795.00/4–2851: Circular telegram
The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic Offices 1
651. At briefing mtg of reps of Govts participating in fighting in Korea, Apr 27, Merchant (FE) anticipated that group undoubtedly concerned by stories appearing in NY Times (Apr 26) and other papers on US policy re retaliatory bombing Manchuria. He assured group that story entirely unauthorized and that situation and policy on this question remain as we have stated before. Summarizing briefly, Merchant said UC policy remains that in event massive air attacks by enemy in Korea, US will endeavor consult with other nations participating in fighting in Korea as to steps which shld be taken to meet such attacks. UC must, however, note reservation that it is possible that enemy attacks might be of such magnitude and suddenness as to require immediate countermeasures not permitting consultation we wld like to have.
Merchant told group we always ready receive their views on this question and were prepared discuss it in group or privately at any time.
Group also informed that any decision to institute retaliatory bombing wld be made not in field but in Wash.2
- Sent to the Embassies in Wellington, Manila, Bangkok, Ankara, Canberra, Brussels, Ottawa, Paris, Capetown, London, Athens, The Hague, Luxembourg, and to the U.S. Mission at the United Nations.↩
- In discussing this subject with Mr. Colin Moodie, the Australian Chargé on April 30, Mr. Merchant made the further point that any retaliatory action would be directed only against the airfields from which the attacks were launched, since the United States was not thinking in terms of attacks on other targets in China (795.00/4–3051). See also the memorandum by Mr. Merchant, May 2, p. 399.↩