Fearing that their respective spies would reveal what they knew about the scandal through brutal interrogation, the United States and the Soviet Union had hastily negotiated an exchange of their captive spies. Because the American spy stayed abroad for a short period of time, it was more convenient to confirm their identity. After returning to their side, they received an affectionate hug from their comrades-in-arms to show their welcome to their return home. This is not the case with the Soviet spy. Because he has been engaged in espionage work since he was young, he has been busy abroad until his later years before revealing his deeds and being captured by the United States, which caused difficulties in confirming his identity, and then returned to the forces controlled by the Soviet side. Instead of being warmly embraced by compatriots to show their welcome like the American spies, they were "stuffed" into the back seat of the car. Before that, the Soviet spy and the American lawyer said, "But people sometimes have no logic. Just look at how they greet me, and see if they hug me or tell me to sit in the back seat..." And the American spy also went home on the plane. Expressing concern to his fellow citizens: "I didn't say anything, I didn't say anything". And what happened to the two patriots after that? It was replaced by a news report that countries praised it... Is everything reported by the news true?
Careful viewers may have found some chilling clues in the previous clips: (1) The US spying on the Soviet Union caused the plane crash, and in the news reports to the domestic people, it was said to be engaged in meteorological research... (We can Do you believe the U.S. report?) (2) The Soviet side did not welcome the patriots, but treated them with a cold attitude... (The U.S. actively offered to exchange spies, can the Soviet side suspect that its spies have been captured by the U.S. Tortured and tortured to spit out "secrets" so that they are so anxious to exchange? Can the Soviet side suspect that the United States is afraid that its spy will not be able to hold on and leak "secrets"; perhaps the Soviet side will think that its spy has already spoken "Secret"?) (3) When the US trains spies, it tells them to pull out the "poison needle" when they fall into the enemy's side, and they must not leak secrets. (Is this because the U.S. is afraid of spies trained by its own side and spit out "secrets" without being subjected to brutal interrogation?) There is a hint of doubt in all of this, because just relying on one side of the news report, there is no such thing as Other evidence to support the preferential treatment of its patriots, why can't we raise reasonable doubts? (The above has confirmed that the United States uses the media to carry out false reports. What reason do we have to believe that this time it is not false reports?)
This "Bridge of Spies" covers a lot of content, including the pursuit of legal values by American lawyers, the ideological confrontation under the "Cold War" between the United States and the Soviet Union, the warmth between "friends" in foreign countries, and the "friends" in the same country. Apathy... The thing that makes me ponder the most is what should we do with these returning spies? Due to my limited experience and knowledge, I can only put forward some immature thoughts here, or maybe my starting point is wrong, but I still feel that some more detailed consideration is needed in the way of dealing with returning spies.
View more about Bridge of Spies reviews
