Stalin Digital Archive

Back to Search

Stalin digital archive

Back to Search

Table of Contents

< Previous document Next document >

9 November

- Export Citation
- Export Annotation

View:

By Liakhovetsky, Ivan Mikhailovich (Maisky)

The Complete Maisky Diaries: Volume 1

Image view

Print
Save
Share
Cite

Translation Transcription

Translation

9 November

Today I had a long meeting with Simon. Referring to M.M. [Litvinov], I formulated my question in the following way: We welcome the initial improvement in Anglo-Soviet relations, we desire further progress in this direction and see no objective causes that could impede this course of events. For: (1) The two sides have no designs on the territorial integrity of one another (the tsarist government may have coveted India, but the Soviet government pursues no such ambitions; the problem for Great Britain at the current time is not to acquire new lands but to preserve those it already has); (2) They are not competing on the global market; (3) They have no serious disagreements over

Page 21

any of the major international issues of our time (Europe: both sides want to preserve peace and to prevent Germany from violating it; the Middle East:

Although nowadays little distinction is drawn between ‘Near East’ and ‘Middle East’, Maisky does use two different expressions to denote the regions. For the sake of accuracy, the same distinction is made in this translation of the diaries.

both sides are interested in maintaining the independence of Turkey, Persia and Afghanistan; the Soviet government has no claims on Constantinople and the Straits; the Far East: both sides are interested in preserving peace and the integrity of China, and in preventing Japan from breaking the peace; (4) Both sides have excellent reasons to desire peace – the USSR because it is engaged in socialist construction and has no incentives for war: its domestic market is huge, it has every raw material except rubber on its territory, and it has no investments abroad; and Great Britain because any war in which it gets involved would threaten the integrity of the Empire. This, of course, is just a rough, schematic summary of my thoughts. Why, then, should we not try to improve relations further between the USSR and Great Britain? Why not take advantage of the chance that has come our way?

My words clearly made a great impression on S. He stated categorically that the British government has no designs on Soviet territory, that the government has never supported advocates of the theory that Great Britain would profit from a nice little war in the Far East between the USSR and Japan, and that it seeks the possibility of an improvement in relations with the USSR (he mentioned the signing of a trade treaty, and the British government’s attitude to the Eastern Pact and to the USSR’s entry into the League of Nations). At the same time, he made it clear that rapprochement with the USSR should not advance to the detriment of Britain’s relations with any other third power (he obviously had Japan, and perhaps Germany, in mind) and, just as unexpectedly, he raised the ‘propaganda’ issue, which, he thought, might prove a serious obstacle to better relations.

In his report home, Maisky, anxious to advance the negotiations, glosses over the obstacles raised by Simon and his explicit statement that improving relations with Russia also meant ‘that we hoped to preserve and promote good relations with other countries, such as Japan’; DVP, 1934, XVII, doc. 384, and TNA FO 371 18305 N6462/16/38. Well-censored and selective reporting to advance his case would become the trademark of Maisky’s ambassadorship.

I smiled in response to this last point and said that ‘propaganda’ (whatever each side thinks of it) has played a negligible role in Anglo-Soviet relations recently, and that it would be simply ridiculous if our rapprochement, dictated by an array of very serious considerations and a mutual desire to preserve peace, should stumble on this tiny stone. In conclusion, S. said: ‘The issues you have raised are so important to the future of Anglo-Soviet relations that I consider it essential to inform Cabinet of our talk. We will then have another conversation on this issue.’

Then I made representation on the anti-Soviet statements made by Lord Hailsham

Douglas Hogg (1st Viscount Hailsham), lord chancellor, 1928–29 and 1935–38; secretary of state for war, 1931–35.

(war minister) in the House of Lords on 31 October and by Duff Cooper

Duff Alfred Cooper (1st Viscount Norwich of Aldwick), financial secretary to the Treasury, 1934–35; secretary of state for war, 1935–37; first lord of the Admiralty, 1937–38; minister of information, 1940–41; chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, 1941–43.

(secretary to the Treasury) at the women’s Conservative conference in

Page 22

Nottingham on 26 September. S. was most displeased by this, but in the end he was obliged to declare that he accepted my representation as a hint about things that should not occur.

In conclusion, I requested an explanation from S. regarding Lord Barnby’s

Francis Vernon (2nd Baron Barnby) was a Conservative MP, 1918–22, president of the Federation of British Industries, 1925–26 and director of Lloyds Bank. The report of the large fact-finding mission he led to Japan and Manzhouguo (where the Japanese had set up a puppet government after seizing the region in 1932) was tantamount to recognition of their rule and was published in December 1934.

mission to Manzhouguo and Japan, and also regarding rumours about the flotation of a Japanese loan in London, adding that any financial aid to Japan would mean promoting the cause of war. S. replied that Barnby’s mission was of a strictly commercial nature, that its members’ statements were the opinions of private individuals, and that the British government had nothing to do with the mission, did not associate with it, and should not be held responsible for it. S. said he knew nothing about the loan, but he promised to investigate and to inform me about it at our next meeting.

Today’s talk with S. may prove to be a soap-bubble, or it may become an important historical event. Everything depends on the Cabinet’s judgement.

I’m sitting at my typewriter, wondering which of the alternatives will materialize?

Let’s wait and see.

Transcription

Document Details

Document Title9 November

AuthorLiakhovetsky, Ivan Mikhailovich (Maisky)

RecipientN/A

RepositoryN/A

ID #N/A

DescriptionN/A

Date1934 Nov 9

AOC VolumeThe Complete Maisky Diaries: Volume 1

Login Required

Your subscription has expired.