Refugee poser

IN HIS reply to my letter (Argus, August 19), Peter Walters makes some interesting points.
I have no argument with his characterisation of the world wars (although I think his analysis applies more clearly to the Second than to the First).
I don’t, however, accept his implication that there is a strong parallel between the choices facing Allied soldiers then and those facing refugees now.
British soldiers in the Second World War were fighting on behalf of a democratic country against the aggression of other countries.
That is not the case in most conflict zones now, where we have what are essentially civil wars (with different sides backed to a varying extent by foreign powers).
He implies that refugees should have stayed to fight for “save their homeland”. But what does this mean in reality?
In the case of Syria, fighting for “their homeland” could be taken to mean remaining loyal to their government i.e. fighting for a vicious dictatorship, led by a war criminal (President Assad) who unleashes barrel bombs and chemical weapons on civilian populations.
I’m sure Mr Walters isn’t advocating this. If we argue that they should fight for the opposition we need to consider their victory is unlikely to lead to a liberal democracy and has been shown in much of north Africa and the Middle East, to fresh conflict and new forms of repressive government.
Those coming from other countries are often escaping persecution from brutal dictatorships or hopelessly corrupt governments.
I am not so naïve as to believe that every asylum seeker is genuine, but it must be understood that each case is investigated before refugee status is granted and that the onus is on the applicant to prove their case.
This refutes the suggestion that many refugees are just escaping military service since British government rules clearly state that avoiding military service is not sufficient grounds for the granting of refugee status.