(1) He asked Vansittart bluntly the other day: What is the British attitude to Czechoslovakia’s ‘Russian policy’, and particularly to the Czecho-Soviet pact? There is a widespread opinion in Europe that England disapproves of this policy and, in particular, of the pact. Is this true? Vansittart replied that it was absolutely untrue. Taking into consideration the current situation in Europe, Britain quite understands and even approves of the present relations between Czechoslovakia and the USSR. (2) Masaryk defines Britain’s attitude to Czechoslovakia in this way: Britain is not indifferent to the fate of Czechoslovakia, it even sympathizes with Czechoslovakia as the outpost of democracy in Central Europe, but its sympathy is lukewarm and one can hardly count on an energetic response from London were Czechoslovakia to be endangered. It seems to me that Masaryk’s description of the situation is correct. (3) Vansittart and the Foreign Office in general are unhappy about the PM’s flirtation with Mussolini. They think that the ground is not yet ready for an agreement and, above all, they are annoyed by the fact that Chamberlain has completely ignored the FO in his attempts to reach an understanding with Italy.

Vansittart further advised Masaryk to make the necessary concessions to the Sudeten Germans, though he declined to specify which measures he had in mind; DVP, 1937, XX, fn. 141, Maisky to Narkomindel, 10 Aug. 1937.

It must be said plainly that the fair

Maisky refers to his visit to the Paris Art and Technology Exhibition of 1937. In the midst of the Civil War, the Spanish pavilion attracted particular attention, displaying Pablo Picasso’s depiction of the horrors of war in his famous Guernica painting, Alexander Calder’s sculpture Mercury Fountain and Joan Miró’s Catalan Peasant in Revolt. Strangely enough, that pavilion is not referred to by Maisky. The two pavilions of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (the latter hailed by Frank Lloyd Wright as the most fascinating pavilion at the exhibition) were placed directly across from each other. Hitler wanted to withdraw from the exhibition, but was persuaded by Albert Speer to present it as a bulwark against communism; the best description is in M. Kitchen’s riveting biography, Speer: Hitler’s architect (London, 2015), pp. 60–1, 74 and 281.

is not very impressive. Everything looks unfinished, done in haste and without being thought through – and not only in its ‘French aspect’, but also in the ‘foreign’ one. Nearly all the pavilions are feeble, or at any rate feebler than the countries they represent. The only exception, perhaps, is Czechoslovakia, which has built a pavilion that fully reflects the true face of the country. All the other pavilions differ from each other merely in the extent to which they fail. The English pavilion is very poor: neither its appearance nor its exhibits give the faintest idea of the wealth and might of the British Empire. The Germans, who erected something halfway between a sarcophagus and a prison, failed to put up the good show that they are usually capable of. Our pavilion, which faces the German one and is surely the most original and dynamic in appearance (the sculptures at the top of the pavilion are truly beautiful), could also have been much richer and better inside. There are too many diagrams, tables and photographs, and very few vivid and impressive exhibits. Our industry, for instance, is poorly represented. All the same – and this is an excellent sign – the Soviet pavilion attracts a huge number of visitors. In general, the fair suggests that the world has no time for demonstrations of peaceful, economic and cultural competition – it is too consumed by the spectres of war. In contrast to 1900 (when there was also a world exposition in Paris), 1937 has failed to bring the money, time, peace of mind, attention and energy that are needed to create a really vivid, full-blooded, rich and well thought-out fair. But such are the times we live in…

We went to the ‘Artists’ and saw Anna Karenina, The Enemies, and Lyubov Yarovaya. It was all well done, but the performances played to half-empty audiences. This was painful to see. Partly, August is to blame, since ‘all Paris’ is on vacation, particularly this year (the paid workers’ holidays introduced by Blum); partly, the tour was not organized well enough. Another problem is language and the fact that the French do not understand our situation. Whatever the reasons, the theatre is half-empty…