Hiroshima and the BBC
Sir: Professor Cameron Watt's letter (28 September) on the subject of the BBC pro- gramme on Hiroshima is so admirably definitive that I intervene only to assure your readers and the BBC (if they are at all interested, which I doubt) that his is not just 'another point of view', but represents the considered opinion of all serious histo- rians who have taken the trouble to study the question in the depth that it deserves.
To base a programme about Hiroshima on the views of Professor Alperovitz is comparable to basing a programme about Hitler on the views of David Irving. It cer- tainly makes for lively controversy, but is not 'history' as generally understood: it should carry a health warning and an opportunity should be provided for consid- ered rebuttal. When a very similarly slanted programme was made recently about Sir Arthur Harris the BBC at least had the decency to screen a successor showing the other side of the coin. Unless they are pre- pared to do the same in this case, the eva- sive and shuffling apologies which are all that they have so far offered will be quite inadequate to salvage their reputation and that of the producer whom they have so loyally if unwisely backed.
Michael Howard
Emeritus Professor of Modern History, University of Oxford
Previous page
