Many Thanks! I cannot remember where We read this, but is not here one thing, a story, about the way the German's had cleverness from previous jumps that the troops that are airborne their hair in this style. ...
This image with the title of "Filthy Thirteen member Clarence Ware applies war paint to Charles Plaudo. England, 31 December 1943." is one of a large collection of pictures from the category Colorized History . We collect quality images, from a social network website reddit.com
Source: To view the original source also read the full comments of the original poster as well as from other redditor, you can click on the following Link.
Some random comments on reddit about Filthy Thirteen member Clarence Ware applies war paint to Charles Plaudo. England, 31 December 1943.
- I can't recall where I read this, but isn't there something, a story, about how the German's had intelligence from previous jumps that the airborne troops cut their hair in this style. So they told the French populous prior to the D-Day landings that many of the airborne troops would be in fact prisoners and men from insane asylums, who could be recognised by their distinct style of hair i.e. the mohawk! They thought the French would be less inclined to co-operate with madmen.
- The only source I can think of is Stephen E Ambrose's Band of Brothers. So likelihood is dubious
- I knew I read it somewhere! It was definitely Ambrose's book so, but I read it like 15 years ago. Maybe more recently then that, because I loved Band of Brothers, but it's been a while anyhow. Oh I don't doubt it was general soldier talk, it's just that I knew I had read it somewhere and always liked the story.
- Why dubious?
- Ambrose is a known plagurizer and truth stretcher
- This is the first I heard of that.
- Came out around the turn of the millennium. His books aren't bad, but they aren't 100% fact. Plus, oral histories aren't great sources due to the way memory works
- I haven't read the book in a long time, but I remember the introduction saying something like "as a kid I thought these men were giants. I still do." For an historian to be accurate they must be dispassionate, and this guy loved his subjects too much. It's an entertaining book that I enjoyed and learned from, but a college kid shouldn't cite it as serious history and everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt. He wasn't even setting out to write a scholarly tome; he's a fanboy. Which is fine, as long as you recognize it.
- I hadn't heard that before. I've only read Band of Brothers. I always assumed that it was a one sided account given that it was oral histories, but didn't have an issue with it when read from that perspective.
- I mean it's a fine book, but I wouldn't cite it in anything. Forbes found I think a dozen of his books had plagurism or improper citations including his doctoral thesis. He's a popular historian, not an academic one. No inherent problem with it, but you've got the right idea of how to read it. As a one sided story . Read more comments