Conundrum. This actually happened to my brother. He knew a girl who happened

[applegrove]

to have inherited a collection of photos from a family friend. This happened almost 25 years ago. The photos were of Hitler. The woman didn't know what to do with them but it was obvious that her 'uncle' was a personal photographer of Hitler's.

Do you destroy them because Hitler was a monster? Or do you pass them on so they can be added to the historical record.

I say destroy the photos. You?

[jwirr]

1. Make sure they get to a historical society. Hitler and his shit is one

part of history that we cannot afford to forget.

[NBachers]

2. Preserve history

[Brickbat]

3. Sweet bippy, I would totally hand them over to a museum. I can't see how anything else would even

be an option.

[Webster Green]

4. Auction them for a lot of money.

Why destroy them?

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. +100.235

[hyphenate]

22. I would never wish to exploit that part of history

in a monetary way. You could still have them evaluated and then donate them to a museum, and you could use the value as a charitable donation if you want, but let's face it: anyone who capitalizes on human suffering even in some small way is heading down the road of ghoulishness.

[Naturyl]

28. Thank you.

I'm glad someone has a conscience.

[NashVegas]

68. Someone Is Going To, Whether You Want It To Happen Or Not

May as well.

[hyphenate]

77. Does that really matter?

The real question is whether I can sleep at night with a clear conscience. And in the end, those who want to make a profit from some such undertaking might get more out of it monetarily, but in the end, they're the ones who have to live with it.

Did you know that the Nobel Prize has such beginnings? Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, and when he found out how it was being used, gave the bulk of his estate to funding the yearly prizes for advances in several subjects for NON-military use. And of course many people must be acquainted with the widow of the man who invented the Winchester rifle, and how she was disturbed so often with what she thought were the ghosts of people killed with the rifle. She believed by continuously adding rooms, staircases and other such construction to her home, she would eventually rest without them finding her in the maze that was her home.

Blood is blood, and yet we know many who aren't afraid to spill the blood of others for ill-gotten gain, and it's even now visible in countries where despite internal wars and strife, such things as diamonds are mined, resulting in the description of "blood diamonds."

Some people have no conscience when it comes to greed, others do. I might never be rich, but I am satisfied, to some extent, the way in which my life has gone.

[Webster Green]

93. Ah jeez.

What if I dug up a 12th century battle helmet in my backyard? I could easily deduce that the previous owner might have caused some serious mayhem, but I'll still be on my way to the antiques roadshow with the damn thing.

[JVS]

67. Yup!

[ret5hd]

5. What is your rationale for destroying the photos?

[applegrove]

15. Hitler was a monster and he doesn't deserve any more attention than he already has.

Destroy the photos and say a big fuck you to him and his attempt at being human (a lot of the photos had children in them - with Hitler looking mighty uncomfortable).

I don't know what the woman did or if she was telling the truth about her conundrum. She asked for my brother's advice though and I can't remember what his reaction was.

[Riftaxe]

17. Your line of thinking has a lot of similarities

to http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/03/afghanistan.lukeharding">these guys

[applegrove]

30. Bhuddah was a good egg. Hitler wasn't. That is the big difference.

[WinkyDink]

45. So we should destroy artifacts of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.? "Good Egg History"?

Bizarre. Very bizarre.

[LostinVA]

58. I know

:wtf:

Those are the type of things we should make an effort to ALWAYS archive.

[applegrove]

89. I am assuming these are propaganda photographs and not important documentation.

Okay, okay I am outnumbered. I'll go back 25 years and tell my brother not to tell the woman to destroy said photographs!

[uppityperson]

35. Burning photos of Hitler=blowing up Buddhas? wtf? No.

Are you seriously equating burning photos of a historical maniac to destroying centuries old carvings of a holy person?

[Javaman]

49. Perspective.

We, the thinking portion of humanity, view Buddha as a great person, while the crazy ass taliban looked upon him as evil.

While misguided, their reasoning is the same.

Buddha would laugh.

[proteus_lives]

38. Covering up history never ends well.

[WinkyDink]

43. The concept you are sorely missing is "HISTORY." And present-tense does not apply to Hitler.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

81. Hey, have you heard the news? Hitler's dead.

I tell you he dead.

[havocmom]

6. Historical significance. They should be placed in an archival institution

I would inquire with the history department of any nearby university, some libraries, museums as to what institution could most benefit from such a collection.

Destroying pictures of a bad person does not change history and does hinder future learning.

[City of Mills]

7. Burn them!

Yeah they're historical, but is the world going to suffer without more photos of hitler? They'll just end up on pro-nazi posters and bedroom walls anyway.

[LostinVA]

59. They would not -- wtf?

[DJ13]

8. No, despite personal feelings those are historical documents

Destroying them because the subject is one you disagree with would be tantamount to a religious group burning books because they deem that no one should be read them.

[Booster]

19. Ding. We have a winner. Very good answer & so true.

[Kaleva]

31. Good reply!

[Warren Stupidity]

9. preserve them

destroying historical records is unfair to those who follow.

[davepc]

11. auction them and donate the proceeds to a holocaust museum

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Or another worthy charity confronting similar horrors nt

[csziggy]

34. Donate them to the Holocaust Museum in Washington

And let them decide what to do with them.

That way you can be sure they will not end up in the possession of a Reich wing fanatic, which is what could happen in a private sale.

[LostinVA]

60. I said that, too!

[Stinky The Clown]

12. We should burn them right along with books we don't like.

That was sarcasm, in case it wasn't obvious.

The pictures are historical, pure and simple. They need to be preserved.

[lonestarnot]

14. Burn them? Have you lost your mind?

[msanthrope]

16. Donation to the Smithsonian, the Holocaust Museum, or the

Wiesenthal Center.

Then, take the tax exemption.

[MicaelS]

18. Absolutely do not destroy them

They are part of history. I would consult an attorney, or with the Holocaust Museum, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, as how best to sell them or donate them so they could properly preserved and not end up at some auction house being sold to Neo-Nazis.

[The_Commonist]

20. That's not a conundrum.

Not in the least.
There are many excellent suggestions here for who to donate them to.
Anyone who would destroy a picture of anything is also a monster.

[fishwax]

25. "Anyone who would destroy a picture of anything is also a monster"

Bit hyperbolic, there :)

But I agree with you about this specific case--destroying them instead of getting them to a reputable archive would be a big mistake.

[The_Commonist]

40. Yeah, I suppose...

...there are pornographic images involving children and farm animals, for example, that should be destroyed, but I've never seen anything like that so it didn't occur to me when I wrote that.

[fishwax]

53. I don't think destroying a picture of a farm animal is a monstrous act

even if the animal is not involved in pornographic acts.

[Touchdown]

96. What if it was Hitler in pornographic pics with farm animals?

:shrug:

[hyphenate]

21. Never destroy them!

If nothing else, these are historical records that need to be preserved. If someone wants to get rid of them, there are many groups who would be happy to accept them.

Remember, there are many, many people now who don't believe in the Holocaust. The more the evidence is destroyed, the greater the chances are that there won't be a record of it. We're at a crucial moment in time. Most of the people who were involved in the actual history of the Holocaust, are now either dead or are not going to be around a whole lot longer, and when the last person who dies can no longer be there for the truth, those who deny it will have a way to stamp it out completely.

No. While I find things disturbing of those years, I think we all need to remember it. Without those memories, there will be no way to keep it from happening again, sometime later down the line.

[Withywindle]

23. I agree, don't destroy history.

Of course Hitler was a monster, but obviously important to the historical record. New information--and images are information--about history belongs to all people.

I agree that she should donate them to a museum, or auction them and donate the money to a charity supporting the people Hitler wanted to destroy (Jews, Romany, GLBT, disabled people, political dissidents, etc.). She'll be able to both preserve the historical value AND get the satisfaction of helping the people that the monster hated.

[Gold Metal Flake]

24. Preserve the historical record. They might help to identify living Nazi criminals.

They are still being hunted. They should always be hunted until the last one dies.

[Naturyl]

26. They are historical, so don't destroy them.

However, get rid of them (give to a museum), and do NOT accept any money for them.

[Motown_Johnny]

27. donate to the Smithsonian or something, take the tax write off

and sleep well at night

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. History needs to be preserved

as horrible as it may be.

Otherwise it will repeat... PERIOD

Find a museum that will know what to do with them... and to make them available to historians.

I beg of you, and lord knows I don't like good ol' Adolph. My dad survived the holocaust.

But as a historian, I know how critical they may be.

[applegrove]

32. The woman told my brother about her conundrum almost 25 years ago

so I nor he have any control over what she did way back when.

[valerief]

33. Sell them to Dick Armey for millions and use that money for ads

to get progressives into office.

[uppityperson]

36. I understand the revulsion you feel at her having them. However, if I

inherited them, I'd give them to the Holocaust Museum. Then scrub my hands well. I very much understand the revulsion and dislike of having more attention given to him. I also think they need to be kept in a place of history for the future.

[proteus_lives]

37. Don't destroy them. Donate them.

Hitler was an asshat. Nothing can be done about that. But history is important.

Why would you destroy them?

[Vickers]

39. Destroy them? Seriously?

I simply can't even fathom the reasons behind that, even with your explanations.

You say that some of them show him with children (even though he looked uncomfortable)...that would illustrate that, no matter how evil a person is, chances are someone will want to pose them in a favorable light.

[raccoon]

41. Pass them on--they are history. nt

[uncommon]

42. Preserve them for the historical record.

[Brewman_Jax]

44. Their historical value is beyond measure

I hope that she does not destroy them. :scared: If your friend is uncomfortable with having them in her possesion, there are museums and various historical organizations that are well-suited for dealing with them, as stated above.

[Ganja Ninja]

46. Sell them to someone reputable.

No neo-nazis. Why destroy a piece of history?

[SwampG8r]

47. save history

do not send them down a memory hole too much history is flexible already

[Tailormyst]

48. Save them, they are an important part of history.

[MineralMan]

50. History. Consider that these may be the only copies that exist

of those particular images. In fact, it's quite likely. Somewhere, someone is looking for those photos to complete a historical study of Hitler. One of them could be the key to an entirely new direction in research into this monster.

Destroying them could lead to a dead-end in someone's research. They belong in an archive where they can be accessed by scholars. Never destroy a collection of historical photos. There may be no copies of those images in existence.

History must be preserved - even ugly parts of history.

[dionysus]

51. priceless historical artifacts. keep them or give them to a museum.

[DirkGently]

52. Evil must be remembered more carefully than good.

And history matters more than pointless gestures. Can't hurt Hitler by burning his photos. Unless your friend is a powerful witch and can torture his soul somehow? :)

Museum. Nothing wrong with getting some money for them either, as long as it's not coming from "Fans of the SS.com" or whatever.

[applegrove]

90. That sentence "Evil must be remembered more carefully than good" really

speaks to me. Okay. If the woman was telling the truth I should have told my brother to give the photos to some Jewish organization or Holocaust Museum.

[dembotoz]

54. no do not destroy

at the very least becase even with someone as studied as Hitler,
some holes in History remain.

a personal photagrapher would have access other folks would not.

perhaps not so much the photos of hitler himself but perhaps of the people in
the photos with him.

burning history is like burning books--something best not done

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

55. Museum. Now. -nt

[treestar]

56. Interesting. I would keep them for a historical society.

Because Hitler was a monster, we want to know as much as we can about him.

[LostinVA]

57. Give them to the Holocaust Museum or to a university

Why would you destroy them???

[Subdivisions]

61. Add to the historical records. History can be ugly, but it is history nonetheless. n/t

[Xithras]

62. Hitler only had one personal photographer, Hugo Jaeger.

Jaegar survived WW2, and in the mid 60's sold the photos to Life Magazine. He had kept them buried in a field, in glass jars, for more than a decade to save them from destruction, only visiting them a couple times a year under the cover of darkness to reseal the jars and repack the protective cloths around them. It's actually a pretty fascinating story.

It's very likely that what she has are simply early prints of Jaegars work. A number of his photographs were printed (using regular photo paper, as that's all that existed at the time) and were distributed to museums, to other officials, and to various other places in Germany throughout WW2. Some of these prints survived the war.

I realize this was 25 years ago, but what she SHOULD have done was simple. Life magazine bought all of Jaegars photos and the copyrights that go with them, which means that the prints are simply images of a copyrighted work. If they're original, they DO have monetary value to collectors, but very little historical value as the "original" negatives still exist. Life would have happily compared her photos to their negatives to determine if they were the same images. If they were new, Life probably would have bought them outright on the spot for a tidy sum of money. If they were of one of the already existing negatives (and odds are about 90% that they were), then they have little historical value and only have cash value to a WW2 curio collector.

On edit: A tiny portion of Life's collection of Jaegar photos can be seen here http://www.life.com/image/50714733/in-gallery/27022/adolf-hitler-up-close

[applegrove]

91. There is a chance this woman was not telling my brother the truth. I had

a bunch of psychopathic liars in my life around that time and they may have asked my brother that as a way to mine information on how our family felt about Hitler. Long story. But I'll mention it to my brother your information on the sole private photographer when I see him next which will be in the summer.

[RadiationTherapy]

63. $$$$$$$$$$$$$

Just sayin, nome sayin?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

64. You would edit history? How Orwellian!

[Hosnon]

65. Destroying them doesn't seem like an option to me.

They are a part of history. And we can't just study the good parts...

[Hosnon]

66. Dupe. nt.

[NashVegas]

69. Sell Them. Take the Money

Everyone else is.

[jberryhill]

70. My word, no. Why would you destroy the photographs?

Why would anyone want to destroy history?

[TheWraith]

71. Fuck no you shouldn't destroy them!

Good god. Those things have immense historical value. To destroy them because you don't like the subject is like insisting that we have to smash the Tower of London because it was originally built by the tyrant William the Conqueror.

[supernova]

72. Don't destroy, donate to museum

or archive so they are available to historians and archivists.

It helps more than hurts to make all aspects of history available, even the bad parts. You don't learn anything if you remove the bad parts of the historical record.

I fervently hope that one day humanity will survive long enough that by studying such monsters, we can come to understand how they are created and in so doing how to neutralize them so they don't wreak such havoc on the world.

[Canuckistanian]

73. NEVER destroy evidence of evil

Keep it, enshrine it, show it to your kids.

Make sure it's pointed at and used as an example of how NOT to live.

[JerseygirlCT]

74. Never forget... yes

We can't learn from something that we've hidden. Exactly!

[Mimosa]

75. Destroying anything related to history isn't a crime but it's wrong.

What's the point of destroying photos? That makes no more sense than people of one regime defacing sculptures of earlier rulers. Of course in history this has happened from the times of ancient Egypt to the times of Pol Pot and the taliban.

Historical records of all types can and should be passed along to historical archivists.

[AngryOldDem]

76. Pass them along to a museum, historical society, college.

As vile as Hitler was, these photos may have some significance.

[slackmaster]

78. They inherently have historical value. Destroying them would be a crime against humanity.

The information in them may even be of tangible value to someone, somewhere, someday.

[JI7]

79. have you ever been to a Museum ?

[JI7]

80. have you ever been to a Museum ?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. You have to burn the photos. You'll stop the evil, and gain Hitler's powers.

I'm personally on a quest to burn every original reel of Mel Brooks' The Producers.

[yawnmaster]

94. you left out the part about running naked through the smoke.

Its required if one wants to gain the full powers and not just some residual spark.

[Quantess]

83. Destroy the photos? Are you kidding?

That would be destroying a piece of history. Absolutely don't destroy them!

[Hekate]

84. Do not destroy. Send to a museum (i.e. Smithsonian) or historical society, with a letter...

... detailing everything known about the provenance of the photos.

But why bring this up after 25 years?

Hekate

[Posteritatis]

85. While damnatio memoriae has its appeal at times, it's also pretty cowardly. (nt)

[mdmc]

86. save those photos for history!

[Juche]

87. sell them

Probably worth a lot

[Parker CA]

88. Contact Pawn Stars or an historical auction house. Definitely don't destroy them. nt

[ThoughtCriminal]

92. Do preserve the pictures that"Humanize" Hitler - Here's Why

People need to understand that monsters, do not look like monsters. I was constantly told by right wingers that they supported Bush because he was "A Good Christian".

To make a point I would look up this picture:


Monsters also go to church, hug children and pet dogs. When you see Hitler doing these things, it drives the point home.

[applegrove]

95. The conundrum I am talking about took place just under 25 years ago.

If the woman who talked to my brother was telling the truth she has long since made her own decision. I just put this up here on the DU because it made me feel sick at the time my brother told me about it and I thought it would make for an interesting discussion and it has.