Munich 1938: Deal or no deal?

Novelist Robert Harris delivers yet another spellbinding work of historical fiction.  He previously wrote the Cicero trilogy about ancient Rome and Conclave about the election of a Pope among other best selling works.  In his new novel Munich, Harris focuses on the fateful few days in 1938 in Munich where Neville Chamberlain the Prime Minister of Great Britain gets Adolf Hitler, the Chancellor of Germany to agree to peace terms.  Or so Chamberlain thought.

One of the most infamous pictures is the one of Chamberlain waving a piece of paper upon landing back in Great Britain, declaring to popular acclaim (both in Germany and in the UK), that Hitler had signed a declaration that their two countries will not be at war again.

We know, that within a year, that was no longer true and WWII had begun.

The words Munich, Chamberlain, appeasement all go hand in hand.  Not standing up to a strongman, capitulating to a bully's terms make up diplomatic speak today.

But is it all that black and white?  Did Chamberlain knowingly buckle into Hitler's demands?  Was Winston Churchill who was denied cabinet posts by a series of PMs in the 1930s as a "war-monger" more right than Chamberlain?

After all, Churchill did state that history would be kind to him, since he would write it!

Robert Harris, when he was a journalist in the 1980s contributed to a BBC documentary titled, "God Bless You, Mr. Chamberlain" where he begins to make the case that the situation is more gray with room for discussion than the black and white issue that we now presume it to be.

In Munich, Harris introduces two fictional characters one on each side into the historical context.  Both of the characters study together at Oxford and thus know each other.  Harris places both of them in their respective Foreign Service corps, thus allowing them to interact in Munich during the international conference between the UK, France, Germany and Italy.

We know the beginning of the historical tale.  We know its ending.  But how does it unfold?  Harris is master of the suspenseful tale and just like in Conclave, does a fantastic job of keeping the reader riveted.

The standout for me in this book is Harris' depiction of Hitler.  Hitler in our collective consciousness is the personification of evil and the doer of the darkest of deeds.  Yet, he is an abstract figure along with other baddies including Pol Pot and Stalin.

Harris brings Hitler to life.  Brash, venal, vulgar, demanding, contemptuous, insecure, racist, violent and authoritarian.  Along with the two protagonists, the reader experiences the chilling interactions with Herr Fuhrer.

Chamberlain knows the UK is not ready either militarily or societally, having just suffered enormously through WWI.  His strategic intent was to "buy time."  Which he did.

Economics Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman says the following about the folly of hindsight and what true knowledge is (using the 2008 financial crash as an example):

Many intelligent and well-informed people were keenly interested in the future of the economy and did not believe a catastrophe was imminent; I infer from this fact that the crisis was not knowable. 

What is perverse about the use of the word "know" in this context is not that some individuals get credit for prescience that they do not deserve. It is that the language implies that the world is more knowable than it is. 

If we apply this great insight of Kahneman to Chamberlain's actions of striking a peace deal with Hitler in Munich in 1938, we are forced to be more humble in our pronouncements.

Yes, in hindsight, we "know" Hitler would ignore any promises and invade the rest of Europe including Great Britain.  But if we put ourselves in Chamberlain's shoes, we would NOT have "known" that to be a fact.

However, one does wish Chamberlain did not wave that piece of paper upon his return!