Are any of the allegations that some Holocaust photos are frauds true?

[Sergey Romanov]

The events took place in the same year a few km from each other (Ivangorod is near Velikaya/Bolshaya Sevastyanovka).

I do not fully understand what you are trying to say here.

Do you mean that the two photos show two different events at two different locations close to each other?

I mean to say that given that the photos were (obviously) inscribed by the same German hand and the inscriptions refer to two barely known small villages in Ukraine, which were a couple of km from each other, it makes sense that the photos depict the events that took place in roughly the same timeframe in 1942 and most probably involved the same people, one of whom was the photographer.

Yes, pure possibilities are endless, but why would one disagree that this is the most probable one?

[michael mills]

Yes, that is most probable.

But the question is whether the bodies shown lying on the ground in the Konstantinovka photo are the same civilians as shown in the Ivangorod photo. Or are they a different group of victims?

[Sergey Romanov]

I think so.

At first I thought that the inscriptions might be compatible with this being the same event, if it happened between Ivangorod and B. Sevastyanovka. But on further reflection this seems far-fetched - why would one person describe the location differently?

So yeah, those were two events in nearby villages.

[Michael Kenny]

redundant

[wm]

It's not offensive, merely stilted and incorrectly inflected.

wm, your quote doesn´t point on any foreign nations as you try to justify the photo from the Ukraine in the book "Fight and suffering of the POLISH NATION 1939-1945".
BTW, I prefer to read Polish texts myself no need to translate them without providing the original.

The book was published in four languages, so it was from an original.
And again it wasn't a mere book about suffering of the Polish nation, they simply used what they had, i.e. mainly Polish photos. The idea was "to warn the young generation against the recurrence of genocide", and:

Officially its publication commemorated the twentieth anniversary of the invasion of Poland by the German Army in September 1939, but there was a more pressing reason: as a response to what the communist-led government saw as the rearmament of West Germany and the rise of neo-Nazists in Western Europe.
Private Pictures: Soldiers' Inside View of War by Janina Struk

[siwiec]

--

If you wish to continue with gutter language, please feel free to go on without me from now on.

[Sergey Romanov]

Why do you ask me, Polak? Ask the Poles!

Wow. Speechless.

[David Thompson]

A post from history1, which featured derogatory slang referring to another member, was removed.

National and religious insults are forbidden by this first rule of the forum, and the third rule of the forum prohibits racist remarks and slang expressions for ethnic, national, religious or racial groups. Posts containing insulting generalizations about nationalities, ethnic groups, societies or religious groups and practices are not permitted here.

app.php/rules

[history1]

A post from history1, which featured derogatory slang referring to another member, was removed.

National and religious insults are forbidden by this first rule of the forum, and the third rule of the forum prohibits racist remarks and slang expressions for ethnic, national, religious or racial groups. Posts containing insulting generalizations about nationalities, ethnic groups, societies or religious groups and practices are not permitted here.

app.php/rules

YOU do not speak POLISH! And no one of my Polish relatives and friends is offended when I call them POLE. I doubt you even know that the Mazurek Dąbrowskiego, the Polish antem, does mention a couple time the terms Poles (Polacy, plural of POLAK, resp. Poland = Polska).
So keep your wrong guessings, incorrect informations and prejudice referring my person "A post from history1, which featured derogatory slang" somewhere else! Polak = Pole and in no way derogative! How could it be when even them Poles call themself Polak / Polacy!?

[history1]

Why do you ask me, Polak? Ask the Poles!

Wow. Speechless.

You must not be speechless that I´m using Polish. It´s obvious from the translations of the Polish text in "Swiat" I did before that I´m fluent in this language. Any problems with this?

[Sergey Romanov]

*eyeroll*

[Sergey Romanov]

"Why do you ask me, Yid? Ask the Jews!"
*later*
"Oh, I was just speaking in Yiddish."

[michael mills]

"Yid" is the word for "Jew" in Yiddish. It is derived from the German "Jude", which is not a derogatory word.

"Polak" is what Poles call themselves in their own language.

Both "Yid" and "Polak" can be derogatory when used in other languages, eg in English.

Even the English word "Jew" came to be considered impolite in the 19th Century, and for a time it was replaced in polite and official speech by "Hebrew". That is why US immigration records refer to "Hebrews", and many institutions of Reform Judaism founded in the United States have the word "Hebrew" in their title, eg United Hebrew Congregation.

The same thing happened in Russian, where the traditional word "Zhid" or "Zhidovin" was gradually replaced in polite speech by "Evrei" = Hebrew. Eventually the Bolshevik regime banned the word "Zhid" altogether, on the basis that it was an anti-Semitic epithet.

During the Soviet period there was a joke about the ban on the word "Zhid", to the effect that it was forbidden to say "ozhidaiu" = I am waiting, because it contained "zhid". Instead, one had to say "oevreiaiu".

[BillHermann]

I find the discussion and debate of the validity of photos showing the holocaust disturbing especially the fact that the original post references stormfront. The latest diversion on racial slurs is also questionable.

[The Black Rabbit of Inlé]

Is the Rabbit arguing that the standing inmate was pasted onto the photo because the New York Times Magazine's version predates others?

No; I never argued that.

Here's a list of the appearances of the photo prior to the Toncman-less version appearing in the NYTM that I've have discovered or tracked down :

29.04.45 - The New York Times, p.20 [TONCMAN CROPPED OFF]
29.04.45 - Cleveland Plain Dealer, p.8A
29.04.45 - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, p.3A
29.04.45 - Los Angeles Times, p.3
30.04.45 - Moberly Monitor-Index, p.4
30.04.45 - Altoona Mirror, p.1
30.04.45 - Spokane Daily Chronicle, p.1
01.05.45 - The Monessen Daily Independent, p.2
05.05.45 - I Kathimerini (Η Καθημερινή = The Daily), p.1 [TONCMAN CROPPED OFF]

I don't think he fully appreciates how much easier it is to remove a person from a photo than to add one - lighting, angle and texture considered.

Rest assured, I know that removing someone is the more challenging.

I don't think you fully appreciate the utter ridiculousness of the [completely unevidenced] theories that the NYT and Mel Mermelstein doctored the same photo, in the same way, 34 years apart, and for totally different reasons!

That's without even considering the absurdity of the NYT doctoring an official US Army photo which they could have simply cropped if they were really that concerned about Toncman's semi-nudity upsetting their readers.

Sergey wants everyone to accept, without proof, that the NYT had the brass balls to doctor—completely unnecessarily as well—an official US Army photo less than a fortnight after the army published this article:

Nor do I see what one stands to gain from adding another emaciated inmate to the group pictured?

Covering up the empty bunks.

I suspect Signal Corps photo lab technicians also tried using another figure, and a copy of that photo is now in the USHMM, where it was found and copied by the artist Dee Clements back in the early '90s.

But suppose someone decided to merge two photos together for whatever reason, would that make either of the originals fake?

It wouldn't make the "originals" fake, but the spliced version is fake. Just like the dead bin Laden photo is fake, and Brian Walski's famous LA Times photo is fake [article / photos].

Here's the photo on April 29, 1945 - a week prior to the New York Times Magazine's doctored version:

Old news; here's a newspaper clipping featuring a picture of the doctored photo in just one of the huge propaganda campaigns it was used it.