The gist of the matter is as follows. The visit to Berlin has been fixed. Hitler’s state of health improves. The British ministers (Simon and Eden) fly to Berlin on the 24th and spend two days there, the 25th and 26th. Simon returns to London on 27 March. As for Eden… Simon has worked out two alternatives: (1) Eden takes the train on the evening of the 26th and arrives in Moscow on the morning of the 28th; (2) Eden and Simon return to London on the 27th, and Eden departs for Moscow from London – not immediately, but in about a fortnight, since he will not be able to arrange things earlier. What do we prefer? What do we find more appropriate? (One should understand ‘appropriate’ as meaning appropriate from the point of view of our prestige.)

The British government, Simon said, would prefer the first alternative. The reasons: (1) to save time (‘Time is very precious at the moment,’ S. added); (2) if the interval between the Berlin and Moscow visits is too large, the British government will have to make statements in the House immediately after the Berlin visit about its outcome and the prospects for the future. The Germans will then assume the Berlin visit to be the major and decisive one, and the visit to Moscow of secondary significance. This should be avoided. It would be better, therefore, for Eden to proceed to Moscow directly from Berlin. In the meantime, he, Simon, would announce in the House that the British government does not wish to discuss the issue as a whole until Eden returns and will deliver its judgement after hearing the reports of both ministers on their visits to the two capitals. What was our opinion?

In essence, the directives I had received gave me the right to answer S. immediately, but I considered it profitable to draw things out a bit. So I said: we had been under the impression until now that the two visits were entirely independent of each other and that Eden would be in Moscow in a few days. Now it turns out that the Moscow visit depends on the visit to Berlin and that its date is being put back considerably. This is disagreeable. Since a new situation is arising, I ought to ask Moscow for new instructions.

S. was obviously disappointed. He asked: ‘And when can you receive a reply?’ I said: ‘Probably tomorrow.’

Simon rubbed the bridge of his nose and entered into profuse argumentation. I was mistaken. The two visits were absolutely independent. If we were to fix and announce there and then the date of the Moscow visit, say 28 or 29 March, it would be final. No matter whether the visit to Berlin occurred or not, Eden would go to Moscow on the date that had been arranged. The British government, he argued, lent both visits equal value and importance. Furthermore, the visit to Moscow is of historic significance. Never since the time of revolution had a member of the British Cabinet visited Russia. Eden’s visit bears the same significance as the USSR’s entry to the League of Nations. It is visible evidence of the fact that Russia ‘has returned to Europe and become an integral part of European politics’. Besides, it is a great step towards Anglo-Soviet rapprochement.

I replied that I understood Simon perfectly well, but that I still could not resolve the matter without consulting Moscow. S. made a helpless gesture and asked for a reply no later than tomorrow. He said the British government had already informed the Germans that the British ministers would arrive on the 24th. The German government was going to make the date public today or tomorrow. It would be undesirable if the public learned the date of the Berlin visit before the date of the Moscow visit had been set. I agreed with S. and promised to get the reply from Moscow straight away.

S. raised his eyes languidly to the ceiling and suddenly asked: ‘Excuse my asking you this question, which may seem strange to you: but might the lord privy seal have a talk with Mr Stalin?’

I was waiting for this question and answered calmly: ‘I don’t know. Mr Stalin is not a member of the Council of People’s Commissars and does not usually meet foreign ministers and diplomats.’

Once again S. set about trying to convince me. Oh, naturally he does not stipulate a meeting with Stalin as an indispensable condition of Eden’s visit to Moscow. He knows Litvinov very well and respects and values him. Still, Stalin is the major Soviet figure for the British public. Attaching enormous importance to Eden’s visit to Moscow, the British government would like to arrange his visit in such a way as to make the greatest possible impression on British public opinion. As I must know full well, not all in Britain approve of the government’s decision to send a minister to the USSR; some influential circles frown on this move. It is important, therefore, to use this visit to effect a radical change in public opinion. For this it is highly desirable that Eden should meet Stalin.

I promised to make the necessary enquiries in Moscow.

At this point S.’s secretary rushed into the room to say that S. was expected in the House: he was supposed to give an answer to a question addressed to him. S. took his leave and hurried off. Eden and I were left alone. Eden said: ‘I would most sincerely like to go to Moscow earlier, but it is quite impossible. We are going to Berlin and need to prepare ourselves on a number of issues, such as the aviation pact. Sir John [Simon] is up to his eyes in work and I can’t burden him with all these preparations. I have to take an active role…’ Then Eden added in a very particular tone: ‘I ought always to be near Sir John, both during the preparatory work and during the negotiations with Germany.’

This can be understood as follows: the Conservative Party adamantly refuses to let Simon go to Berlin alone. The ‘party commissar’ – Eden – must assist him.