By M. H. Cochran (Author), Colin Heston (Introduction)

Michael H. Cochran’s Germany Not Guilty in 1914, published in 1931, stands as a provocative and revisionist challenge to the dominant narrative of German culpability for the outbreak of World War I. Written in response to Bernadotte Schmitt’s influential The Coming of the War, Cochran’s book offers a meticulous critique of the “war guilt” thesis enshrined in the Treaty of Versailles, which placed sole responsibility for the war on Germany. With a foreword by Harry Elmer Barnes and later commentary by Henry Adams, the book is deeply embedded in the interwar historiographical debates that questioned the moral and political foundations of postwar peace settlements.

Published during a period of growing disillusionment with the Versailles Treaty and rising revisionist sentiment in the United States and Europe, Cochran’s work was part of a broader intellectual movement that sought to rehabilitate Germany’s image and challenge the punitive postwar order. While not universally accepted, the book found an audience among scholars and political thinkers who viewed the war guilt clause as unjust and historically flawed. Its reception was mixed—praised for its rigor and boldness, but criticized for its perceived apologetics and selective use of evidence.

In 2025, Germany Not Guilty in 1914 remains relevant not only as a historical artifact but as a lens through which to examine the politics of blame, the construction of historical narratives, and the enduring consequences of diplomatic failure. The evolution from “guilt” to “responsibility” reflects broader changes in how societies understand conflict, justice, and reconciliation. As international law and historical memory continue to intersect—especially in debates over reparations, war crimes, and collective trauma—Cochran’s challenge to the Versailles narrative invites reflection on how history is written, who writes it, and to what ends.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. p.166.

By Harry Elmer Barnes (Author), Colin Heston (Introduction)

Harry Elmer Barnes’s In Quest of Truth and Justice stands as a provocative and enduring challenge to the way history is written, remembered, and weaponized. Published in 1928, the book is a cornerstone of historical revisionism, particularly in its reassessment of the causes and culpability of World War I. Barnes argued that the dominant narrative—one that placed sole blame on Germany—was not only historically inaccurate but also morally unjust. He believed that truth and justice in historical scholarship required a fearless confrontation with political orthodoxy and propaganda, especially when such narratives served the interests of victors and power structures.
Barnes’s work was not merely an academic exercise; it was a moral crusade against what he saw as the corruption of historical truth by political expediency. He insisted that historians must act as independent arbiters of fact, not as servants of state ideology. His critique of the Treaty of Versailles and the war guilt clause was rooted in a broader concern: that distorted history could perpetuate injustice, fuel future conflicts, and undermine democratic accountability.
This ethos—of challenging dominant narratives and seeking justice through historical clarity—finds powerful echoes in today’s global conflicts, particularly in Ukraine and Gaza. Both crises are steeped in competing historical claims, contested identities, and politicized narratives that shape international responses and public opinion.
In both Ukraine and Gaza, Barnes’s legacy invites us to ask uncomfortable questions: Who controls the narrative? Whose history is being told, and whose is being silenced? Are we pursuing truth and justice, or merely reinforcing the power structures of the present?
Ultimately, In Quest of Truth and Justice is not just a historical text—it is a call to intellectual courage. In an age of polarized media, geopolitical propaganda, and moral ambiguity, Barnes’s work reminds us that history is not a weapon to be wielded by the powerful, but a mirror in which societies must confront their own truths. As we grapple with the complexities of Ukraine and Gaza, his message remains urgent: justice begins with honest history.

By Munroe Smith. Introduction by Colin Heston.

When Munroe Smith, the American jurist and scholar of comparative constitutional law, published Militarism and Statecraft in the early twentieth century, the world stood at a threshold. The balance of power in Europe was faltering, national ambitions clashed violently with the ideals of peace and progress, and the question of whether nations could master the destructive temptations of militarism was no longer abstract. It was a pressing reality. Smith’s concern was not simply with armies and weapons, but with the deeper political psychology that drives nations toward war. He sought to expose how the logic of militarism—discipline, hierarchy, and force—could infiltrate civil government, undermining the very statecraft that was supposed to serve reason, justice, and stability.

At the time of its writing, Smith was addressing the dangers of an era when Prussian militarism, the rivalries of empires, and the failure of diplomacy threatened the international order. His work can be read as both analysis and warning: a sober reflection on how the pursuit of military superiority can distort the priorities of states, drawing them away from long-term peace toward short-term domination. For Smith, the central challenge was not only to prepare adequately for defense but also to ensure that the military ethos did not overwhelm civil society and political judgment.

The value of these reflections is not confined to Smith’s age. In 2025, more than a century later, the tension between militarism and statecraft persists, albeit in new forms. The end of the Cold War did not usher in an era of lasting peace, but rather revealed the fragility of international institutions and the persistence of rival nationalisms. Today, the global order is marked by renewed great-power competition, particularly between the United States and China, alongside Russia’s continuing assertiveness in Europe. The conflicts in Ukraine, the South China Sea, and the Middle East remind us that the balance of deterrence and diplomacy remains unstable.

Moreover, the rise of advanced technologies—autonomous weapons systems, cyberwarfare, artificial intelligence in military planning, and the militarization of outer space—has created new arenas where Smith’s questions echo with urgency. If he warned against the creeping influence of military logic on the political state, how much more should we be concerned when the logic of algorithms and machine efficiency begins to shape the most consequential decisions of war and peace? The issue is no longer only about armies marching across borders but about invisible lines of code and satellites in orbit—yet the fundamental danger is the same: that the tools of defense become ends in themselves, driving state policy rather than serving it.

Smith also recognized that militarism poses a danger to the vitality of democratic institutions. In times of insecurity, citizens may surrender too readily to centralized authority, trading liberties for promises of safety. In 2025, as societies grapple with disinformation campaigns, rising authoritarianism, and deep political polarization, Smith’s warning acquires a renewed resonance. The militarization of politics—whether through expanded security states, the rhetoric of perpetual conflict, or the invocation of national emergency—remains a challenge to civic freedom.

What Smith offers, therefore, is not a simple rejection of military power but a call for balance. Statecraft requires prudence, restraint, and a recognition of the limits of force. True security, he suggests, cannot rest on militarism alone, for unchecked military logic corrodes the very foundations of peace. In 2025, as nations navigate the double-edged sword of military innovation and the uncertainty of a multipolar world, his insights invite us to reflect on the perennial dilemma: how can we cultivate security without letting the instruments of war dominate our political imagination?

To read Militarism and Statecraft today is to encounter a voice from another century that speaks to our own. It reminds us that the dilemmas of power, security, and diplomacy are not new, even as the technologies and actors change. Smith’s work urges us to see beyond immediate crises and to measure the costs of militarism not only in battles fought, but in the subtle ways it reshapes our societies, our freedoms, and our possibilities for peace. If the twenty-first century is to avoid the mistakes of the twentieth, it will be by heeding the balance that Smith demanded: a statecraft that governs militarism, rather than a militarism that governs the state.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. 151p.

By H. G. Wells. Introduction by Colin Heston

In the wake of the Great War, H.G. Wells’s What Is Coming? A European Forecast emerges not merely as a speculative treatise but as a profound intellectual reckoning with the forces that have shaped—and will continue to shape—the modern world. Written in 1916, at a time when the outcome of the war remained uncertain and its consequences unfathomable, Wells offers a sweeping analysis of the social, political, and economic transformations that the conflict has set in motion. His introduction to the future is not a prophecy in the mystical sense, but a reasoned extrapolation grounded in scientific thinking, historical precedent, and a deep understanding of human nature. Wells does not seek to predict events with precision; rather, he aims to illuminate the trajectories of thought, governance, and collective behavior that will define the post-war era.

In What Is Coming?, Wells does not offer comfort or certainty. He offers clarity, urgency, and a challenge. The future, he insists, will not be shaped by treaties or conferences alone, but by the moral and intellectual evolution of individuals and societies. The war has torn away the veils of tradition and exposed the raw materials of a new world. Whether that world will be built with wisdom or squandered in renewed conflict depends on the choices made in its aftermath. Wells invites his readers to think boldly, act generously, and prepare not just for peace, but for the responsibilities that peace entails.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. 177p.

By William English Walling (Author), Colin Heston (Introduction)

William English Walling’s The Socialists and the War: A Documentary Statement of the Position of the Socialists of All Countries; With Special Reference to Their Peace Policy is a powerful and timely compilation that captures the ideological and political turmoil that gripped the international socialist movement during the First World War. Published in 1915, at the height of the global conflict, the book serves as both a historical record and a moral inquiry into how socialist parties and leaders across nations responded to the unprecedented crisis of global warfare. Walling, a prominent American socialist and journalist, undertakes the ambitious task of documenting the fractured responses of socialist organizations to the war, revealing both the strength and the fragility of international solidarity in the face of nationalism and militarism.
The introduction to this volume sets the tone for a work that is as much about disillusionment as it is about documentation. Walling begins by acknowledging the deep betrayal felt by many socialists when the war broke out and major socialist parties—particularly in Germany, France, and Britain—chose to support their respective national war efforts. This decision, in many cases, ran counter to the long-standing commitments of the Second International, which had pledged to oppose imperialist wars and to promote working-class unity across national borders. Walling does not shy away from the painful truth: that the war exposed the limits of internationalism and revealed the powerful grip of nationalism even within movements that had long claimed to transcend it.
A central theme of the book is the tension between socialist ideals and national loyalties. Walling presents a wide array of primary documents—speeches, party resolutions, manifestos, and editorials—that illustrate how socialist leaders justified their support for or opposition to the war. Some, like the German Social Democrats, argued that they were defending their nation against aggression; others, like the Russian Bolsheviks and a minority of Western European socialists, condemned the war as a capitalist enterprise and called for revolutionary opposition. Walling’s editorial voice is present throughout, guiding the reader through these conflicting positions and offering critical commentary on their implications.
Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. 523p.