超音战士 费米娜哪集死:这段英语怎么翻译 请帮忙！！

In their place the field has been left to a small number of minor writers of little-known monographs, distinguished mainly by their unquestioning dedication to part or whole of the anti-appeasement critique. Professor Arthur Furnia, mainly relying on William Bullitt's too ready acceptance of Daladier's rhetoric, would have us believe that it was British pusillanimity which held back a noble and otherwise resolutely anti-Hitlerian France. Mrs. Margaret George, who apparently believes that the cabinets of Macdonald, Baldwin and Chamberlain were filled with scions of the British aristocracy, alleges that the sole motive of British policy was to preserve the privileged position of that aristocracy from the threat of Bolshevism and the Soviet Union. Dr william Rock apparently ascribes the British Government's failure to stand up to Hitler to stupidity and malice towards the supporters of Churchill. There are signs of dissatisfaction with these oversimplified view in the recent work of Professor Arnold Ofner and in the useful summaries of the state of the controversy produced by the late Professor John L. Snell, by Professor Donald Lammers and by perhaps the most percipient and original student of the subject in America, Professor Francis L. Loewenheim. But the standard textbooks in European or American diplomatic history still betray no real advance on the views of the 1930s current thirty years ago. For the vast bulk of the historical profession in America, Sir Winston Churchill's view of British policy before 1939 has hardly required a moment's critical examination.
In these last thirty years in Britain, however, things have not remained so still. As a result a vast gap has opened between the views of the professional historians of today and the dogmas still voiced by the laymen interested in the period. Working on an immensely successful British journalistic venture of the late 1060s (recently reissued in the mid-1970s), the part-work History of the Second World War, its editor, Mr. Barry Pitt, spoke of the flood of letters which poured into the editorial offices protesting at the evidence of rethinking shown by the contributors to the series. All bore, in his words，that 'note of deep indignation and outrage' which is the reaction of honest men to the destruction of long-held and long-cherished beliefs. Any historian who writes or lectures for popular as well as academic audiences can match his experience.