765.84/1036: Telegram
The Minister in Switzerland (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received 9:45 p.m.]
288. At lunch today I had a conversation with Eden, Lumley (Eden’s Parliamentary Secretary) and Strang. Eden states that Chambrun has reported to Laval that Mussolini’s attitude seems slightly more hopeful for negotiation.
Eden stated that a number of the representatives of the small states had called on him and without exception had declared themselves in favor of the application of the Covenant. In each case Eden had replied that this assurance was very satisfactory and he hoped it meant that these gentlemen would voice their opinion in public at the meetings. In no case, however, did he receive satisfactory assurance that they would do so. He complained that he could not persuade the small states that they had a real responsibility in carrying out the Covenant nor could he yet disabuse them of the idea that this would be a matter exclusively decided by the Great Powers.
Eden also spoke ironically of the apparent desire of the French to bargain. For instance, in Paris Laval had asked Eden what Great Britain’s attitude would be in case of trouble in Austria and had indicated that Eden’s reply might have an influence on France’s decision in the Ethiopian question. Eden had replied that the building up of the collective action would certainly be a precedent for British future action and that on the contrary if collective action failed British public opinion would be very reluctant to put faith in collective action in future eventualities.
Laval had still pressed him for an answer to his question and Eden had then said: “I am unable to give you an official answer. Do you desire me to put this question to my Government?” Very obviously Laval had then asked him to drop the matter. Eden felt strongly that it would be incredible to pay a price to France to induce France to [Page 641] carry out its obligations under the Covenant. What Great Britain was working for was even more for the benefit of France than Great Britain and he spoke in a tone of rather humorous exasperation of the possibility of entering into a bargain to build up a system of collective action for which France had pushed them for the past 15 years.
Eden has somewhat the same idea of future procedure as that outlined in my 287,68 namely, that the Council, acting under article XV, should submit to Mussolini a recommendation based on the offer made in Paris in the tripartite conversations.
In respect to the statement frequently heard to the effect that Laval had given a free hand to Mussolini during the conversations last January, Eden said that shortly thereafter while he was on the way to Rome Laval had told him that he had given Mussolini a free hand as far as France was concerned only in respect to economic measures. On the other hand, Mussolini had told Eden immediately thereafter that “the French had agreed to accord him complete liberty of action in Ethiopia”. Eden says he interrupted at this point to repeat what Laval had told him but Mussolini had replied indignantly that the French had given him nothing else of any real value in the conversations and therefore did Eden suppose that he would have declared himself satisfied “with a strip of sand with a couple of flocks on it?”69
Eden spoke in tones of the deepest appreciation of your action in having the Socony Vacuum Company to withdraw from the concession. He said that this cleared the air enormously and made him “happier than anything in this dreary situation”.
Cipher to London, Paris, Rome.