So according to this article the Great Escape was militarily
reckless and shouldn't have been attempted. I realize he's trying to
sell his book controversy being what it is. However the argument on its
face value is ridiculous.
Setting aside the obvious that the first duty of prisoners of war is to try to escape the idea of well the war was going to be over so just stay there doesn't pass the smell test. Even if it did when exactly would this sort of logic "be acceptable"? After 1943 or maybe 1942 after the Americans entered?
Setting aside the obvious that the first duty of prisoners of war is to try to escape the idea of well the war was going to be over so just stay there doesn't pass the smell test. Even if it did when exactly would this sort of logic "be acceptable"? After 1943 or maybe 1942 after the Americans entered?