Talk:Berlin Blockade

172

Sorry, I didn't see you were in the middle of making changes. Kingturtle 04:38, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

That's alright. I was more my fault, I think. Also, sorry for perhaps making changes that might've accidentally reverted some of your changes during the edit conflict. 172 04:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

still needed

Still missing from this article is how the Blockade took place. Who was put in charge of its oversight. How did it work? How was it enforced? When was it thought up? Kingturtle 04:44, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

There is an important give away in the statement' The Royal Airforce had already started flying in supplies' etc. This is important because in fact -although its not- asusual- mentioned here-it was the British who decided to start there own airlift because the Americans refused to believe it was possible and did not want to join in.Only pressure from the British -and the example they started made the Americans finally join in. Its worth also pointing out another thing connected to the cold war that it was the British who set up and planned the creation of NATO which the Americans wanted nothing to do with and opposed.Only great British pressure finally brought the Americans in. Both the Berlin Airlift and NATO were started and created by the British governments in the face of American hostility. Needless to say as usual they are both referred to as American in origin. Note I do not have the relevant political details to hand but they are all available in British government papers Winston1911 (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This article still needs a lot of work. I haven't gotten around to expanding upon this part yet. 172 04:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Is that all you are missing? Correct dates, references would be nice.

The RAF operations were code named; Operation Knicker, which was then enlarged to become Operation Carter Paterson (after a pre-war removal company - later merged with Pickfords) and this was then renamed Operation Plainfare. The RAF also used chartered civilian aircraft, such as Avro Tudors & Lancastrians, as well as Handley Page Halifax, Halton & its own Hastings transports, in fact, just about the entire UK air freight fleet. Most of the coal flown into Berlin was carried by the Yorks, as a result of which, when they were eventually scrapped in the 1960s-1970s upon breaking-up the breakers were puzzled to find coal dust everywhere.

Japan

(Stalin assumed that Japan and Germany could menace the Soviet Union once again by the 1960s.)

Do you have references? Japan did not menace the SU during WWII, at least openly. It was the SU who invaded the Sakhalins after the atom bomb.

Which was it? 2,245,315 tons or 2,325,809 tons of supplies? Both figures are given in the same paragraph. User:Karn March 6 2005

this has been changes to 2,500,000 and 2,350,000, but someone might want to make these the same if the know which one is correctsay1988 22:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Changed (along with flight numbers) to 2,326,406 from the Air Force's Berlin Airlift anniversary page [1] Mfv2 21:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

How many airplanes crashed?

Does anyone know how many airplanes crashed and how many servicemen died?

I've just seen the german movie "Die Luftbrücke - Nur der Himmel war frei" about the Berlin Airlift. Thanks to all our friends out there for making this possible! To answer part of your question: The movie states that 39 british soldiers, 31 americans and 8 germans died during the airlift. I assume this is accurate but don't take it for granted. Bluehorn 23:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Why did they crash? The article gives no explanation for this. Were they just routine aviation accidents? Were any ever fired on by Soviet forces? Other causes? This should be addressed in the article. Pimlottc 20:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I second this. How on Earth did they die? It doesn't make any mention of the circumstances at all. I'm sure they didn't just keel over one morning after the return fight.

: Most of the casualties were from crashes due to pilot error during takeoff or landing. Possibly poor trimming of the aircraft or in-flight shifting of cargo (an EXTREMELY deadly hazard, even today) Though it's possibly worth mentioning that there was more than one jeep/truck driver lost by driving directly into operating propellers (this evidence is from R. Miller's "To Save a City" an excellent read)

Agreements for access

http://homepages.stmartin.edu/Fac_Staff/rlangill/PLS%20310/Berlin%201948-%20Isaac.htm says that there were formal agreements about free access to Berlin, but the article states otherwise. Which is correct? FireWorks 08:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There were agreements for access into Berlin across Soviet occupied Germany, however only the air corridors were in writing. All other avenues of access (road, rail, and sea) were strictly verbal. This is a major issue because Stalin's disregard for verbal agreements showed a deterioration of Soviet cooperation, and a legal issue because, for the three years prior, land access had been allowed, setting a precedent that the Soviets were now ignoring. It also allowed the assumption that if Stalin was going to ignore verbal agreements, combined with Communist propaganda stating that the West nations were ignoring Potsdam agreements, Soviet disregard for written agreements would not be far off. Many sources discuss this in depth, a good one is Avi Shlaim, The United States and the Berlin Blockade, 1948-1949: A Study in Crisis Decision Making. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.219.36 (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Hump

I moved a bunch of details about Albert Wedemeyer into his article, since who he was airlifting supplies to in 1944 (etc) is not very relevant to the Berlin airlift. FireWorks 08:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I am putting them back. If the Hump had not been flown it is doubtful if the expertise would have existed to organize the Berlin airlift. That the major organizer of the Hump was assigned to same postion for the Berlin airlift is testament to that. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Berlin Food Drop ?

Who calls it the Berlin Food Drop ? The article needs improvement in this respect - the Berlin Airlift is the more usual term, I believe. In any event: (i) it wasn't just food - a lot of other items, such as coal was airlifted; and (ii) it wasn't a "drop" in the sense of an airdrop, the flights landed before unloading their goods.--jrleighton 01:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV violation?

It says "it was a terrible occasion", isn't that POV? 125.236.44.44 00:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

some twat has seriously messed with this page. can someone sort this?

Soviet Currency

There is no mention of the new Soviet currency. It is certainly worth mentioning that the Soviet Union put the blockade in place to win the race to introduce the new currency to Berlin... - Tom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.42.170 (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

My father being stationed in Frankfurt at the time, I recall it very well and yes, aircraft crashed. They used Tempelhof airport, which was inside Berlin and surrounded by buildings or wrecks of buildings. And Berlin is sometimes foggy. Plus it took a while until the authorities figured out that dust from flour and especially coal in gunny sacks wrecked aircraft systems. I remmember that at the time, cynics regarded it as one of those heaven-sent sudden PR opportunities, wildly propagandized, and more a p-ing contest with the Soviets and providing supplies to ourselves, the Allied Occupation Berlin garrisons, than to Berliners. I mean, post-war Occupation policy was the rigid control of supplies to Germans--to starve the people, force Germans into the mines as slave labor and steal their coal (France, GB), although by mid-1948 with the new currency, things were improving slightly. So--what was the Berlin Airlift cargo ratio between supplying the thousands of our own people stationed in Berlin compared to providing any supplies to Berliners--wasn't the Allied-imposed severe rationing still in effect? 72.81.16.200 01:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Small Berlin Blockade"

The article presently reads: During the earlier "Small Berlin Blockade" in early 1948 the British Air Commodore Rex Waite has been calculating over the required resources which did show that in the case of another blockade it would be possible to not only support his own troops but the whole city. What was this earlier blockade? 195.137.79.247 14:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The soviets left the control council on 20. March and starting 1. April 1948 the soviets started to stop and search vehicles passing through their sector. Other transport obstacles were created at will including road blocks on the borders. Starting 3. April the British and US troops increased air transport to their Berlin sites to get around the street transport bottleneck = the "Small Berlin Airlift". Guidod 01:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm Unacurate?

It says that WWII ended in 2007 and calls the Soviets "bamas" and the Westerns "punk bitches" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.96.115.64 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Biased?

Is this page on the Berlin Blockade biased? it doesn't say anything from the USSR's point of biew, and then it failed to mention that the RAF and the USAF was violating the sovereign airspace of the DDR, and in general made the Sovs sound like the bad guys.

• * * *

Hmmm, so are you asserting that by trying to deliberately starve the residents of Berlin the 'Sovs' were in fact the 'good guys' in this scenario, just so I know where you are coming from? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In response --

First off, the DDR did not exist at that point, German was still under four power occupation.

Seconly, under the terms of the occupation agreement, the Western Allies received air corridors to Berlin. So there was no violation of air space.

Thirdly, the Soviets were the bad guys. --Amcalabrese (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has always been POV and is nowadays discussed in every PR schoolbook along with open forums and massage boards. Thank to google language tools you can consume the propaganda from outside of the anglophone sphere, which in this case is the Russian language version of this article. 79.216.254.248 (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Chronology in Airlift-part

First talking about June 24, 25 then about July 27, afterwards (a following section), again about June 25... possible to make it in date-order?... Stephanvaningen 21:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Better leadoff image?

The map at the top of the article is great, it's one of the better bits of artwork on the wiki, IMHO. Buutt, maybe an image of a C-54 coming into Templehof might be more appropriate? Anyone have something suitable? Maury (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

I rolled this thing back about to weeks to cover off a string of improper edits over the last couple weeks. My apologies to anyone who made some proper edits that got wiped in the meantime. If anyone has the time to make a better job of it, go to it. Wiggy! (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Air traffic control

I noticed this sentence. "However, it must also be mentioned that it was Soviet personnel running the air traffic control towers on Tempelhof 24 hours per day." I can't find any references for it elsewhere. Can anyone clarfify this? It sounds a little fishy. Ozdaren (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I too am suspicious of this sentence. If it were true then the Soviets clearly missed an obvious way to scupper the airlift by withdrawing their controllers. It also seems highly unlikely that the US and British would allow Soviets to act as ATC on an airport where large numbers of military planes are landing. (I am also extra suspicious of sentences that start "it must also be mentioned that..." as they have usually been dropped in by editors who want to emphasize some point of view. I suggest we remove it pending a better reference. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like consensus to me: I've removed it. If anyone knows of a reference, do please re-add. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I found it in this book: Luc De Vos and Etienne Rooms, Het Belgisch buitenlands beleid: Geschiedenis en actoren, Acco, 2006. ISBN 90-334-5973-6. (that's why I added the reference in the first place). Mr. De Vos is an advisor on foreign policy of the Belgian Ministry of Exterior Affairs. He also is a professor at the Military Academy (Koninklijke Militaire School) and at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.144 (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My uncle was an RAF pilot during the Berlin Air Lift and he tells me "absolutely no way" was there any Russian involvement in the air traffic control system. The controllers he spoke to on the radio daily during his flights were British, American and German only. With all respect to M. De Vos and M. Rooms I suspect they may have heard about "There was an obstacle in the way on the approach to Tegel, however. A Soviet controlled radio tower caused problems with its proximity to the airfield. Pleas to remove it went unheard. Finally, on November 20, French General Jean Ganeval made a decision. If they would not take it down, he would simply blow it up. So, on December 16, the dynamite was used. The tower fell, and the obstacle was gone" and misunderstood what the Soviet radio tower's role was during the lift.

Can we please leave this comment out of the wiki article until any other citation can be found. It is such a remarkable and noteworthy prospect that it surely must have been recorded by someone's history of the lift 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The dynamite incident is described in Andrei Cherney's recent book "The Candy Bombers" which is a pretty good resource in general for anyone wanting to improve this article. 207.241.238.217 (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Report of decrease in tonnage delivered winter 1949 is misleading

The last paragraph of the Preparing for winter section reads, Weather improved, however. More than 171,000 tons were delivered in January 1949, but that figure fell to 152,000 tons in February. In March, the tonnage rose to 196,223. The drop in tons of supplies delivered in February is largely due to their being less days in that month than in January. The difference in the average daily delivery was only 87 tons (about 1.5% less than the daily average in January 1949). Sho222 (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Berlin Crisis of 1961

There is significant overlap of this article with a new article: Berlin Crisis of 1961 - Canglesea (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering a major rollback

I see that there has been a serious amount of clipping applied to this article, removing whole tracts of referenced materials that were completely germane to the story. Most, or all, of these were carried out by a number of anonymous editors, with no checkin notes. I see that a number of editors attempted to fight this off, but it seems the anon's persistence was the greater and now important parts of the story are missing.

I am seriously considering a major rollback. This will eliminate helpful edits as well, but I don't see any other recourse. Unless anyone can offer a strong reason not to return this article to its former state, I will likely do this this weekend. Comments?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I support whatever measures are necessary to restore the cited material. If someone wants to compare diffs, and try to restore the deleted material while keeping recent productive changes, that would be good, but it's obvously a lot of work (and beyond my time contraints). A wholesale revert would of course be much easier to carry out. Also, could we look into getting the article semi-protected? I gather multiple IPs were involved in the deletions, so IP range blocking would probably be a non-starter. - BillCJ (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm on a plane on Tuesday, perhaps I should just leave it if no one else wants to take a crack at it. The edits don't look like outright vandalism though, there definitely seems to be some logic to a group of them at least. Unfortunately there's no checkin notes, so I'm not sure what that logic is! Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's wasn't that hard. All fixed! Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Image

File:Wiesbaden C-54 1949.jpg

Wiesbaden Air Base after a snow fall in March 1949

Does anyone know either who uploaded the image or better where I can get a higher resolution see commons:Image_talk:Wiesbaden_C-54_1949.jpg I appreciate your help. thanx --Paddyez (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Vienna during the blockade

Another issue which needs to be considered alongside this topic is the issue of why the Russians didn't also blockade the western sectors of Vienna at the same time. The British, French, and American sectors of Vienna were deep inside Soviet occupied Eastern Austria just as West Berlin was deep inside Soviet occupied East Germany. Fears of a possible blockade of Vienna were raised in the British house of commons and the debates can be read in Hansard. Emergency contingency plans were put in place and although the Soviets never instigated a full blockjade of Vienna, there were neveretheless some disruptions during this period. Unlike with Tempelhof airport in West Berlin, there was no airport in the Western sectors of Vienna and metal landing mat was brought in as a contingency measure. See Vienna and The Third Man. David Tombe (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Airlift Movie

http://www.sevenoneinternational.com/fiction/eventsunlimited/content/00825/

Is this includable in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.80.38 (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

300 what?

it states in the article :

   'The airlift to supply the German 6th Army at Stalingrad required 300 tons per day and rarely came even close to delivering this; the Berlin 
   effort would require at least 5,000 tons a day'

It is not made clear what was required. HeymannM (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed it to 300 tons of supplies per day doesnt need to be any more exact for a comparison. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Telephone lines

What happened to telecommunications links between West Berlin and the outside world during the blockade. Did the Soviets try and cut the lines ? 213.40.112.15 (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Entry into NATO

The article currently states that "The blockade also created an increasing perception among many in Europe that the Soviets posed a danger, helping to prompt the entry into NATO of Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Luxemborg." I always thought all of these countries are founding members of NATO. Any thoughts? Yaan (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They were, but NATO didn't form until April 1949, in the last four weeks of the Blockade, which helped prompt their entry into NATO as original members.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

But it seems very strange to say that they decided to "enter" a non-existant (at the time of decision) organization. They founded NATO. Would you say the US at some point decided to enter NATO? And what about those countries that had been WEU members - certainly they did not need to be further convinced that the USSR posed a danger. If they did, what would have been the point of creating the WEU in the first place? Yaan (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Entry is non-exclusive -- it can be as a founder or later. In fact, most people entering into contracts, for instance, are original parties.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Capacity of C-82 and C-97?

The section "Aircraft used in the Berlin Airlift" uses the phrase "with a payload of 31 tonnes" in the context of the C-82 and the C-97. It is not completely clear which plane this refers to, but in any case it does not agree with either of the pages for these two aircraft. C-82 Packet gives a payload of around 19 (metric) tonnes, while C-97 Stratofreighter gives a number of around 17 tonnes.

What does the "31 tonnes" figure refer to? Molinari (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Unknown Casualty

The first line of the article, says that there was a Casualty. Who was it and Why? It would be great if someone could clarify that.

"The Berlin Blockade, also known as the "German hold-up" (24 June 1948 – 11 May 1949) was one of the first major international crises of the Cold War and the first cold war international crisis that resulted in a casualty. Lackett (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it means "casualties" (as in deaths) as there were several dozens. The German wikipedia article states 101 deaths (39 British 30 American, 13 German and others), citing page 108 f of Miller, Roger G. To Save a City: The Berlin Airlift 1948–1949. U. S. Government Printing Office. 1998-433-155/92107. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) (better direct download link from airforcehistory.hq.af.mil: [2], 9.8 megabytes, PDF format). The deaths are detailed on page 109. In any case I find it awkward to characterize the airlift in such a way in the lede but cannot think of alternative wording. 84user (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the first paragraph on page 113 provides a more impressive statement of the memorability of the airlift (and by a scholar no less). Maybe a good writer could work it in somehow? 84user (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Found this line under the "Blockade beginnings" section:

On June 24, the Soviets severed land and water communications between the non-Soviet zones and Berlin.[30] That same day, they halted all rail and barge traffic in and out of the vagina.[30]

Not sure what was supposed to go there but someone in the know might want to fix it. Luciphercolors (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just revert a change like that when you see it in the history. It was the last change in the article.

I think that the Berlin Blockade article must be used as an example for instruction in computer-related class curriculum used by some junior high schools. There is a large amount of kiddie-style vandalism in an article that likely wouldn't normally be on the radar for those users, barring its mention on American Idol or Rock of Love.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

West or East Berlin?

On June 18, the United States, Britain and France announced that, on June 21, the Deutsche Mark would be used, but the Soviets refused to permit its use as legal tender in Berlin.[28]

Can someone clarify this in the article? I assume it means "East Berlin", as the Soviets didn't have any direct control over the internal activities of West Berlin, correct? Tempshill (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding from reading the article is that technically, the city was still under joint control (for example, see the references to administration taking place in the Soviet zone, and those on elections), so presumably it was understood that all four sectors of Berlin should use the same currency. This would play in to the Soviet efforts to keep Germany impotent. --RealGrouchy (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit review

Great article, lots of interesting information. On reading it, I noticed the following minor areas for improvement. --RealGrouchy (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Clay" has not been introduced prior to the first reference to him in section 1.2, "The Soviet zone and Berlin access rights". His name is linked in two subsequent references.
• Section 2.1, "The Marshall Plan", contains undefined and non-linked references to "JCS 1067 and ... JCS 1779"
• Section 2.1, "Western Germany beginnings", refers to ""Bizonia".[11] (to be re-named the Trizone, when France would join it).", whereas the "Afterward" section (s.7) refers to it as "trizonia" (vs. "Trizone")
• The "Afterward" section ends with a link to what should be a reference(?)

Buzz

What is the meaning of to buzz? One of their favorite acts was for Soviet fighters to buzz the cargo aircraft. Albmont (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

To fly by kinda closely. Basically somewhat like the aerial version of someone riding your bumper and then passing you real fast. It's done basically to rattle the people you're "buzzing" and to show off. Whether it's a control tower, another aircraft, a ship, whatever. Sometimes it's used to intentionally provoke incidents, see the Hainan Island Indecent from 2001. Just watch Top Gun and you'll get an idea of it, as it's done several times in the movie. 68.157.21.233 (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Bad English

This article has a lot of poor English, partly because of over-literal translations from German. I am going to make a start on improving this state of affairs. APW (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet responses

...After a Soviet fighter buzzed a British passenger aircraft too closely, both aircraft crashed with a loss of 35 lives... There is no record of the incident. Pd69 (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I can find a reference to a collision between a Soviet fighter and a British Airliner, but the details are different:

"One serious warning was embedded within the April crisis that the Soviets did heed. On April 5 near Caton Airport, a Soviet Yak 3 lighter buzzed a British Viking airliner carrying ten passengers, hitting the British plane head on during a second pass; there were no survivors."

(To save a city: the Berlin airlift, 1948-1949 ISBN 9780890969670 p. 25)

The whole paragraph needs reworking and references. Hohum (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The collision occurred on April 5th, 1948, before airlift began, and it is already included in The April Crisis and the Little Air Lift section. Pd69 (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Pd69 (talk)

I have rewritten the paragraph and referenced it. Hohum (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Dylan kissed a guy"?

In the very first paragraph, there's a random "dylan kissed a guy." I guess I'll delete it. 98.233.36.255 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Poland's borders adjusted on Stalin's (unilateral) order?

While this section references the Yalta Conference, it describes the adjustment of Poland's borders as something "Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered." This makes it sound like a unilateral move by Stalin when it was also something agreed to at the Yalta Conference (if at Stalin's insistence). This should be altered to more accurate language. Any objections? 193.227.108.10 (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)