The American POW who chose China

[cheeley]

Fascinating story, I had no idea there were 20 US servicemen who chose to stay. Did the indoctrination work on some level, I wonder, or were they actually making an incredibly brave choice?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15453730

[KursadA]

It looks like the Chinese acted decently and allowed them to return to their home countries if they wanted. Former POWs that made the mistake of staying in North Korea or the thousands of Americans who willingly immigrated to the promising "emerging country" of Soviet Union during the Great Depression were not so lucky.

[HOLMES]

Truly fascinating insight into what took place during and after the Korean War.

I seem to learn quite a lot on ARC lately..Thankx both of you for the links and

KursadA I think that book is now on MY wish list ..so I will eventaually get round to ordering it...Thnax for that..

HOLMESY

[ChesshireCat]

315 left behind in Laos, and never came home. Various links have been proven out that the Chinese held an airman named Kelly, and of course the Chinese know nothing. High level Vietnamese have stated more than once they traded high value POW's to the Chinese and Russians for arms, and no one knows what happened to them. I believe in this country we like to refer to this as "stone walling"

gary

[ReccePhreak]

were they actually making an incredibly brave choice?

More like a coward's choice, IMHO.

If he liked China so much, and their political system, why didn't he just stay there?

I actually gagged, when I read his statement "If nothing else I'm a real patriot."

But then, "Red Jane" probably thinks the same thing.

[Spook498]

If he liked China so much, and their political system, why didn't he just stay there?

You should keep in mind that at the mans age of captivity, 17, he was still very young and impressionable. Its real easy to sit back and cast a stone with 40+ years of hindsight. (or however old you may be)

He has done more with his life than alot of other people in the fact that A) he joined the military, B.) went to war, C) had the guts to go to his former captor/enemies homeland to study them and then D) to return to his home country a short while later.

Its not criminal, but, it doesnt fit in with your view of what an American "should" do...

Edited October 31, 2011 by Spook498

[ReccePhreak]

You should keep in mind that at the mans age of captivity, 17, he was still very young and impressionable. Its real easy to sit back and cast a stone with 40+ years of hindsight. (or however old you may be)

He has done more with his life than alot of other people in the fact that A) he joined the military, B.) went to war, C) had the guts to go to his former captor/enemies homeland to study them and then D) to return to his home country a short while later.

Its not criminal, but, it doesnt fit in with your view of what an American "should" do...

As a disabled Vietnam veteran, I disagree. I rate his actions down there with the cowards who ran to Canada, to keep from serving their country. I was only a few years older than he was, when I was over there during the Vietnam War, and I never once considered going to the Communist side because I liked their "system" better.

I am not surprised that the liberal socialist college professors & "reporters" wanted to converse with him when he returned. They're even lower in my eyes, than he is.

You can believe what you want, and I will continue to believe what I want.

Edited October 31, 2011 by ReccePhreak

[johnny_7713]

As a disabled Vietnam veteran, I disagree. I rate his actions down there with the cowards who ran to Canada, to keep from serving their country. I was only a few years older than he was, when I was over there during the Vietnam War, and I never once considered going to the Communist side because I liked their "system" better.

I am not surprised that the liberal socialist college professors & "reporters" wanted to converse with him when he returned. They're even lower in my eyes, than he is.

You can believe what you want, and I will continue to believe what I want.

First of all, this was just after the Korean War, not the Vietnam War. At the time communism in China was just four or five years old (as a country-wide system anyway). This man did not run away to avoid serving his country, he joined the army at 17 (is that underage?), was wounded in battle and then spent three years in a POW camp. Instead of continuing to hate his enemy after the war ended he decided to find out more about them (a rather courageous decision in my view). After several years of first-hand experience of communism he decided to go back home, rather than stay in China.

Notice how he says:

"The one big thing I learnt about going to China was how lucky we are here in the US. Our government's not perfect but I think it's one of the best in the world."

Rather than just listening to all the people shouting WAAH COMMUNISM EVIL!!!! he actually tried what it was like living in a communist country and came to his own conclusion: i.e. that he preferred living in the US.

I'm also somewhat saddened that you have such a low regard for the people that wanted to hear his account of what life in another country / another system of government was like. Being asked to tell people about your experience of living in China is not at all the same as telling people how wonderful communism is.

[Litvyak]

RecceFreak, just out of curiosity: do you have the same low opinion of North Korean POWs who decided to stay with the Americans after the war?

For fairness' sake, I hope your answer is a genuine 'yes'.

That said, I'm not really defending him, except that I would draw a distinction between what he did, and those who /voluntarily/ go over to the other side. He did not voluntarily get captured...

[11bee]

RecceFreak, just out of curiosity: do you have the same low opinion of North Korean POWs who decided to stay with the Americans after the war?

For fairness' sake, I hope your answer is a genuine 'yes'.

That said, I'm not really defending him, except that I would draw a distinction between what he did, and those who /voluntarily/ go over to the other side. He did not voluntarily get captured...

I'm on the fence. I wouldn't call him a outright traitor since it appears (at least according to the article) that he was captured in combat.

However, by his own admission, these are the same people that deliberately starved / froze to death 16 of the 26 American POW's in his room (and thousands more in other camps). To then decide to move to China and live amongst those same people is a bit too much for me. Although it wasn't stated in the article, I have no doubt that the Chinese used this guy for propaganda purposes. Maybe not a traitor but a definite enemy collaborator. He should have been forced to remain in the "Worker's Paradise" for the rest of his days.

[ChesshireCat]

RecceFreak, just out of curiosity: do you have the same low opinion of North Korean POWs who decided to stay with the Americans after the war?

For fairness' sake, I hope your answer is a genuine 'yes'.

That said, I'm not really defending him, except that I would draw a distinction between what he did, and those who /voluntarily/ go over to the other side. He did not voluntarily get captured...

I don't know of any N. Korean POW's that chose to stay here, and to take this further, I don't know of any N. Korean POW's kept here during the war. Were there any? and If so where?

gary

[Aaronw]

I don't know of any N. Korean POW's that chose to stay here, and to take this further, I don't know of any N. Korean POW's kept here during the war. Were there any? and If so where?

gary

Thousands of North Korean and Chinese POWs chose to remain in the west, vs a few dozen UN POWs. It was a huge sticking point during peace negotiations. There are also many documented cases of the Chinese and North Koreans infiltrating POWs (intentionally being captured) into camps to threaten (and in many cases kill) anyone who wanted to remain in the west. I'm not sure where "here" is but most of these POWs remained in South Korea or surrounding asian nations (Taiwan etc).

I am fairly sympathetic to those who chose to stay in China, most like this man, were captured early in the war when the US was woefully unprepared for war and was not providing anything resembling adequate support for the troops in the field. When combined with relentless propaganda it is not hard to imagine some feeling they had been abandoned by their country.

I'm sure the Chinese lost interest once the propaganda value of these POWs was ended. Without the added attention and almost celebrity status, I'm sure most of these men probably found the reality of life in China fairly drab as I believe nearly all returned home within a few years.

I see a huge difference between POWs under these conditions making that choice and individuals willingly going to "the otherside" to work against their nations interests.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Aaronw

[11bee]

Thousands of North Korean and Chinese POWs chose to remain in the west, vs a few dozen UN POWs. It was a huge sticking point during peace negotiations. There are also many documented cases of the Chinese and North Koreans infiltrating POWs (intentionally being captured) into camps to threaten (and in many cases kill) anyone who wanted to remain in the west. I'm not sure where "here" is but most of these POWs remained in South Korea or surrounding asian nations (Taiwan etc).

Nearly every single NK and Chinese POW that wanted to stay in the south (and there thousands) were forcibly sent back to the north, where they faced almost certain death. Not exactly our finest hour.

[-Neu-]

I'm sure the Chinese lost interest once the propaganda value of these POWs was ended. Without the added attention and almost celebrity status, I'm sure most of these men probably found the reality of life in China fairly drab as I believe nearly all returned home within a few years.

I wonder if that experience is not unlike those of the spies (like the Cambridge Five) who stole secrets from the West for a Socialist utopia, only to realize their dream was only that when they defected.

[pastafarian]

I'd be interested in talking to the guy to get past his "I just wanted to see what it was like" line. I don't really buy that. But who knows, maybe he just had a really bad idea. I kinda doubt it though.

I find some of these guys interesting. Yes, they are traitors (I don't have many reservations about that), but the decision to "flip" is what grabs me. There was a more "interesting" guy that was an actual collaborator during the Vietnam War. Robert Garwood actually stood guard shifts alongside NVA. He eventually came back to the US but wasn't court martialed. He did get a dishonorable discharge and listed as a deserter.

John

[sharkey]

As a disabled Vietnam veteran, I disagree. I rate his actions down there with the cowards who ran to Canada, to keep from serving their country. I was only a few years older than he was, when I was over there during the Vietnam War, and I never once considered going to the Communist side because I liked their "system" better.

I am not surprised that the liberal socialist college professors & "reporters" wanted to converse with him when he returned. They're even lower in my eyes, than he is.

You can believe what you want, and I will continue to believe what I want.

Relax Glen Beck ^^

[11bee]

Relax Glen Beck ^^

Way to add to the thread.

Edited November 1, 2011 by 11bee

[johnny_7713]

I'd be interested in talking to the guy to get past his "I just wanted to see what it was like" line. I don't really buy that. But who knows, maybe he just had a really bad idea. I kinda doubt it though.

I find some of these guys interesting. Yes, they are traitors (I don't have many reservations about that), but the decision to "flip" is what grabs me. There was a more "interesting" guy that was an actual collaborator during the Vietnam War. Robert Garwood actually stood guard shifts alongside NVA. He eventually came back to the US but wasn't court martialed. He did get a dishonorable discharge and listed as a deserter.

John

How are they traitors? They didn't defect during the war, they chose to go to China after the war had ended. If a GI who had fought in the Korean War without being captured had resigned from the army and then moved to China, would you consider that person a traitor?

[11bee]

How are they traitors? They didn't defect during the war, they chose to go to China after the war had ended. If a GI who had fought in the Korean War without being captured had resigned from the army and then moved to China, would you consider that person a traitor?

First off, the war technically never ended. Secondly, the article is a puff piece that never really investigates what this guy did or did not to assist the Chinese both during and after his captivity. My guess is that this guy collaborated with the communists in order to get preferential treatment. He was undoubtedly used in propaganda work after the war.

I look at it like this - the Chinese starved / froze to death 16 of the 26 soldiers in his barracks. He then decided to go live with them. Not a standup guy in my opinion.

Edited November 1, 2011 by 11bee

[pastafarian]

I would argue that they were traitors because of the Cold War. Those 20 were going to be used in propaganda pieces, like 11Bee said. Say a few guys elected to stay behind in the North after the Civil War, or Japan or Germany after WWII, it would be different. Those wars were more of a limited scope and didn't really have ongoing implications.

I know it is a messed up situation, but in the context of the Cold War these guys don't have the "freedom" to go to communist countries.

John

[johnny_7713]

I would argue that they were traitors because of the Cold War. Those 20 were going to be used in propaganda pieces, like 11Bee said. Say a few guys elected to stay behind in the North after the Civil War, or Japan or Germany after WWII, it would be different. Those wars were more of a limited scope and didn't really have ongoing implications.

I know it is a messed up situation, but in the context of the Cold War these guys don't have the "freedom" to go to communist countries.

John

Fair point, though I still think 'traitor' is a bit harsh. I also agree with 11bee that the article didn't delve very deeply into the man's motivations for staying. 'I wanted to see what it was like' is a bit shallow, especially considering the three years of daily indoctrination, though I can certainly imagine thinking 'well they've been telling me how cool this place is for the last three years, lets go check it out'.

[KursadA]

Nearly every single NK and Chinese POW that wanted to stay in the south (and there thousands) were forcibly sent back to the north, where they faced almost certain death. Not exactly our finest hour.

Sorry, but this sounds unbelievable to me. Do you have any credible source for this information?

Edited November 1, 2011 by KursadA

[pastafarian]

Fair point, though I still think 'traitor' is a bit harsh. I also agree with 11bee that the article didn't delve very deeply into the man's motivations for staying. 'I wanted to see what it was like' is a bit shallow, especially considering the three years of daily indoctrination, though I can certainly imagine thinking 'well they've been telling me how cool this place is for the last three years, lets go check it out'.

Yeah. I wouldn't really call him a collaborator either then, since he didn't change sides during the war. Think I just went with traitor for lack of a better word.

I think we're doing this wrong though. I'm pretty sure we were supposed to start calling each other names by now. poopy-head! :P

John

[ChesshireCat]

Thousands of North Korean and Chinese POWs chose to remain in the west, vs a few dozen UN POWs. It was a huge sticking point during peace negotiations. There are also many documented cases of the Chinese and North Koreans infiltrating POWs (intentionally being captured) into camps to threaten (and in many cases kill) anyone who wanted to remain in the west. I'm not sure where "here" is but most of these POWs remained in South Korea or surrounding asian nations (Taiwan etc).

I am fairly sympathetic to those who chose to stay in China, most like this man, were captured early in the war when the US was woefully unprepared for war and was not providing anything resembling adequate support for the troops in the field. When combined with relentless propaganda it is not hard to imagine some feeling they had been abandoned by their country.

I'm sure the Chinese lost interest once the propaganda value of these POWs was ended. Without the added attention and almost celebrity status, I'm sure most of these men probably found the reality of life in China fairly drab as I believe nearly all returned home within a few years.

I see a huge difference between POWs under these conditions making that choice and individuals willingly going to "the otherside" to work against their nations interests.

I still cannot find a POW camp in the United States that actually help N. Korean personell. Not saying there wasn't, but where?

gary

[ChesshireCat]

I'd be interested in talking to the guy to get past his "I just wanted to see what it was like" line. I don't really buy that. But who knows, maybe he just had a really bad idea. I kinda doubt it though.

I find some of these guys interesting. Yes, they are traitors (I don't have many reservations about that), but the decision to "flip" is what grabs me. There was a more "interesting" guy that was an actual collaborator during the Vietnam War. Robert Garwood actually stood guard shifts alongside NVA. He eventually came back to the US but wasn't court martialed. He did get a dishonorable discharge and listed as a deserter.

John

more interestingly is that he's not talking to anyone! Folks in the know say that he knows the secrets to actually what happened to many high value POW's that never returned, and some folks would like to discuss this with him I'm certain. When one listens or reads all crap put out on the subject you need to learn to read between the lines. The Vietnamese still have never admited to having personell inside Laos or Cambodia in that time period, and the only POW's they'll admit to are the ones they had in N Vietnam. Lee Duc Tho actually marched out of a meeting in Paris when the photos (taken by SOG and Blackbirds (not SR71)) were handed to him. Yet it's also well known that they had huge populations of POW's in Laos and Cambodia. I honestly think that either Garwood is protected or else he's retarded. Now all this eventually has to fall back into Ford and Carter's lap, because some folks know the answers already. I've watch over the years as one by one they've either turned them or they went to meet thier maker (I never thought they'd turn Gritz). Probably not a dozen and a half left now unless some high level North Vietnamese is turned.

gary

Edited November 1, 2011 by ChesshireCat