Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

WW1 group photo


blindpelican

Recommended Posts

I am not an expert on German uniforms, photographic analysis, dueling scars or any such thing but I can tell you one thing he doesn't even look like Hitler. The eyes have a different "look" to them.

Time to ZZZzzzzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree with those above and am a little sick of this topic! I am no expert in German military uniforms, photography or the history of Hitler's earlier years. Nevertheless, on a basic level, that picture in no way resembles Hitler - not even slightly! You don't have to be an expert to recognise the simple fact that the face just does not match! Let's just leave it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No...this is him on the right...no doubt, without question.

Don't be daft that's him on the left with a little weight on....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody else not find it strange, that the only posts on this forum (21) by:blindpelican are connected with the questions if anybody can offer any proof that the picture's connected with his post(s) are A.H. :D

post-18479-1170884081.jpg

:lol:Verrrrrrrrrrrry Intere stink!! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be daft that's him on the left with a little weight on....

Looks more like his father.

yes

:lol::lol:<_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tendency for serious-minded members of this Forum to descend into digression and mickey-taking has sometimes been criticised, but on this occasion I doubt if there will be much disagreement that it is entirely justified.

If BlindPelican is indeed the prominent Hollywood techno-wizard he professes to be on the Axis forum thread, I am at a loss to understand why he hasn't got better things to do.

Much as it goes against my libertarian instincts, could I suggest that the Mods close this thread.

Mick

PS. I have a photo of AH, noted veggie, tucking into a bratwurst .... yours for only 3 million Euros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mick is quite right about the mickey taking and I apologise for leading this downward spiral.

Connaught Stranger does look fetching in his helmet though.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As desirous as I am to see this thread die in its crib, I am compelled to make one or two observations. I must say that I had no idea that this "blindpelican" is trying to peddle this stuff, never mind for two million Euros. Gaggg!

I made a rather pompous statement about my own qualifications (which pale beside those of some of the other Pals that responded) to show the guy that many of us have qualifications and extensive study that allow us to make useful and dependable observations without citing a specific source. Such as just looking at the "group photos" and knowing that they are pre-war, based on having examined several thousand pre-war and wartime period photos.

The artillery shell at the end of "Hitler's" marksman lanyard by itself is absolute proof that that soldier must have been an artilleryman. If an infantry soldier of some rank showed up for an official or semi-official photo (or anywhere else) wearing an artillery decoration, most likely the regimental commander (if he were an officer or some sort of an officer) would have him confined to barracks arrest that day, he would be sitting before the regimental court of honor in three days, and in a week he would have been a civilian. In wartime or if an OR/EM he would have been severely punished and perhaps transferred somewhere.

The new item I have to add is that there is a market in the US for likely bogus art, partly due to some aspects of the nature of the US tax code. For example, I understand that the art museum of the Miami Beach art museum is just stuffed with faked art. Here is how this goes. An individual with a lot of $$s starts buying art with doubtful or even bogus provenance, over a period of time. Along the way he starts accumulating "friendly" attributions and appraisals. A number of years later the collector builds an art museum, puts his name over the door to remain there for, if not for an eternity, perhaps 200 years, assembles his dubious art and stuffs it in his building, and then donates it to the public in some fashion. He gets the applause of the community, a whiff of immortality, and even makes a hefty profit. A painting that he bought for, say, $25,000 he may value for tax purposes at say $850,000 ten years later, as a donation. The incredible appreciation is explained by the passage of time. If enough dubious art is accumulated for long enough the resultant tax credits for the donations can be worth much more than the cost of the art and the building besides.

I have spent enough time in Miami Beach to consider it the armpit of the universe, but I must also observe that I understand that a sicon of an old and distinguished American family pulled off the same scam in NYC, so this comment is not a slur on the inhabitants of the Grapefruit State.

Perhaps "blindpelican" hopes to create buzz, collect a few comments or bits of attribution that strengthens his case, and sell these photos (which Thomas Faust, a leading German dealer in such material, might get $75 each; they are nice photos) and whatever else he is trying to sell {"Hitler"'s shaving brush? "Hitler" 's painting brush?) for $20,000, and perhaps 10 years later they will be offered to some museum and a $600,000 tax deduction will be claimed, partially based on the offering price of 2 million Euros, and some stray comments picked up in this and other threads.

What this brings to mind is a recent attempt to sell a bar of soap supposedly made from boiled down Holocaust victims to Jewish organizations for $1,000,000, so that the bar of soap could receive a religiously correct burial. This was attempted although the story about the "Jewish soap" had been generally accepted to be a myth years before, and experts had identified the bar of soap as an ordinary crudely manufactured bar of soap made commercially in Germany during WW II.

On the other hand, a Scottish clergyman did, not too long ago, manage to buy Cromwell's head, complete with a nice wooden box, at auction for 25 pounds sterling, and kept it at the foot of his bed, his cat sleeping on the box at night. (His head had been put on a pike, I think at the Houses of Parliment, for about a year, but got blown off the pike in a storm.) So keep on looking, there may still be good value and authentic collectables to be found on e-Bay.

Bob Lembke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'ts not an artillery shell, its a scratch on the print.

:rolleyes: Neil :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry - last one - I have to thank the people who run this - they let everyone say what they thought.

When I bought the painting from Dr. Pachal and spoke with her I knew she was sincere. When I remove the

painting from the frame and found the photos - I thought a forensic expert should take a look.

Dr. Walter McCrone - dated the photos. He said watercolors are hard to date - there's an open window

of 50 years. After 24 years I thought it might be interesting to post them on the internet and hope

someone with clear reference could explain. That's not going to happen. Just thoughts - and I understand

that there are many experts with ideas they believe to be true - but I need more than thoughts.

I still believe this is part of history that should not be lost.

thanks for your interest - jeff matakovich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still believe this is part of history that should not be lost*. thanks for your interest - jeff matakovich

(* Just sold for a couple of million,) a true historians perspective :P NOT.

Anyway why bother asking on the net, surely you could try some real experts, or would that cost money.

Connaught (by the way I am not* Adolph Hitler) Stranger. :P

* late night typo corrected for free and historical reasons and not 2 million spondulacks

Real Art experts at major Auction houses or museums or can it not stand close scrutiny :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(* Just sold for a couple of million,) a true historians perspective :P NOT.

Anyway why bother asking on the net, surely you could try some real experts, or would that cost money.

Connaught (by the way I am nor Adolph Hitler) Stranger. :P

real experts - who?

you are nor Adolf Hitler?

you sound like him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Real" expert = one that agrees with me.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Blindpelican,

A lot of members have taken up their valuable time in giving you their

opinion on your photograph comparison.

They have not got together on a hidden agenda to blow your theory out of the water.

They have studied the photograph as best they can and have given you their opinion.

Why the animosity over their findings?

if the Experts find not in your favour, would they get the same attitude from you?

You will find we are a great bunch on here and will go out of our way to HELP, but not by actually agreeing with you on this.

best regards,

Ivan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually am struck with a new thought, and am also widely known as excessively and foolishly persistant, so I will add my new thought and try to summarize.

The men in the group photos are clearly identified as "one year volunteers" by uniform details. The presumed "Hitler" wears the uniform of an Unteroffizier (roughly junior sergeant). At some stage the one year volunteers, having passed some tests and evaluations, were promoted to Unteroffizier. One year volunteers had to provide their own uniforms, they had to be of a fairly high socio-economic class (and prove it), these facts and the splendid quality and condition of these uniforms indicate that they were private uniforms, presumably made to order by private military tailors. It is reasonable to assume that these photos are of all or many of the one year volunteers of a given regiment.

As the blouse was, by "blindpelican" 's own statement, were M 1895 models, and since new patterns of blouse came out, starting in 1910 (the M 1910), the uniforms all had to be made before 1910. Certainly one would not have a private tailor make an obsolete pattern of uniform. Certainly 20 or so officer candidates would not have all had obsolete pattern uniforms made. As the greatcoats have been identified as being the M 1907, we can be 98% certain that the photos were made between 1907 and 1910. We recall that at this time the historical Hitler was living in Austria.

This is consistant with the fact that I, and presumably others, having seen 1000's of pre- and war-time photos of German soldiers, can clearly and accurately identify these photos as almost certainly being pre-war.

Some Pals more familiar with uniform details have identified these rather unusual uniforms as that of the Bavarian Foot Artillery (Heavy Artillery) Regiment Nr. 1. Whatever regiment, the artillery shell on "Hitler" 's marksmanship lanyard makes it 100% certain that this man, and presumably the other men, wearing identical unusual uniforms, were artillerymen. That alone makes it 100% certain that the fellow wearing the lanyard (and a sergeant's uniform) could not be Hitler.

Additionally, the supposed "Hitler" has a prominent facial scar (probably a dueling scar) that no athentic photo of Hitler (there were a few) ever exhibited. Seemingly, people have observed facial scars on the faces of other men in the photos. This underlines the high social status of first year volunteers.

It is totally, 1000% impossible that these group photos have the historical Hitler in them. I gather that "blindpelican" is trying to sell a supposed Hitler watercolor, and is attempting to strengthen the attribution of the watercolor with these two photos. (Am I right here?) However, while an absolute attribution of art is difficult, unless there is a strong chain of provenance from the piece back to the artist, in my humble opinion, by associating these photos to the artwork he is strongly undermining any attribution, even if the art work is in fact a genuine Hitler watercolor.

If someone among the Pals is both more Internet-savy and more annoyed than I am, might post something on the Internet in a fashion so as to lead anyone Googling on this matter, or "blindpelican"'s supposed name (just posted), to this discussion.

I have a postcard showing about 30 men of my father's unit, a photo taken in 1918 in Berlin. Two of them closely resemble the good number of photos of my father from the period. Which one is my father? Neither! From my knowledge of his war-time history, neither of the two men was my father, who was in a different part of Europe at that time. His comrades had sent the picture to him. Two our of 30 closely resembled him. At any given time during the war there were about 6,000,000 men in the German armies. Someone supposedly looking like someone proves nothing. My father had big ears, both guys in this photo I mentioned had similar big ears, aside from other similarities.

Bob Lembke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually am struck with a new thought, and am also widely known as excessively and foolishly persistant, so I will add my new thought and try to summarize.

The men in the group photos are clearly identified as "one year volunteers" by uniform details. The presumed "Hitler" wears the uniform of an Unteroffizier (roughly junior sergeant). At some stage the one year volunteers, having passed some tests and evaluations, were promoted to Unteroffizier. One year volunteers had to provide their own uniforms, they had to be of a fairly high socio-economic class (and prove it), these facts and the splendid quality and condition of these uniforms indicate that they were private uniforms, presumably made to order by private military tailors. It is reasonable to assume that these photos are of all or many of the one year volunteers of a given regiment.

As the blouse was, by "blindpelican" 's own statement, were M 1895 models, and since new patterns of blouse came out, starting in 1910 (the M 1910), the uniforms all had to be made before 1910. Certainly one would not have a private tailor make an obsolete pattern of uniform. Certainly 20 or so officer candidates would not have all had obsolete pattern uniforms made. As the greatcoats have been identified as being the M 1907, we can be 98% certain that the photos were made between 1907 and 1910. We recall that at this time the historical Hitler was living in Austria.

This is consistant with the fact that I, and presumably others, having seen 1000's of pre- and war-time photos of German soldiers, can clearly and accurately identify these photos as almost certainly being pre-war.

Some Pals more familiar with uniform details have identified these rather unusual uniforms as that of the Bavarian Foot Artillery (Heavy Artillery) Regiment Nr. 1. Whatever regiment, the artillery shell on "Hitler" 's marksmanship lanyard makes it 100% certain that this man, and presumably the other men, wearing identical unusual uniforms, were artillerymen. That alone makes it 100% certain that the fellow wearing the lanyard (and a sergeant's uniform) could not be Hitler.

Additionally, the supposed "Hitler" has a prominent facial scar (probably a dueling scar) that no athentic photo of Hitler (there were a few) ever exhibited. Seemingly, people have observed facial scars on the faces of other men in the photos. This underlines the high social status of first year volunteers.

It is totally, 1000% impossible that these group photos have the historical Hitler in them. I gather that "blindpelican" is trying to sell a supposed Hitler watercolor, and is attempting to strengthen the attribution of the watercolor with these two photos. (Am I right here?) However, while an absolute attribution of art is difficult, unless there is a strong chain of provenance from the piece back to the artist, in my humble opinion, by associating these photos to the artwork he is strongly undermining any attribution, even if the art work is in fact a genuine Hitler watercolor.

If someone among the Pals is both more Internet-savy and more annoyed than I am, might post something on the Internet in a fashion so as to lead anyone Googling on this matter, or "blindpelican"'s supposed name (just posted), to this discussion.

I have a postcard showing about 30 men of my father's unit, a photo taken in 1918 in Berlin. Two of them closely resemble the good number of photos of my father from the period. Which one is my father? Neither! From my knowledge of his war-time history, neither of the two men was my father, who was in a different part of Europe at that time. His comrades had sent the picture to him. Two our of 30 closely resembled him. At any given time during the war there were about 6,000,000 men in the German armies. Someone supposedly looking like someone proves nothing. My father had big ears, both guys in this photo I mentioned had similar big ears, aside from other similarities.

Bob Lembke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i thought you boys from UK would have clear and direct information - REFERENCE -

Well Jeff, :)

In your learned opinion who and what do the uniforms represent in the pictures, Private Soldiers at a Fancy Dress Ball :P

The boys from the UK do have clear and direct information that the pictures have NOTHING to do with Adolph, but because its not what you want to hear, then you are in a state of denial.

Time to move on old bean and get on with your life.

Kevin aka Arfur Daly & Delboy Trotter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uniforms and facial features apart, one of the clearest (and most obvious IMO - less scientific, but who needs scientific methods when the common sense obviousness is so apparent!) indications that the man on the photos isn't Hitler is the lack of facial hair. In August 1914, Adi sported quite a decent moustache - he didn't shave this off during his service, and it grew thicker into 1915 , only being trimmed and thinned down towards the end of 1916. The man on the photograph is quite obviously quite clean shaven and (apart from sporting a very thin "classic Hitler tache" - a style Hitler didn't wear until 1918) if (a big "if" as I believe this photograph to be pre-war) it was taken around the August/September 1914 period, then by the time the famous photograph of Hitler from December 1914 was taken, then he's grown a thick moustache in pretty much record breaking time!

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...