So, Britain, France and the USSR have given their consent. But what about Poland? Yesterday, at a banquet at the palace in honour of Lebrun,

Albert Lebrun, 14th and last president of France’s Third Republic, 1932–40.

I questioned Raczyński (the Polish ambassador) about this. He said that he approved of the declaration personally and would willingly sign it, but he wasn’t sure that Warsaw shared his attitude. Raczyński is a poor representative of Beck. He is a Westernist and a League of Nations man, and you can hardly use him to judge what the Polish government is thinking. We will see…

At Covent Garden this evening, for an opera in – once again – Lebrun’s honour, Aras told me that Bonnet rates the chances of a Franco-Italian ‘settlement’ as fifty-fifty. I doubt it. In any case, Bonnet is using various unofficial channels (Laval, in particular) to test the ground in Rome for a new act of appeasement. The English are egging him on.

At the opera house I also learned the following curious details from Balutis about the talk between the Lithuanian foreign minister, Urbšys,

Juozas Urbšys, Lithuanian foreign minister, 1938–41.

and Ribbentrop which took place a few days ago. Urbšys was on his way back from Rome, where he had gone to attend the pope’s funeral, and had made a stop in Berlin. Ribbentrop told Urbšys in plain words that there was only one ‘moot point’ between Germany and Lithuania: Memel. As soon as this was settled, harmony would reign in relations between the two countries. As Ribbentrop sees it, the time has come to ‘settle’ the problem: Memel must be given back to Germany. Embarrassed, Urbšys said that directly upon his return to Kovno he would report Ribbentrop’s point of view to his government and then convey its reply in principle to Ribbentrop. The latter interrupted Urbšys rudely and snapped back: ‘I’m interested in Memel, not principles.’

Then, pointing to the telephone on the table, Ribbentrop continued impudently: ‘Pick up the receiver, call your prime minister, and we shall settle the Memel problem at once, without further delay.’

Shaken, Urbšys pleaded that he be allowed to discuss the matter with his government on his return to Kovno. In the end, Ribbentrop gave his reluctant consent, but declared: ‘I give you two or three days to come to a final decision about Memel. If you fail to do so, we shall have to take other measures.’

Today, Balutis informed Halifax about Urbšys’s talk with Ribbentrop. The latter reacted in the following way: England expresses its sympathy for Lithuania, but can do nothing to help.

The scepticism was well justified. At an ad hoc emergency meeting between Chamberlain, Halifax and a few other ministers at Downing Street that Sunday afternoon, it was agreed that Halifax’s idea of consultations between the major powers following the declaration was ‘far-reaching and went very far indeed beyond any previous pronouncements’. It was therefore decided to dilute the undertaking by ‘laying the chief emphasis on the formal declaration, and dealing in much more general terms with the subsequent consultations’. Seeing which way the wind was blowing, Halifax failed to inform Cabinet that, in his conversation with Maisky, he had already committed Britain to the conference and had even promised a press release to that effect the following day.

TNA FO 371 22967 C3859/15/18, Report of the ministers’ meeting. See Maisky’s report of the conversation with Halifax in God Krizisa, I, no. 202. Also reported at length by Corbin to Paris: ‘Il est évident que cette déclaration tentait à certains égards de l’ambassadeur de l’U.R.S.S.’ DDF, 2 Serie, XV, Doc. 97.

Maisky, who found it difficult to abide by Litvinov’s instructions, continued to use his old method of inciting his interlocutors to come up with ideas which, unbeknownst to the Kremlin, often originated with him. At the same time, even he was forced to admit that the widespread disillusionment with appeasement had only a limited impact for as long as Chamberlain remained ‘firmly settled in his saddle’.

God Krizisa, I, nos. 194, 197, 198, 204 & 207, exchanges between Litvinov, Maisky and Surits, 18, 19 & 20 March, and Maisky to Litvinov, 22 March; DVP, 1939, XXII/2, doc. 16.

]