Stalinist alteration of historical photographs

[BobKKKindle$]

This does not seem to have come up as a topic of discussion before - how do those who defend Stalin deal with the issue of doctoring photographs? The Soviet government used crude techniques to change many of the photographs which had been taken after the October revolution to give the illusion that Trotsky had only a minimal role and did not share a close relationship with Lenin. Regardless of whether Trotsky's ideas were correct or whom Lenin wanted to become leader after his death, it would seem that the alteration of photographs in this way cannot be justified, and was used to prevent the Soviet people from gaining a full understanding of the events which took place, and to secure Stalin's cult of personality.

As evidence that this alteration took place (to avoid accusations of "bourgeois history") the following case study is useful:

http://www.tc.umn.edu/%7Ehick0088/classes/csci_2101/trotsky-orig2.jpghttp://www.tc.umn.edu/%7Ehick0088/classes/csci_2101/trotsky-alt2.jpg

The first of these photographs shows that Trotsky is located adjacent to Lenin, near the base of the podium from which Lenin is giving a speech to a group of workers. However, in the second image, the podium has been extended so that Trotsky is no longer visible. Apart from this alteration, the photograph remains the same (Lenin has the same posture, the other figures are in the same positions, etc.) and so clearly alteration has taken place to remove Trotsky.

A further example:

http://www.tc.umn.edu/%7Ehick0088/classes/csci_2101/trotsky-orig1.jpghttp://www.tc.umn.edu/%7Ehick0088/classes/csci_2101/trotsky-alt1.jpg

Trotsky is clearly standing next to Lenin in the first photograph, but is then removed in the second (and replaced by a hazy dark patch where nothing is clearly visible, giving an indication of the poor quality of Soviet alteration techniques)

In the interests of historical objectivity, surely this alteration was wrong?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ It's worse. There's that famous doctored photo of Stalin and an entourage, but without Yezhov!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation

In any event, I wonder if the doctored photography phenomenon continued after the war.

[BobKKKindle$]

There's that famous doctored photo of Stalin and an entourage, but without Yezhov!Yes, I'm familiar with that alteration as well. Was Trotsky actually aware this was taking place? There seems to be no mention of this in The Revolution Betrayed.

If these alterations were taking place (as the evidence seems to suggest) surely this supports the view that there was a lack of political freedom in the Soviet Union, given that the state actively tried to deceive the population and prevent an objective understanding of historical events?

[Led Zeppelin]

Yes, I'm familiar with that alteration as well. Was Trotsky actually aware this was taking place?

Yes, he was:



You can juggle quotations, hide the stenographic reports of your own speeches, forbid the circulation of Lenin’s letters and articles, fabricate yards of dishonestly selected quotations. You can suppress, conceal and burn up historic documents. You can extend your censorship even to photographic and moving-picture records of revolutionary events. All these things Stalin is doing. But the results do not and will not justify his expectations. Only a limited mind like Stalin’s could imagine that these pitiful machinations will make men forget the gigantic events of modern history.
Letter to the Bureau of Party History (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf06.htm)

[Voice_of_Reason]

http://www.tc.umn.edu/%7Ehick0088/classes/csci_2101/yezhov-orig.jpg http://www.tc.umn.edu/%7Ehick0088/classes/csci_2101/yezhov-alt.jpg

[Voice_of_Reason]

Then Again Hitler did the same thing in fact its repeated throughout history

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/hitler1+2.jpg
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/georgebush1+2.jpghttp://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/mussolini1+2.jpg

[Die Neue Zeit]

1) Did Goebbels fall out of favour with Hitler, or did he ask permission to insert himself?

2) Duh.

3) Either LOL, or it's a Western propaganda picture attacking Mussolini's ego.

[Dros]

http://www.tc.umn.edu/%7Ehick0088/classes/csci_2101/trotsky-orig1.jpghttp://www.tc.umn.edu/%7Ehick0088/classes/csci_2101/trotsky-alt1.jpg

Trotsky is clearly standing next to Lenin in the first photograph, but is then removed in the second (and replaced by a hazy dark patch where nothing is clearly visible, giving an indication of the poor quality of Soviet alteration techniques)

In the interests of historical objectivity, surely this alteration was wrong?

It also looks like Kamenev (looks like him) is present in the first photo standing to the left of Lenin. He is edited out as well it would seem.

[Psy]

1) Did Goebbels fall out of favour with Hitler, or did he ask permission to insert himself?

He was taken out, you can see part of his arm still in the picture.

[Dros]

He was taken out, you can see part of his arm still in the picture.

And the entire outline of his body.

[Dros]

I just noticed something about the Lenin speech. I'm not denying that Stalin edited Trotsky and others out of photographs but the second photo appears to be a different photo. This doesn't mean Trotsky wasn't edited out but the buildings are oriented differently with respect to Lenin and the crowd seems to have moved about. Also Lenin's posture is slightly different.

EDIT: There's also a man where Trotsky should be in the second photo but he's turned the other way.

Is it possible we'r just seeing a different angle of the podium? Judging from the photo editing of the era, it doesn't seem as if adding a section of podium like that would be simple/doable. Although I really don't know much about photography so that's pure speculation.

I repeat: I'm not denying that Stalin edited photos.

[Wanted Man]

how do those who defend Stalin deal with the issue of doctoring photographs?

(...)

In the interests of historical objectivity, surely this alteration was wrong?
Well, I'm not sure what moral judgements have to do with historical objectivity...

Anyway, would you terribly mind if I say that it doesn't bother me that much? I mean, it's a crappy move that I wouldn't repeat, but I don't think it had much effect. I just don't see the point in either strongly defending or fiercely denouncing it. People used nasty methods against each other in a power struggle. Surprise, surprise.

[Voice_of_Reason]

Either LOL, or it's a Western propaganda picture attacking Mussolini's ego.

Actually Mussolini had them airbrush the horse keeper in to make him look more heroic

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually Mussolini had them airbrush the horse keeper in to make him look more heroic

To me, having the horse keeper IN makes Mussolini look less "heroic." I mean, I was under the impression that he was trying to pose like that famous Napoleon painting (with the horse raising its front legs).

[Revolutiondownunder]

He was taken out, you can see part of his arm still in the picture.


There was a lot of infighting in nazism wasnt there? maybe that was the reason, hitler never "fell out" with Goebells, I remember from "Downfall" that he got made "leader of germany" for about 20 minutes after hiter blew his brains out.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psy http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1160858#post1160858)
He was taken out, you can see part of his arm still in the picture.

And the entire outline of his body.
Not to mention his shadow. . .

-----------------------------------------

Denying Trotsky his rightful place in history is wrong. He was an intelligent man, and an integral part of the revolution. We all speculate how the Soviet Union would have developed if he, not Stalin, had succeeded Lenin (for better or for worse). However, we will never really know.
Whether you agree or disagree with Trotsky's ideals, it is altering history.

It is wrong to change history. However, the sad truth is that the victors write history, and altering history always has, and always will, occur.

[Red October]

My Russian teacher had a book called The Commissar Vanishes, which detailed the program of photo manipulation in the USSR. It had a lot of good examples of falsification in it, if you want to know more about this I'd recommend you try to find the book. This is a website for the book which has some of the things found in it, but the book has way more: http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/

[The Author]

Pretty much what Wanted Man said. I could care less about photo manipulation, or the censorship or editing of literature or film, or other forms of expression used as propaganda. This isn't merely a "Stalinist" phenomena, all political currents are guilty of same actions. As far as altering history, well, I have got news for you: history is always biased, and always will be, no matter what class (or classless society) is in charge.

[Tower of Bebel]

So far socialism... :glare:. I do care about these tricks, because they obviously reveil that there were big troubles. The truth about the pasts must have been so harmful that it had to be removed from history or collective memory. Instead of dialogue and democracy we see an unforgiving struggle for power/life.

http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/images/photos/17.jpg

After a certain periode of time subtile changes weren't even needed anymore. Everyone could see that someone was cut out, which meant someone was declared a public enemy by those who remained visible.

[Panda Tse Tung]

There was citizens-incentive as well, with citizens cutting Trotsky out of history books. So i guess it was a well-known practice. I don't see why so many opponents of Stalin place so much emphasis on this minor aspect of Soviet society anyways.

[al8]

I once talked to a grafic artist at dinner at a relative. She first told that her profession was historical falsification. As she would be removing people from pictures, erasing pimples from photos of executive board members and such. So this is a practice done all the time also in capitalism.

[union6]

I just noticed something about the Lenin speech. I'm not denying that Stalin edited Trotsky and others out of photographs but the second photo appears to be a different photo. This doesn't mean Trotsky wasn't edited out but the buildings are oriented differently with respect to Lenin and the crowd seems to have moved about. Also Lenin's posture is slightly different.

EDIT: There's also a man where Trotsky should be in the second photo but he's turned the other way.

Is it possible we'r just seeing a different angle of the podium? Judging from the photo editing of the era, it doesn't seem as if adding a section of podium like that would be simple/doable. Although I really don't know much about photography so that's pure speculation.

I repeat: I'm not denying that Stalin edited photos.

yea thats what i thought aswell, Lenins head is turned slightly and the guys in the white hats are not in the same positions.

[Tower of Bebel]

yea thats what i thought aswell, Lenins head is turned slightly and the guys in the white hats are not in the same positions.


Yes, those might be different photo's. Most of the time professional photographers and journalists take more than one photo. It could be that the original was edited, so they had to find a similar photo to prove Trotsky was left out.

In one of my books on modern history the author wrote that the podium was edited togheter with Trotsky and others. But that might be false if the "real photo" was taken a few secons before or after.

[mykittyhasaboner]

http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/images/photos/5_lg.jpg http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/images/photos/6_lg.jpg

whats the point of this one? :confused:

[Louis Pio]

There was citizens-incentive as well, with citizens cutting Trotsky out of history books. So i guess it was a well-known practice. I don't see why so many opponents of Stalin place so much emphasis on this minor aspect of Soviet society anyways.



Maybe because it's a quite unmarxist thing to do from people claiming to be marxist?
Moreover one could argue that it shows theoretical bankruptcy on behalf of Stalin and his clique, instead of countering ideas they just try to remove trace of them alltogether.

[Tower of Bebel]

whats the point of this one? :confused:
The same story: Destroy Trotsky's past. This kind of manipulation shows how far Stalin wanted to go: everybody can see that someone became an enemy.

(Lol, and wouldn't have been more effective if "Pravda" was replaced with "porn"? :D)

[mykittyhasaboner]

The same story: Destroy Trotsky's past. This kind of manipulation shows how far Stalin wanted to go: everybody can see that someone became an enemy.

(Lol, and wouldn't have been more effective if "Pravda" was replaced with "porn"? :D)

:laugh: lol yes it would have been more effective. it just seems a bit foolish, to just deface him, why print the picture at all, theres no one in it besides Trotsky. Just seems stupid to me.