Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Central and Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

711.5622/4–2150: Telegram

The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Kirk) to the Secretary of State

restricted
priority

Moscow, April 21, 1950—2 p. m.

1193. Following is translation Soviet note April 21:¹

In reply to note of Government of USA April 18 this year, Government of USSR considers it necessary to state following:

As was already communicated in note of Soviet Government of April 11, the American airplane which violated Soviet frontier south of Libava (Lepaya) according to verified data, was a four-motored military airplane B–29 (“Flying Fortress”), which not only did not submit to demand of Soviet fighters to follow them for a landing at aerodrome but opened fire on Soviet airplanes. After the leading Soviet fighter was compelled to return fire, American airplane turned toward sea and disappeared.

Such are facts established by due verification.

In note of Government of USA of April 18, there is contained a series of proofless assertions which are refuted by accurately established facts.

In this note, for example, Government of USA asserts that only American military airplane which was in air in region of Baltic on April 8 was an airplane of the Naval Aviation of the USA of the type “Privateer”. However, it has been accurately ascertained that an airplane B–29 (“Flying Fortress”) with American identification signs was flying over Soviet territory south of Libava (Lepaya).

The Government of the USA declares that above-mentioned airplane supposedly did not violate Soviet frontier and was not armed. However, according to verified data at disposal of the Soviet Government an American airplane B–29 (“Flying Fortress”) on April 8 of this year violated the state frontier of the USSR in region of Libava, penetrating into territory of the USSR for 21 kilometers, and shot at Soviet fighters.

These facts fully refute statements of Government of USA both to effect that American airplane did not violate frontier of Soviet Union and to effect that it was allegedly unarmed.

In light of these facts the above indicated assertions of Government of USA cannot be assessed otherwise than as an attempt to evade responsibility for gross violation of international law.

In its note Government of USA also declares that it “demands that most strict and categorical instructions be issued to the Soviet Air Force”, to avoid repetition of incidents of similar kind, that the Soviet side should allegedly bear responsibility for the incident which did occur and that it should pay compensation for loss of American airplane.

Soviet Government cannot take under consideration above indicated demands, as clearly absurd and deprived of any foundation whatever.

It is not difficult to understand that any aviation of any country, under obligation to guard the inviolability of its frontiers, should conduct itself in exactly such a manner as Soviet aviation did, in a case of violation of the frontier of its country by a foreign plane.

Note of American Government confirms that the American airplane, which violated the frontier of the Soviet Union, was wrecked. Soviet Government has no data on this matter but if the American airplane was actually lost then responsibility for its loss rests exclusively on those gentlemen who obliged the American airplane to penetrate into Soviet territory to photograph Soviet defense installations and thereby pushed it into violation of international law and of the inviolability of Soviet frontiers.

As concerns instructions for Soviet aviators of which American note speaks, an appropriate instruction has already existed for a long time and needs no changes whatever. This instruction reads: On occasion of violation of the frontiers of USSR and penetration into Soviet territory by a foreign airplane, Soviet aviators are under obligation to compel it to land at a Soviet aerodrome and in case of resistance to open fire on it.

Finally the Soviet Government considers it necessary to direct special attention to fact that Government of USA, as may be judged by its note of April 18, in place of an objective answer to note of Government of USSR of April 11 is sheltering the unlawful actions of several of its subordinates who have stained themselves with gross violation of generally recognized standards in international law.²

In view of what has been stated, Soviet Government confirms its resolute protest to Government of USA against the gross violation of its frontiers by the American military airplane.

Kirk

1. At Minister of Foreign Affairs Vyshinsky’s request, Ambassador Kirk reported in his preceding telegram 1192 of April 21, he called at noon of this day and received the reply to the United States note of April 18. Vyshinsky summarized its contents for the Ambassador and said that the note would be published “late this afternoon” allowing time for its transmission to Washington. Ambassador Kirk observed that Vyshinsky was “calm, unruffled, not vindictive nor aggressive.” (711.5622/4–2150)
2. Senate Majority Leader Scott Lucas on April 19 had offered a Joint Resolution (S. J. Res. 166) for “the award posthumously of an appropriate decoration to the members of the crew of the United States Navy Privateer who lost their lives in or over the Baltic Sea while in the performance of duty.” The Senate accepted the resolution by a 66–0 vote. (711.5622/4–2050) The House of Representatives adopted it unanimously on April 21.