On 11 September Hoare made his famous speech in Geneva, in which he resolutely stated that from now on British foreign policy would be the policy of the League of Nations. His speech was received here and abroad as a great, almost historic milestone in the sphere of international politics. For the next two months, Baldwin, Hoare, Eden and all the other members of the British government declared, emphasized and trumpeted their loyalty to the promise made on 11 September. When, in the run-up to the election, the Labourites (and especially Ewer in the Daily Herald) launched a campaign which accused the British government of using the League of Nations merely as an electoral slogan that would be immediately forgotten, and which argued that Baldwin was preparing a reform of the League in order to render it innocuous from the point of view of the imperialists, the Conservatives were livid. Hoare delivered an indignant speech in Chelsea and castigated Ewer in the strongest terms during our conversation of 6 November. The government’s declarations were taken seriously not only by the Conservatives, but also by the Liberals and many Labourites. Hundreds of Conservative deputies entered the House on the strength of their fidelity to the League of Nations. Mander, a Liberal MP and ardent supporter of the League of Nations, told me with satisfaction ten days ago, on 3 December: ‘Whatever the shortcomings of the new government, we can say for sure that it will be a government of the League of Nations.’

I understood the situation in this way. Today it is advantageous for the British government to keep the League of Nations flag flying, because of the Abyssinian conflict. For this reason, it plays the part of incorruptible knight of collective security. In unfavourable circumstances, when such a position may prove disadvantageous for the British government, it will not hesitate to betray the League of Nations, but it will do so skilfully, smoothly, without a fuss and with a pious expression on its face.

I had assumed that loyalty to the League of Nations remained very much in the interests of the British government.

And, all of a sudden, the Hoare–Laval ‘peace plan’

The Hoare–Laval plan of 8 December 1935 proposed a settlement of the Italo-Ethiopian conflict, whereby the Ethiopian government would cede large parts of its territory to Italy, in return for the sea port of Aseb in southern Eritrea and a narrow corridor connecting it with the mainland. The League’s defiance prompted Mussolini to pursue his campaign, which led to the occupation of Addis Ababa on 5 May 1936. Indignation in Britain led Baldwin to abandon Hoare as foreign secretary and replace him with Eden, an advocate of the League of Nations.

appears in Paris! A plan that marks the most brazen, most impudent betrayal of the principles of the League of Nations! And when? Three weeks after the election! And at what precise moment? The moment of the manifest failure of the Italian army in Abyssinia and of ever-increasing problems for Mussolini at home!

It’s beyond understanding! What’s it all about? Who is to blame?

There are two theories. The first, supported mostly by the Manchester Guardian, is that Hoare is guilty of everything. According to this version, he exceeded his authority and, pressed by Laval, who had skilfully put the wind up his British colleague, agreed to the ‘peace plan’, thereby committing the entire Cabinet. Baldwin, faced with the choice between Hoare’s resignation and approval of the Paris agreement, took the course of rotten compromise and consented to the ‘illegitimate child’ of his foreign secretary, merely adding a few corrections and modifications.

The second theory, defended by the Daily Herald, asserts that the responsibility lies not with Hoare but with the Cabinet itself. The paper claims that the Cabinet began to prepare something like the Paris ‘peace plan’ some six weeks ago, and that Hoare signed his agreement with Laval with his government’s blessing in his pocket.

Who is right? Hard to say at the present time.

But I am prepared to accept that both theories may be correct to an extent. Knowing the political and diplomatic customs here, I can easily imagine the following course of events. Six weeks ago the Foreign Office may have begun discussing various – minimal and maximal – versions of the future peace treaty (not for nothing did Vansittart express the hope to me on 8 November that the war in Africa would end by Christmas). Strict secrecy was maintained until the election. After the election, contact with Laval was established (Peterson

Sir Maurice Drummond Peterson, acting high commissioner for Egypt, 1934; minister to Bulgaria, 1936–38; ambassador to Iraq, 1938–39; ambassador to Spain, 1939–40; undersecretary of state, Foreign Office, 1942; ambassador in Ankara, 1944–46, and in Moscow, 1946–49.

went to Paris). The potion was brewing in the imperialists’ infernal kitchen. When Hoare went to Switzerland ‘on holiday’, he was given merely the most general instructions: do your best to end the conflict as soon as possible, even by ‘correcting’ Abyssinian frontiers and offering Italy some economic privileges in Negus’s

Haile Selassie, the Ethiopian emperor.

empire (after all, something must be given to Mussolini!). Hoare arrived in Paris. Laval pressed him, making it clear that England could not count on France in an armed conflict with Italy. He categorically refused to support oil sanctions… What was to be done? Hoare felt a surge of imperialist sentiments (which came so naturally to him) and decided to show that he was not some Simon or other, capable only of babbling on. He could be an Alexander the Great of British foreign policy. And he showed it. As for the details of the agreement, he reported them to the Cabinet only after Laval had informed Mussolini. The Cabinet, guided by the considerations mentioned above, dared not disown their foreign secretary.

Such are my conjectures. Am I right? I don’t know. We shall see.

Meanwhile, a real political crisis has erupted in England. Today’s newspapers report that Hoare is hurrying home and will speak in the House on 19 December. While skating in England, Hoare managed to break his nose. For this reason, he will not leave his home for a few days. How symbolic! Yes, Hoare has broken his nose politically as well as physically. Will he and will the government draw the proper conclusions? Will Hoare resign? We shall see. To tell the truth, I doubt it.