MR. KHRUSHCHEV'S RECEPTION
SIR,—Quoodle's indignation at the Observer's alleged insensitivity to left-wing totalitarianism happens to be misplaced. The Observer was, after all, the news- paper which published George Orwell when he was almost alone in treating Stalin disrespectfully during the war-time honeymoon.
As to the Observer's contention that Khrushchev ought to have been better received when he came here in 1956, this is based on the belief that even then it was perceptible that he was trying to liberalise his regime—that he came not as Stalin's heir, but as a repudiator of Stalin's legacy of tyranny. (We said so at the time.)
Certainly, his liberalisation led to the Hungarian uprising; and, certainly, he put it down bloodily. But today Hungary has the least tyrannical of all Communist regimes and Khrushchcv has several times visited and praised its government.
As everybody knows, it is always easier to be indignant about the wrong-doings of others. For instance, has Quoodle ever denounced the BritiNh attack on Suez, as Khruslichev has denounced the much graver wrong-doings of the government to which he belonged? Or does Quomlle's sensitivity not extend to the Suez operation?
DAVID AS1015 'The Observer' [Quoodle writes : 'I didn't write "left-wing": I wrote "modern." No doubt Mr. Astor thinks the words interchangeable. And as for his sad little irrelevancy at the end of his letter, he must realise how many easy retorts I could make to him. Of course I didn't oppose Suez: even Mr. Astor knows
at :—Ed ito r, Spectator.]
Previous page
