795.00/3–951
Memorandum by Bernard G. Bechhoefer of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs to the Officer in Charge of Korean Affairs (Emmons)
Subject: 16th Report of United Nations Command1
In accordance with our discussions, I telephoned Colonel Hutton2 this morning concerning the above matter and stated the Department [Page 222] position that the last three sentences of the draft 16th Report should be deleted. These sentences read as follows:
“The question of the recrossing of the 38th parallel continues to arouse public discussion. While President Truman has indicated that the crossing of that parallel is a military matter to be resolved in accordance with my best judgment as theater commander, I want to make it quite clear that if and when the issue actually rises I shall not arbitrarily exercise that authority if cogent political reasons against crossing are then advanced and there is any reasonable possibility that a limitation is to be placed thereon. Meanwhile I repeat that at this time the question is academic.”
I stated that the chief reason why the Department wished the deletion of these sentences was that the entire subject of the crossing of the 38th parallel has explosive possibilities. I pointed out that at the last meeting in the Department of State of the representatives of countries with military forces in Korea the foreign representatives spent most of their time dealing with this matter. I referred Colonel Hutton to Depcirtel 487 of February 183 which had been distributed in Defense and with which he was familiar.
I pointed out that the sentence in question could be construed to indicate that General MacArthur had the ultimate authority to make the political as well as the military decision. Even if General MacArthur had such authority, which has not yet been decided, it would be politically unwise to make such a suggestion at this time, especially when, as General MacArthur states, the question is academic.
Colonel Hutton pointed out that General MacArthur was voluntarily restricting his authority beyond that indicated in the Presidential statement. I agreed with Colonel Hutton that General MacArthur undoubtedly was making this statement with the best motives, but that I nevertheless felt that the General did not appreciate what the impact of his words would be.
I further suggested that this statement seemed to be in conflict at least with the spirit of the 9th and 10th paragraphs of the JCS letter on this subject4 which stressed the necessity of giving no indication to the enemy of our plans after the 38th parallel was reached. This statement indicates that we might hesitate before we plunge. I specifically stated of course that is a military and not a political consideration and I merely wanted to bring it to Colonel Hutton’s attention.
In past conversations, Colonel Hutton had indicated that it might [Page 223] not be too difficult to secure the deletion of these sentences. He was less reassuring in our discussion this morning. I therefore suggest that it would be advantageous for Mr. Rusk, or if he is not available, for Mr. Johnson to reinforce my suggestion at a higher level at the Pentagon. Since the suggested deletion will go out to General MacArthur on the “Telecon” this evening, it might be advantageous to telephone this afternoon.5
- The draft of General MacArthur’s 16th report covering the period Feb. 16–28 had been submitted but not yet cleared within the U.S. Government for publication by the United Nations.↩
- Col. Carl I. Hutton of the Office of the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army.↩
- Not printed; it was based upon and transmitted the information contained in telegram 719, February 17, to New York, p. 178.↩
- See the enclosure to the letter dated March 1 from Marshall to Acheson, p. 203.↩
- According to a memorandum of March 12 by Mr. Bechhoefer, no telephone call was felt to be necessary since the Defense Department’s outgoing message to General MacArthur set forth the Department of State’s position very forcefully. General MacArthur acquiesced in the requested deletions (795.00/3–1251) and the 16th report, as published on March 26, did not contain the sentences in question; the text of the report (U.N. document S/2053) is printed in Hearings, p. 3460.↩