3 ms·

> Upon release I compared notes with Doug and we determined that time frame was the same time he accused the Vietnamese in Paris of murdering me [I had not wri

> Upon release I compared notes with Doug and we determined that time frame was the same time he accused the Vietnamese in Paris of murdering me [I had not written home once writing became voluntary] for embarrassing them in a Life magazine bowing picture. Thanks to Doug, despite the scars on my body, the Communists had to produce me alive at the end of the war. I'm feeling a bit stupid myself, because I'm not following the implication here. Why would Hegdahl's accusation cause the VC to leave Stratton alive, or to check him for signs of torture, or to pay him any special attention at all? If Hegdahl hadn't ever mentioned him, why would they kill Stratton specifically? I enjoyed the story, and appreciate the tongue-in-cheek delivery, but it may have been intended for an audience better acquainted with the geopolitics of the war than I am. Any help?

topkai22 6y ago
I'm making some assumptions here, but the N. Vietnamese viewed the prisoners as political negotiating chips. They were very casually indifferent to their survival and indeed many died. Quite a few were killed. However, the N. Vietnamese tried to paint a very different picture publicly, that the POWs were being humanely treated. Doug openly accusing the N. Vietnamese of murdering Stratton meant the Stratton's value to come out of his imprisonment alive was greatly increased, as that made the N. Vietnamese look good and the Americans look more foolish. Stratton, for various reasons, may also have thought the N. Vietnamese would kill/disappear him because he had signs of obvious torture, which would put lie to their claims of humane treatment. The fact this happened "in Paris" indicates it happened during the Paris peace accords (which effectively ended most US involvement in the Vietnam war), so was a matter of concern to the top officials in the country.
a_e_k 6y ago
The way I read it was that they'd tortured Stratton and he had the scars as evidence to prove that they had. They might have been tempted to just quietly execute him at the end, dump his body to hide that he had been tortured, and then deny that they'd had him (remember he hadn't written home). Instead Hegdahl shined a big diplomatic spotlight on Stratton to try to get them to get them to acknowledge having him alive and deny having murdered him. After that, they'd want to make sure their denial of murder stays true.

topkai22 6y ago

I'm making some assumptions here, but the N. Vietnamese viewed the prisoners as political negotiating chips. They were very casually indifferent to their survival and indeed many died. Quite a few were killed. However, the N. Vietnamese tried to paint a very different picture publicly, that the POWs were being humanely treated. Doug openly accusing the N. Vietnamese of murdering Stratton meant the Stratton's value to come out of his imprisonment alive was greatly increased, as that made the N. Vietnamese look good and the Americans look more foolish. Stratton, for various reasons, may also have thought the N. Vietnamese would kill/disappear him because he had signs of obvious torture, which would put lie to their claims of humane treatment. The fact this happened "in Paris" indicates it happened during the Paris peace accords (which effectively ended most US involvement in the Vietnam war), so was a matter of concern to the top officials in the country.

a_e_k 6y ago

The way I read it was that they'd tortured Stratton and he had the scars as evidence to prove that they had. They might have been tempted to just quietly execute him at the end, dump his body to hide that he had been tortured, and then deny that they'd had him (remember he hadn't written home). Instead Hegdahl shined a big diplomatic spotlight on Stratton to try to get them to get them to acknowledge having him alive and deny having murdered him. After that, they'd want to make sure their denial of murder stays true.