Sir, - Was Kevin Myers too sweeping in his condemnation of Earl Mountbatten (Books, July 21st)? Most biographies show that Mountbatten was vain but brave, especially on three vital matters. These - Suez, nuclear weapons and whipping in Burma - mitigate his faults.
He opposed using naval guns against Port Said in 1956. Anyone who has walked its streets could see why: 4.5-inch, 6-inch, and 15-inch shells, fired flat trajectory at short range, from the huge, invulnerable Anglo-French fleet, would have devastated its thin-walled tenements.
Threatening resignation, he said things his government resented hearing: "We'll be plastered round the world as assassins and baby-killers". Many Egyptians owe him their lives. Guns above 4.5-inch were not used. Even so, British figures for Egyptian casualties in Port Said and Faud were 750 dead, 900 hospitalised wounded and 1,200 with lighter injuries. At least 25 per cent were civilians. Higher figures are stated.
Against accepted doctrine, he questioned the practicality of using tactical nuclear weapons and (later) strategic ones. He refused to agree "to any extension of whipping" in Burma.
Suez and nuclear weapons arose after the period Mr Myers discussed, but the condemnation was unbalanced. The murder of Egyptian civilians will interest him. He may tell us if the gunners included Irishmen.
Finally, can a man hated by Lord Beaverbrook and right-wing conservatives have been all bad? - Yours, etc.,
E. D. Doyle, Tower Road, Clondalkin, Dublin 22.