SIR,-Mr. Earley shows a commendable zeal in his defence of

his Corporation's Russian Section. But I would suggest that the problem is too big to be treated as one of departmental prestige or bureau- cratic correctitude.

The Government of the Soviet Union is our im- placable enemy, working without interruption to destroy this country and its liberties. The fact that it is not dropping bombs on British soil, and probably never will, does not in the slightest degree affect this basic truth.

The peoples of the Soviet Union (Russians, Ukrainians and the others) are not our enemies. Their minds are certainly befogged by forty years' subjec- tion to a stream of lies and hate. But in the last year there have been unmistakable signs not only of criti- cal thought but of political opposition, especially among the younger generations of the best educated social groups. This new factor provides Western policy with new opportunities, of which neither pub- lic opinion nor government policy has yet shown much awareness. With great respect to the no doubt brilliant individuals in the Russian Section of the BBC, I must admit to some doubt as to whether they have fully grasped this opportunity, or indeed whether the human and financial resources available to them could permit them to do so.

May I put the following, from a much larger num- ber of questions that occur to me (1) Does the BBC Russian Section address itself primarily to the peoples of the Soviet Union or to the Soviet Government? I would suggest that any attempt to induce, by radio broadcasting, in the minds of the Soviet rulers a mood of sweet reason- ableness is sheer waste of effort and of taxpayers' money. Any attempt to make the content of the broadcasts so anodyne as to induce the Soviet Gov- ernment to stop jamming would be not merely folly but criminal folly.

(2) What proportion of the time, devoted to sub- jects other than news bulletins, is spent on commen- tary on internal political and social problems of the Soviet Union?

(3) To what extent does the BBC accept in its broadcasts Soviet terminology without criticism? For example, is the title 'Labour Party' translated into its Russian equivalent (rabochaya partiya, or partiya truda), or is the tendentious Soviet title (laburistskaya partiya) preferred, with its offensive and quite un- mistakable implication that the Labour Party is not a genuine working-class party? Again, do the BBC broadcasts admit, by implication, that what exists in the Soviet Union is 'socialism' (a hooray-word), and that what exists in Britain is 'capitalism' (a boo- word)?

(4) How much time is devoted to serious discussion of real social forces in both countries, for instance to the emergence of new privileged strata in Soviet society; the comparison of the problems of managers in Soviet or British factories; or the degree of influ- ence exercised by workers in industry? These are subjects which do not need full-length 'Third Pro- gramme' lecture treatment : it would be perfectly possible to discuss them in five-minute talks if these were co-ordinated with each other.

(5) How much time is devoted to interpretation of Russian history, and especially of the Russian revo- lutionary tradition? This is a truly explosive subject. The Soviet Government uses history as a political

weapon : it can be made to boomerang against it. The truth of Russian history counts not in favour of the present regime, but against it. For example, how much time did the Russian Section devote to the fortieth anniversary (last March) of the February Revolution of 1917, the one great revolution made by the Russian people against oppression?

(6) How much time does the BBC give for discus- sion of Soviet imperialism, both in Eastern Europe and in Soviet Asia? What provision is made for broadcasts in languages of the Soviet Union other than Russian? There are about forty million Ukrain- ians in the Sovet Union, in a population of 200 million—nearly as many as there are Frenchmen in France. When does the BBC intend to introduce broadcasts in Ukrainian?

To suggest that optimum results may not have been achieved in all these respects is not intended as an insult to the BBC. To cover adequately all these fields—and many others of which your limitations of space forbid mention—would require a numerous and talented permanent editorial staff. One or two commentators, however technically brilliant, cannot handle all important themes. An editorial staff of this sort requires large funds, and determined efforts to look for suitable persons, and to ensure that their talents are used. All this requires much greater finan- cial support and intelligent interest from the Gov-

ernment. Our leaders do not yet appear to have understood that politically adult broadcasts on a large scale to the peoples of the Soviet Union are as essen-

tial a weapon of our defence as aircraft, ships or bombs. It is time that public opinion pressed them.

By raising this topic, Sir, you are performing a public service, and the BBC, instead of touchily protesting, should be grateful to you.—Yours faithfully,

8 Burghley Road, SW 19

H. SETON-WATSON