There were four of us at table. The conversation was very frank. Far more so than when Eden was foreign secretary.

I asked Eden what he thought about England’s immediate prospects? Will Chamberlain and his policy of ‘appeasement’ hold out for long?

Eden shrugged his shoulders and answered that the current situation is very unclear. Chamberlain certainly enjoys his party’s support and can hold out until the next election. When will the elections be held? It is hard to say. The party machine wanted to have the election right after Munich, but Chamberlain refused for various reasons. The issue was postponed. In early November the party machine raised the question again, proposing to hold a general election in February 1939, and this time Chamberlain agreed. But the Jewish pogroms in Germany changed the situation, and this date was cast aside. It is unclear what will happen next. The election could be postponed until the autumn of 1939. Other dates are also possible. In any case, Eden does not think that the election will be on the agenda in the immediate future.

‘It follows,’ I reasoned, ‘that there is no hope of a change in British foreign policy as yet?’

‘What can I say?’ Eden responded. ‘A change in policy is conceivable even without elections. Events might force the hand even of the present government.’

Eden stopped for a moment before continuing: ‘If I were in Chamberlain’s shoes, I would do the following. I would address the party and the nation and say: I have done everything in my power to reach an agreement with Germany and secure the “appeasement” of Europe. I have made every kind of concession for the sake of this. I have made many sacrifices. I have been ready to forgo my own and my country’s pride, to endure assaults, criticism and accusations for the sake of achieving the goal… But now I see that all my efforts have been in vain: Germany does not want an honourable peace for both sides, it wants a pax germanica. I cannot agree to this. That’s the limit. We can do no more. We must defend ourselves. If the prime minister put the question like that, he would have a united country behind him and could carry out a firm and dignified policy of genuine peace.’

‘And you think that Chamberlain is capable of performing an about-turn of this kind?’

Eden grinned: ‘No, of course he won’t do that.’

‘So how do you expect a change in foreign policy under the present PM?’ I went on.

‘I’m speaking about the government, not about the PM,’ Eden replied. ‘Of course, a change in policy is possible only if the present Cabinet is substantially refreshed.’

I asked him whether the rumours were true that Eden was thinking about setting up a new ‘middle’ party. Eden shook his head.

‘Our political traditions make it very difficult to form a third party, especially a “middle” one,’ he said. ‘The creation of any new party in Britain is an extremely troublesome and unpromising business. I think it more effective to work within the Conservative Party and gain influence in it step by step. By the way, the supporters of the views I advocate have greatly increased in number and standing over the past few weeks.’

Eden further informed me that while the Conservative opposition as such numbers approximately 50 party members, at least 50 more are tacit sympathizers. About 100 members support the PM staunchly, and the other 200 make up the ‘swamp’. The trouble is that the power of the party machine has increased immensely and terrorizes many MPs. Some twenty-five years ago there were many Conservative MPs with their own private means, who felt independent and paid little attention to the instructions given by the chief whip. They spoke and voted as they wished. Nowadays the overwhelming majority of Tory MPs are subsidized from party funds at election time, so they seek to ingratiate themselves with the chief whip.

‘Isn’t that so, Beatrice?’ Eden concluded, turning to his wife.

Beatrice agreed with her husband and cited her late father as a characteristic example. For the remainder of our talk Eden would repeat, after stating his opinion: ‘Isn’t that so, Beatrice?’

Evidently, Beatrice is not only Eden’s wife, but also his adviser.

Despite all its difficulties, the Tory ‘opposition’ is growing and should continue to grow in influence. At least half of Conservative voters are dissatisfied with and alarmed by the current state of affairs and the government’s foreign policy. They sense that the integrity of the Empire is at stake. The result is that not only ‘left-wing Tories like me’ (Eden went on), but also right-wing imperialists like Amery and Lloyd are against Chamberlain.

I asked Eden whether he thought it possible to organize a broad national opposition comprising Tory opposition, Labourites and Liberals.

‘That would be very difficult, at least at present.’

He then began scolding the Labourites for their very negative attitude towards the idea of a united front.

I complimented Eden on his latest speech in parliament on 10 November – this obviously pleased him – and asked him to comment on the throw-away remark he made in his speech to the effect that the present system of democratic governance requires ‘reorganization and, first and foremost, the speeding-up of its work’. Eden said that he had not thought this issue fully through yet, but it seemed to him that if the British parliament adopted, for example, the method of commissions practised in the French Chamber, they would gain considerable time. Some other reforms are also conceivable.

I remarked that Eden’s speeches differ greatly from the speeches of other Conservative oppositionists in one very important respect: he always ties together the problems of foreign and home policy. He demands not only struggle against the aggressors, but also social reforms. My words hit the mark. I had touched a very sensitive spot in Eden’s heart. He livened up at once, gained some colour, and straightened his figure.

‘In leftist circles,’ said Eden, ‘there’s an absurd theory that I speak this way on Baldwin’s instructions. Nonsense! Baldwin has nothing to do with my fight with the government. It’s just that as a person who understands the current situation and the emerging trends I believe that a progressive foreign policy must harmonize with a progressive home policy – otherwise the British Empire will perish.’

Eden then developed the following syllogism: the strength of a nation depends not only on its armaments, but also, and to a much greater degree, on the happiness and prosperity of the population. In the case of Britain, this means the happiness and prosperity of the working masses. This goal can be attained exclusively by means of large-scale social reforms (affecting unemployment, specific districts and so on). In turn, large-scale social reforms are feasible only if the Empire remains intact, while the Empire’s integrity is impossible without a progressive foreign policy, i.e. collective security, the League of Nations, a united front of peace-loving powers, and, as a minimum, the London–Paris–Moscow axis.

I added that a lengthy engagement with the policy of ‘appeasement’ would render the British Empire non-existent within a decade.

‘You think we have that much time?’ Eden responded. ‘I’m more pessimistic. If Chamberlain stays in power for long, the disintegration of the Empire will proceed much faster.’

We then discussed my episode with Winterton, and I told Eden about my talk with him concerning two types of great powers. Eden accepted my thesis with certain reservations. He, too, thinks that Hitler’s next step will be toward the west rather than toward the Ukraine.

‘But what is Hitler going to demand from us?’ Eden reflected. ‘Colonies? Most likely. But in the present conditions, in the atmosphere created by the Jewish pogroms, not a single British statesman will dare even to raise the question of transferring any territories with national minorities to Germany. And what will Hitler do? He can’t cross the sea to grab the colonies!’

‘But can’t Hitler intimidate the mother country?’ I asked.

‘No, that’s out of the question,’ Eden exclaimed. ‘Britain will stand united to resist Germany on the colonial question!’

Eden condemned Chamberlain’s foreign policy most harshly. It is leading directly to the downfall of the British Empire. The PM’s policy on rearmament is virtually criminal. The immediate prospects in France worry Eden greatly. He is very interested in our stand on international affairs and was clearly glad to hear that we are not hurrying to make definitive conclusions, but are merely following the course of events in Europe. He repeated that in his opinion salvation lies only in the London–Paris–Moscow axis, and added in this connection that he was including the speech he gave at the dinner in Moscow during his 1935 visit in a collection of speeches to be published imminently.

During our conversation, I remarked in passing that capitalism was a spent force. I was surprised to hear Eden reply: ‘Yes, you are right. The capitalist system in its present form has had its day. What will replace it? I can’t say exactly, but it will certainly be a different system. State capitalism? Semi-socialism? Three-quarter socialism? Complete socialism? I don’t know. Maybe it will be a particularly pure British form of “Conservative socialism”. We’ll see.’