Sir: Mr Young (July 12) protests too much. There is
only one question to put to him. Is he the creature of Soviet expansionism, or is he a chump? I believe him to be the former, and thus, in effect, occupying a traitorous position. His arguments simply put the propositions held dear by the unbalanced Marshal at the Kremlin, namely, that when the USSR arms it is purely for defensive purposes, but when the US always belatedly, history shows arms, it is to threaten the peace-loving millions in the ranks of the dove-like Russian armed forces. Such lack of probity on Mr Young's part simply will not do. But, then, does one expect anY sort of intellectual honesty from long-serving fellow-travellers?
I retract, come to think of it, MY attribution of traitorousness to Mr Young. He is, of course, a ninny. self-inducedly so from many years of risible and robotic adherence to a creed so flawed, so spurious and so profoundly dishonest that historians of the future could be forgiven for disbelieving the evidence. Or does he merely have a personal quarrel with Jane's Fighting Ships?
Alastair McGregor Langley Hill, King's Langley, Herts.
Previous page
