Dan Snow's History Hit - Munich - The Edge of War: Reappraising Chamberlain

Episode Date: January 26, 2022

Join James from the Warfare Podcast, as he chats to the writer and cast of the new film 'Munich - the Edge of War'. Set in 1938, the movie follows Chamberlain's attempts to appease Hitler, desperate to avoid another Great War. Joining James is author Robert Harris, along with lead actors George Mackay and Jannis Niewöhner. Together they discuss the historical significance of Chamberlain and Hitler's relationship, Munich's role in contemporary politics, and the pressures of having to learn German in a week. Munich – The Edge of War is in select cinemas now and on Netflix from January 21st.If you'd like to learn more, we have hundreds of history documentaries, ad-free podcasts and audiobooks at History Hit - subscribe today! To download the History Hit app please go to the Android or Apple store.

Hi everybody, welcome to Dan Snow's History Hit. It's time to listen in to one of our sibling podcasts. We've got a growing family of podcasts here at History Hit. Some of them aren't even about history anymore, but this one is. This is the Warfare podcast, the military history podcast. And we've got a big guest. Robert Harris talks about his reappraisal of Neville Chamberlain for the movie that is available now on Netflix. Even though Netflix is a competing streaming service to History Hit, we don't hold a grudge. We're happy to celebrate them when they do something good. It's fine. Their new blockbuster, Munich, the Edge of War, is being watched by people at the moment,

and it is based on Robert Harris's book. We have also got actor Janis Niewoller about his character and about the position of young people in Nazi Germany, and George Mackay, who was in 1917. I love 1917. He discusses how he learned German for this film. There you go. It's all going on. James has got the key players in one little podcast to delight your ears. If you want to subscribe to History Hit, the world's best streaming service, world's best history streaming service anyway, you can do so by following the link in the description of this podcast. Just flick down the screen a little bit and give it a little tap and get taken to History Hit TV, where you subscribe for less than

the cost of a pint of beer every month to Joyful Thing. Go and check it out, folks. But in the meantime, here is Robert Harris and others talking about Munich. Enjoy. meantime, here is Robert Harris and others talking about Munich. Enjoy. Hi, Robert. Hi, Yanis. And hi, George. Thank you for joining me on the Warfare podcast today. How is everyone? How are we all doing? I'm doing all right. Thank you. I'm good. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm very well. Thank you. Thank you very much for having me. Now, Robert, what is it about this period in history, traditionally seen as a foolish and weak moment for Chamberlain, that made you want to write a novel about it? Well, the more I read about Chamberlain and Munich, the more I sort of puzzled over the way that it's popularly perceived, because it seemed to me that

probably he didn't have much choice but to try and stop a war, that he may well have been gullible in thinking that he'd secured peace with Hitler, but that it, thank God, that he did manage to avert war for a year because we were able to rearm and we were in a pretty pitiful state militarily in 1938. And Munich is still a term of insult, you know, in modern politics, international politics, if you want to shut down a debate, call someone Chamberlain or appease, or bring up Munich. And therefore, it's important that we get it straight in our heads. And I thought, you know, I could tell a story that would bring it alive for a new generation. And that's what I tried to do in the novel. And obviously,

that's now what's happened with the film. Well, it is going to be one of the biggest controversies about the film, isn't it? The way in which British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain has been reappraised and rejuvenated. And I've watched the film, and at some point, you could almost say he comes across as a tormented yet stoic hero in the face of insurmountable pressure. Do you think that this is a more honest and truthful view of Chamberlain, one which is perhaps more accurate compared to how he's been traditionally viewed by history? Yeah, I mean, it was Chamberlain's great misfortune, not only personally, but politically, to contract cancer in the summer of 1940 and to die in November 1940.

And he then became a very convenient figure for everyone to unload their own share of guilt onto. The Tory party that had energetically supported him and the Labour Party, which had opposed every measure of rearmament he and Baldwin had introduced, including conscription in March 1939. So everybody was able to blame Chamberlain. And to a large degree, that situation has remained. So I wanted to show a Chamberlain who was dynamic, actually, who was not some weak and shuffling feeble figure, but who actually forced Hitler by diplomatic maneuvering to the table in September 1938 and obliged him to call off his attack on the main bulk of Czechoslovakia and to settle for getting the Sudetenland. Hitler wanted a war and Chamberlain was bent on peace and therefore he got

what he wanted. And Hitler, to the end of his life, thought that he should have gone to war in September 1938, and that failing to do that may have cost Germany the war. Most people do not appreciate that fact. So I wanted to give the Chamberlain who's a tragic hero, the Chamberlain who tried for peace, who was really rather brilliant in his way, but who, because of vanity and stubbornness, in the end was written off as a failure. And some other successes for Chamberlain as well during this period. I was going through the archive. I was looking at the conversations between Chamberlain and Hitler, and some of the things they were trying to decide upon was about how any future war, especially war from the air, would be waged, and trying to make sure that civilians would be left out of that brutal onslaught, and specifically, that there wouldn't be the use of poison gas.

Is that a success for Chamberlain? Yes, I think that he did. He shared the common view that a war would be the end of London with bombing. I mean, this is very crucial to why he was so determined to try and engineer peace. I mean, bear in mind that Britain had lost nearly 900,000 men dead less than 20 years earlier in the war that had ended less than 20 years earlier. It's very interesting. One of the things I hadn't realised until I actually started writing the novel was that that curious piece of paper that he waved at Hendon Aerodrome, which is forever

he's associated with, actually what he'd done was he got the foreign office officials to copy out key sentences from a speech Hitler had made earlier that week in Berlin, promising peace. And he got him to sign his own words when he went to see him. Just that small thing makes that agreement look slightly less credulous than it's gone down in history as being. And I think that he knew, Chamberlain, that there was a chance that Hitler wouldn't stick to it. He said that to the people with him, although he thought that he probably would. But he said, if he doesn't, then I'll have the proof that his words mean nothing. And it might even bring the Americans in. And I'm going to make a big thing of it when we land at the aerodrome, which indeed is what he did.

So, my Chamberlain is a dynamic figure who deeply irritated Hitler. The two men detested one another, and it is a fascinating personal duel between them. These are the facts of the story, but this is a novel, and the film is a dramatisation of a novel. So, there are some fictional characters in the mix, specifically the leads, Hugh Leggett and Paul von Hartmann. Why did you include these characters? Do they add to our understanding of the history? Well, I wanted to take the reader into this world

with characters they could sympathise with. And I thought the two young people who had been at Oxford together in 1930-31, who now find themselves on opposite sides, one working for the German Foreign Office, one for the Downing Street, to have them converge on Munich, one traveling on Hitler's train from Berlin overnight and the other on Chamberlain's famous plane journey to Munich. For them to see these two leaders would be a way for me to dramatize what was going through the heads of each side. And that's really what I needed to do, because to just tell it from one point of one side is hopeless. In particular, it's only in the last few years that I think people have really appreciated the extent to which Hitler regarded Munich as a defeat and was in a thoroughly bad mood after it. And I needed a German character to see Hitler and see him respond. Similarly, someone to travel with Chamberlain. And these two young men and the

kind of love triangle they're engaged in, that is what makes historical fiction work. That's what I can bring to the table that a professional historian can't. Sympathy, the sense of tactile, that a professional historian can't. Sympathy, the sense of tactile, what it was like, the smell of it, what the rooms were like, all of that, that's what I can do. And that's why I need to invent these characters. But I've got to ask, this invention of characters is risky, especially about such a sensitive period of history. Did you have any moments of panic, any reservations about fictionalising these meetings between Hitler and Paul, between Chamberlain and Hugh? I didn't have any qualms about that, no, because I think people are sophisticated enough to know that this is a novel and that we're dealing with fiction. I have to try and keep within the spirit of the time and I try not to write anything which

I absolutely know for sure not to be true. I think a bigger problem for any novelist is putting Hitler in a novel, actually. Putting Chamberlain in was relatively easy because he's not really been put in a novel before that I'm aware of, certainly not one in which he has a starring role. So the field was free and open to me. But Hitler is always in things and it's always slightly awkward. So when I started writing the novel, I found it very tricky introducing the character of Hitler. When I wrote my novel, Fatherland, my first novel, which imagines Hitler won the war, he's never seen at all in the book, which was important. But here I had to put Hitler in. But I managed, I think, to do it in the novel. And I think that they

managed to do it in the film. And even though the actor doesn't look much like Hitler, I think he conveys what Hitler was like to be close to, a kind of menacing, the humour of the bully, as it were, sarcasm, salty language. I think it's a very good portrayal of Hitler, actually. I think that that menacing side definitely comes across and the actor hits the nail on the head there perfectly. There was another character that really fascinated me, Lenya, portrayed by the brilliant Liv Lisa Friess. Now, Lenya is a young dissenting voice against Hitler and is treated terribly by the regime. So tell us about her character. Was she based on a real life member of the resistance? Was her treatment historically accurate? The treatment is certainly historically

accurate. Yes, in the novel, you get a little more of her character than you do perhaps in the film. She's a communist, really. She's a Jewish communist, goes to work for a red newspaper, and who is picked up. And she's the girlfriend of Paul von Hartmann, who is a sort of German nationalist, and his friend Hugh Leggett, and the three of them go to Munich together. And in the novel, they stand outside Hitler's apartment. This is 1932, summer of 32 when the election is on. And she jeers at him as he leaves his apartment, and they're pursued by the brown shirts through the streets of Munich. So there's a bit more in the novel about her than there is in the film.

But as you say, she portrays her brilliantly. She is a fictional character, but what happens to her happened, I'm afraid, to young women or anyone who fell foul of the regime. And there was a wonderful book by Sebastian Hafner about Hitler. He fled Germany before the war and the reason he fled was that a lot of the people he knew who didn't vote necessarily for the Nazis, but they said, look, come on, make Germany respected, they've sorted out the economy, the country's booming again,

there's this Jewish stuff. I agree, it's awful, this medieval anti-Semitism. But put that to one side. Otherwise, this is good. And he said, but you couldn't put it to one side because if they did that, they could do anything. So ruin and disaster would follow because they were capable of the medieval anti-Semitism.

And that speech is really in the film and the book. And in a sense, that's at the heart of Legner's character and of Paul von Hartmann's. Last night's agreement only settles a tiny dispute. There will be others. And I want him to publicly commit himself to peace. Oh, Leggett, make sure there's a car available to Levin. To the Fuhrer, Bart? No. Ah, you've put my name before his. It should be the other way around. Otherwise, good. Yes, I wanted to have a private

meeting with him, man to man, no officials. He invited me to his apartment. What? No officials? Not even you, Horace. Oh, for God's sake, you can't go and see Hitler entirely on your own. Can and will. Oh, for God's sake, you can't go and see Hitler entirely on your own. Can and will. Gentlemen, we must rise to the level of events. Now, Janis, this film is based on a novel. We know this. And so it contains some fictional characters, not Chamberlain or Hitler, but your character, Paul von Hartmann. Who is Paul? He's actually a bit hard to describe because he has a secret

and that's what really drives him. And I don't want to give too much away of that. But I would say, like, first of all, he's studied in Oxford. And then six years later, in 1938, he works in the foreign ministry for Hitler and is also part of the resistance to Hitler and he's a really interesting character I mean he's he's kind of a loner and most of the time he's very introverted and makes it hard for him to open up to others but we can see that there is a

big need for closeness and connection to others yeah without giving too much away, I think you could say he's really eager to stop Hitler and his actions. We don't know why especially, but while everybody seems to know that Hitler is kind of a dangerous political figure, he seems to know even more about what this regime is capable of. And that makes him a very interesting character.

And yeah, that's Pau von Hartmann. Did you do much research into real life characters that you could perhaps take some segments, some scraps of reality and put them into your character Paul? So there is one guy, he's called Adam von Trott and he's someone whose life you could compare to the life of Paul von Hartmann because he is a fictional character. And Adam von Trott, he was in the resistance to Hitler very early whilst Paul von Hartmann is being told as a person

who in 1932 still believes in what Hitler says and still believes in the thought of that Germany should get back its power and that all the good things were taken from them after the first world war and after the treaty of Versailles that's the real life character we would focus on but then it was also really interesting to get a sense of that period of time through I don't know documentaries that were colourised and books that were written about, there's a German book, Sebastian Hafner, it's called The History of a German Man, I would say, he's born 1910, which is probably the date Powell was born around that. And you just get a feeling

of the kind of childhood he would have. And yeah, you can build a biography through all. So I suppose when it comes to a British perception of this period, we very much focus on Neville Chamberlain. And of course, Churchill's perception of Chamberlain really as a bit of a coward, and as being very weak, we don't so much focus on the German side of this story. Do you think that Paul helps us understand that German side? Is it a much needed and fairer reflection of German public opinion during this period? I think it's very much needed to understand that there were people who believed in the good of what Hitler said. They really believed that he was someone that would bring back what was

taken from Germany, as I said. And there's this big discussion, which turns into a big fight, actually, in this bar scene. And you can see Paul as someone who's just not willing to hear anything about people getting in boats and driving to America. He's so focused on what Germany should get back that he's not open for anything else. And this really tells a lot about what young people especially were going through at this time. And then we can have sympathy for him because he has this big change. And because we see him struggling with what he did and what his beliefs were and that he didn't really listen to what this guy was actually saying.

So, yeah, I think it's a fairly good character to understand a bit about what was going on in the youth of Germany. You're listening to Dan Snow's History. I've got an episode of Warfare on, talking about Munich. More coming up. I'm Matt Lewis. And I'm Dr Eleanor Janaga. And in Gone Medieval, we get into the greatest mysteries.

The gobsmacking details and latest groundbreaking research. From the greatest millennium in human history. We're talking Vikings. Normans. Kings and popes. Who were rarely the best of friends. Murder. Rebellions.

And crusades. Find out who we really were. By subscribing to Gone Medieval from History Hit. Wherever you get your podcasts. One thing that I thought was really good was that so much of it was actually filmed in Munich, in the buildings where all of this took place. How was that for you and the crew, filming such a poignant moment in history, but in modern day Germany? It was so crazy, man. I mean, it's crazy enough if you are on a set and there's people in Nazi uniforms

and you really at that point get a different understanding that this really happened. Because you read it all the time in books and articles and you see it in movies, documentaries. But someone being right next to you wearing this uniform does something to you and does something to your understanding of history and even more so when we were in the Führerbauer so in the big building that all of them signed the treaty and it was just a weird feeling because we were exactly in that room which was hitler's uh do you say the world working room and they would sign it over there and you were standing in the middle of history that was the feeling yeah did you have many people in munich coming up to you and saying

what the hell is going on here yeah yeah i mean and those kind of things, they they have a big focus on teaching the extras what we are doing you know so there would be someone like Weizsäcker who's not playing a part but a big political figure back then is playing by is being played by an extra and they actually had really had many informations about who they were playing and at one point I would sit because that's Weizsäcker is the one the boss of Paul von Hartmann in the end and there was one scene where Christian came to this extra and said just pretend you're sitting here and you're talking to each other and then this guy would come up with the most interesting things and would talk about little details. And he just

basically read the biography of Weizsäcker. So everyone was really involved in this project, which was great. And I think you can see it in the movie. I think you really can. You know, when you're filming in Munich and you see those scenes, there was a life and an energy to the city around Nazism, around Hitler at that point in time. And you can tell that the extras have been well versed on this as they're running through the streets. There's a real palpable energy to the scenes, isn't there? Absolutely, absolutely. I absolutely agree. And I think he tries not to tell the story of this kind of history, this part of history, only by showing Swatiskas. He's paying attention to tell the story of this kind of history, this part of history, only by showing Swatiskas.

You know, he's paying attention to all the stuff around how did life feel back then. Yeah, it's a really detailed, fine movie. Now, how much did you know about the Munich Agreement, about the Munich Conference, before being cast in the film? Did you hear much from your own family history, perhaps your grandparents? Actually, I did, yeah. I didn't know a lot about the Munich Agreement, but my grandmother was

actually from the Sudetenland, from this part of Czechoslovakia, which should be given back to Hitler, so war would be prevented. And her father was quite a famous poet. So Hitler, they would have an invitation of Hitler. And they would be in the Obersalzberg, you know, in Bavaria, where Hitler had his house in the mountains. And they would come up and all stand in line. And my grandmother, actually, six years ago, so she told the story for the first time. And even my father hasn't heard about it and it's like Hitler came up to her and kissed her forehead and said we we also get you

home so that's basically what's being told in the story right so it's pretty crazy what what kind of connection is there in my family to the story that is is remarkable. And it was only a few years ago that your grandmother revealed this to the family, that she got a kiss personally on the forehead from Hitler. Yeah, everyone was so, like the whole team, the whole family, everyone was silent because it was just a weird thought that Hitler kissed the forehead of my grandmother.

It's really weird. It is really weird, especially now you've gone on to make a film about this but i'm sure that personal attachment that personal history really motivates you to tell this story oh absolutely yeah and i mean in general the second world war is a big big part of our school system you know and also my family. It's also part of, all the time, it's part of what we are going through. And it's important to do these kinds of movies

and to understand more about it. And as I said, I didn't know that much. I knew who Chamberlain was, but I didn't really know it. And so I learned some more, yeah. Do you think there's a contemporary message to take away from this film for those who watch it, those who are in Germany? And it is great to see that so much of the film is recorded in both German and English. Seeing as it does have these elements of German and English in it, and it obviously has a broader appeal to a European audience.

What message do you think the audience should take away from this? Is there a contemporary political message or am I reading too much into it? No, no, there's definitely a message or there's things being talked about that, which are really important for today. First of all, it's definitely a story about friendship and about the difficulties of a friendship and the difficulties that come up if we have to deal with the political actions of other countries, which go against what we believe in, but which are concerning us in one way or the other.

And I think, yeah, it's about these decisions, how difficult it is to open up a conversation, but then in the same time to know when you should draw a limit. And it's so tough, the difficulties of political decisions and yeah, I think that's what the movie deals with. I believe the name Paul von Hartmann is known

to you. Yes, sir. We were locked together. He has a document in his possession. We'd like you to go to Munich tomorrow and get the document. It'll be an act of espionage on foreign soil. Now, George. Robert provided us with some historical background to the period and the Munich Agreement,

so we won't be grilling you on that. But we want to hear a little bit about the character you play. Who is Hugh Leggett and how does he fit into the turmoil that's going on all around him? So Hugh is a fictional creation, but Hugh is a civil servant working for Chamberlain's government. So he's kind of the bottom rung of the inner circle, so to speak. And I think he is, as a man, he is someone who believes in the system and servicing the system for, you know, so that the system can serve others. And I think that's where, you know, my character of Hugh and Yanis' character of Powell von Hartmann, that's kind of the two characters are united in one sense, but also in opposition as to the way that they deal with things. I think Hugh is, as I said, kind of about legislation and governmental change and doing things via the system that is in place. And Powell is a bit more disenfranchised with that system or the system that he exists under.

And so it's kind of more about the personal, physical activism. Do you think that he's a bit of an everyman that helps us understand some of the public opinion around the period? Yeah, I think so. I think he's a great way into this story. I think with Hugh's position, he definitely, as a man, as a character, has a great interest and is enthralled and a believer in politics and philosophy. And I think he's a man who has great insight and access to information, but doesn't have any great weight

in the room that he's in. And I think that's kind of like us all at the minute in terms of just with the internet, with a kind of a greater consciousness, we're all far more, not maybe that's patronising to generations gone before, but like we're very engaged with what's going on at the minute

and we have access to information in perhaps ways that we didn't beforehand. But even with that information, the sort of stumbling block is, okay, well, what do I do with it? You know, how can I make these changes that this information is making me want to make? And that's sort of where I think Hugh's kind of relatable and that has that sort of everyman quality. Yeah, he has a lot of the information, but he often seems to feel quite powerless, doesn't he? Until he gets that moment and he seizes upon it. Perhaps that's the lesson for all of us there, is that when we get that moment to enact change,

we can try our very best to make that happen. Yeah, I think so. And I think the film also honestly looks at kind of the ramifications of being faced with that responsibility, because I think I was having another conversation earlier today about the character. And I think also he's almost reticent to do so. You know, he knows that that sort of change on behalf of others will come at a cost to himself. It will probably cost him his job, which, you know, in the sort of grand scheme of things,

you'd be like, well, come on, with the hindsight of knowing what happens with the Second World War, you'd be like any day. But to hear him in that present moment, he doesn't know that's going to happen. And he's trying to hold his family together. And his life is as essential to him as anything. So he's sort of, I think it's very real, the sort of fallibility of all the characters in struggling with what in hindsight would have been a very obvious choice in making that change. Now, let's go a little bit into your preparations for the film. Our listeners will know you from your outstanding leading role as Lance Corporal Schofield in the Sam Mendes epic film 1917 and although it's a very different war film if we can call this a war film at all did your research from the film 1917 prepare you at all for this role as Hugh and his core aim,

which really is a desperate attempt to avoid the repeat of that horror and brutality of the First World War? Yeah, I think definitely. I think the horror and brutality and simply the amount of life lost is one thing that gave me an understanding as to what Chamberlain was trying to avoid. And I think, you know, in history thus far has been painted as perhaps rather foolish and naive for kind of, for not taking more definitive action during his leadership, but also kind of from the research in 1917 and trying to understand the first world war more, you understand why if there was even the slightest chance that that might happen again, I don't even want to enter into that. Therefore, it made me empathise with what Chamberlain was trying to do. Also, 1917, we're not even through the war, as the title would suggest, but we did have a bit more of an understanding about the Treaty of Versailles afterwards and the responsibility of the lives lost that the German nation were made to take for the war.

And therefore, kind of an understanding as to why that sort of nationalist sentiment could have brewed, basically. And how, in hindsight, we know that, well, we feel, how could anyone not have seen that coming? In hindsight, we know that, well, we feel how could anyone not have seen that coming? But I feel like what interests me in Munich at the Edge of War is because it feels kind of scarily equivalent to the politics of now in terms of a similar sort of, you know, while things are all being re-evaluated, I think we're searching for clarity. And that clarity can sometimes get misguided and become simplicity. And those sort of simple views often kind of exclude a lot of other people and looking for a national identity that's simple and seeing that, you know, I mean, when we were filming, it was the Trump, the Trump Biden election. And it kind of going more genuinely without being sensational, what would four more years of that man bring? And in the same way that the

story, Hitler, the Holocaust hasn't happened just yet. He's a bigot. He's kind of got hardline politics, but he's kind of creating a national f bigot. He's kind of got hardline politics, but he's kind of creating a national fervor. And you kind of go, well, is that enough to kind of get him out of the way? Or do we assume that he's going to do that? And I think we're in that sort of equivalent moment. There's things going on in the world where you kind of go, there's not enough at the minute to act, to take drastic sort of life-altering change to sort of you know getting rid of certain people but also maybe there is because what happens if that stuff grows if those sentiments that they're starting to seed grow i've watched the film obviously i think it's fantastic and it was it's some of those scenes with jeremy irons where you can just see he's getting that message

across so clearly how important this is to neville Chamberlain. How much did you start to consider Jeremy Irons as Neville Chamberlain by the end of it? Because for me, they're now synonymous. Yeah, I mean, Jeremy gives an absolutely fantastic performance. I think they never sort of blurred too much, but I think what did blur is almost the dynamic. It's like, you know, I'm a young actor trying to do the best job I can because I believe in, you know, storytelling. Jeremy is an incredibly experienced, brilliant actor who is a powerful actor and masterful storyteller. It's the same thing with Hugh. It's like he's a young civil servant because he believes in the power of politics and implementing change through it. And he is revering this kind of juggernaut of a politician that was

Neville Chamberlain. So it's sort of, I still saw Jeremy as Jeremy, but I think the dynamic between us was equivalent to that within the story. And I've got one final question for you, George. How easy was it for you to take on the role of speaking in German? Did you know German beforehand? There's these amazing exchanges backwards and forwards. I mean, if you'd asked me, I'd say you were fluent all your life. Oh, well, I'll take that. Thank you. To be honest, I didn't know any German beforehand. And that was sort of a big part of it is in the week's preparation. So I was working on something else just before I began working with Christian on Munich. And sort of every weekend, I was working with a linguistic

and dialect coach to learn those scenes and sort of began phonetically, but then also to, after I sort of had the phonetics down, to break them apart and understand the grammar and the vocabulary truly so that I could, you know, act with Yanis in those scenes. So I understood what I was saying and what was being said to me, but only within the confines of those scenes so I understood what I was saying and what was being said to me but only within the confines of those scenes. Yanis with German being your native language what do you think of George's German? It's so good and you have to remember like he there's one big scene and Paul and Hugh see each other for the first time in many years and so they sit in front of each other and this the whole scene was supposed to be in English or most of the scene. And one week before the rehearsals, we decided or Christian decided to do it in German.

And so, you know, George, who never had compared to me, I had English in school. Right. But he never spoke a word German and he just learned it for that movie. And he had one week to learn it. And it's just amazing how he did it it's really I don't know how he did it. Now Robert my final question goes to you. There are parallels in the film about today and even warning about protecting democracy is that what you want viewers to take away from the novel and from the film? Yeah I mean I feel like we're in a kind of 1930s situation in a way with dictators strutting around in the world, with democracy feeling that it's not adequate to cope with

what people want. We're living in an age of extremes. With climate change, I think a lot of young people in particular have a sense of the world sliding towards a kind of disaster, which is what Paul and Hugh feel in the film and the novel. So I think it does have resonance for our time. And of course, also this idea that Munich should be reinterpreted, because perhaps we do need to go the extra mile for peace, that having done so gave the Western

democracies a moral authority in 1939 and 1940, because no one can say that they wanted war. They'd done everything, maybe too much, to try and avoid war. And that, when our back was against the wall in 1940, was crucial in deciding not to make peace with Hitler because we knew he could not be trusted. Well, guys, it's been an absolute pleasure talking to you. Enjoy the rest of your day and good luck with the launch well that folks was an episode of warfare with dr james Rogers. We've extended the remit of Warfare to First and Second World War, but also the Great Wars of the 18th and 19th centuries. So I hope there'll be something

in the Warfare feed for you all to enjoy. If you want to subscribe to Warfare, just head over to wherever you get your podcasts, search Warfare, and feel free to give it a rating and a review as well. Thank you.