WEEKLY DISCUSSION #29: Joe Rosenthal - "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima"

[GerrySiegel]

Charles, I think I can understand your perspective even as I disagree with your conclusion as it relates to this iconic image.

I learned several things in the discussion that I had forgotten or never knew. And I just now looked up and read another article that looked at the fate of the flag raisers, the subjects themselves. Three were killed in action and one was wounded in that war.

As to the parameters of the discussion, Fred, it is not my call as to the relevance of any opinion even if I don't dig it. Guess I am more on the side of putting a rope around a discussion which may be the result of my last career job. (team leader at group meetings which were task oriented in lieu of all night rap sessions or group chats or book discussions.) I had the same problem btw when I led a book discussion, i.e. trying to set out some closure or consensus or what have you....

No I do not see my way clear to judge any opinion when it stimulates conversation which is the goal after all in this sort of space. Still, in the conversation mode, guess I reserve the right to challenge (in my mind or on computer) an opinion that wanders away from my sense of history or facts as I understand them.

 

My philosophy on war and peace? It's complicated. In a sense everything can be propaganda and journalistic propaganda is not always contemptible. Hmm. Latter could be basis for a new offshoot discussion.

 

I look at and salute the flag with pride without hesitation. And this is what I see in the image, blindingly bright as well as citizens in combat who did as grim job for us. Although I will critique the Prussian or Bushido warrior mentality when I see it without a blink. No conflict in holding those two thoughts together, in my mind.

[charleswood]

<p>Stefan T: "Many of the generation of my parents and grand-parents not only remained silent...."</p>

<p>That was my experience with the WWII vets I knew here in the USA. When asked directly about the war they would only talk freely about their induction and discharge. I quickly got the feeling that I shouldn't ask for any more. So the war didn't have a seat at our dinner table. That place was reserved for the great depression instead. My cousins say it was the same at their respective houses.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Still, in the conversation mode, guess I reserve the right to challenge (in my mind or on computer) an opinion that wanders away from my sense of history or facts as I understand them."</em></p>

<p>Gerry, point taken. And well made. And I appreciate Charles addressing his perception of intellectual dishonesty in the photo.</p>

<p>Charles, my dad also didn't have much to say about his service in the war. My brother and I are just putting together some of his experiences having found a scrap book he kept while in Europe. Some very disturbing images I won't go into and I'm sure he preferred not bringing into our lives but nevertheless managed to keep all these years. To think of those visions wandering in and out of his head, from a very real and personal view at the age of 18, is frankly quite hard to even imagine and disturbing to say the least to even consider.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Thanks Fred.</p>

<p>(To clarify, I didn't want to create the impression specifically that my father's role in the service was combat, it wasn't, he was a mechanic in the Army Air Corp. in Arizona from 42 to 45. My uncles, their first cousins, family friends, etc. were in combat and again, none of them discussed their combat experiences that I'm aware of.)</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>And I just now looked up and read another article that looked at the fate of the flag raisers, the subjects themselves. Three were killed in action and one was wounded in that war.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just to clarify the point. The three of the six flag raisers that were subsequently killed in the war died on Iwo Jima when the returned to battles after the raising of the flag. They never left that island alive and were probably dead before the photo was published. http://www.iwojima.com/raising/raisingc.htm</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>David, do you think the bombing of Dresden, Braunschweig and many more German cities towards the end of the war by the American and British air force was any better than the horrible deeds of these red army soldiers just because it was commanded by high ranks?</em><br>

A fair question which I feel I should answer. The death of anyone, in uniform or not, is a tragedy, but the fact remains that the Nazi regime was an evil one which needed to be stopped. The Allies needed to develop a strategy which would do this at minimum cost in Allied loss of life. Within the context of total war, which had been introduced by the Nazis, beginning with the Spanish civil war, mass bombing had the strategic function of damaging morale, disrupting war production but above all tying up many thousands of troops and great quantities of resources in air defense measures. It has been observed many times that the Allied D-Day landings succeeded by only a small margin – a few more German divisions in northern France would almost certainly have thrown the landings back into the sea.<br>

Had the war lasted any longer, it is not impossible that the Nazis would have had time to produce advanced weapons in quantity, such as the ME262 jet fighter, nuclear weapons, large quantities of the V2 rocket, the Tiger II tank, etc. and kept fighting for a year longer or more. The behaviour of the Red Army, on the other hand, was merely gratuitous violence. </p>

[AJHingel]

<p><em><strong>"n'importe quoi !" - </strong></em>we would say in my daily language, when reading David's stories from the Second World War.</p>

<p>Are there really no limits to what is allowed to be written in a Casual Photo Conversation. Where are the moderators ?</p>

<p>If there indeed are no off topic limits here around anymore , then let's have an informed discussion on war crimes and bravery during the Second World War in order to put the records straight. Let's start with the "rape of Nanking" (400.000 civilians killed) and then talk about Dresden (25.000 civilians killed), Stalingrad (one million killed, two third of them soldiers), London (40.000 civilians killed), the bombing of Japanese cities (500.000 civilians killed, plus the 220.000 civilians killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima in seconds... etc etc. Not much black and white history telling to be found in these events.</p>

<p>And then, maybe, we could get back to this weeks iconic photo.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>And then, maybe, we could get back to this weeks iconic photo.</em></p>

<p>Anders, is there more you could or want to say about this photo?</p>

<p>_________________________________________________________</p>

<p>One thing I noticed was the graphic blacks that the shadows create, particularly on the lower limbs of the men. Whereas I often don't like shadows that get so graphic and severe, here it seems to fit right in. It doesn't matter whether it was a deliberate choice or a factor of the lighting conditions, exposure, and post processing. It almost makes the men look a little like statues, as does the grand perspective to me, which they certainly were not but which is kind of a cool transformation offered by the qualities of the photo. To me, it pictures them as much as figures as actual men, as bodies (as well as souls) that are somehow constructed, with the potential of being deconstructed. It gives their limbs a fractured look which seems to go with the whole story.</p>

<p>We were talking about statues earlier. This photo (and the scene itself) not only lends itself to having had a statue of it made. The photo itself reads to me like a statue. Those shadows give it the feeling of stone. Which helps push it to the iconic and helps make it timeless.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>this weeks iconic photo.</em><br>

Which shows an incident later chosen to be commemorated in a war memorial. It's really not much of a stretch to go on to discuss what other incidents or events may or may not be worthy of commemoration - is it?</p>

[charleswood]

<p>I would hope it would not be timeless, would instead become forgotten and ignored by future generations, would become just more litter from that long period in human history when we didn't know what we were doing.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I am a pacifist, but I love the photo.</p>

<p>Lannie: Why? Would you explain? --Alan</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Alan, although I am opposed to war, life is not simple. Yes, war is evil, but the Nazis had to be defeated, and Japanese expansionism was about as reprehensible as American expansionism during various historical epochs. My own view, however, is that war perpetuates itself by its very successes--and we may well have defeated Hitler only to become the worst villains ourselves. Or perhaps we will be yet. I hope not. Every country's legacy is mixed. </p>

<p>In any case, people find themselves where they find themselves, whether or not they should have been there in the first place. I admire the men who took that island and raised the flag. I admire every act of heroism done by those who act in good faith for the right motives.</p>

<p>As for WWII, many uncles on my father's side fought in the Pacific (one at Leyte Gulf), and one on my father's side died in the European theater, under Patton's command, the day before I was born. If there was ever a just war (a dubious proposition to me), WWII might well have been it, given Hitler's actions and future agenda. Really, though, I do not wish to get too far into the pacifism--just war debate here. Suffice it to say that heroism and self-sacrifice always get my vote, even if in Vietnam, which was probably an ill-conceived war.</p>

<p>The photo itself? Well, read what Fred has had to say. I have nothing to add, really. It is a good photo--a great photo--as a photo. The men do indeed look like statues long before the Iwo Jima Memorial was built at Arlington.</p>

<p>I have very little bad to say about soldiers, just because I do not want to support or glorify war. You will not find me bashing veterans.</p>

<p>If my views are riddled with contradictions, well, then, they are riddled with contradictions.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[charleswood]

<p>David I don't think it's a stretch to discuss what other incidents or events may or may not be worthy of commemoration with statuary. It is just that we here in the USA honor our own in such a fashion, but wouldn't commission from the public treasury statuary honoring the former Soviet Union <em>at all</em>. Maybe in Great Britain public sentiment favors the commission of statuary honoring the war efforts of other great powers? Here it's just not done, though we understand other victors do that sort of thing for themselves. We just wouldn't consider paying for it or much care to look at it when at home as opposed to when being tourists. As tourists its fine.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><em>Anders, is there more you could or want to say about this photo?</em><br /> <br /> Nice of you Fred, but, no, me personally not. I have said earlier what I think of it and compared it to another of the same sort. Others might have more to say and I would read it with interest as I usually do.</p>

<p><em>"Maybe in Great Britain public sentiment favors the commission of statuary honoring the war efforts of other great powers? Here it's just not done, "</em><br /> <br /> Maybe, Charles, the US would be an even greater nation if it did, just sometimes, as a change. Personally I have not any special affinities to the Red Army or the Soviet Union, but I do acknowledge their important role and the sacrifices the Soviet people made to fight and win over the nazi army, making an end to the Second World War possible after the invasion in Italy and Normandy of the allied forces.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, I used "timeless" to mean both everlasting and not limited to a particular era. That the men are anonymous (we don't see their faces in the photo even though outside info tells us who they are) and that the photo is statuesque, that the scale and perspective are iconic, suggests to me a feeling of the photo (if not the event it depicts) well beyond that specific moment and represents something more universal. Even were all wars to end today, anyone with a sense of history could look back at this photo and gain insights into what it meant and what it represented, beyond just the particular war and people it evidenced. I say that with no judgment in mind about war or my hopes for future peace. (And I have those judgments and hopes, of course. I just wasn't speaking of them at the time.) Whether wars will continue is not the issue, photographically, I was addressing in that post. I was assessing qualities of the photo and not my wishes for the human race regarding war. Though, speaking of war, it seems a fairly integral part of humanity from the beginning of time and so memorials and national pride and victory celebrations are likely to persist, if the past is any indication and the current mind set among nations continues on its current trajectory. Mine, in the post you refer to, was an assessment of the look of the photo and what it tells me and what qualities it has and what narrative and feelings it evokes because of how it looks.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Evidence for a warfare in the Mesolithic and before is inconclusive, and an author has something to say about interpreting art:</p>

<p>http://<em>www.ffzg.unizg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/origin_warfare.pdf</em><br>

<em>Anthropology, archaeology, and the origin of warfare</em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p align="LEFT">Levantine Spanish rock art (Beltrán 1982) is often presented as the most substantial body of evidence for conflict in the Mesolithic (e.g. O’Connell 1995; Nash 2000); and is sometimes argued to be a record of conflicts between racial groups (Beltrán 1982). Still,there are many who question the straightforward approach to interpreting rock art. A more fundamental difficulty, however, in the context of this paper, is the argument that the commonly suggested date of the Mesolithic is mistaken and that Levantine art is actually Neolithic (Beltrán 1982; Escoriza Mateu 2002).</p>

<p align="LEFT"> </p>

</blockquote>

<p align="LEFT">and if not from time immemorial or innate the these words strike a chord:</p>

<p align="LEFT"> </p>

<blockquote>

<p align="LEFT">Any biological urging to kill therefore had to be heavily reinforced by cultural methods. In the Americas, even the famously aggressive Yanomamö use drugs to work themselves up to fighting chest-pounding duels against members of neighbouring villages (Chagnon 1990). These duels sometimes result in fatalities, which then precipitate a cycle of village raiding.</p>

</blockquote>

<p align="LEFT"> </p>

<p align="LEFT">If we were to catalogue our own 'cultural methods' of heavily reinforcing a presumed biological urge to battle in war, the difficult question becomes would the photograph under discussion belong in the catalogue?</p>

<p align="LEFT"> </p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, for me it's not that difficult to look at a photo and get a feeling that it's either timeless or iconic. That sometimes includes the subject matter and is sometimes aside from the subject matter and more about the way it's shot. I didn't mean to get into whether our penchant for war is biological or not and in what historic era there may be evidence for wars or not. I was talking about what I see in the photo regarding its timelessness and am sorry if I made a spurious claim (though I meant it casually when I said we've been involved in wars from the beginning) about the history of warfare and mankind. I didn't intend the latter to be the crux of my comments. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Actually, Charles, sorry also for not coming out and saying that my post about the graphic shadows and timelessness was my attempt to discuss the actual photo as a photo and how it looks and the feeling that look gives me. I guess it was unsuccessful, so I'll just look forward to whatever discussion ensues with tomorrow's new pick and bow out from this one.</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>What for me although a Brit makes this photograph even more poignant is the knowledge that three of men who raised Old Glory on Mount Suribachi were dead by the end of that day.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Well, a fake photo. Let us talk a thousand words.</p>

<p>A fake photo to please.</p>

<p>Simple really but let us add a thousand words,</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>I cannot help thinking, the honesty of a photograph is lost in the words.</p>

<p>The words become the photograph.</p>

<p>The masters of words, and gold, sit on the thrones.</p>

 

[dhbebb]

<p><em>Well, a fake photo. Let us talk a thousand words.</em><br>

<em>A fake photo to please.</em><br>

<em>Simple really but let us add a thousand words,</em><br>

Allen, dare I suggest that you do not work professionally in the media and perhaps do not understand how often a true impression of a real event is conveyed through pictures which are arranged, either completely or by having the participants to an event re-create or repeat their actions. Lay people may give this the (meaningless) name "fake", it happens every day of the week, and the only guarantor of truth is the integrity of the people involved.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"fake photo"</em></p>

<p>tautology.</p>

<p><em>"real photo"</em></p>

<p>oxymoron.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Allen - "I cannot help thinking, the honesty of a photograph is lost in the words."</p>

<p>Alan I wonder also about the ability of words to communicate honestly. Part of the poignancy of this image is that it shows both strength and vulnerability combined in an action where with words it is often a struggle to juxtapose the same.</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>I had the pleasure of working with Joe Rosenthal ("Joey" to all his friends) on the staff of the San Francisco Chronicle. He loved to tell tales of all of the "reproductions" of the picture that he'd seen, including one made of hamburger in the window of a Brooklyn deli.<br>

We (his friends and colleagues) were all incensed when the Marines Memorial statue was unveiled with the sculptor's name on it, but without any mention of Joe. That was later rectified, but Joey took it all in stride. Just another "meatball version" in his view.</p>