Cold War Propaganda

Rating: 1/10 (13 August 2016)

A new film set in the Cold War era of the 1950's was released a few weeks ago and is apparently a big hit. The plot revolves around James B. Donovan, a simple lawyer who is chosen to defend Colonel Rudolf Abel, a captured Soviet spy, in the midst of an atmosphere of anti-communist hysteria sweeping the US. Later in the movie Mr. Donovan is recruited by CIA to negotiate the release of captured American spies in exchange for Colonel Abel, including U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers who was captured by the Soviets after his spy plane was shot down in Soviet airspace. The tortured tagline of the film sums up the propaganda point to be driven home: "In the shadow of war, one man showed the world what we stand for." What we (the US) stand for is supposedly a just and humane society where everyone, even a communist spy, is entitled to a fair trial. This is set against the supposed tyranny and cruelty of communist states.
However, the version of events presented in this film and the case it attempts to make in favor of an American system of "fair play" can easily be disproved. Many relevant details have been distorted or conveniently left out of the narrative. Also, some facts have been included but presented out of any historical context. Unfortunately, most Americans will passively accept this false narrative without question or without doing any further study of their own. They will accept the movie as being a true recounting of historical events. I could now spend a lot of time discussing every single propaganda element within the film such as the dark and gloomy atmosphere in East Berlin; the scowling faces of the East German border guards; the menacing and hostile demeanor of various communist officials or scenes of torture, but I have decided to take a different approach. I will simply tell the truth of the historical incident that this film is supposedly based on; and I will do it using the memoirs of the two primary American participants in these events - James Donovan and Francis Powers.
Let's start by comparing the details and outcomes of the Abel trial in the US with that of Powers' trial in the Soviet Union. Both spies were caught red-handed and so there could be no doubt as to their guilt in both cases. Therefore, the purpose of the trials should have been simply to gather all the facts available in an effort to come up with a suitable punishment to fit the crime. Below, I have included a table that shows the results of each trial.
Powers (Soviet trial) Abel (US trial) Held Incommunicado 4 weeks 3 weeks Phys. or Psych. Abuse No Yes Max. Poss. Sentence Death (rare cases) Death (very common) Actual Sentence 10 years 30 years
Powers stated in his autobiography, written a decade after his return to the US, that he did not suffer any abuse during his captivity in the Soviet Union. Abel, however, said that during his interrogation he was struck in the face by one of the FBI agents who grew frustrated at his silence and refusal to cooperate.
Powers was told by the Soviets that execution for espionage was rare in the USSR, but Abel was informed that the death penalty was very likely to be his fate. In fact, just a few years prior to Abel's trial in 1957, the Rosenbergs had been sent to the electric chair for stealing atomic secrets for the Soviet Union. Finally, in the sentences that were eventually handed down, Powers received a relatively light 10 years imprisonment while Abel was given 30 years.
The Soviets were accused of subjecting Powers to a "show trial," but this is exactly what the Americans did with Rudolf Abel. As it turns out, despite all the blather about the high ideals of the American legal system, Donovan and his co-conspirators were really just concerned with promoting the idea of superior values of American "fair play," without any regard for the substance behind such claims. Furthermore, the real reason Mr. Donovan argued to save Abel's life was in order to hold him as a bargaining chip in the inevitable event of a spy swap with the Soviets down the road.
Mr. Donovan, the humble lawyer, was actually a high-ranking career spy. He admits in his memoirs that at the time he was supposed to be impartially defending Colonel Abel, he was at that moment still a spook! In his own words he reveals that he "still held a commission as a commander in Naval Intelligence." Prior to that he had worked as head legal counsel in the OSS (precursor to the CIA) for several years and had helped to organize the CIA after WWII! However, from the insane viewpoint of American exceptionalism nothing here is out of place, but if this film had been done from the Soviet perspective (taking into account the undeniable facts of the incident), the plot might go like this:
The US violates Soviet airspace repeatedly until one of their spy planes is finally shot down. The pilot, despite his refusal to denounce the criminal activity of his government, receives a very light sentence in comparison to America's treatment of captured Soviet agents. Some time later, a CIA spymaster shows up in East Berlin demanding the release of three American spies in exchange for one Soviet spy. Although this naturally strikes the Soviets as unfair, due to their good nature they agree. Colonel Abel returns home to a hero's welcome while Francis Powers is received with suspicion, denounced by the media and much of the American public as a traitor, and is held incommunicado by the CIA for "debriefing" for nearly a month. (All true!)
References: Donovan, James B. Strangers on a Bridge. New York: Atheneum, 1967.
Powers, Francis Gary (with Curt Gentry). Operation Overflight. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.