795.00/3–1054: Telegram

The Commander in Chief, Far East (Hull) to the Joint Chiefs of Staff

top secret
operational immediate

C 67435. Exclusive for Radford. Ref: [JCS] 958438.1

1.
I have obtained from Briggs copy of ltr from Pres Rhee to Pres Eisenhower dated 11 March.1
2.
I am convinced Pres Rhee and his mil leaders are well aware of the inevitable defeat of any unilateral effort on his part to atk Communists in order to unify Korea. Rhee has been informed that unilateral action would not be supported by the US with either troops or supplies. The ltr is therefore, in my opinion, strictly political in nature and designed for the purpose of obtaining additional commitments from the US.
3.
The first course of action desired by Pres Rhee is contrary to our policies. The alternative course would be beyond the capabilities of Korean manpower and economy and if ever achieved would encourage Rhee to believe he had the means successfully to undertake offensive action against North Korea.
4.
Both courses I consider completely unacceptable.
5.
I consider it equally unacceptable to permit Pres Rhee to think that we cannot enter the Geneva conf without ROK participation.
6.
Recommend that any reply contain the fol:
a.
Rejection of both his proposed alternatives and refusal to support either one.
b.
In the interests of a real effort to achieve agreements leading toward peaceful relations among nations, the Geneva conf must be held and should be attended by representatives of all govts concerned. In view of ROK deep concern in the matter, it is hoped that it will send its representatives. For it not to do so would not prevent the functioning of the conf, but would be an indication to Communist govts of a lack of solidarity among the free peoples and possible agreement on Korean affairs without participation of ROK representatives.
c.
The position of the US govt, should Pres Rhee decide to take unilateral action, must be once more clearly stated.
d.
In view of the mil implications of this problem, consideration might be given as to whether I should accompany Amb Briggs when he delivers ans to Pres Rhees ltr.2
  1. See footnote 1, supra .
  2. See footnote 1, supra .
  3. According to telegram 926 from Seoul, Mar. 22, 1954, Hull was not present when Eisenhower’s reply was delivered to Rhee; for text of telegram 926, see vol. xvi, p. 48. President Eisenhower’s reply to Rhee’s letter was transmitted in telegram 748, Mar. 20, and is printed ibid., p. 44.