I haven't seen anywhere else.

[ChristopherPerrien]

In Hoffman's post war book,

Hitler was my friend

, 1955, Hoffman mentions finding Hitler in the photo. One would think Hoffman would enjoy telling the story even more if he faked it.

Why would you think he would have enjoyed this picture/story, more if it was "fake"? That is the realm of pathological liars.

[Adam Carr]

I'm still of the view that the techniques available in 1932 for faking photos would not stand up to modern scrutiny, even on a print or reproduction if the original plate is lost. The only thing that would refute that is another photo of the same spot at the same time, in which Hitler cannot be seen.

[uhu]

Hi Chris P,

Hoffman loved to tell stories, and if you read his book it is filled with stories, some of which seem embellished. In writing his book postwar, 1955, my own feeling is that he would have love to tell a story about fooling Hitler with a doctored photo. That's just my own feeling.

[OpanaPointer]

I'm still of the view that the techniques available in 1932 for faking photos would not stand up to modern scrutiny, even on a print or reproduction if the original plate is lost. The only thing that would refute that is another photo of the same spot at the same time, in which Hitler cannot be seen.

That's what we're looking for, as I mentioned above.

[MLW]

The articles states "Krumeich has looked for other photos of the same rally both in archives and in newspapers and books. He noticed that other pictures of the event taken from different standpoints, including a picture taken by Hoffmann, do not show Hitler."

It would be nice to see these other photos in order to determine if they image the same spot at the same time as the famous photo.

[Adam Carr]

Hoffman could not have taken two photos of the same spot at the same time with the camera technology of 1914.