Many of the people who appear most often and most gloriously in history books are great conquerors and generals and soldiers, whereas the people who really helped civilization forward are often never mentioned at all. We do not know who first set a broken leg, or launched a seaworthy boat, or calculated the length of the year; but we know all about the killers and destroyers. People think a great deal of them, so much so that on all the highest pillars in the great cities of the world you will find the figure of a conqueror or a general or a soldier. And I think most people believe that the greatest countries are those that have beaten in battle the greatest number of other countries and ruled over them as conquerors. It is just possible they are, but they are not the most civilized. Animals fight; so do savages; hence to be good at fighting is to be good in the way in which an animal or a savage  is good, but it is not to be civilized. Even being good at getting other people to fight for you and telling them how to do it most efficiently--this, after all, is what conquerors and generals have done--is not being civilized. People fight to settle quarrels. Fighting means killing, and civilized people ought to be able to find some way of setting their disputes other than by seeing which side can kill off the greater number of the other side, and then saying that that side which has killed most has won. And not only has it won, but because it has won, it had been in the right. For that is what going to war means; it means saying that might  is right. What is the writer's attitude towards the countries that ruled over a large number of other countries ?
Positive. Critical. Ironic. Respectful.