¹ Research for this case-study was facilitated bv a grant from the Canada Council.

² The evolution of Barthou's proposal is traced in Henderson (Belgrade) to Vansittart, 16 Apr. 1934 Fo 371/18458, public Record Office (PRO): Clerk (Paris)to F.O..20 June 1934, FO 371/17659, PRO; Lambert memorandum, 2 July 1934, FO 571/18389, PRO; Simon to Murray (Rome), 12 Sept. 1934, FO 371/18454, PRO; Carr (Geneva) to Sargent. 26 Sept. 1934, FO 371/18389, PRO.

³ See Hoptner, J. B.Yugoslavia in Crisis, 1934–1941 (New York: Columbia Universityip-Press, 1961), p. 25Google Scholar, and Germany, Auswartiges Amt, Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918–1945 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959), Series C, vol. m, no. 39.Google Scholar

⁴ Drurnmond (Rome) to Simon, 8 and 9 Oct. 1934, FO 371/18436, PRO.Google Scholar

⁵ See Henderson, (Belgrade) to Vansittart, 28 12. 1933Google Scholar, FO 371/18453, PRO; recordof n to conversation between Simon and Yugoslav Minister, 15 Jan. 1934, FO 371/18452, PRO; 934, Henderson to F.O., 1 Feb. 1934, FO 371/18452, PRO. Cf. Ormos, Mária Sz., Merénylet Marseille-ben (Budapest: Kossuth, 1968), p. 101.Google Scholar

⁶ report, Villani from Rome, 6 08. 1934, VKF 1934, Hungarian Military Archives; Ormos, op. cit., pp. 110, 122Google Scholar;Aloisi, Baron Pompeo, Journal (Paris; Plon, 1957), pp. 177,1 184, 214; Pál Nádori A Marseille-i gyilkosság nemzetk özi jogi vonatkozásai (Budapest; Akadémiai kiadó 1972), pp. 57–8.Google Scholar

⁷ Tabouis, GenevièveVingl ans de suspense' diplomatique (Paris: Albin Michel, 1958)Google Scholar,

⁸ Eden, AnthonyFacing the Dictators (London: Cassell, 1962), p. 108.Google Scholar

⁹ Aloisi, op. cit., pp. 225–6.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Nándori, op. cit., pp. 193–4.Google Scholar

¹¹ Henderson (Belgrade) to F.O., n Oct. 1934, FO 371/18454, PRO; Selby (Vienna) to F.O., 10 Oct. 1934, FO 371/18458, PRO; Drummond (Rome) to F.O., 10 and 12 Oct. 1934, FO 371/18458, PRO; Salvemini, Gaetano, Prelude to World War II(Garden City: Doubleday,1954). PP- 169–70.Google Scholar

¹² Vansittart, Robert G.The Mist Procession (London: Hutchinson, 1958), p. 492; Sargent minute, 11 10. 1934, FO 371/18458, PRO.Google Scholar

¹³ See Ormos, , op. cit., pp. 82 ff, 118–21.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Karsai, Elek, A budai Sándor-palotában t örté nt (Budapest: Táncsics, 1964), p.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Henderson (Belgrade) to F.O., 12 and 13 Oct. 1934, FC) 371/18454, FRO; Sargent minute, 20 Oct. 1934, FO 371/18458, PRO.

¹⁶ Drummond (Rome) to F.O., 14 Oct. 1934, FO 371/18454, PRO.

¹⁷ Aloisi, , op. cit., p. 226.Google Scholar

¹⁸ minute, Gallop, 22 10. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/18459, PRO; Bardossv (Hungarian Legation) aide-mémoire to O'Malley, 12 Oct. 1934, FO 371/18458, PRO; Ramsav, (Budapest) to F.O., 15 October. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/18459, PRO; record of conversation between Hungarian Chargé d'Affaires and Sargent, 16 10. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/18459, PRO.

¹⁹ Foreign Office memorandum, 16 Oct. 1934, FO 371/18459, PRO; O'Malley minute, 10 Dec. 1934, FO 371/18464, PRO; Sargent minute, 16 Oct. 1934, FO 371/18458, PRO.

²⁰ Sargent minute, 17 Oct. 1934, FO 371/18454, PRO; Henderson, (Belgrade) to F.O., 17 October. 1934, FO 371/18459, PRO.Google Scholar

²¹ Aloisi noted at the time that Laval's appointment was ‘good for us’ (Aloisi, op. cit p. 227).

²² Clerk, (Paris) to F.O., 16 October. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/18389, PRO. Cf. Eckhardt, Tibor, Regicide at Marseille (New York: American Hungarian Library and Historical Society, (1964), p. 121.Google Scholar

²³ Clerk, (Paris) to F.O., 16 and 17 October. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/18459, PRO; Palairet (Bucharest)to F.O., FO 371/18459, PRO.

²⁴ Ramsay, (Budapest) to F.O., 23. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/18459, PRO. The Hungarians were particularly incensed at the publication of photographs of their prime minister and forei minister coupled with those of Ustashi leaders in the semi-official Yugoslav organ Vreme.

²⁵ Henderson, (Belgrade) to Simon, 20 October. 1934, FO 371/18459, PRO; Nicolae Titulescu: Documente Diplomatice, ed. George Macovescu et al. (Bucharest: Editura Politica, 1967), pp. 574–5.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ormos, , op. cit., pp. 176–7; the Hungarian military attaché in Paris reported the flagrant efforts of French circles and media to draw a veil of silence over the links between Italy and the Croat extremists (22 10. 1934, VKF 1934, Hungarian Military Archives).Google Scholar

²⁷ Khuen-Héderv áry, (Paris) to Foreign Ministry, 23 10. 1934, K63/3679/P0I. 1934, Hungarian Diplomatic Archives.Google Scholar

²⁸ memorandum, Hory, 17 10. 1934, K63/3468/P0I. 1934, Hungarian Diplomatic is Archives; Ramsay (Budapest) to F.O., 17 October. 1934, FO 371/18459, PRO.Google Scholar

²⁹ Simon to Drummond (Rome), 22 10. 1934, FO 371/18459, PRO; Henderson, (Belgrade) to Simon, 1 September. 1934, FO 371/18457, PRO.Google Scholar

³⁰ Aloisi, , op. cit., pp. 227–8.Google Scholar The Yugoslav ambassador in Rome, reported Drummond, remained highly sceptical of Mussolini's good intentions towards Yugoslavia, and suggested that the test of Italian goodwill would lie in the breaking upof the terrorist organizations (Drummond to Simon, 22 Oct. 1934, FO 371/18454, PRO).Drummond, on the other hand, was completely convinced of Mussolini's sincerity. A similar local bias afflicted Sir Patrick Ramsay in Budapest and Sir Henderson, Neville in Belgrade, the latter having had a very close relationship with the late king.Google Scholar

³¹ Documents on German Foreign Policy, C, Series vol. III, nos. 263, 264, 266, 268; Simon memorandum, 26 October 1934, FO 800/289, PRO.Google Scholar

³² Documents on German Foreign Policy, C, Series vol. IIIGoogle Scholar, nos. 269, 273, 305, 387; General Mikl ós report, 26 Oct. 1934, VKF 1934, Hungarian Military Archives. Cf. A THRA dám, MagdaMagyarorszá gés a kisantant a harmincasé vekben (Budapest; Akadé miai kiadó, 1968), p. 68.Google Scholar

³³ Hory to missions, 22 Oct. 1934, K63/39,432/Pol. 1934, Hungarian Diplomatic Archives.

³⁴ The exchange was leaked by a high French official' to Hungarian ambassador Hedervary, Khuen (Ná ndori, op. cit., p. 196)Google Scholar; cf. Ormos, , op. cit., p. 154. The British were meanwhile manifesting a certain reserve in their communications with Hungarian diplomats, as if, reported Budapest's envoy, they had expected greater exertions on the part of the Hungarian police in investigating the affair (Szé ché nyi [London] to foreign ministry, 31 Oct. 1934, K63/3846/P0I. 1934, Hungarian Diplomatic Archives).Google Scholar

³⁵ Simon to Clerk, (Paris) 30 October. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/17659, PRO; Campbell, (Paris) to F.O., 30 October. 1934, FO 371/18389, PRO; Drummond (Rome) to F.O., 26 Oct. 1934. FO 371/18436, PRO; Drummond to F.O., 26 Oct. 1934, FO 371/18389, PRO.Google Scholar

³⁶ memorandum, O' Malley 1 September. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/18460, PRO; Sargent minute, 5 Nov. 1934, FO 371/18389, PRO; Simon to Clerk, (Paris), 30 10. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/17659, PRO. meanwhile, Gallop, observed that Yugoslavia herself would not emerge with clean hands from any general enquiry into XXXXcrimes committed under the influence of forces beyond the frontiersHHHH. She has had the misfortune to be hoisted with a petard of the type she herself has exploded in Istria’ (Gallop minute, 22 10. 1934, FO 371/18459, PRO).Google Scholar

³⁷ Campbell, (Paris) to F.O., 30 Septermber. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/18389, PRO; Campbell, to F.O., 1 11.1934, FO 371/18454, PRO. The Foreign Office shared Lé ger's views, and Eden commented that 'fright is responsible for Signor Mussolini's better conduct. He had been playing with fire deliberatelv, & was lucky to escape so well.Google Scholar

³⁸ Tabouis, , op. cit., p. 218.Google Scholar

³⁹ Henderson, (Belgrade) to F.O., 27 10. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/18459, PRO. Henderson, after consulting with the French ambassador, sent a telegram to the Foreign Office two days later suggesting that His Majesty's Government 'draw the attention of the Italian and Hungarian Governments to the desirability, in the interests of a detente, of their loyal cooperation in the police enquiry into the Marseilles murders’, while his French colleague addressed an identical message to Paris. Henderson's telegram caused a flap at the Foreign Office, for it had been sent in a code that the Italians could decipher, and the British wanted to avoid any appearance of meddling in the affair. Sure enough, the Italians made representations to the Foreign Office which were clearly inspired by the telegram, and Simon dispatched a sharp reprimand to his overly envoy, zealous (Henderson to F.O., 29 October. 1934, FO 371/18460, PRO; record of conversation between Italian Chargé d'Affaires and Sargent, 3 Nov. 1934, FO 371/18460, PRO).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ormos, , op. cit., p. 181.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid., pp. 181–2; Karsai, , op. cit., pp. 257–8.Google Scholar

⁴² Sz, Má ria. Franciaország, Ormosés a keleti biztonsag, 1931–1936 (Budapest: Akadé miai kiadó, 1969), pp. 342–3.Google Scholar

⁴³ Palairet, (Bucharest) to F.O., 8 September. 1934, FO 371/18460, PRO.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cowan, (Belgrade) to F.O., 8 September. 1934, FO 371/18460, PRO.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ memorandum, O’ Malley 15 September. 1934, FO 371/18461, PRO.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ memorandum, O’ Malley 16 Septermber. 1934, FQ 371/18461, PRO.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Fotić, ConstantinThe War We Lost (New York: Viking, 1948), p. 10Google Scholar; Telegraph, Daily 17 September. 1934Google Scholar, Guardian, Manchester 20 11. 1934.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Aloisi, , op. cit., pp. 229, 230Google Scholar; Drummond, (Rome) to F.O., 17 11. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/18461, PRO; Eckhardt, , op. cit., p. 154.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Record of conversation between Vitetti and Sargent, 17 Nov. 1934, F O 371/18461, PRO.

⁵⁰ Aloisi, , op. cit., p. 228.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Addison, (Prague) to F.O., 28 and 29 October. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/18460, PRO; Palairet, (Bucharest) to F.O., 2 October. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/18460, PRO; Loraine, (Ankara) to F.O., FO 371/18460, PROGoogle Scholar; Thradám, , op. cit., p. 67Google Scholar; Ormos, , Meré nylet Marseille-ben, p. 180.Google Scholar

⁵² Cowan, (Belgrade) to F.O., 17. 1934, FO 371/18461, PRO.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ramsay (Budapest) to F.O., IO 11. 1934, FO 371/18461, PRO; Ramsay to F.O., 17 Nov. 1934, FO 371 18436, PRO.

⁵⁴ Documents on German Foreign Policy, C, Series vol. III, nos. 336, 349.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ormos, Merenilet Marseille-ben, p. 183;Google ScholarKarsai, op. cit., p. 259.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Aloisi, op. cit., p. 230Google Scholar; Ormos, Merénylet Marseille-ben, pp. 184–5. Since the chairman of the League's special committee for the Saar was Aloisi, Laval had one more reason to placate the Duce.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Simon to Drummond (Rome), 19 Nov. 1934, FO 371/18461, PRO; Patteson (Geneva) to F.O., 19 Nov. 1934, FO 371/18461, PRO; Eden, , op. cit., p. 112.Google Scholar The Foreign Office's assistant adviser on League affairs, E. H. Carr, minuted on Eden's report (relayed through Consul Patteson) that Beneš's communication represented ‘the programme which the French have reluctantly agreed to support as the price of a Yugoslav agreement not to incriminate Italy. I surmise this because I can see no other explanation of the concentration of the whole attack on Hungary to the exclusion of Italy. That exclusion is a French, not a Yugoslav interest. And, naturally, it imparts an air of complete dishonesty to the Yugoslav case.’

⁵⁸ Patteson, (Geneva) to F.O., 21 September. 1934, No. 71, FO 371/18461, PRO.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Patteson, (Geneva) to F.O., 21 September. 1934, No. 72, FO 371/18461, PRO.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Patteson, (Geneva) to F.O., 23 September. 1934Google Scholar, FO/371/18461, PRO; Sargent minute, 26 Nov. 1934, FO 371 18461, PRO. Cf. Ormos, , Meré nylet Marseille-ben, pp. 186–7, and (Eckhardt, op. cit., pp. 154–3.Google Scholar

⁶¹ The texts of the Yugoslav request (under Article XI, para. 2) and the memorandumwere printed in League of Nations, Official Journal (hereafter cited as LNOJ), xv (1934),1765–6, 1772–1828.

⁶² Ibid., p. 1768. Cf. Eckhardt, , op. cit., pp. 153, 155–63;Google ScholarAloisi, , op. cit., pp. 230–1Google Scholar; Ramsay, (Budapest) to F.O., 23 11. 1934, FO 371/18461, PRO. Eckhardt concurrently engaged in a personal vendetta against Benes by insisting to Avenol that the Czech foreign minister would have to resign his presidency of Council since he had taken sides in the quarrel (see the exchange of communications in file Pol/1/14965/14883, League of Nations Archives, and Eckhardt, op. cit., pp. 149, 156).Google Scholar

⁶³ Szabó report from Rome, 23 11. 1934, YKF 1934, Hungarian Military Archives; Wettstein (Prague) to foreign ministry. 23 Nov. 1934, K63/245/P0I. 1934. Hungarian Diplomatic Archives.

⁶⁴ Patteson, (Geneva) to F.O., 23 September. 1934, FO 371/18461, PRO. oGoogle Scholar

⁶⁵ Murray, (Rome) to F.O., 24, 25 and 26 September. 1934, FO 371/18461, PRO. After seeing Mussolini, Chambrun explained the impasse to Murray: In a wav, the French and Italian governments each found themselves in a very similar situation. As things were the French could not conclude an entente with Italy without appearing to abandon the Yugoslavs and thus throw them into the arms of Germany which incidentally was the last thing the Italians wanted and this [Chambrun] thought Signor Mussolini appreciated. Italians for their part could not reach a detente in their relations with the Yugoslavs which was a necessary condition of a Franco-Italian agreement without appearing to throw the Hungarians to the wolves and this [Chambrun] realised Signor Mussolini could not and would not do'(Murray to F.O., 27 Nov. 1934, FO 371/18461, PRO).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Masirevich, (Berlin) to foreign ministry, 27 September. 1934Google Scholar, K63/256/P0I. 1934. Archives, Hungarian DiplomaticPhipps (Berlin) to F.O., 29 11. 1934Google Scholar, FO371/18462, PRO; Documents on German Foreign Policy, C, Series vol. III, no. 354.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Simon to Cowan (Belgrade), 26 11. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/18461, PRO: Simon to Eden, Sargent, and Vansittart, 26 Nov. 1934, FO800/289, PRO; MacDonald record of conversation, 1 Dec. 1934, FO 800/289, PRO. Concurrent press reports that differences of opinion had narisen on the proper course of action, with MacDonald recommending that the Council, after the report of a small committee of inquiry, should at its January meeting adopt a broad and vague condemnation of terrorism, and Paul pleading on political grounds for more forceful action against Hungary, were dismissed by the Minister, Prime as totally false (see News Chronicle and Daily Herald, 1 12. 1934).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Campbell, (Paris) to F.O., 29 11. 1934. FO 371/18461, and 3 Dec. 1934, FO 371/18462, PRO; Morning Post, 3 Dec. 1934.)Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ramsay (Budapest) to F.O., 30 11. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/18462, and 1 Dec. 1934, FO 371/18463, PRO; reports from Bucharest to Hungarian defence ministry, 11 and 14 Dec. 1934, VKF 1934, Archives, Hungarian Military, Ormos, , Merenylet Marseille-ben, pp. 188–9.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Cowan, (Belgrade) to F.O., 2 December. 1934Google Scholar, FO 371/18462, PRO. Cf. Eckhardt, op. cit., p. 172.71Google Scholar

⁷¹ Aloisi, , op. cit. p. 232;Google ScholarNándori, , op. cit., p. 197Google Scholar; Eckhardt, , op. cit., pp. 173–4. The French journalist Geneviéve Tabouis confided to Eckhardt that she had studied the testimonies of the accomplices and concluded that they had no foreknowledge of the plot while in Hungary. She asked Eckhardt,'Must you be that loyal to Italy?'(Eckhardt, op. cit., pp. 185–6).Google Scholar

⁷² Aloisi, , op. cit., p. 232Google Scholar; Eckhardt, , op. cit., pp. 174–6Google Scholar; Beck, Colonel Joseph, Dernier rapport: politique polonaise 1926–1939 (Neuchatel: La Baconniere, 1951), p. 84.Google Scholar

⁷³ Ormos, , Merénylet Marseille-ben, p. 194Google Scholar; Aloisi, , op. cit., p. 233Google Scholar; Karsai, , op. cit., p. 259.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Walters, to Avenol, 4 12. 1934Google Scholar, Pol./1/11586/11208, League of Nations Archives. Walters, Frank P.wrote an account of the Marseille crisis in A History of the League of Nations (London: Oxford University Press, 1952), 11, 599–605.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Patteson, (Geneva) to F.O., 5 12. 1934, FO 371/18462, PRO; Drummond (Rome) to F.O., 6 Dec. 1934, FO 371/18462, PRO. Titulescu reported to Bucharest on December 6:'Before my departure from Geneva an agreement had been reached that Spain would be the rapporteur in the affair, but I have found on my arrival that England would be the rapporteur. Upon enquiring about the reasons for the change, I was told that it was so decided in London on the occasion of the visit of Prince Paul. We should not conceal from ourselves that England would rather be an arbiter than a rapporteur. The French claim that Eden has told them that some sort of satisfaction must be given to Yugoslavia. We wilsee what these measures will consist of (Nicolae Titulescu: Documente Diplomatic/, pp. 587–8).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Aloisi, op. cit., p. 233Google Scholar; Eckhardt, op. tit., pp. 187–8. On 7 12. Ramsay reported Hungary's urging that the Great Powers act in concert to restrain the Yugoslavs from aggressive acts, but Sargent minuted that 'until they have succeeded in clearing themselves of this accusation, they would be well advised to keep their mouths shut on the subject of Yugoslav "aggression"", and Vansittart agreed to ignore the message (FO 371/18462, PRO).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Malley, O' and Sargent minutes, 7. 1934, FO 371/18462, PRO; report from military attaché (Bucharest) to ministry of defence, 5 Dei. 1934, VKF 1934, Hungarian Military Archives.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Bakách-Bessenyei (foreign ministry) to defence ministry, 11 Dec. 1934, VKF 1934, B Hungarian Military Archives. Indeed, upon hearing of the compromise achieved at the League on December 10, Mussolini reportedly voiced regret on the grounds that such an advantageous military position would not soon recur (see Nandori, op. cit., pp. 194–5)Aloisi, op. cit., pp. 233–4.

⁷⁹ Aloisi, , op. cit., pp. 233–4.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Ibid., p. 234; Eckhardt, , op. cit., p. 190Google Scholar; Strang report to Malley, O’, 12 12. 1934, FO 371/18463, PRO. The record of the Council debates on 7, 8 and 10 Dec. can be found in in LNOJ (xv), 1712–60.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Minuted Sargent on 10 Dec: 'M. Laval, has done a serious disservice to the League. I hope he will redeem his fault by helping to find the usual "formula" which will save everyone's face including that of the League’ (FO 371/18462, PRO). Cf. Nicolae Titulescu: Documente Diplomatice, p. 558.Google Scholar

⁸² Eden, op. cit., p. 114.Google Scholar

⁸³ See Ibid., p. 115.

⁸⁴ Ibid.; Strang report, lot. cit.

⁸⁵ Aloisi, , op. cit., p. 235Google Scholar; Eckhardt, , op. cit., pp. 204–5; LNOJ (xv), 1829–38.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ report, Strang lot. tit.Google Scholar; Henderson (Belgrade) to Vansittart, 10 December. 1934, FO/800/267, PRO; Henderson to F.O., 11 Dec. 1934, FO 371/18463, PRO. U.S. diplomatic sources also indicated the threat of a coup by Zivkovic and the intrigues against Jevtic in Belgrade (see James Steven Patv, Hungary, the League of Nations and the Assassination of King Alexander of Yugoslavia: A Study of the Resolution of an International Political Crisis, unpublished doctoral dissertation, The American University, Washington D.C 1970, pp. 177–9. 230.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Eden, op. tit., p. 116Google Scholar; report, Strang, loc. cit.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Aloisi, op. cit., p. 236Google Scholar; Eckhardt, , op. tit., pp. 210–11Google Scholar. The Little Entente, according to Eckhardt, resorted to a variety of tactics to weaken Hungary's bargaining position: The

⁸⁹ report, Strang loc. cit.Google Scholar; Eden, , op. cit., pp. 116–17Google Scholar; Eckhardt, op. cit., p. 213.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Patteson, (Geneva) to F.O., 9 December. 1934, FO 371/18462, PRO.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Eden, , op. cit., p. 117.Google Scholar

⁹² report, Strang loc. cit.Google Scholar; Eden, , op. cit., p. 118Google Scholar; Horthy, NicholasMemoirs (London: Hutchinson, 1956), p. 142.Google Scholar Cf. Ormos, Mer é nylet Marseille-ben, p. 197.Google Scholar

⁹³ See Eckhardt, op. cit., pp. 216–26.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ report, Strang, loc. cit.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Ibid.; Eden, op. cit., pp. 118–19Google Scholar; Ormos, , Merénylet Marseille-ben, pp. 197–8Google Scholar; Eckhardt, , op. cit., pp. 226–7Google Scholar; Aloisi, , op. cit., pp. 236–7Google Scholar; Walters, , op. cit., p. 603.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ report, Strang, loc. cit.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Daily Mail, 12 December. 1934.

⁹⁸ Appendix, (19 12. 1934)Google Scholar to K63/6981/P0I. 1934, Hungarian Diplomatic Archives; Ramsay, (Budapest) to F.O., 18 12. 1934, FO 371/18464, PRO.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Henderson, (Belgrade) to F.O., 18 12. 1934, FO 371/18464, PRO; Hungarian Minister (London) to F.O., 19 Dec. 1934, FO 371/18464, PRO; Hungarian military attaché (Paris) to defence ministry, 19 Dec. 1934, VKF 1934, Hungarian Military Archives.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ See Aloisi, , op. cit., pp. 237–9Google Scholar; Clerk, (Paris) to F.O., 13 12. 1934, FO 371/18390, PRO; Drummond (Rome) to Simon, 13 and 14 Dec. 1934, FO 371/18390, PRO; resume of Franco-British discussions 22 Dec. 1934, FO 371/18490, PRO.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See Documents on German Foreign Policy, C, Series vol. III, nos. 408, 418, 423Google Scholar, and Count Louis Charles Pineton de Chambrun Traditions et souvenirs (Paris: Flammarion, 1952), pp. 192–7, 208–9.Google Scholar

¹⁰² See Hoptner, op. cit., pp. 30–1Google Scholar, and Aloisi, , op. tit., pp. 245–7.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ memorandum, Hory, 15 06. 1935, K63/179/P0I. 1935, Hungarian Diplomatic Archives.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ LNOJ, XV! (1935), 277–91, and annexes, pp. 292–408. Cf. Ormos, Merénylet Marseille-ben, pp. 200–3.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Aloisi, op. cit., pp. 248–52Google Scholar; Karsai, op. cit., pp. 260–1.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ LNOJ, xvi (1935), pp. 650–1, 837–82; Aloisi, , op. cit., p. 275.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ See Pacy, op. cit., pp. 267–317.Google Scholar Also relevant are the work of G éza Cserenyey, The Assassination of King Alexander of Yugoslavia and the Political Background of the Crime, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of London, 1954, and two journalistic accounts, Roger Colombani and Jean-René Laplayne, La mort d'un roi: La vérit ésur I'assassinat d'Alexandre de Yougoslavie, (Paris: Albin Michel, 1971)Google Scholar, and Roberts, AllenThe Turning Point: The Assassination of Louis Barthou and King Alexander I of Yugoslavia (New York: St Martin's, 1970).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ See for instance Salvemini, , op. cit., pp. 168, 171, 178Google Scholar; Milićević, VladetaDer Konigsmord von Marseille (Bad Godesberg: Hohwacht, 1959), pp. 25, 52–3Google Scholar; Paul-Boncour, J.Entre deux guerres (Paris: Plon, 1946), III, 22–7Google Scholar; Fotić, , op. cit., p. 9Google Scholar; Conti, ClaraServizio Segreto (Roma: De Luigi, 1946), pp. 15–17, 20–1, 126–8Google Scholar; Italy, Alta Corte di Giustizia, II processo Roatta: I documenti (Roma: De Luigi, 1945), pp 10, 1, 44–6, 103, 183; Belin, Jean, My Work at the Sureté (London: Harrap, 1950), p. 164Google Scholar; Ormos, , Merénylet Marseille-ben, pp. 31–42, 69–70Google Scholar; Nándori, , op. cit., pp. 78–85, 165–81Google Scholar; Eduard Benes Memoirs (London: Allen & Unwin, 1954), p. 11.Google Scholar Evidence purporting to demonstrate German sponsorship has been given little credence by historians: see Annelie and Andrew Thorndike and Karl Raddatz, Unternehmen Teutonschwerl (Berlin: Verlag des Ministeriums fiir Nationale Verteidigung, 1959); Ormos, , Merenylet Marseille-ben, pp. 35–40Google Scholar; Papasissis, ThemistoklesDer Konig muss sterben (Berlin: Heinrich Bar Verlag, n.d), pp. 77–82Google Scholar; Macartney, C. A. and Palmer, A. W.Independent Eastern Europe (London: Macmillan, 1962), p. 327Google Scholar, n. 3.

¹⁰⁹ Compton Mackenzie, Dr. Benes (London: Harrap, 1946), p. 332.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Eden, , op. cit., p. 113.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Ibid., p. 119.

¹¹² Drummond (Rome) to Simon, 13 Dec. 1934, FO 371/18390, PRO; Eden, , op. cit., p. 119Google Scholar; Fotić, , op. cit., p. 10.Google Scholar

¹¹³ See the two exhaustive studies by Barros, JamesThe Corfu Incident of 1923 Mussolini and the League of Satwns (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965), and The League of Nations and the Great Powers: The Greek-Bulgarian Incident, 79:25 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1970).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Hugh Seton-Watson, Eastern Europe Between the Wars, 1918–1941, 3rd edn (Hamden, Conn.: Archon, . 1962), pp. 377–8.Google Scholar