One of the most moving items that I encountered on our tour through the German-Russian Museum presents a family that were sadly murdered along with the father committing suicide. This really struck me as moving not only because of the subject of the photograph, but also the sheer fact that this act would be photographed in the first place. This photo depicts the tragic result of intense fear for the consequences of the arrival of the Red Army. The reason for this fear began as a result of the propaganda against the Soviet Union, and the idea that the Red Army was coming was too intense for the man in this picture to bear. For this reason, he killed his family and committed suicide to escape this fear.
The reason behind the photograph is quite chilling, but also interesting in that this exposes other victims as a result of the war that might not otherwise be focused on.
*CAUTION: Image may be disturbing to some.
 |
| Photo of family affected by murder and suicide at the Museum Karlshorst. |
13 comments:
One can scarcely imagine the incredible amount of terror they must have felt.
I noticed you wrote "Caution: Image may be disturbing to some". I thought that this message could have accompanied many pictures in this museum. Do you think that these pictures should be on display considering their graphic nature? Many school groups visit museums and young students would see these pictures. Do you think that such a warning should be given before entering this museum considering the graphic images or do you think that the reality of the war is graphic and therefore the images should not be hidden?
I'm glad you commented on this. I wasn't sure whether or not this was appropriate to post to begin with, given the subject matter and the fact that it shows death. I think to some extent, it is important to show this, but it's hard to say at which age this may be appropriate. At any age, I could see this being quite unsettling for many (one of the reasons why this image was moving to me), but it's really difficult to say at what point is it too early to show something like this. One reason why I put that warning was due to the fact that this blog is being viewed publicly, and not just for our class in particular, who have already viewed this. But on the other hand, I don't recall us getting much of a warning before entering the exhibits either.
By including photos like this, it not only proves that these events occurred, but also shows the reality of what many lived through in that time, thus providing greater insight into the event itself. Of course, I would feel quite overwhelmed if the entire exhibit was in this fashion, but at the same time, to completely omit these images does not provide the viewer with the perspective that might otherwise have been experienced.
In your opinion, do you think there should be a warning on images like this? Do you think this is important to show the younger population?
I thought this image was very disturbing as well. Do you think that the father who committed the crime (who was a former Nazi) would be considered a "victim" of war?
I'd argue that the content displayed is not graphic at all. We've seen in multiple exhibits at this point similar material, and we've heard of similar events going on. This image does not show anything but the aftermath of his actions. I feel that this documentation is necessary to bring to light the atrocities that were brought about in the war. If the picture was taken minutes earlier I feel it would be a much more explicit photograph.
Emily, I don't think I'd be alone saying that the Nazi is still a perpetrator of all the crimes committed through the war. Simply because he killed himself (to avoid prosecution and what he deserved, might I add) doesn't make him a victim in any means. The fact that he killed himself shows that he was either guilty of things unspeakable or couldn't live without the Reich (both of which have been talked about numerous times over the course of these two weeks). In either of these cases, he is the furthest from a victim.
Brooklyn, I'd argue that yes, it is graphic, but that it's solely the nature of war. Beyond that, World War II was one of the most bloody conflicts in human history, both before and after the actual battles begun. As such, I think it's just an expected mentality that somebody who's entering a museum should adopt. They're exploring a topic that contains violent, depressing, bloody subject matter, and to expect depictions of this subject matter in the re-telling of that history; to show anything less than that would do a disservice to the very real horror of the war.
Emily, I'm going to have to agree with Vince. During the second world war, the definition of a victim is incredibly blurred. Were the Russians victims solely because of the incredible losses they suffered, even though they raped and pillaged their way across the Eastern Front? Or perhaps the Japanese, which were subjected to devastation from one of the most powerful weapons of the modern age; even though they attacked, massacred, and purged the Chinese because they were viewed as a lesser race? It's hard to say, and an argument could be made that there were no real victims in the second world war who held a political or military allegiance. So, instead, let's use a victim in the moral sense. A civilian is a victim, the general population who were subjected to genocide, or allied/axis bombings, or any other number of atrocities. It's that point alone that makes me argue that he is not a "victim" in the moral sense. What I would argue, however, is that his family are the victims. They were subjected to a murder-suicide by a man that was either: A) Afraid of the consequences/guilt of whatever he had done during his time as a Nazi B) Afraid of the Soviet occupation, as the very idea of Russian control was terrifying to the Germans, Nazis, Wehrmacht, and civilians alike committed suicide out of fear of vengeance (even though there was no real Soviet retaliation within Berlin). or C) Couldn't stand the notion of living in a world without Hitler. Regardless of which of these three things were his motive, he still pulled the trigger on his family, killing them and himself. Either out of fear or a sense of loyalty to Hitler. Either way, he is no victim in any sense, his family is.
Vince dead bodies are widely accepted as a graphic.
Also he could very well be considered a victim.
The soviets conducted their fair share of war crimes in WWII, his wife and daughter would likely have raped.
Soviet brutality was exaggerated by the Nazis of course, but the truth isn't pretty either.
I have to agree with Kyle. There are no winners in war. Everyone loses something whether that is your life, your humanity, etc. Also dead bodies are not always graphic, but the way they are presented can be gruesome. In this case with the Nazi and his family, the scene is one of tragedy and fear in the most extreme form, however graphic is not the first word that comes to mind when I look at this photo. No words can capture the feelings that this and other photo project towards us, we should just be thankful that we don't have to experience them first hand (can you imagine actually being there), yet we should also feel as responsibility to not let this happen again. The point I'm trying to make is that the photo is what it is, we cannot change the past, but we can do something in the future and to change the future we have to use the past (see the photo) to motivate us to do so.
I agree with Trey and definitely do not think this photo is too graphic considering where it was. It was in a war museum. I don't think you can properly portray war without acknowledging death.It's reality, it was appropriate. Whether or not these are shown to younger populations is a bit of different question. I learnt about WW2 in high school so I wasn't that young. I got numbers of how many people who died, but no photos. It was taught to me in a rather dry fashion with lots of dates to memorize. I think if I did see images in class back then it would have made the event seem more real and less irrelevant.
Trey, thank you for explaining moreso what I was thinking in regards to the question of the father being a victim. I feel as though his family was the greater victim of this incident: it was not them that decided their fate (or, for all we know, it is perhaps assumed that it wasn't), but him instead who chose to murder them.
In terms of whether or not this is considered graphic, I find it interesting Vince, that you do not think that it is graphic at all, and to some extent that this is determined based on the timing of when the photo was taken. Would you then say that some of the other photos included in this exhibit are perhaps more graphic than this? There were photos of people being shot (or at least what looked to be in the process of this), would consider that graphic instead?
I think the reason why I find it graphic in some ways is because of my emotional reaction to the photo: it shows a loss of life, and I think to myself what could have been, or what had been taken away.
Also, keep in mind my warning on the image said that it may be "disturbing" to some, whether or not this means it will be graphic perhaps depends on the person's interpretation. For myself, it was slightly disturbing knowing the history of the situation and how it came about in the first place.
Post a Comment