兔子先生传媒文化作品

Skip to main content

Prof uncovers early Holocaust photos

Soviet photographers recorded Nazi atrocities, but state鈥檚 message changed after Stalin and after Soviet Union鈥檚 collapse; CU professor notes the significance of overlapping narratives and memories

Soviet photojournalists working for the country鈥檚 most important newspapers were among the first to document the unfolding Holocaust in their homeland, and they were also witnessing and recording the slaughter of Soviet citizens who, like the photographers themselves, were Jewish.

But the extent to which the Nazis targeted Jews was obscured in the dominant Soviet press during World War II and was suppressed in the Cold War era, during which the Soviets dwelled on the depravity of 鈥渇ascist troops鈥 murdering 鈥減eaceful Soviet citizens.鈥

The Soviet Union鈥檚 collapse allowed scholars to see a fuller picture of what happened, and to understand the overlapping narratives of Soviets and Jews.

David Shneer, associate professor of history and director of the Program in Jewish Studies at the University of Colorado, began researching this issue in 2002, when he visited a photography gallery in Moscow.

The exhibition was titled 鈥淲omen at War,鈥 and Shneer noticed that the photographers鈥 names sounded Jewish. He asked the curator, who said, 鈥淥f course they鈥檙e Jewish. All the photographers were Jewish.鈥

Before the war, many of those developing the profession of Soviet photojournalism were Jewish, Shneer notes.

The German Army invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. Within days, the leading illustrated magazine, Ogonek (the Life magazine of the Soviet Union), published its first atrocity photo. That picture, retrieved from the camera of a dead German soldier, showed Nazis forcing Jewish victims to dig a grave for a pile of corpses.

As Shneer notes in the February issue of the American Historical Review and in his forthcoming book 鈥淭hrough Soviet Jewish Eyes,鈥 the Soviet Army regularly urged its press to publish stories and photos of Nazi atrocities.

鈥淭his material would function as visual evidence of the Nazi crimes and as propaganda to rile up the anger of the population,鈥 Shneer writes.

But the photo caption did not specify that the victims were Jewish. Instead, it said, 鈥淭hose sentenced are forced to dig their own graves.鈥

During World War II, the Soviets saw an advantage in framing the Nazi assault as being against the entire nation, not just Jewish people. As Shneer observes, there was a rationale: 鈥淒o you think a bunch of Russian peasants wanted to go fight a war because of Jews?鈥

Professional Soviet photographers, who were Jewish, did not witness the mass-murders of Jews until late 1941. The first photographs of Nazi killing fields came after the Soviet liberation of the city of Kerch in southern Russia. The Germans occupied Kerch for about six weeks before being driven out by the Red Army.

While in Kerch, the Gestapo registered 7,500 Jews. In the first week of December, the Nazis moved the victims to an anti-tank ditch on the outskirts of town and murdered them.

On Dec. 31, Kerch was one of the first Russian cities with a significant Jewish population to be liberated from Nazi occupation, 鈥渨hich meant that the city was one of the first places where Soviet soldiers, journalists and photographers saw what we now call the Holocaust with their own eyes.鈥

The sight was appalling.

In February 1942, Ogonek published photos of the carnage. One showed a barren, winter landscape strewn with bodies and lifeless except Soviet soldiers surveying the dead. Another photo showed a close-up view of some of the dead: a mother surrounded by children.

The photographer, Mark Redkin, was Jewish.

As Shneer notes, the photograph鈥檚 caption said Hitler鈥檚 鈥渂andits鈥 and 鈥渢hugs鈥 were ordered to 鈥渁nnihilate the peaceful Soviet population.鈥 The Nazis were called Hitlerites or Germans, but the victims鈥 ethnic identity was obscured. 鈥淣o mention is made of the fact that most of the dead women and children so grotesquely splashed across the pages of the magazine were Jewish women and children.鈥

A month later, Ogonek published two pages of photos taken by Dmitrii Baltermants and Israel Ozerskii along with an article. Though all of the journalists were Jewish, they, too, obscured the primary target of the Nazis, writing that the 鈥淕erman occupiers鈥 killed 7,500 residents 鈥渋ndiscriminately鈥擱ussians and Tatars, Ukrainians and Jews.鈥

Still, the truth was discernable.

This 1942 photo of the Kerch atrocities carried this caption: 鈥淜erch resident P.I. Ivanova found her husband, who was tortured by the fascist executioners.鈥 Photo courtesy of Michael Mattis.

A 1942 photo of the Kerch atrocities carried this caption:  鈥淰.S. Tereshchenko digs under bodies for her husband. On the right: the body of 67-year-old I. Kh. Kogan.鈥 Shneer notes that the Jewish-sounding Kogan (Russian for Cohen) was married to the Ukrainian-sounding Tereshchenko, adding:

鈥淎lthough this multi-ethnic marriage reflected the Soviets鈥 idealized notion that their diverse empire was a happy, integrated 鈥榖rotherhood of nations,鈥 the fact could not have been lost on the reader that after the Nazis left town, the Ukrainian Tereshchenko was alive and the Jewish Kogan was dead.鈥

After the war鈥檚 end in 1945, the Soviets seldom discussed Nazi crimes because, as Shneer notes, the former 鈥淗itlerites鈥 and 鈥渂estial Germans鈥 were now 鈥渓iberated German people鈥 who would be eventually become part of the Soviet constellation in East Germany.

Even as the Soviet press covered the Nuremburg Trials, the victims were again portrayed as peaceful Soviet citizens or as humanity itself. 鈥淛ews were included in both of those rubrics, of course, but only implicitly.鈥

鈥淚 like to point out that Jews were peaceful Soviet citizens,鈥 Shneer says.

In the Yiddish-language Soviet press, which comprised two newspapers in the 1940s, a different 鈥渂ut equally Soviet story鈥 unfolded, Shneer writes.

One of those newspapers, Unity, published an article headlined 鈥淲hy Do the Fascists Hate the Jews So Much?鈥 The Russian-language original was called 鈥淎bout Hatred鈥 and did not mention Jews.

In the Yiddish press, photographs of Jewish burial sites and the Warsaw ghetto clearly noted that the victims were Jews. Shneer notes that while the Russian-language press stressed a national Soviet experience, 鈥渋t was precisely the point of Unity to develop a specifically Jewish narrative of the Soviet war.鈥

Consistently in the wartime coverage of the Yiddish press, Shneer notes, journalists articulated a clear perpetrator (the Nazis) and a victim (Jews).

But the war鈥檚 end changed that. The Soviet press simply 鈥渟topped talking about war in general and Nazi atrocities in particular,鈥 Shneer writes. Under Stalin, the war represented an unfortunate time鈥攐ne best forgotten鈥攄uring which 25 million to 30 million Soviets died.

In the 1960s, however, Soviet leaders strove to reinsert World War II into the nation鈥檚 memory. In 1963, a Czech publication called Praha-Moskva published a series of Baltermants photographs, including one of a grieving woman, P.I. Ivanova, whose husband was murdered by Nazis near Kerch.

When Ivanova鈥檚 photograph was published in Ogonek in 1942, the image was tightly cropped around the woman herself, and it was published with the intent to convey the enormity of the Nazis鈥 war crimes.

Two decades later, the photograph then titled 鈥淕rief鈥 showed an expansive scene of suffering: scattered mourners around a wide landscape littered with corpses, all under a dark and menacing sky. Ivanova herself is shown leaning over her husband鈥檚 body, her arms plaintively open, her hands half-closed.

The photo was no longer about German atrocities, Shneer writes, adding that 鈥渋t was now about the nature of evil and fostering a new national memory of the war.鈥

The caption on the 1965 photograph of the Kerch killing ground says that 鈥渇ascist troops shot thousands of peaceful Soviet citizens, tossing their corpses into a nearby anti-tank trench.鈥

As Shneer notes, there is no mention of Germans, Hitler or Jews. 鈥淏y 1965, Germans were liberated friends, not barbaric enemies, and the Great Patriotic War, as World War II was called in the Soviet Union, was figured as a battle of ideologies, not peoples, Soviets against fascists, not Germans against Jews, Russians and others.鈥

And while the photo came to serve a new purpose in the Soviet national memory, the photographer himself showed an altered memory. In published interviews in the 鈥60s and later, Baltermants said 鈥淕rief鈥 and other atrocity photographs 鈥渨ere never published during the war鈥 (which was not true).

As Shneer suggests, Baltermants might have been downplaying the wartime history of his photographs and the mass-murder of Kerch鈥檚 Jews so as to 鈥渕ake this photo function as a visual icon in the Soviet war memory that emerged in the 1960s.鈥 And by claiming to have been censored by Stalin, Baltermants might have been following the trend 鈥渢oward universalizing the story of the Holocaust and toward highlighting his own oppression under Stalin.鈥

The collapse of the Soviet Union facilitated yet another shift in national memory鈥攐ne that explicitly acknowledged the centrality of anti-Semitism in Nazi atrocities. That alteration was seen in the work of another wartime photographer, Evgenii Khaldei, whose most famous image is of the Soviet flag being raised over the Reichstag in Berlin in May 1945.

A photo by Evgenii Khaldeai showing a Jewish couple wearing stars as they were required to do in Nazi-occupied areas. Photo courtesy of Evgenii Khaldeii and the Fotosoyuz Agency

Khaldei also photographed a Jewish couple wearing yellow stars in Budapest in 1945. Jews in Nazi-occupied areas of Europe were forced to wear the stars as a form of identification. In 1945, the photo appeared in the Soviet Yiddish newspaper Unity.

It did not appear again until after the Soviet Union鈥檚 collapse, whereupon it became famous. In the last seven years of his life, Khaldei was interviewed repeatedly about his work. In an interview with a Western writer, Khaldei recalled meeting the couple and telling them, in Yiddish, that he, too, was Jewish.

But when interviewed by a Russian journalist in the 1990s, Khaldei says he spoke to the couple in German and told them he was 鈥淩ussian, Soviet.鈥 In that interview, however, he does not use the word 鈥淛ew.鈥

In the 1990s, Shneer writes Khaldei 鈥減resented different selves and different frameworks for his photograph to audiences that 50 years later had very different memories of the war.鈥

Shneer emphasizes that his intent is not to impugn the photographers. As a historian, his interest is in determining what happened during the war, and to pose a question: How did the journalists鈥 position in the state lead to their position in forgetting?

Additionally, Shneer notes, his intent is to explore the relationship between individual and collective memory, which he says are inseparable.

鈥淩eturning iconic photographs to their original news context shows how photographs function in the creation of narratives and memories,鈥 Shneer writes. 鈥淪oviet Jews, Baltermants and Khaldei among them, saw the war as many tragedies in one鈥攑ersonal, family, communal and national.鈥

When viewing these photographs in all of their historic complexity, he continues, 鈥渢he distance between Soviet and Jewish, the war and the Holocaust, and Baltermants and Khaldei collapses.鈥

Shneer鈥檚 book 鈥淭hrough Soviet Jewish Eyes鈥 will be published later this year. It can be pre-ordered through the publisher, Rutgers University Press.