DURING the Second World War my aunt served in the ATS. In her diary, she describes “intense and ferocious” German air raids on Devonport in 1941.

“Such destruction,” she wrote, “could hardly have been imagined – it needed to be seen to comprehend it. Thousands of people took to the roads. Whole families and parties of people set out each day with their few belongings for the night. Many slept under hedges, others in cars or lorries and others begged for shelter in different outlying homes. The endurance and patience of these afflicted people is wonderful.”

I often think of this as Britain now conducts its wars in foreign lands by remote control from the safety of Westminster, and we see on TV the disastrous humanitarian consequences of our interventions.

Some correspondents have suggested that Syrian refugees should return home and fight for their country (HAS, Sept 22 and 25).

But the Syrian conflict bears little comparison with the Second World War.

Syria is being destroyed by a complex civil war, which is also a proxy war between various regional and international powers.

Should the refugees join President Assad’s forces battling Isis? But Assad is responsible for far more death and destruction than Isis, so perhaps they should join Isis and fight Assad? Or maybe join al Qaeda’s Jabhat al Nusra, which is opposed to both? Or perhaps the increasingly marginalised Free Syrian Army?

Little wonder that ordinary, peace-loving Syrians just want to get out.

Pete Winstanley, Durham