Letters to the Editor
The BBC's Russian Service A. Earley Telephone Tapping Geoffrey Godwin, George Richards Glyndebourne Food W. H. Oldaker Rani of Thansi A. J. Smith The Liberal Party Unrepentant Liberal Poetry and Side-Issues Michael Stapleton Gin and Tonic Phyllis Townsend Fresh Food C. R. Wace Nuclear Horror Rev. Austin Lee Food and Drink H. H. Merrall THE BBC'S RUSSIAN SERVICE
Sut,—The paragraph in your column 'A Specta- tor's Notebook' in your issue of June 21, referring to the Russian Service of the BBC, contains a num- ber of inaccuracies. It is surprising that your con- tributor did not attempt to verify his statements before publication. While no one in this country can hear more than a very small proportion of our broadcasts in Russian, since they are transmitted on short waves beamed eastwards, we are always pre- pared, in response to any serious inquiry, to make available scripts as broadcast. Since your contribu- tor made no such request and is clearly not familiar with the content of our Russian transmissions, per- haps you will allow me to correct some of the more serious misconceptions on which he has based his opinion that these broadcasts are 'a notorious waste of time.'
There has been no change in the editorial policy or the character of this service during the past few years, as you suggest. Its purpose remains, in com- mon with all other BBC External Services, that of providing a full, accurate and objective news ser- vice, together with a clear elucidation of the British point of view about world affairs and a projection of British life and institutions.
You state that this service 'contrived to avoid broadcasting Khrushchev's secret speech' of Febru- ary 25, 1956, in Which the 'Stalin cult' was repudi- ated. The BBC Russian Service devoted at least as much of its news bulletins to reporting this speech as any other service of the BBC. Over and above this news coverage, it broadcast a total of fourteen long commentaries, with a total wordage of approxi- mately 30,000, directly on the speech, summarising or quoting its various points in detail and com- menting on them from the British point of view. In particular, they dealt with the British reaction to the speech, with the confusion and embarrass- ment which it caused to Communist parties outside Russia, and its implications for Soviet policy and for the Soviet leaders. They also repeatedly chal- lenged the Soviet Government, from the moment the speech was known about, to publish its text. Since you write that the BBC Russian Service 'very rarely utters a word which would irritate even the touchiest of its listeners,' you will perhaps allow me to quote two or three typical sentences from these commentaries: . . Naturally the question arises and is in fact being asked everywhere : how could Stalin's associates have permitted the Stalin cult and the one-man rule to assume such monstrous proportions? Sooner or later the present leaders of the Soviet Union will have to answer this question. . . .
. Instead of just remedying the more glaring injustices such as the doctors' case, the
Soviet Government is now in a position to remedy all injustices, to renounce methods and institutions which have compromised the Soviet Union in the eyes of the world. . . .
. . . What is now at long last admitted in the Soviet Union has been recognised in this country for many years. . . .
. . . And this admission gives the present Soviet leadership its chance to rid itself of this terrible legacy, to alter the entire system so that the Soviet Union should no longer be spoken of as the country of slave labour camps. . . .
• . . one may conclude that the present Soviet Government recognises at least some of the flagrant mistakes committed by Stalin towards the Western Powers. Nevertheless, Khrushchev • has apparently not referred to the mistakenness of this policy, which led to the complete loss of Soviet prestige in the international arena, the worsening of relations, to a tense situation and to a threat of new war. . . .
. . Now the Soviet leaders need no longer reiterate Stalin's words on the allegedly hostile nature of NATO since they know—and have, indeed, always known—that this alliance is not an aggressive but a defensive pact.
Quotations of this kind could be multiplied many times, but you will scarcely have room to summarise 30,000 words of commentary on these lines. You are at liberty to come and read all these scripts, in English or Russian, at your convenience.
Your contributor refers to 'a long series of talks on a Rembrandt exhibition in Amsterdam' and im- plies that they were broadcast at the expense of an adequate coverage of Khrushchev's speech. Be- tween June 19, 1956—that is, fourteen days after the unofficial full text of the Khrushchev speech had been published by the State Department—and July 9 three short talks were broadcast on Rem- brandt in connection with the 350th anniversary of his birth. Their total length was 2,200 words out of a total broadcasting time of fifty-six hours, equivalent to about 340,000 words, during the period in which they were scheduled. They were broadcast because a showing of some Rembrandts in Moscow at the time, organised by the Netherlands Ambassa- dor, gave an opportunity of projecting an important aspect of Western culture.
It is quite true that our Russian broadcasts ss ei unjammed for six months last year—although not, as you state, 'alone among BBC broadcasts for Eastern Europe and Western programmes for Russia.' If, however, you are right in deducing that the Soviet Government ceased to jam these broad- casts because they did not offend 'totalitarian susceptibilities,' you can perhaps explain why the jamming was resumed on October 28, 1956, as part of the preparation for the crushing of the Hun- garian revolution, and continues more intensively than the jamming of any of our other broadcasts —Yours faithfully.
The British Broadcasting Corporation
[Pharos writes : 'Mr. Earley's cloud of generalisa- tions does not answer my points. I said that the BBC Russian Service did not broadcast the Khrushchev speech. not that it did not retail British comments on it. To have reproduced the speech would have been to provide the most interesting piece of 'objec- tive news' a Russian could have desired : other Western services realised this. Nor did I say that it never broadcast anything that might irritate the Soviet authorities. I said 'rarely': there are clearly . issues like the secret speech and the Hungarian revolution, on which it is scarcely possible to avoid comment, and on which even the minimum presenta- tion of British views is bound to cause offence. But even the bare news (which is in any case handed to the Russian programme ready made-up by a different section) would have been enough to pro- voke the Soviet resumption of jamming. Mr. Earley's statistics do not affect my points, though it is not clear whether he has taken into account the amount of time and wordage used up in multiple repeats, which are frequent. On the uniqueness of the suspension of jamming I fancy Mr. Earley is quibbling. It is true that the Russians ceased to Jam our broadcasts to Turkey and Finland. But by Eastern Europe I clearly meant the countries of the Soviet bloc.'—Editor, Spectator.)
Previous page
