765.84/913: Telegram
The Chargé in the United Kingdom (Atherton) to the Secretary of State
391. My 388, August 21, 7 p.m. Members of the opposition consulted by the Government yesterday, including Lloyd George, Lansbury, Winston Churchill and others, although for varied reasons, advised the Cabinet to take a firm stand. The Dominion representatives, however, explained that the public opinion that they represented were far less concerned than public opinion here.
Yesterday’s discussions make it evident that the Cabinet consider the present situation contains a double challenge: (1st) a challenge to the League of Nations and (2d) a challenge to Great Britain’s prestige and position, especially as regards the Mediterranean. According to stated policy of the Government, the Cabinet’s response in the first instance must be based on collective action. In this case collective action depends on how far France is willing to go, as made clear by Sir Samuel Hoare in the conversation reported in my 384, August 20, 11 a.m. I might add that the Foreign Secretary has always emphasized this aspect, as exemplified in his first parliamentary speech on policy: “We are ready and willing to take our full share of collective responsibility, but when I say collective responsibility I mean collective responsibility.” But the position that the French will take at Geneva is regarded today here as probably even weaker than the Foreign Secretary realized earlier in the week. In other words France will fulfill the forms of treaties such as to insist on an investigation upon Italy’s full statement of her case, but will be unwilling to discuss the question of sanctions either beforehand or at Geneva until actually an act of aggression has taken place.
[Page 637]Thereupon the question arises, how long a time must elapse before defining Italy as an aggressor and a further agreement of sanction arrived at.
In meeting the challenge to Great Britain in the Mediterranean the British Government’s first answer must likewise be through the League. In Sir Austin Chamberlain’s phrase: “We are prepared fully to fulfill our obligations under the Covenant if others will do the same”, England can go a long way with this in openly urging at Geneva that the maximum sanctions of the League be sought against Italy. Even though not adopted, this firm demand for action at Geneva would, for the time being, serve to suffice as England’s reply to the present double challenge. Thereafter the present British Government can go before the country and in response to the general demand here for firm action under the League, point out that this has not been possible of achievement under collective responsibility and therefore the Government can ask in a general election authority to bring its military, naval and air force to strength to meet any Empire threat.
There is a growing conviction here that Mussolini is not bluffing and that if measures which interfere with his Abyssinian policy are undertaken, England may be put in a position where she must either take action alone against Italy or accept a passive role temporarily. Undoubtedly England will prepare to meet this in the long run as outlined above, but how far she will be willing to go in immediate measures, the results of which might goad Mussolini further is the point at which Cabinet opinion reportedly is at this moment divided.
Foreign Office stated today 5 million dollars of munitions left Hamburg yesterday for Jibuti.
- Telegram in two sections.↩