Thread: The Australian Army in Lebanon 1939

Most of these photos were taken by official photographers working for the military / government. They were then used for media purposes and given out copy right free to be used in the press.

Have seen the same photo with different captions that moved both countries and years. If the image fitted the story it would be issued to the media who were not fussy just wanted a picture for the story.

Originally Posted by 3toes

Most of these photos were taken by official photographers working for the military / government. ....

Not all, in fact when it suggests "donor" in the metadata its not an official photographer.

Even the official photographers were subject to the illiterations, jagon and nicknames used by the troops. After all they were photographers and not surveyors or local historians.

The same is typical in many other theatres/areas. Often "back in the day", place names had official anglicised spellings that were used on "our" maps and records, but since that time have reverted to local or nationalised spelling.


There are numerous examples from ranging from Gallipoli/Gelibolu, or Beersheba/Bar Shiva, through to East Timor/Timor Leste. It is the practice of the AWM to caption pictures or maps with the spellings of place names in use by Australians at the time of the conflict, not to what they might have changed to in later years. Although historically correct, it can sometimes be unhelpful when trying to locate places with modern references, like Google Earth.


Of course, that doesn't mean we don't get things wrong even here in Aus sometimes. Ask any Pole how to correctly pronounce the name of the famous Polish explorer we named our highest mountain after. They laugh at our attempt!


Anyway, Lebanon, please do continue. We love to see comparisons of the Then and Now pictures, and the modern place name. Just don't get in the way of any ISIS fighters to get a picture.

As promised, this is my first attempt to show you the then and now places.

I selected the picture of the overpass (picture 050104)which happens to be not far from my home.



The overpass is still intact but a resort has been built behind it with the main access road passing under the bridge.

With a bit of Photoshop manipulation I merged the old and the new.



What do you think? should I continue doing the same with the remaining pictures or do you prefer to have the old and the new apart?

Originally Posted by lebanon

As promised, this is my first attempt to show you the then and now places.

I selected the picture of the overpass (picture 050104)which happens to be not far from my home.



The overpass is still intact but a resort has been built behind it with the main access road passing under the bridge.

With a bit of Photoshop manipulation I merged the old and the new.



What do you think? should I continue doing the same with the remaining pictures or do you prefer to have the old and the new apart?

I am loving this thread. Thanks Lebanon!

(oh and I love the merge but any way is cool!)

Originally Posted by lebanon

As promised, this is my first attempt to show you the then and now places.

<snip>

What do you think? should I continue doing the same with the remaining pictures or do you prefer to have the old and the new apart?

The photoshoped ones add character IMHO