The Origins of The Second World War (dedikált példány) [antikvár]

ForewordSecond ThoughtsI wrote this book in order to satisfy my historical curiosity; in the words of a more successful historian, ' to understand what happened, and why it happened'. Historians often dislike what happened or wish that it had happened differently. There is nothing they can do about it. They have to state the truth as they see it without worrying whether this shocks or confirms existing prejudices. Maybe I assumed this too innocently. I ought perhaps to have warned the reader that I do not come to history as a judge; and that when I speak of morality I refer to the moral feelings at the time I am writing about. I make no moral judgement of my own. Thus when I write (p. 52) that 'the peace of Versailles lacked moral validity from the start', I mean only that the Germans did not regard it as a 'fair' settlement and that many people in Allied countries, soon I think most people, agreed with them. Who am I to say that it was ' moral' or 'immoral' in the abstract? From what point of view - that of the Germans, of the Allies, of neutrals, of the Bolsheviks? Some of its makers thought that it was moral; some thought it necessary; some thought it both immoral and unnecessary. This last class included Smuts, Lloyd George, the British Labour party, and many Americans. These moral doubts helped towards the overthrow of the peace settlement later on. Again, I wrote of the Munich agreement (p. 235): 'It was a triumph for ali that was best and most enlightened in British life; a triumph for those who had preached equal justice between peoples; a triumph for those who had courageously denounced the harshness and short-sighted-ness of Versailles.' I ought perhaps to have added '(goak here)' in the manner of Artemus Ward. It was not however