The author is an American citizen, English born, now teaching at New York University. This combination of backgrounds contributes to a completely impartial presentation of the problem of maintaining peace in the future. He begins with a discussion of the wrongs and failures of Versailles and its aftermath. He discusses the problem of whether a more just peace could be made today, with no illusions as to human nature and its frailties, comes to the conclusion that the United Nations are fundamentally lovers of peace, and have a better chance for settling a defensive war by a just peace, possible if determined by individual and not national equality of right and opportunity, and implemented by American participation and upheld by force. He discusses American diplomacy, isolationism, the inherent inconsistencies of the League of Nations (which should be revived not as policy maker but as arbitrator). He dismisses the idea of European federation as impossible; feels the same way about Pan- American Union; and claims that our natural affiliation is with Great Britain. He asks for greater understanding of Russia to insure United Nations unity. Basically, his theory is founded on recognition of self-interest as the motive and force, and accepts the fact that the ideal world situation can only be achieved after generations of enforced peace. Perhaps this sort of realistic, objective approach is a good thing, but it seems to me to be controversial without being constructive.