Wow, I almost literally could not disagree more. To me they make a huge, incredibly effective point---something about the nature of "significant" events, and how much "significant" is a human concept that we project onto completely indifferent settings. The only one that doesn't work for me is "Berlin, 1945"---it's much changed from the original, but there's so much affective content left in the setting that it doesn't come off as mundane as the others.

I don't understand how it's possible to see this as "the 'erasing' of history", actually, because the images don't stand by themselves---the point they make is exactly about the importance of what's been erased. Can you elaborate on what you're thinking, a little bit?
People forget a lot, I remember overhearing two teenagers in a bookstore [you cannot make this stuff up]:
- "wow, a book on Desert Storm"
- "what's that?"

this was only a few years afterwards.

Yes, we may have difficulty NOT seeing the 'tank-man' and all that he implies,
but only if you are familiar with that image, which is not a given.

Focusing on the banality of the 'backdrop' of a photo of this type - again, to my opinion -
undermines the blunt impact and veracity of the image, akin to pointing out the make of car
Kennedy was riding in.

-Tim