I’m not sure that being witness to something we have no power to change has much purpose but at least we can state for history that we did not sleepwalk into the dénouement.
The “We really didn’t know!” of the 1930s is a fallacy. It was more ‘we didn’t want to know’. There are always some who feel the current and try to tell us in their way. The artist’s spirit is very sensitive.
This worthy but almost forgotten account is being revived and reprinted
Unfortunately the problem then, as now, was the “we know and want a piece of it” crowd.
Thanks for heads up. Only £2.99 on Kindle.
Remember this is what appeasement to a dictator looks like.
Neville Chamberlain returns from Germany with the Munich Agreement. 30th September 1938
Are you referring to Putin or Trump (or both)? 
To be frank, Trump worries me more than Putin.
I alluded to that a few days ago in relation to Britain’s possible stance vis a vis Trump’s Canadian aspirations. Since writing that I’ve become concerned that Trump is shaping up to be Putin’s appeaser, threatening Ukraine’s existence and Europe’s security. Putin isn’t going to squander his “time out” embracing peace.
“Outrage”. The Americans art too busy with their TikTok feeds and fast food dinners in front of the television to be “outraged”. The newspapers, on the other hand can continue to print the headlines.
Strange as it might seem to some, I do not share that view of Chamberlain. Of course it is appeasement to some but I think that the way we (Nato/Europe) have reacted to the Russian invasion is the right thing to do. Rushing into a war that could be long and destructive is one one thing but straining at the limit to support the victim is the way to go.
Which is what I believe Chamberlain did at Munich, although apparently giving a green light to the invasion of Czechoslovakia was a mistake, and he should have warned rather than agreed, was the right thing to do and gave valuable time for Britain and others to build up their strength in case.
Which is why I have always not joined in with jibes against the Yanks in both world wars along the lines of ‘always late to arrive’. IMO they did exactly the right thing, staying out of a war that wasn’t theirs until they were forced to defend themselves.
Remember, Germany did not declare war on Britain and France, it was the other way round, not so the USA, they waited 'till the declarations against them and in the meantime geared themselves up for support and strength in defence.
They are the same person - the product of evolutionary regression.
What happens when one denies one’s own mind and rejects morality for cutting a deal.
The oldest story.
Socrates (not for profit) vs Sophists (only for profit)
Sophists are ever so easy to control as they are driven solely by the need for personal gain - $500bn Li - and can not understand the idea of collective benefit.
Putin and Trump are working out a narrative in which they both benefit.
An ongoing debate is centered on the difference between the sophists, who charged for their services, and Socrates, who did not.
I agree with you David - Neville Chamberlain’s approach at Munich was much more nuanced and calculated than he has been given credit for.
The UK and France were in no position to fight a war against Germany in early 1938 - so even if Chamberlain had called Hitler’s bluff at that time the end result would have been the same.
Even in 1939-40 France was not able to fight off the Germans and the UK only survived thanks to the invention of radar, the system of air defence that it enabled, and the good fortune of being protected from direct land invasion by La Manche.
Of course Chamberlain gave a hostage to fortune with all the tosh about “peace in our time”, but there wasn’t much practical alternative to hoping that Hitler would keep his word about not wanting any more territory after grabbing the Sudetenland.