This ought to be good for a debate...

Take the time to read the whole page.
Give it some thought, then let's hear your thoughts.

http://ihr.org/jhr/v05/v05p397_Lutton.html

It was a VERY interesting read, cheers for the link mate.

Now thats something you don't see in a history book! Turns out Patton was not as by the books in his thoughts as everyone thinks he was. Kind of disturbing how we are being told of how the French viewed the Anglo-American forces in contrast to the German forces defending the country and how they really did. Even so with the bad treatment of the French, the Soviet forces reclaiming Russia and most of eastern Europe plus East Germany, didn't exactly treat the people they had conquered nicely to say the least. Still grabs you by surprise, good find!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: comedy_watcher,

I didnt see anything that I didnt already know really...

as far as whether or not the french people wanted to be liberated....some did, some probably didnt and I'm sure all were simply hoping that ther lives and livelihood were not destroyed.

as far as General Lutes' comment about the germans never looting is his own error. It happened - it always does. Especially the museums - there are still some things that have never been recovered or returned to the countries they were taken from. The history channel once had a program that listed a few of them that havent been returned to france, but I forget the name of the show....

as far as the shooting of prisoners - once again nothing that we dont already know. IN every war I can think of, there have been instances of POWs getting executed by all sides involved. As for whether or not malmedy really took place - I think only the people who were there could answer that question. There were many other instances of this happening type of thing happening throughout all theaters of teh war...

I think I would like to read Irving's book. It sounds as though it would be interesting reading. The only thing I dont have any tolerance for, is when people try to tell you that the haulocost never happened or that the Bataan Death March or the Rape of Nanking never took place.....

It brings up SOME things to think about, but its TOO pro Nazi. Are you telling me that the SS didn't do anything bad? It sounds like some old German soldier who still has a grudge wrote it, and always talks bad about the Allies and good about the Axis. I agree w/ Ranger5thBn totally.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Siduig,

David Irving is a writer who has consistently and repeatedly attempted to alter the perceptions of his readers to be sympathetic to the Nazi cause. Remember this guy is a holocaust denier. Everything he writes should be ignored for what it is, propoganda and riddled with his own personal agenda.

I would like to note, in response to the claims that the Germans were behaviorally better than the Allies in occupied Europe, it is a rather large stretch to argue against understood history for the past sixty years. Now, not to say our perspective of history cannot change, that is to say that neary EVERY historian from the past sixty years dealing with the European Theater was wrong in their perceptions by the opinions and expertise of one man. Case in point, the Germans were just as bad if not worse than the Allies towards prisoner treatment. Captured Russians were brutalized, and a number of American prisoners were executed at Malmedy during the Battle of the Bulge (which Irving clames was a hoax of course). I would also note a little thing called the Holocaust (doubt that would be considered honorable treatment towards others in any perverse sense). Again, Irving sounds like one who thinks the Holocaust was a giant conspiracy where millions of people tatooed numbers on their arms and starved themselves for six or seven years so they could get sympathy. Ranger5thBn is correct in the comment that POWs are executed by all sides in every war, and atrocities/crimes happen in any war. In Iraq, you have terrorist beheading civilians while Americans torture prisoners or execute unarmed combatants. The only way to put it: War is hell.

The French comment is a bit more difficult, but I would argue that the Germans likely treated the French far better than most because of historical and cultural connections (the Rhineland was a French-owned region with very strong German ties). I would argue that this gentleman may present some new perspectives and ideas, such as the disagreements among Allied commanders, but I feel he is like many historical writers who are out to shake the boat for attention. I cannot really blame him, being I've read hundreds of books on the subject throughout my academic and teaching career. It's tough to write a book these days on World War II without basically reiterating what has already been pounded into stone so many times before. But to help support this, look at the statement regarding how most of the problems in Europe were being caused by "colored" soldiers. When taken into context with the same society that clamed that African-Americans had too small of blood vessels in their brains to fly aircraft, thus being vulnerable to blackouts (such as the case of the 99th Fighter Squadron or the first batch of black pilots out of Tuskegee), I find this statement to be taken for what it's worth, a statement made by a ranking white officer in a time period of immense racism and segregation. Another case in point, he says Germany was the greatest army the world had ever seen (no kidding, really? You think? I think the Blitzkreig pointed that out, but they weren't the best for long).

For those of you who got bored with my long tirade on this subject, here's my condensed version: This guy is either full of **** (fill in blank with common vulgar noun referring to #2) or telling use something we already know.

I agree with your estimation of Irving, and your analysis of why some French civilians may have been treated 'correctly' to use the terminology of the times.

Those incidents must've been the exception rather than the rule, considering that standard German practice in occupied countries was reprisal killings of civilians in areas closest to where partisan/underground attacks took place.

As for Irving's Holocaust-a-Hoax claims, that's utter bosch of course. Here in Canada we've had our share of those delusional types.

As for the rest: Enough documentation, on paper and on film, was generated during the war that authors and historians have no excuse for some of what they say. And that goes doubly for some of the textbook stuff taught in schools.

Alot of Americans I'm friends with never knew U-Boats were sinking American coastal shipping in American waters right off of major American ports. (Ships backlighted by New York, etc were easier to torpedo or shell by night.)
And those are well-educated people who grew up along the Eastern Seaboard.

By the same token, most of my own fellow Canadians don't know that U-Boats penetrated the St. Lawrence river as far as Quebec City.

In a perfect world, there'd be an international effort by ALL participants to set forth a definitive official history for all nations.

In other words, an 'honest version' where personal and national prides and prejudices wouldn't cause any spindoctoring.

Then again, the squabbling that would result would probably lead to the next world war...

The SS soldiers made their job and the American soldiers made their job..Of course the shooting of prisoners is not necessary but imagine u are germans on the retreat and u have alots of prisoners....you can't release them and carry them forward is not possible too, because u must quickly move back!

Im sure the same thing was with the american force!