3/0 FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1950, VOLUME I

661.00/8-2250 | ae
Memorandum by the Ambassador at Large (J essup) to the Deputy
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Matthews)

TOP SECRET [Wasuineton,] August 17, 1950.
Problem

To determine whether and, if so, when the U.S. should directly
charge the Soviet Union with the responsibility for the acts of its
satellites. |

Discussion

This problem has been the subject of considerable discussion in
the Department and also in the senior staff of the NSC. It has been
discussed with specific reference to the Korean question and more
broadly in terms of the examination of possible further aggressive
Soviet moves. |

Immediately after June 25 it was decided to avoid charging the
Soviet Union with responsibility in order to give them an opportunity —
to “call off the dog” in Korea without much loss of prestige. In retro-
spect this seems to have been a wise decision. The consideration which
Inspired it at the time does not, however, seem to have as much
validity under present circumstances. |

It is argued that the injury to U.S. prestige caused by the military
successes of the North Koreans might be mitigated, especially in
Asian eyes, if responsibility were placed squarely and openly on the
Soviet Union. We have moved in that direction through our state-
ments in the Security Council but we have not yet openly and flatly
charged the Soviet Union with responsibility. os

On the factual side, it is clear to us that the Soviet Union is respon-.
sible. From the propaganda point of view a sufficiently clear case of
_ responsibility could probably be made out. In anticipation of further
aggressions by satellites elsewhere on the periphery or in Berlin, it
is argued that it might have a deterrent effect if we announced in
advance that we would hold the Soviets responsible for attacks by its.
satellites. On the other hand, it is argued that if we make such a
charge we would have to dosomething aboutit. | 7

I suggest that we may be unduly sensitive on this last point. The
Soviets have charged us with aggression and seem to consider that a
normal part of the war of words. I do not think that we have to go
to war with the Soviet Union because we accuse them of aggression.
On the other hand, an accusation not followed by action might weaken
our position and the position of the U.N.