An English Translation of Professor Otto Croy’s Analysis of the ‘Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen Photograph‘

The ‘Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen Photograph’ is one of the best-known photographs in the world and certainly one of the most frequently reprinted in regard to the Second World War.

Indeed, it is so famous that it has its own Wikipedia entry (1) but even Wikipedia mentions that there is controversy around the authenticity of this photograph. I will address this photograph in detail in another article, but it is worthwhile to provide an English translation of the analysis of the ‘Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen Photograph’ by Otto Croy under the title of ‘Achtung Fälschungen’ (lit. ‘Beware Fakes’) in ‘Deutsche Soldaten Zeitung’ on 26th January 1962.

Before I do so it is worth noting two things.

Firstly, that Otto Croy was a German Professor of Medicine (and possibly a surgeon) who was also editor-in-chief of ‘FotoMagazin’ (2) whom even Wikipedia admits was ‘known for his writings on photographic technique’. (3) So Croy’s analysis isn’t that of just anybody but someone who knows what they are talking about.

Secondly, there have been to my knowledge no actual counter-arguments offered against Croy’s analysis of the issues with the ‘Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen Photograph’ – which as we will see in my separate article on the subject are only validated by subsequent analysis – and what is offered as an ‘argument’ against it is that there is an original photo – (4) which does not preclude it from being fake since a common Victorian/Edwardian technique to produce fake photos of ghosts superimposed onto other images would also have both an original negative and an original photo – (5) and Robert Fisk’s desperate attempt in ‘The Independent’ in 2011 to run cover for the authenticity of the ‘Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen Photograph’ by citing Cory’s analysis and claiming to have ‘debunked it’ without apparently having read it.

Fisk writes that:

‘Incredibly, when the photograph was used in a book published by the Soviet-installed Polish communist regime after the war, a right-wing West German newspaper, Deutsche Soldaten Zeitung, ran a headline above it "Achtung Fälschung" (beware falsification). The man pointing the rifle towards the young woman and her child was not wearing German uniform or using a German rifle, the paper said. A certain Professor Otto Croy accused the Poles of fabricating the photograph for propaganda.’ (6)

The problem with Fisk’s point here is that he is only citing the first two sentences of Croy’s analysis which mention that the uniform of the soldier seen in the ‘Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen Photograph’ does not look right for a German uniform of the time (for example the rifleman is wearing jodhpurs [riding trousers] which only German officers wore but appears to be a regular soldier in terms of the rest of his uniform if he is supposed to have been a German soldier).

Fisk doesn’t even mention - let alone attempt to rebut - the rest of Croy’s analysis which concerns how the light and shadow fall in contradictory ways in the photograph and also concerns the shooting position of the rifleman relative to the distance to his supposed target.

This is probably because Fisk hasn’t actually read Croy’s analysis and is relying on a (dishonest?) summary of it from an alternative source (possibly Janina Struk) nor is he apparently aware that the only source of this photograph is from the Pole who worked in a photographic laboratory in Warsaw as well as for the Polish resistance who claims to have ‘intercepted’ this photograph during the Second World War which was forwarded with other ‘incriminating photographs’ (aka atrocity propaganda) on to the Polish government in exile in London for propaganda purposes. (7)

Fisk tries to handwave away Croy’s uniform objection by stating that:

‘Then, mercifully, up popped a former member of Hitler's Einsatzgruppen, the "special action" squads used to murder a million Jews in Ukraine. The soldier in the picture is wearing German Einsatzgruppen uniform, he said, and holding the usual Einsatzgruppen rifle. What more proof do you need? Years later, an exhibition of German atrocity photographs in Eastern Europe was put on in Dresden where an old man stared at the pictures for a long time. Then he began to cry. And as he rushed from the exhibition hall, he shouted: "It's me...It's me."’ (8)

Neither of these are an answer to Croy’s uniform objection given that all we are told here is that a former (unnamed) member of an Einsatzgruppe claimed they ‘did wear uniforms like that’ but apparently didn’t explain why a German private soldier was wearing an officer’s jodhpurs if this indeed a photo of a German soldier.

Nor is a man saying ‘that’s me’ at an atrocity photograph exhibition in Dresden years/decades later ‘evidence’ that the photo is genuine any more than if a wizened old man came forward to claim that he was ‘Jack the Stripper’ or the ‘Axeman of New Orleans’ is evidence that they are indeed that because we’d need actual evidence that this was true. Hence why Fisk neglects to mention if – let alone how – this claim was actually validated.

We cannot just take their word for it because it suits us!

With all that said, and the historical context given let’s continue on to my translation of Croy’s original German article from ‘Deutsche Soldaten Zeitung’ on the 26th January 1962, which is an analysis of this photograph:

Croy’s analysis in English is as follows:

‘The shooting soldier doesn't look like a German soldier. The cut of the trousers, the very high waist, the high boots and the small cap create an unusual image. This is the position of a sniper who fires at a distant target. At a distance of 2 meters you wouldn’t shoot in this position, even with a rifle.

Furthermore: from the position of the rifle, it can be seen that the soldier is shooting past the woman with the child on the left.

On the technical side of the photo:

From the light and shadow formation it can be seen that the photo was taken in the sun, with the sun halfway up to the right behind the camera. The highlights are on the right, while the shadows are a little deeper in the background on the left. The woman with the child would have to cast a corresponding shadow behind her to the left. The same would have to apply to the soldier. So, something seems wrong here. The other lighting applies to the soldier himself. The light and shadow here suggest that the sun is at a higher position, with the sun shining more sharply to the right. The soldier's right leg would normally also have been hit by the sun's rays but is not in the photo.

The picture is therefore not free from retouching. The background line between the soldier and the woman is sprayed with grey paint, as is the background on the left and right edges of the picture. Apparently, the area of the woman's back was resprayed, as was her hair. Manual retouching is noticeable on the child's head and on the soldier’s rifle.’

References

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanhorod_Einsatzgruppen_photograph

(2) https://www.osj-forum.de/read.php?9,244616,244656

(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanhorod_Einsatzgruppen_photograph#Falsification_allegations

(4) Ibid.

(5) A great example of this is the ‘Wem Ghost Photo’ which used this technique and was only completely debunked by pure chance. See: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279329/Wem-ghost-picture-mystery-resolved-eagled-eyed-pensioner.html for a summary or for more detail see Blake Smith, 2010, ‘From the Edge of Postcards: The Wem Ghost Photo’, Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 48-50

(6) https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-ukraine-1942-what-are-we-seeing-6264646.html

(7) Janina Struk, 2020, [2011], ‘Private Pictures: Soldiers' Inside View of War’, 1st Edition, Routledge: New York, pp. 80-81

(8) https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-ukraine-1942-what-are-we-seeing-6264646.html