[3] In the book, Carr advances a realist theory of international politics, as well as a critique of what he refers to as the utopian vision of liberal idealists (which he associates with Woodrow Wilson).
Carr's analysis begins with the optimism that followed World War I, as embodied in the League of Nations declarations and various international treaties aimed at the permanent prevention of military conflict.
He proceeds to demonstrate how rational, well-conceived ideas of peace and cooperation among states were undermined in short order by the realities of chaos and insecurity in the international realm.
By assessing the military, economic, ideological, and juridical facets and applications of power, Carr brings harsh criticism to bear on utopian theorists who forget to consider the exigencies of survival and competition.
At the end of The Twenty Years' Crisis, he actually advocates for the role of morality in international politics, and suggests that unmitigated Realism amounts to a dismal defeatism which we can ill afford.
[7] In 1936 Edward Hallett Carr resigned from the Foreign Office to take up the position of Woodrow Wilson Chair in the Department of International Politics at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.
The book talks about international relations in general but more specifically it is devoted to the interwar period, although the author originally wanted to debunk the pretensions of liberalism while providing a way out of the impasse that was the inter-war crisis.
Furthermore, he also wanted to show his criticism towards Woodrow Wilson who used as a slogan the right of national self-determination and Carr considered to be one of the reasons for the crisis during the period between wars.
It is only when these projects break down, and wish or purpose is shown to be incapable by itself of achieving the desired end, that the researchers will reluctantly call in the aid of analysis, and the study; only then it will be regarded as a science.
Carr also discuses how a political society, national or international, cannot exist unless individuals submit to certain standards of conduct, but the problem relies on why we should continue following such rules.
Just like how controversial the previous economic doctrine was, the text explores how there is an assumption that every nation has an identical interest in peace[13] and those who violated this principle were considered irrational and immoral.
In addition, protection of the status quo is not a policy that can be sustainable in the long-term, therefore, the old order cannot be restored, and a drastic change of outlook is unavoidable, therefore, the best hope of progress towards international conciliation seems to lie along the path of economic reconstruction as a repetition of the crisis of 1930-33 would not be tolerated in a near future.