Simon Jenkins (It’s past time to move on from endless war remembrance, 7 June) writes that “too much remembering is a dangerous business”; to which the only answer is: “Try the alternative.” All will agree that the sacrifice of those who fought to defeat the Nazis should be properly commemorated. Many will also agree that, within that context, the terrible price paid by the Russians in defeating Hitler has not been properly acknowledged.

But that is where the “remembering” comes in, and the “butcher’s bill”, as Churchill put it, should not be the only mark by which a nation’s contribution is judged.

Leaving aside the formidable complexities involved in mounting D-day, along with simultaneous campaigning in Italy, the Pacific and the Atlantic that the western allies were engaged in, one can also reasonably point to the massive efforts, that started during the war, to restore democratic, law-based governments to Nazi-conquered countries and, eventually, to Germany itself. Not so in Soviet-occupied territories: the Soviet army was followed by the NKVD (later KGB) and the commissars; prewar governments were disposed of summarily; and the long darkness of communist oppression imposed.

So let us, by all means, rebalance the narrative of the second world war by perhaps moving our commemoration of VE Day to 9 May (from 8 May), alongside the Russians. However, in properly recontextualising the western allies’ contribution, let us not substitute another partial narrative that wrongly denigrates our contribution.

Simon Diggins

Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire

• Attempts by Steve Bell (6 June) and Hamish MacGibbon and Michael Prior (Letters, 7 June) to lionise the Russian contribution to the allied cause should remember that it was a belated attempt to make amends for past evils. For nearly two years after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact the national socialists of Germany and the soviet socialists of Russia were comrades-in-arms for global revolution. Both countries invaded Poland – parading together to celebrate their joint victory – and then Russian invaded Finland, the Baltic states, and Romania. The Luftwaffe bombers devastating Britain during the Blitz were fuelled by oil from Russia – D-day might not even have needed to happen at all had the German Blitzkrieg not been sustained by millions of tons of Russian supplies right up until the start of Operation Barbarossa.

We could have easily told Stalin that he had made his bed and could lie in it, and sat back to watch the fireworks while his chickens came home to roost with Nazis and communists battering each other to a standstill in the east. But instead, through the sacrifices of the Arctic convoys, strategic bombing over Germany, and the Italian campaign, plus vast logistical support in lend-lease, the west looked past these grievances and kept Russia in the fight. Defeating Germany was an joint effort from all sides – hence the name, the allies.

Robert Frazer

Salford

• While the military deaths of the Battle for Normandy are rightfully listed and remembered, the civilian deaths in Caen get barely a media mention (‘A day that determined the fate of generations’, 7 June). Is there even a name-listed civilian memorial there? ’Twas ever thus of course, as civilians always bear the brunt of war and are rarely properly acknowledged and remembered afterwards. For more, see my Manifesto against the Aerial Bombardment of Civilians.

Peter Nias

Bradford

• All this D-day hypocrisy. My Dad was there, aged 18; he was also sunk twice in the Mediterranean and had to swim for numerous hours in an oily, highly flammable sea in the darkness of a pitch-black night, and has more medals than Usain Bolt. And now? Had to sell all he owned to pay for his nursing home, all while the millionaire “royalty” and politicians, who have never seen a minute of such horrendous, terrifying conflict, “pay tribute”.

John Marshall

Nuremberg, Germany

• Remembering our war dead used to be a quiet dignified act of remembrance. Now it has been turned into a political show in which the politicians take centre stage.

Can there be anything more obscene that a serial draft-dodger in a display of mock solemnity paying tribute to the men who had sacrificed their lives in service of their country? When Donald Trump used an interview to disparage his political enemies at home, he demonstrated the truth of the occasion – it’s a show for the politicians.

Derrick Joad

Leeds

• I was pleased to read Simon Jenkins’ article. When I express similar views to friends and neighbours, I am regarded with distrust – as if I am somehow being disloyal to our country. That is certainly not the case, but I seem to be unable to convince them otherwise.

Ken Hughes

Hale Barns, Cheshire

• I know Theresa May has her faults, but her reading of the soldier’s letter in Portsmouth and her role at the dedication of the statue in Normandy were carried out with dignity and bearing. Unfortunately, I could not help myself imagining how Boris Johnson would have acted in comparable circumstances and being sorely disappointed.

Lance Quirico

East Grinstead, West Sussex

• How can a nation that spends two days paying dignified and heartfelt respect for the lives lost to liberate Europe choose to continue with Brexit?

Lyn Macnab

Yarley, Wells, Somerset

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition