Iwo Jima: Mt. Suribachi photo not all that it seems

[NightHawkeye]

Kinda looks like there was some cover-up: Could One of the Most Iconic Photos in History Hold a Lie? | TheBlaze.com

The photo was taken by Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal on Feb. 23, 1945, and the striking image became so popular that later that year President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the soldiers pictured to be identified. After some controversy and investigation, they were labeled as Rene Gagnon, John Bradley, Ira Hayes, Franklin Sousley, Michael Strank and Harlon Block.

But two amateur history enthusiasts are calling into question the identity of one of these men: John Bradley, pharmacist mate second class with the U.S. Navy attached to the 5th Marine Division.
...
“Am I the first person to notice this? I can’t be the first person, can I?” he asked.

Foley said he reached out to professional historians and others about what he found and received no response.​

Kinda funny what a couple of guys with computers and a little reasoning can unearth ...

 

[stamperben]

Is there a point to this and what in blazes (pun intended) does it have to do with American Politics?

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Is there a point to this and what in blazes (pun intended) does it have to do with American Politics?

Because the title has the word 'LIE' and in the article is 'Omaha' which is real close to 'Obama' then NHE's autopilot kicked in and...voilà.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Armchair internet researchers are the worst. Most of the time the sources they are using are lacking in any real credibility, but because it isn't "mainstream" it is viewed as more credible in their peculiar logic.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Is there a point to this and what in blazes (pun intended) does it have to do with American Politics?

1) The individuals in the photo were identified at the behest of president Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
2) The photo was used for political propaganda for years.
3) The question asked by these historians deserves to be answered by current politicians and/or government agencies.

Just off the top of my head ...

 

[faroukfarouk]

I'm not sure what the underlying logic of the claims is: that the Iwo Jima Memorial in Washington, DC is somehow not genuine? Surely not?

I think the discussions about the photo are interesting, but I'm not sure they prove anything from a wider perspective. What is undoubted is that the cost to the soldiers at Iwo Jima was huge and the honor given to them well deserved.

 

[stamperben]

1) The individuals in the photo were identified at the behest of president Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
2) The photo was used for political propaganda for years.
3) The question asked by these historians deserves to be answered by current politicians and/or government agencies.

Just off the top of my head ...

You forgot that this photo was of the second flag raising that day.

Okay then, in the hubris of that day a soldier gets misidentified. What in blazes is political about that? (Pun intended again.) And exactly what current politicians or agencies are going to be able to answer why the guy was misidentified? That's like asking what Mona Lisa's real name was.

 

[NightHawkeye]

You forgot that this photo was of the second flag raising that day.

No. I didn't, though I fail to see the relevance to this story.

Okay then, in the hubris of that day a soldier gets misidentified.

Seemingly understandable enough. Why was it overlooked for 70 years though?

What in blazes is political about that? (Pun intended again.)

As already pointed out, it was the premier politician of the day who personally tasked the identification ... and then used it to great political effect.

And exactly what current politicians or agencies are going to be able to answer why the guy was misidentified? That's like asking what Mona Lisa's real name was.

I suspect the Pentagon and White House archives are considerably more extensive than Leonardo DaVinci's.

 

[jayem]

You forgot that this photo was of the second flag raising that day.

Exactly. It was staged because the local commander wanted newsreel footage of the flag raising. The still photo was shot at just the right time to capture a striking image. It was always intended as a propaganda piece.

 

[stamperben]

I suppose then that you'll have to do an exorcism of some kind of trick to get into FDR's head. Good luck with that. Meantime this discussion has nothing to do with Am. politics.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Meantime this discussion has nothing to do with Am. politics.

In your opinion.

As Jayem astutely and correctly pointed out, the picture has everything to do with American propaganda, a most assuredly political matter.

 

[DaisyDay]

When sensationalist headlines end in a question mark, the answer is usually "no".

“So, you are telling me that there are all these witnesses, these survivors who come home (from Mount Suribachi), and nobody says anything, and then someone figures out it’s different 70 years later, when they are all gone?” James Bradley asked. “I mean, come on.”

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Did we still win the war or does this picture change all that?

 

[faroukfarouk]

Did we still win the war or does this picture change all that?

LOL well, exactly. I don't see what the discussion proves.

 

[kermit]

It's was a staged photo. Is it really then a stretch to think that subtle nuances like the attiture and equipment items would also be controlled?

The biggest problem with this conspiracy theory is that there was no reason to lie about the identity of the men? And if there was a mistake made in identifying the men, what motivation do all the men that were there to support the mistaken identity?

 

[Archivist]

Exactly. It was staged because the local commander wanted newsreel footage of the flag raising. The still photo was shot at just the right time to capture a striking image. It was always intended as a propaganda piece.

Incorrect. The first flag that was raised was too small to be easily seen from the landing beaches. The second flag, taken from an LST, was much larger.

 

[cow451]

It's was a staged photo. Is it really then a stretch to think that subtle nuances like the attiture and equipment items would also be controlled?

The biggest problem with this conspiracy theory is that there was no reason to lie about the identity of the men? And if there was no mistake made in identifying the men, what motivation do all the men that were there to support the mistaken identity?

The nice thing about a conspiracy theory is that one only has to point out a few discrepancies. Nevermind explaining how a myriad of other information doesn't support said theory.

 

[NightHawkeye]

The nice thing about a conspiracy theory is that one only has to point out a few discrepancies. Nevermind explaining how a myriad of other information doesn't support said theory.

Noting that their simple and direct questions were presented to notable historians ... and they are still awaiting responses.

 

[RDKirk]

Incorrect. The first flag that was raised was too small to be easily seen from the landing beaches. The second flag, taken from an LST, was much larger.

Which still proves it a staged photo. The photographer himself asserts that particular image was the result of several "takes."

There was no political gain to be made by "falsely" identifying one of the Marines. All of those Marines were there at the time, and those particular Marines in the photo are there by "line-of-sight tasking"...."We need some people for this picture. Hey, you, get over here."

As to waiting for a response from historians to a challenge from an amateur historian who has nothing better to do with his hobby time, the question implies that historians have nothing better to do with their professional time, that they are somehow obligated to respond to any and every hobbiest at alll, and that the issue is historically significant.

As the article itself admits:

After some controversy and investigation, they were labeled as Rene Gagnon, John Bradley, Ira Hayes, Franklin Sousley, Michael Strank and Harlon Block.

That acknowledges the indecisiveness of the original identifications. For a historically non-significant issue that had been acknowledged as indecisive from the beginning...it's still historically non-significant.

The proper response is a shrug.

 

[cow451]

Noting that their simple and direct questions were presented to notable historians ... and they are still awaiting responses.

Again, proving my point. There is no way to disprove a negative (Bradley not being in the picture) other than to point out that Bradley never denied being there and nobody else claims to have been there. Different photos taken at different times have some variation in detail.

And, outside of Bradley, who gained anything? Maybe the "real guy" and Bradley agreed to carry on the error because "real guy" was shy.

##BTW, I had trouble with the Blaze link (The Blaze apparently causes nausea and vomiting in my computer), so I went to another source, which might or might not be exactly the same.