If one seeks to analyze experiences and reactions to the first postwar years, I hope one may say without being accused of bias that it is easier for the victor than for the vanquished to advocate peace.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
We have a tendency to think of war as this quasi-mystical thing, and that interpretation flattens the experience - by using different perspectives, I wanted to open a place for readers to compare and contrast, to make judgments, to engage.
Experience has shown how deeply the seeds of war are planted by economic rivalry and social injustice.
History is filled with tragic examples of wars that result from diplomatic impasse. Whether in our local communities or in international relations, the skillful use of our communicative capacities to negotiate and resolve differences is the first evidence of human wisdom.
For the victor peace means the preservation of the position of power which he has secured. For the vanquished it means resigning himself to the position left to him.
We proved that the aggressors do not necessarily emerge as the victors, but we learned that the victors do not necessarily win peace.
Getting emotional about things is a peacetime luxury. In wartime, it's much too painful.
My argument is that War makes rattling good history; but Peace is poor reading.
It is far easier to make war than peace.
Winning the peace is harder than winning the war.
Making peace is harder than making war.