A number of times in this lengthy paragraph (which has been segmented for analysis purposes) Stevenson indirectly touches upon a fact which has not been discussed – why is it that Frank Parker Stevenson, a reservist and not a career officer, holding a rank identical to that of John H. Van Vliet, Jr. who was a career officer (and who noted this in his report and testimony), is consistently identified as the Senior Officer of the group. Yet although Van Vliet and Stewart never modified that stance, in his report Stevenson seems to indicate that there was a clear consultative nature to his functioning as Senior Officer.
We were P.O.W.s,
Russia our ally, and by such our duty and loyalty was definite and clear. This
instruction applied not only to our presence in Berlin but should be obeyed as
far as our own camps were concerned. It would be common knowledge that we had
been taken to Katyn and perhaps unwise to conceal, but on our return to camp,
we must maintain silence relative to our experience. This policy was
unanimously agreed to by Col. van Vliet (sic) and the Other Ranks were called
together and issued with an instruction bearing on this matter. The photographs
were not distributed to the Other Ranks. The officers were given a set. The
remainder I retained. Supplies are
attached.
However, I suspect
that another factor may have influenced the matter. John H. Van Vliet was supremely aware of the
political nature of this trip and that the group was being photographed, filmed
and recorded (not only in the forest, but as they noted, in their rooms) and as
a result, he may have wanted to recede a bit from the omnipresent monitor, to
be less of a focus. This is clearly
apparent in the photographs from the site.
As previously mentioned, Dr. Gilder is generally front and center
speaking to Dr. Buhtz or Kiselev, and then standing in the clear forefront is
Lt. Col. Stevenson, while on a number of images we see Van Vliet only from the
rear, or a partial side view.
Thus, if the
Germans were to use these photographs, the natural tendency in describing them
would be to state the names of the people who were clearly visible and/or front
and center. The others might not be
mentioned, or if they were, their names would not be the first to be
listed. Perhaps it is all happenstance,
but I would conclude that Van Vliet and Stewart (who also tends not to appear
full face, were highly sensitive to the propaganda value of an image that would
list their names and the fact that they were graduates of the US Military
Academy. In the stratified society of
the 1930’s and 1940’s, and in the Wehrmacht, where not only military rank but
aristocratic titles were still mentioned, referring to the presence of a
graduate of Sandhurst, or alternatively
the Military Academy, would have had great propaganda value.
He was a windbag
© Krystyna Piórkowska
