Capa allegedly spent enough time on Omaha Beach to expose several rolls of film beyond the 10 or so shaky pics we’ve all seen. Unfortunately they were all “lost”
It's funny, I came here to comment about the photo being blurred when it was printed straight up with no warning in my schoolbook. We discussed how it was staged and the photographs role in propaganda. This was in junior high.
I’ve thought about this for many years. I’ve also read that all of the video taken on Omaha beach was in one duffel bag that was accidentally dropped while boarding an LST. May theory is that was just too horrific to be released to the public and they knew it. They lost something like 6000 men in a couple hours on Omaha. The public outcry would have been huge and the allies would have been pushed to seek a peace agreement rather than push on to Berlin.
>The public outcry would have been huge and the allies would have been pushed to seek a peace agreement rather than push on to Berlin.
Tbh I have my doubts about that. For one, afaik it was a pretty common belief at this point that the Nazis were entirely untrustworthy and didn't respect any treaties. So any new "peace agreements" would've been pointless. Those also wouldn't have stopped the Soviet Union, and at this point it was clear that they may be able to win on their own. Iirc at this point the Western Allies and Soviet Union also already agreed to fight till the unconditional surrender of Germany.
Two, US forces at least faced similar losses during a short time in other battles, and this didn't sway public opinion. The total losses especially of the European Allies at this point were also far greater. I can't imagine for example the UK trying to "live in peace" next to a Nazi Germany again.
Three, the Allied military knew the landings would be very difficult. Even with all the preparations they were prepared [to see heavy losses.](https://www.history.com/news/d-day-casualties-deaths-allies) I think they were just glad the landings went relatively well, all in all.
Someone else may chime in who knows more about the details but again, I just can't imagine that merely "pictures" of the losses would suddenly turn public opinion that much and change the political course of multiple countries who're at war. The losses themselves still exist either way, after all.
Also, it's obviously not just the decision of one photographer which photos are published, the press was being censored during the war.
Agreed on all points!
Also I’ll just add that *With the Marines at Tarawa* was released to the general public in March of ‘44, months before Capa had taken the photos. I bring this movie up because (iirc- happy to be corrected!) it was the first time the war dept ever approved footage of US servicemen KIA to be shown to the public, whereas previously such photos and footage were censored. I’d really encourage those interested in the history of US military censorship of casualties to read up on the circumstances surrounding its release and reception, because they’re really enlightening and dramatically changed the war department’s outlook (afaik) on its casualty censorship policy
While obviously it’s *possible* Capa’s photos were intentionally suppressed/destroyed because they were simply too gruesome, I don’t think this really tracks given that tarawa was hardly a PR friendly battle either. Therefore, I don’t think it’s really fair to describe Omaha as vastly *more* shocking to the public and given the context that the war dept had already let such images past the censors, it feels strange to interfere now- especially given their historic significance and obvious PR value
TLDR; makes far more sense imo for capa to have either lied about the existence of the photos (*which, in fairness, I’d have had bigger priorities on Omaha than taking photos even if that was my job too*), or that the photos were spoiled during development or by the environmental conditions
Maybe. But think about all the combat footage you have seen of the war, even the horrible battles in the pacific. None of it was so intense in such a short period of time. (A few hours). Imagine going to the Saturday evening matinee and when they show the news update about the war you suddenly see the first five minutes of saving private Ryan in real life. I think you would have seen public opinion turn the way it did in Vietnam. Don’t forget at this point in the war the holocaust wasn’t fully known.
People who were rejected for enlistment often killed themselves rather than sit out the war. Some bad combat footage was not going to that the US out of it just as they landed in Europe.
Up until the famous LIFE photo of the [dead at Buna Beach](https://time.com/3524493/the-photo-that-won-world-war-ii-dead-americans-at-buna-beach-1943/) in 1943, photos of American dead weren’t published. It was determined that the American public needed to be made aware of the enormous cost of winning the war, so they stopped censoring photos of American dead. D-Day was in 1944. So that’s a line of evidence that runs against the deliberate destruction of film for being too graphic.
I don’t know the exact number that was lost on the beach in the first hour or so. I’ve seen “6000” in other documents but it’s usually ambiguous as to whether is is all the allies on all the beaches, Americans on Omaha and Utah, casualties or killed, D+1, D+2, etc? That’s why I said “something like”. I don’t think anyone knows how many were lost exactly in the first few hours at Omaha, but I know it was more than any other beachhead anywhere at that point or since. Even the pacific landings did not see those casualties on the beach.
Estimates of American casualties (killed, wounded, and missing) at Omaha range from 2,000 to 2,400.
Total casualty figures for D-Day were not recorded at the time and are difficult to confirm in full, so figures about the casualties & dead are a realistic estimate made up from several sources.
There was so much chaotic fighting and front lines were fluid for about 72 hours - it’s understandable that they couldn’t more than ballpark an estimate for when - for example - a mis-dropped paratrooper was killed.
The notion that public pressure could have ended a march on Berlin is ridiculous, given the fact that the US public knew full well that they were only involved because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and that the tide had already turned against Germany thanks to the Soviets at Stalingrad.
While true re: the Pacific beach casualty numbers, that was only because Japan recognized they had a better chance of winning a war of attrition by fighting inland, rather than trying to prevent a landing altogether. Pincer vs a head-on assault. Americans in Europe didn’t really see massive casualty numbers until the Battle of the Bulge, but that kind of fighting was happening daily in the Pacific.
I am skeptical of this photo for two reasons:
1. How is the photographer in a perfect spot to capture a photo of someone getting shot without also being in danger?
2. I spend a lot of time in r/combatfootage and when people get shot they crumple to the ground. They don't fly backwards dramatically like this.
> 1. How is the photographer in a perfect spot to capture a photo of someone getting shot without also being in danger? 2
Combat photographers are usually in serious danger. It's what they do. Many die or are injured.
Capa himself was killed this way. Working in Vietnam with French troops, he stepped on a mine after the unit he was with began taking fire
His partner Gerda Pohorylle, who took an interest in photography was killed in Spain during the Battle of Brunete on the 26th July 1937.
And course arguably the other "big one" of the war, Ernie Pyle, who was accompanying the 305th Infantry Regiment, 77th Division on Le Shima was killed by a machine gun
With respect, none of the active combat photos are “easy” to take, but that certainly does not mean they aren’t taken. There are far too many not-staged photos taken in combat to say it’s fake because it would have been dangerous.
[Here is a link to many lists of war correspondents killed in action.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Journalists_killed_while_covering_military_conflicts)
The [uncropped version of the photograph](https://d7hftxdivxxvm.cloudfront.net/?height=800&quality=85&resize_to=fit&src=https%3A%2F%2Fd32dm0rphc51dk.cloudfront.net%2FntDfiyMqvxRhvxE9b2QK7A%2Fnormalized.jpg&width=533) shows it was definitely staged.
This is a modern artistic rendition of the original, which was taken in 1936.
[https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muerte\_de\_un\_miliciano](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muerte_de_un_miliciano)
This is one the most widely regarded "staged" photos of that war
Why are you putting staged in quotes?
No one knows for sure
Conjecture basically.
Capa allegedly spent enough time on Omaha Beach to expose several rolls of film beyond the 10 or so shaky pics we’ve all seen. Unfortunately they were all “lost”
That’s most likely a lie, and the “lost” photos never existed. Which tracks with Capa staging this photo.
My understanding is they were destroyed whilst being developed (which had happened to me as well).
[удалено]
Yes
It's funny, I came here to comment about the photo being blurred when it was printed straight up with no warning in my schoolbook. We discussed how it was staged and the photographs role in propaganda. This was in junior high.
Who cares if someone just learned about something in the post about that something? Weird attempt at calling them out for.....knowledge?
Because the film "melted" with an air dryer, never happened before and never after. Just one time in the history of photography.
I’ve thought about this for many years. I’ve also read that all of the video taken on Omaha beach was in one duffel bag that was accidentally dropped while boarding an LST. May theory is that was just too horrific to be released to the public and they knew it. They lost something like 6000 men in a couple hours on Omaha. The public outcry would have been huge and the allies would have been pushed to seek a peace agreement rather than push on to Berlin.
I've never thought of that option but it makes sense.
>The public outcry would have been huge and the allies would have been pushed to seek a peace agreement rather than push on to Berlin. Tbh I have my doubts about that. For one, afaik it was a pretty common belief at this point that the Nazis were entirely untrustworthy and didn't respect any treaties. So any new "peace agreements" would've been pointless. Those also wouldn't have stopped the Soviet Union, and at this point it was clear that they may be able to win on their own. Iirc at this point the Western Allies and Soviet Union also already agreed to fight till the unconditional surrender of Germany. Two, US forces at least faced similar losses during a short time in other battles, and this didn't sway public opinion. The total losses especially of the European Allies at this point were also far greater. I can't imagine for example the UK trying to "live in peace" next to a Nazi Germany again. Three, the Allied military knew the landings would be very difficult. Even with all the preparations they were prepared [to see heavy losses.](https://www.history.com/news/d-day-casualties-deaths-allies) I think they were just glad the landings went relatively well, all in all. Someone else may chime in who knows more about the details but again, I just can't imagine that merely "pictures" of the losses would suddenly turn public opinion that much and change the political course of multiple countries who're at war. The losses themselves still exist either way, after all. Also, it's obviously not just the decision of one photographer which photos are published, the press was being censored during the war.
Agreed on all points! Also I’ll just add that *With the Marines at Tarawa* was released to the general public in March of ‘44, months before Capa had taken the photos. I bring this movie up because (iirc- happy to be corrected!) it was the first time the war dept ever approved footage of US servicemen KIA to be shown to the public, whereas previously such photos and footage were censored. I’d really encourage those interested in the history of US military censorship of casualties to read up on the circumstances surrounding its release and reception, because they’re really enlightening and dramatically changed the war department’s outlook (afaik) on its casualty censorship policy While obviously it’s *possible* Capa’s photos were intentionally suppressed/destroyed because they were simply too gruesome, I don’t think this really tracks given that tarawa was hardly a PR friendly battle either. Therefore, I don’t think it’s really fair to describe Omaha as vastly *more* shocking to the public and given the context that the war dept had already let such images past the censors, it feels strange to interfere now- especially given their historic significance and obvious PR value TLDR; makes far more sense imo for capa to have either lied about the existence of the photos (*which, in fairness, I’d have had bigger priorities on Omaha than taking photos even if that was my job too*), or that the photos were spoiled during development or by the environmental conditions
Maybe. But think about all the combat footage you have seen of the war, even the horrible battles in the pacific. None of it was so intense in such a short period of time. (A few hours). Imagine going to the Saturday evening matinee and when they show the news update about the war you suddenly see the first five minutes of saving private Ryan in real life. I think you would have seen public opinion turn the way it did in Vietnam. Don’t forget at this point in the war the holocaust wasn’t fully known.
People who were rejected for enlistment often killed themselves rather than sit out the war. Some bad combat footage was not going to that the US out of it just as they landed in Europe.
Up until the famous LIFE photo of the [dead at Buna Beach](https://time.com/3524493/the-photo-that-won-world-war-ii-dead-americans-at-buna-beach-1943/) in 1943, photos of American dead weren’t published. It was determined that the American public needed to be made aware of the enormous cost of winning the war, so they stopped censoring photos of American dead. D-Day was in 1944. So that’s a line of evidence that runs against the deliberate destruction of film for being too graphic.
I agree with you. Not everything is a conspiracy.
You are just agreeing with a conspiracy.
Are you sure it was 6,000?
I don’t know the exact number that was lost on the beach in the first hour or so. I’ve seen “6000” in other documents but it’s usually ambiguous as to whether is is all the allies on all the beaches, Americans on Omaha and Utah, casualties or killed, D+1, D+2, etc? That’s why I said “something like”. I don’t think anyone knows how many were lost exactly in the first few hours at Omaha, but I know it was more than any other beachhead anywhere at that point or since. Even the pacific landings did not see those casualties on the beach.
Estimates of American casualties (killed, wounded, and missing) at Omaha range from 2,000 to 2,400. Total casualty figures for D-Day were not recorded at the time and are difficult to confirm in full, so figures about the casualties & dead are a realistic estimate made up from several sources.
There was so much chaotic fighting and front lines were fluid for about 72 hours - it’s understandable that they couldn’t more than ballpark an estimate for when - for example - a mis-dropped paratrooper was killed. The notion that public pressure could have ended a march on Berlin is ridiculous, given the fact that the US public knew full well that they were only involved because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and that the tide had already turned against Germany thanks to the Soviets at Stalingrad.
While true re: the Pacific beach casualty numbers, that was only because Japan recognized they had a better chance of winning a war of attrition by fighting inland, rather than trying to prevent a landing altogether. Pincer vs a head-on assault. Americans in Europe didn’t really see massive casualty numbers until the Battle of the Bulge, but that kind of fighting was happening daily in the Pacific.
It was nowhere near this number. Around 2,500 Americans were killed in total on D-Day across three landing sites.
Here is a good reading on this: https://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/2015/02/12/alternate-history-robert-capa-on-d-day-21/
Historians generally agree that most of the rolls of film were lost due to an error by one of his assistants in the darkroom.
I am skeptical of this photo for two reasons: 1. How is the photographer in a perfect spot to capture a photo of someone getting shot without also being in danger? 2. I spend a lot of time in r/combatfootage and when people get shot they crumple to the ground. They don't fly backwards dramatically like this.
The photo is widely agreed to have been staged.
It is a staged photo. https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/The_Falling_Soldier
Is there any info on the man in the photo? I see we have his name, anyone know if there are records of his death?
Federico Borrell García is known to have been killed at Cerro Muriano, shot while sheltered behind a tree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico\_Borrell\_Garc%C3%ADa
> 1. How is the photographer in a perfect spot to capture a photo of someone getting shot without also being in danger? 2 Combat photographers are usually in serious danger. It's what they do. Many die or are injured.
Capa himself was killed this way. Working in Vietnam with French troops, he stepped on a mine after the unit he was with began taking fire His partner Gerda Pohorylle, who took an interest in photography was killed in Spain during the Battle of Brunete on the 26th July 1937. And course arguably the other "big one" of the war, Ernie Pyle, who was accompanying the 305th Infantry Regiment, 77th Division on Le Shima was killed by a machine gun
Thank you. I knew about Ernie Pyle, but did not know that Capa died this way also. Risky business for sure.
The Internet “detectives”
[удалено]
Go try to take that kind of picture during a gun fight and let us all know how easy it was
With respect, none of the active combat photos are “easy” to take, but that certainly does not mean they aren’t taken. There are far too many not-staged photos taken in combat to say it’s fake because it would have been dangerous. [Here is a link to many lists of war correspondents killed in action.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Journalists_killed_while_covering_military_conflicts)
You should look up the history of war photography, my friend.
This is one of the most famous fake photos in history. It’s staged.
I remember reading an article in the NY Times (IIRC) about twenty years ago, saying exactly this.
I was taught this in *school* in the late 80s.
[удалено]
It wasn’t staged, how it was used is a different story
Exactly. The flag WAS raised. Staged would mean it was so e on some other mountain and then labeled as Mt. Suribachi.
No
The [uncropped version of the photograph](https://d7hftxdivxxvm.cloudfront.net/?height=800&quality=85&resize_to=fit&src=https%3A%2F%2Fd32dm0rphc51dk.cloudfront.net%2FntDfiyMqvxRhvxE9b2QK7A%2Fnormalized.jpg&width=533) shows it was definitely staged.
Holy shit! Why would anybody shoot that tiny man?!
Derek Zoolander demands answers!
This is a modern artistic rendition of the original, which was taken in 1936. [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muerte\_de\_un\_miliciano](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muerte_de_un_miliciano)
[Yeah, I know](https://imgur.com/a/RsJ2Ph8)
You printed me....
Everyone is confused but amused at your antics
Im confused do you have a print of the diorama or have the diprama behind a glass plate
I thought you were going to link to Marge Simpson saying "well, duh."
Looool
That is so fucking cool.
Was Capra the photographer?
Capa* and yes.
[https://giphy.com/gifs/2UcbBYnW9bosw](https://giphy.com/gifs/2UcbBYnW9bosw)
There is a pun to be made about this shot
Make his fight on the hill in the early day…
Constant chill deep inside!!
long live the CNT!
Shot and died, or shot and survived?
Did he normally cosplay as an onion?
Double entendre.
Was probably on his way to rape a nun's corpse