«

On 2011-10-18, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2...ermany/100166/

Thanks for that, SD. That goes now goes in my bookmarks with another
website a friend recently made me aware of:

http://tinyurl.com/2aye32m

I've seen dozens of WWII film documentaries, but was never quite so
taken aback as I was by still photographs. The immediacy of the
terror and horror of war can truly be conveyed by photos where one can
linger and look closely at and ponder the unfortunates caught up in
something so horrifying and calamitous.

The whole Plog thing from the Denver Post has some great galleries.
One can easily spend hours rummaging through them. Check it out.

nb

On 2011-10-18, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> not been part of the usually published WWII images. For the last 60 or
> so years many of the usual photographs have been recycled time and
> again.

Specially on cable where films have been shown ad nauseum on networks
like the Arts and Hitler channel. These photographs reveal new
insights to the unspeakable horror of what our young men sacrificed
for us and gives us a new appreciation of what was preserved by their
gallant efforts.

I was a bit miffed by the Atlantic gallery that borked the dead body
pics from what I assume was the Malmedy Massacre (# and other grim
shots. These photo records are exactly what needs to be perserved,
revealed, and remembered. It's not only pointless to explain a photo
that is not shown, but a disservice to those who deserve to be
remembered.

nb

On 2011-10-18, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> They were just a click away.

> True, but to be fair they were there, certainly not out in the open,
> but under wraps, so to speak.

DOH!!

I use the NoScript plug-in and the "click here" message was not
visible, as I had only the minimum scripts enabled. A little fiddling
revealed the stealth pics. Thanks.

nb