Office of the Historian

795B.5/6–1951

The Secretary of State to the Secretary of Defense (Marshall)

top secret
Washington, June 19, 1951.

My Dear Mr. Secretary: The Department of State has been continuing its efforts to obtain additional ground force contingents from other United Nations members for service in Korea along the lines set forth in my letter to you of April 26 and previous correspondence.

In order to reinforce our own efforts by all available means, this Department intends to ask the Secretary General of the United Nations to address another appeal for contributions of ground forces to United Nations members that have not yet contributed armed forces in the Korean conflict. A copy of the Department’s proposed message to the Secretary General is attached.1

[Page 535]

You will note that the message requests that the appeal be sent only to those states that have not yet contributed armed forces. It was believed to be impractical to broaden this appeal to include a request for increased contributions from states already participating actively in the Korean conflict in view of the position taken by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries on the European continent should not be pressed to furnish additional troops. In Acting Secretary Lovett’s letter of March 31 it was stated that it would be desirable for the United Kingdom to increase its ground forces up to division strength if this result could be obtained without interference with North Atlantic Treaty Organization Schedules. In my letter to you of April 26, I requested the views of the Department of Defense on the question whether an increase in the United Kingdom contribution would now be possible under this condition.

In this connection the Department of State wishes to inquire whether it continues to be the view of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries on the European continent should not be pressed to furnish additional troops for use in Korea.

We should appreciate your views on this question as soon as may be convenient.

Sincerely yours,

Dean Acheson
  1. The text of the proposed message was the same as that embodied in telegram 964, June 5, to New York, p. 513.↩