IAN Mitchell’s plea for balanced recognition of the enormous Soviet contribution to Allied victory in the Second World War was timely (Letters, June 8). Soviet military and civilian losses were, indeed, staggering and still have the capacity to shock one even today. This fact in no way diminishes the sacrifices made on the D-Day beaches and elsewhere in the West or, indeed, those in the Far East which are sometimes eclipsed by the Normandy campaign. However, sadly, it has been allowed to be sidelined by political developments during the Cold War and its aftermath.
It would have been an appropriate courtesy to have recognised and honoured this historical truth during the D-Day commemoration, however strained the current relationship between London and Moscow may be.
Dave Stewart, Glasgow G11.
DR Jim Macgregor (Letters, June 8) believes that US and UK bankers backed Nazi Germany's massive rearmanent in the 1930s, but how did Hitler's Government repay them, with interest, and using what as security?
In fact, the very flawed post-First World War "settlement" violated Winston Churchill's very wise injunction that humiliation of losers the must never be the victors' policy. That profound flaw contributed a casus belli for the Second World War. At the Peace Conference in 1919, the French PM, Georges Clemanceau, had predicted another world war within 20 years. A prediction as accurate as the Versailles statesmanship was disastrous.
In marked contrast, post-Second World War, the occupation of Germany by the allies, the Marshall Plan and formation of Nato all reflected very much wiser policies, which played a more fundamental part than did the EU in maintaining peace.
The very creditable restoration of the fabric of Europe, and its industrial recovery are no less impressive than the pre-war Nazi military build-up.
However, it remains unclear how a defeated, impoverished Germany could have paid back the much-maligned international financiers of the 1930s.
(Dr) Charles Wardrop, Perth.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel