The lunch felt like a family affair. There were the three of us, V., his wife and his son. We discussed political issues: the Italo-Abyssinian war (V. did not conceal his disappointment at the failure of the Hoare–Laval plan), the situation in Central Europe, in the Balkans, and elsewhere. The entire conversation, however, was dominated by the spectre of Hitler. Speaking about the German danger and how to rebuff it, we came to the major issue of the day. I related my recent conversation with Austen Chamberlain (on 22 January) and emphasized the latter’s idea that peace could be preserved only with the backing ‘of a strong League of Nations’, and that the League of Nations could be strong only if its great powers – Britain, France and the USSR – had a uniform policy and worked in close cooperation with one another. Chamberlain had never regarded Italy as a reliable supporter of the League, now less than ever. ‘I subscribe entirely to Chamberlain’s prescription,’ echoed M.M. I was curious to see V.’s reaction. He hesitated for a moment and then set about arguing irritably that the great powers are great powers, but if we lay too much stress on their significance, we might, first, arouse suspicion and dissatisfaction among other members of the League and, second, give rise to ‘demob tendencies’. Medium and small powers might want to shift all the concern for the preservation of peace onto the great powers and themselves sink into a state of prostration. In V.’s opinion, special attention should be given at the moment to the need for small and especially medium powers to be more active in the struggle for the preservation of peace and to accept the burdens imposed by that struggle, especially in the sphere of arms. Why should Great Britain or the USSR alone spend lots of money to maintain large armies and navies? Why shouldn’t Sweden, for instance, or Holland or Denmark do the same, in accordance, of course, with their means and resources?

Every country with a place in the great front of peace must contribute its mite to the common stock.

I listened to V.’s arguments with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it was good that the Foreign Office, through his words, was taking a stand against the monopolization of international policy issues by great powers alone; on the other hand, I did not like the fact that he was using concern for the participation of small and medium powers to slur over the problem of cooperation between Great Britain, France and the USSR. M.M. told me afterwards that he was not altogether satisfied with V.’s position either. Still, the general mood at lunch was good, the atmosphere was most friendly, and on parting M.M. invited V. and his wife to visit the USSR.

At 5.30 p.m. M.M went to the Foreign Office to talk with Eden. I do not know the details of their meeting because, in his hurry before his departure, M.M. did not have time to tell me. His general impression after the talk was as follows: Eden was quite satisfied with the political line set forth by M.M., but did not want to draw any concrete inferences from the appraisal of the situation on which they were in agreement.

On Litvinov’s irritation with Eden’s evasive attitude, see DVP, 1936, XIX, doc. 32.

Claire Sheridan

Clare Consuelo Sheridan (Frewen), British sculptress and writer, Churchill’s cousin.

paid a visit to M.M. before he went to see Eden. Agniya and I were also present. Sheridan, who is still very beautiful, remembered the old days and her former acquaintances in the USSR, and invited us to visit her studio.

We saw Ghost Goes West

Most profitable movie in the UK in 1936, directed by René Clair.

in the evening. M.M. loved it and roared with laughter in places.