Usually, the testimony of political figures about the events of their time takes the form of memoirs, written retrospectively. Thus, having all the material in mind, that is, all their actions, those who write can easily present them in the way that seems most advantageous to them in the end. And it is natural that such testimony is judged according to the circumstances under which it is given.
In the case of Metaxas, it is not a matter of such retrospective tidying up. Almost nothing of what we publish is revised or modified retrospectively by Metaxas. Most of it is testimonies from the time to which the events refer. And if sometimes there was a lapse of time between the events and their recording, this time was usually short.
Above all, however, the entries were not made with the intention of creating false impressions or "alibis" - and this is mainly what gives the testimony of Ioannis Metaxas exceptional interest and significance. Naturally, Metaxas, in writing, did not undertake the work of an objective impartial historian or chronicler. He wrote for himself his immediate impressions or feelings; and he was, surely, influenced by them. But the enormous difference that remains between Metaxas's testimony and most testimonies of individuals, perhaps very respectable, but who attempted to give the overall account of their actions retrospectively, with all the ease to suppress or embellish the facts, is evident.