TOBY JOYCE,
Madam, - In attacking 'myths' about the second World War Robert Jennings (January 2nd) manages to come up with quite a few new ones.
For instance, that after Stalingrad (1942) all that remained was the "mopping up" of Germany. In contradiction of this, the most recent study (Richard Overy's Russia's War, 1998) argues that Stalingrad, while a great victory, was not decisive and much remained to be done to defeat Germany.
For example, Hitler was still able to organize a large offensive at Kursk in the summer of 1943. And it is doubtful if the Russians could have won the smashing victories of 1943-1945 without support from their allies who supplied items like trucks, jeeps and radios that gave the Red Army its logistical and communications backup.
Premier Khrushchev and Marshal Zhukov admitted as much many years later.
Nor should the Allied bombing campaign be forgotten. This forced the Germans to transfer 55,000 anti-aircraft weapons, including 75 per cent of their 88-millimetre anti-tank guns, back to the Reich, along with most of the Luftwaffe's fighter aircraft.
Further, Hitler had to use invaluable resources in science and technology to produce the radar, jets and rockets necessary to defend Germany's heartland. Despite Mr Jennings, and recognising the terrible sacrifices made by the Russians, the defeat of Hitler was a team effort.
By contrast, the defeat of Japan was mainly an American effort. While despising US raids on Japan, Mr Jennings should recall that those aircraft did not fly from Shangri-La, but from islands hard-won with American blood, fighting an enemy every bit as determined and ferocious as the soldiers of Hitler's Reich.
Stalin is said to have made a brutal assessment of contributions to victory, which is not altogether accurate, but is at the same time more generous than Mr Jennings: "The British gave time, the Americans gave money, but the Russians gave blood". Yours, etc.,
TOBY JOYCE, Balreask Manor, Navan Co Meath.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - The world has always needed great men and today the need rises like the weed for water in the desert.
This is the challenge of our times. If we refuse to accept this challenge then, perhaps, the least we can do is not to belittle those like Churchill who did.
Churchill was undoubtedly a man with faults, he was flawed, he made mistakes like you and me; but unlike you and me he responded to the call, still sounding, to stand and hold the battle line against the onslaught of evil.
His calling was to speak for the nation, and in responding he gave men back their manhood.
My friends, let us not take it away. - Yours, etc.,
NIALL O'CONNOR, Cappagh Green, Finglas, Dublin 11.