Sir: Divergent interpretations of fact are not to be resolved
by dismissive asides and personal sneers. I refer to Sir Charles Pow- ell's review of Mr George Urban's account of the famous, or notorious, 'Chequers seminar' (Books, 28 September 1996). The facts can be briefly stated. Those invited to participate in the 'seminar', which was described as highly confidential, received in advance a list of questions to be discussed. I was surprised by the general tendency of these questions, which are printed at length in George Urban's book. We were asked to consider whether the Germans were, by national character, unreliable, neurotic, militaristic, liable to revert to Nazi ways.
At the discussion, the consensus which emerged could be summarised, bluntly, as the answer No. Sir Charles Powell evidently summarised them differently, as the answer Yes. I do not know to whom his summary was circulated. It was not circulated to us, so we first learned the views ascribed to us four months later, when it was passed to the press.
Of those present at the seminar, George Urban has dissociated himself from Sir Charles's summary, in his book. The Amer- ican historian, Professor Gordon Craig, has dissociated himself in an article in the Vierteljahrsheft fiir Zeitgeschichte. I dissoci- ate myself here. Others have dissociated themselves privately. I think we are just as competent to know what we think and what we said, and heard, on that occasion, as Sir Charles Powell.
A European Union economically domi- nated by Germany may or may not be desirable; but even if we think it undesir- able, that is not a reason to provide a mis- leading record or to raise the spectre of a new Nazism.
Dacre
The Old Rectory, Didcot, Oxfordshire
Previous page
