The stalinist blockade that went awry.

[Gerald The Herald]

I am, of course, referring to the famed Berlin Blockade of 1948-1949 which encompassed 10 months of practical siege as Soviet troops blockaded all food and supplies from entering the then trizonate Allied Occupied zone of West Berlin. I'm quite certain that we're all familiar with the tale of how the Allies airlifted supplies on a daily basis to tide the city over, of the underlying economic and political reasons as to why Stalin imposed the blockade.

However (and I've never really been clear on this ), how far do you guys agree that the blockade was a failure/ success?

Was it merely a botched attempt by Stalin to get the Allies to leave Berlin in order to achieve an ideological victory or did Stalin intend to gain more than the entire capitol city of his hated fiend?

[Genius of the Restoration]

Is there something distinctly Stalinist about the blockade? Or do you call it Stalinist because it was by the Soviets under Stalin, which seems a bit self-evident. It'd be like calling Nineteen Eighty-Four Orwellian.

I can't answer your questions because I don't know enough about it, but I'm curious about what you meant by the thread title, if anything

[Amagi]

Please consider- apart of the blocade- that Stalin already in 1952 offered the total reunification of germany- including the untill this day occupied territories of the (still existing) german Reich in the east.

Stalin´s core demand was, that germany must not be part of a western military alliance ultimately directed against the soviet Union (NATO).

The german government- lead by the traitor Adenauer- refused, serving it´s western masters.
This is an aspect you should consider here.

I am no friend of stalin, for sure not, but he offered total re-unification of germany. An idea, which was suppressed and sabotaged by the west till 1989/1990. And still is incomplete.Having that nasty little aspect of the western powers in mind, I view the blocade with a little different feelings than the usual "good western allies helping the suppressed germans"...
The germans were supressed by all powers- and are still put down till today. Deprived of their souvereignity, deprived of a big chunk of their legal territories, their patents worth thousands of billions of dollars stolen, and denied a truthful examination of the true causes and realities of WW2.

And this suppression stems from the "allies", not the russians.
I see the break of the blocade with mixed feelings. For sure I do not see it as an "selfless act" by the allies.

[Visna]

Please consider- apart of the blocade- that Stalin already in 1952 offered the total reunification of germany- including the untill this day occupied territories of the (still existing) german Reich in the east.

Stalin´s core demand was, that germany must not be part of a western military alliance ultimately directed against the soviet Union (NATO).

The german government- lead by the traitor Adenauer- refused, serving it´s western masters.
This is an aspect you should consider here.

I am no friend of stalin, for sure not, but he offered total re-unification of germany. An idea, which was suppressed and sabotaged by the west till 1989/1990. And still is incomplete.

The Berlin blockade was long since over by 1952, so why you bring up Stalin's offer is a bit of a mystery to me. Why you appearantly see Stalin's offer as genunine and benign is an even greater mystery. Oh well, I usually like being surprised, so I suppose I could learn to live with it. Amagi seeing Stalin as a trustworthy true friend. It's... mindboggling.

Having that nasty little aspect of the western powers in mind, I view the blocade with a little different feelings than the usual "good western allies helping the suppressed germans"...
The germans were supressed by all powers- and are still put down till today. Deprived of their souvereignity, deprived of a big chunk of their legal territories, their patents worth thousands of billions of dollars stolen, and denied a truthful examination of the true causes and realities of WW2.

If anyone has gone beyond the call of duty so to speak to come to terms with some of the more ugly parts of their history it's the Germans imo. Which in a way makes them winners rather than the poor oppressed losers you seem to like portraying them as. But that's not so surprising, so let's move on.

And this suppression stems from the "allies", not the russians.
I see the break of the blocade with mixed feelings. For sure I do not see it as an "selfless act" by the allies.

Ah, surprised again.
Very few acts in international relations are selfless. Surprised you didn't know that.
Everyone was paranoid during the Cold War, and the western allies acted just in tune with the zeitgeist at the time that the Soviets were not to be trusted. And Stalin's proposal which the western allies rejected, which in turn lead to the blockade, which in turn lead to the airlift would efffectively have put all of Berlin under Soviet control. Surely not something you would see as desirable, or...? That's the bad part about being surprised, you risk being confused as well.

[Amagi]

The Berlin blockade was long since over by 1952, so why you bring up Stalin's offer is a bit of a mystery to me. Why you appearantly see Stalin's offer as genunine and benign is an even greater mystery.

He offered total reunification of all german territories. Fact.

Amagi seeing Stalin as a trustworthy true friend. It's... mindboggling.

Dont overdose your hyperbole.

If anyone has gone beyond the call of duty so to speak to come to terms with some of the more ugly parts of their history it's the Germans imo. Which in a way makes them winners rather than the poor oppressed losers you seem to like portraying them as.

Intimidated self loathing do-gooders, who find joy in self flagellation can hardly be considered "winners".

Very few acts in international relations are selfless. Surprised you didn't know that.

Don´t overdose your hyperbole.

... which in turn lead to the airlift would efffectively have put all of Berlin under Soviet control. Surely not something you would see as desirable, or...? That's the bad part about being surprised, you risk being confused as well.

Don´t overdose your hyperbole.

[Visna]

He offered total reunification of all german territories. Fact.

I'm not disputing that he did. I'm disputing your appearant idea that he could be trusted to have friendly intentions.
Apart from that I'm wondering what your opinion is on the Soviet proposal that all of Berlin should be supplied with food and fuel purely from the Soviet zone of occupation, a move which practically would have put all of Berlin under Soviet control. Since it was the rejection of that "offer" which lead to the blockade. Or have we not yet gotten to the point where you inform me on how mistaken I am in my general view of the events, and present me with an elaborate exercise in mental gymnastics on what really happened?

Dont overdose your hyperbole.

To overdose or hyperbole? The agony of choice.

[René Artois]

Please consider- apart of the blocade- that Stalin already in 1952 offered the total reunification of germany- including the untill this day occupied territories of the (still existing) german Reich in the east.

Stalin´s core demand was, that germany must not be part of a western military alliance ultimately directed against the soviet Union (NATO).

The german government- lead by the traitor Adenauer- refused, serving it´s western masters.
This is an aspect you should consider here.

I am no friend of stalin, for sure not, but he offered total re-unification of germany.

A reunification of Germany, a bit like how he "liberated" Poland?

[intel]

How about a decent answer to Visna, amagi? Like one that does not limit itself to pointless one-liners?

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

How about a decent answer to Visna, amagi? Like one that does not limit itself to pointless one-liners?

You know amagi is incapable of answering correctly, and I'm sure Visna is some pawn in the zionist plot to keep the white man down.

[conon394]

including the untill this day occupied territories of the (still existing) german Reich in the east.

What everything inside of the Brest Litovsk Line perhaps?

But in any case I don't understand your assertion - Stalin was offering a unification of what was occupied post war Germany - but no roll back of the war time Potsdam accord. Austria would remain separate, as would Poland and Czechoslovakia and I see nothing in the offer that suggests Russia was going to hand over Kaliningrad Oblast for example (as that was part of Potsdam) - So I don't really see you point here. The FRG and GDR might have been reunified earlier, but would have likely been more economically and politically isolated in the world and overall less well off.

For example as I understand the First Note (and its drafts and Soviet record) imply Germany would not be allowed in say the not military European Coal and Steel Union, but would still have been on the hook for all of Stalin's desired reparations.[*]



*Stalin and German Reunification: Archival Evidence on Soviet Foreign Policy in Spring 1952 Gerhard Wettig Source: The Historical Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Jun., 1994), pp. 411-419

The most recent treatment I found of the issue – but of course I’m sure its just an apology for Adenauer and the US and UK… right Amagi?

(edit - still a bit long in the tooth but I find it cited authoritatively as late as the mid 2000's so there does not seem to been a recent contradictory evidence emerging from Soviet archives)

[conon394]

Again I just want to point out he did nothing of the sort Amagi is deluded

He offered total reunification of all german territories. Fact.

that Stalin already in 1952 offered the total reunification of germany- including the untill this day occupied territories of the (still existing) german Reich in the east.

Stalin offed up the unification of the allied occupation zones of post war Germany - certainly no territorial adjustments that Stalin (or the western allies) made under Potsdam were up for question or alteration.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Again I just want to point out he did nothing of the sort Amagi is deluded

Stalin offed up the unification of the allied occupation zones of post war Germany - certainly no territorial adjustments that Stalin (or the western allies) made under Potsdam were up for question or alteration.

Bah, zionist lies! I can produce an obscure website with questionable motives that proves otherwise!

[conon394]

Bah, zionist lies! I can produce an obscure website with questionable motives that proves otherwise!

Yes no doubt only Stalin saw through the Zionist/Polish (brutal initiators of WW2)/Adenauer(not quite sure whose puppet, but he must have been some ones)/US plot to oppress Germany, by making West Germany wealthy and democratic and free of the kind of Stalinist development like what one could bask in in North Korea or Albania.

edit (back to Amagi)

It seems difficult to argue the West sabotaged reunification since it was the start of the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact that opened the way for reunification not the collapse of NATO and the US.

[Amagi]

Thatcher and Kohl 'Quarreled Terribly'
In a conversation with SPIEGEL, former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas, 87, discusses Margaret Thatcher's resistance to German reunification and initial misgivings of his own boss, French President Francois Mitterand.
Editor's note: Documents released Thursday by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office illustrate how Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a bitter opponent of German reunification, insisted that her government resist the historic development. The 500-page collection of long-secret letters and memos about the reunification process date to between April 1989 and November 1990. They show that the British government played a far more constructive role in German reunification than had been previously thought. Only Thatcher had serious doubts about the change.
You can also read an interview with Sir Christopher Mallaby, Britain's ambassador to Germany from 1988 to 1992 about Thatcher's role in reunification and her tense relationship with Chancellor Helmut Kohl.
SPIEGEL: In his notes and protocols, Charles Powell, former foreign policy advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, relates a meeting with Francois Mitterrand on Jan. 20, 1990. The French president supposedly said during this encounter that if East and West Germany were to reunite, Germans could "win more territory than they ever had under Hitler." Is the quotation a real one?


Dumas: I myself wasn't present at the Elysee (Palace). But as far as President Mitterrand's fundamental position is concerned, I can officially rebut this -- it doesn't fit at all to his atttitude to reunification as I observed it. The quotation seems to me exaggerated, crude and unlikely. That's my word against Mr. Powell's. SPIEGEL: He describes Mitterrand, in light of the approaching German reunification, as "a person in a state of panic."
Dumas: There wasn't any panic. But the discussions with (then German Chancellor) Helmut Kohl were open, direct and sometimes brutal, especially from Madame Thatcher's side -- but the German chancellor wasn't easy either. Even if Mitterrand fostered a certain degree of mistrust, it was at most a 100th of what Thatcher was saying about Kohl. At the December 1989 European Union summit in Strasbourg, Mitterrand had to draw on all his abilities to mediate between the British prime minister and the chancellor. I observed incredibly inappropriate comments toward the German chancellor on Thatcher's part. They quarreled terribly.
SPIEGEL: Mitterrand is said even to have offered a new "entente cordiale," an alliance to keep the Germans in check.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...648927,00.html


By accepting Stalin´s offer, germany would have had the chance to develop into a neutral buffer state between the east and the west. Pretty much like turkey presents the bridge head between asia and europe/ the christian world and the muslim world today. Assuming, there was some fairness on side of the russians and allies of course. But what is a fact is, that there would have been no disrupted families, no deadly shootings on the Berlin wall and no two german states splinting the germans till this day.

Do I assume that stalin did offer this reunification out of kidness? For sure not.

The role of the "good allies"?
Both blocks, the west and the east crushed the germans, starved them to death in the Rhine meadows, looted, raped and pillaged the country, both sides explooited the germans as slave workers by the millions (GB,F, and the USSR), put them down for almost 5 decades (and by more sophisticated means till this day), robbed, starved and defamed them.
So when it is up to me to decide which side was the one to be more trusted, my only answer could be: None of them. It´s like a choice between pest and cholera.
But the russian offer of early complete re-unification would have served the germans better than following allied calls. I prefer a souvereign buffer state over a divided people living in 2 state fragments under foreign rules, but that´s just me.

The east germans could have been spared soviet rule, and the west germans would have been spared the allied boot in their neck and psychological warfare waged against them till this day.Also the note included a peace treaty, something the germans still dream of today...

[Amagi]

double post.

[Mr Tom]

Except time and again the West Germans presented themselves at best as problematic allies for the US so the usage of the term 'allied boot in their neck' is misguided.

Secondly at what point did we deliberately starve out the Germans post war?; simple answer here, we didn't.

Stalin never wanted a completely neutral Germany, what he wanted from the re-unification was to do yet more asset stripping and then establish a pro-Soviet but outwardly neutral German state. He would never have agreed at that point to German reunification if it meant, letting the Germans have the Marshal Aid that was offered out.

[Amagi]

Secondly at what point did we deliberately starve out the Germans post war?; simple answer here, we didn't.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Eisenhower's Holocaust - His Slaughter Of 1.7 Million Germans

http://www.rense.com/general46/germ.htm

[Pontifex Maximus]

Please remember off topic posting is against the rules, and that includes making personal references and insulting other members.

[conon394]

Amagi

Well at least you are consistent.
I should have known Ike the mass murdering German hater would show up…

In post #17 you are of course pointing to the work James Bacque in the article posted (and later turned into the book ‘Other Losses’)

Problem is of course Bacque work is riddled with errors and in particular his interpretation of the term Other Losses-> Dead is simply not tenable.

Anyone interested can a find a book length refutation of Bacque’s work here:

http://www.amazon.com/Eisenhower-Ger.../dp/0807117587

You can find a short discussion here (toward the bottom):

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP13.HTM#5

I imagine Amagi will raise the specter of bias toward Ambrose and the panel discussions that formed the bases of the book I site were funded by the Eisenhower foundation.

So consider the view of a disinterested observer discussing the difficult question of WW2 history and death counts…

http://books.google.com/books?id=0K1...ercies&f=false

[This should be the page otherwise Nanking: anatomy of an atrocity pg284]

Masahiro Yamamoto’s revisionist look at the Nanking Massacre has been very much better received upon review than Bacque. I must stress here I don’t really want to go OT and discuss Nanking or even suggest any opinion about the Book in question with respect to Nanking … my point in citing MY is that he is a revisionist (thought as far as I can tell not in the fringe that Amagi likes*) and has no dog if you will in the fight about Ike and even he sees the response to Bacque as complete and effective.

Look clearly the US could have performed better (the British did) but in aggregate a fair look at the evidence shows the US and UK did the best at minimizing POW deaths of all the combatants the UK at a 1% death rate and the US at 2%. [after a HDD failure my references are disarray but I will find my source for this as time allows]. Rather than millions of German dead POWs the likely figure is ~50-80,000 and certainly more or less the result of poor planning and decisions for example to not favor the rations of German soldiers over civilians (thus part of the non-POW classification).

All in all perhaps one of most thoughtful looks at the debate can be found here

Essay and Reflection: On the "Other Losses" Debate Author(s): S. P. MacKenzie The International History Review, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Nov., 1992), pp. 717-731

----

In any case…

But what is a fact is, that there would have been no disrupted families, no deadly shootings on the Berlin wall and no two german states splinting the germans till this day.

Of course those things were all with in the power of the nation you suggest to trust absolutely on the reunification offer to end. As far as I know NATO troops were not shooting people coming over the wall not did they build their own to keep the drove of Europeans who wanted to live in the USSR away.

Second you still have failed to answer my earlier question – you seem to suggest Stalin’s offer did more than simply reunify the occupation zones with comments like this…

including the untill this day occupied territories of the (still existing) german Reich in the east.

Stalin’s offer made no change to Potsdam – Germany was not going to be any more than it is now.

Moreover it was going to be a politically and economically isolated Germany not just militarily neutral

put them down for almost 5 decade

You know I’m really at loss here – let see West Germany circa say 1980/85: most powerful state in the EU, member of G8, with one of the best per captia GDP/total GDP in the world (especially when you eliminate the silliness of PPP), sure a bit behind the US but factor in health care, average life expectancy, crime rates, infant mortality or wealth/income inequality and honestly West Germany hardly looks to have been put down… But I guess maybe you mean not allowed to be putting a boot on some Polish or French or Russian necks,






* You can find a nice summary of revisionist work on Nanking in Japan with criticism and separating Yamamoto from more extreme fringe revisionists and against the CW and it origins and defenders here:

The Nanking Massacre: Now You See It, . . .
Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi Monumenta Nipponica, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Winter, 2001), pp. 521-544

[Amagi]

Conon, thanks for the lecture on japanese history, especially Nanking. But I know that massacre already in detail.

猿も木から落ちる, ね.

I have no problem with turning this into a discussion over allied warcrimes against post war germans. My rebuttal would include the work of Alfred Zayas and others, aswell as examples of GI eyewitness accounts and the other sources I am now too lazy to research for a sidequest in the thread.
The main point remains clear: The allies committed atrocities as did the soviets.
And you are right, I do not trust data funded by the "Eisenhower foundation".

I grant you a point +1 with regard to the Potsdam borders, as I typed out of memory I made a fault here.
Nonetheless I see no reason to change my main argument:
A unified neutral germany was to be prefered over 2 puppet regimes that in 1990 were merged into a single larger puppet regime- the Federal Republic of Germany (which modern uninformed germans even regard as the legal predecessor of the German Reich ).

The economical strength of the FRG you mentioned was based on the system of debt slavery that now bankrupts each and every country on the globe. It was the national socialist character of the german people combined with the boost of credit that made the german wonder possible. But its just the same as with every credit you take: It needs to be repaid with interest. As our Fiat currencies represent nothing but debt, germany - burdened with a debt of some 2 trillion now, is approaching financial collapse as every other nationstate these days does.

Before the war, germany was debt free and prospering- so prospering that the other nation states on the globe couldnt compete with her.

I see the airlift, as I stated before, on foremost as a tactical move by the allies, to profit of germany, to ever strangle a competitor, and to extract patents, technology and anything else of worth out of that vanquished nation (the german gold is located in NY by the way, if its still there, nobody knows).
And of course it was a nice PR stunt.

Dont want to negate the good intention of the pilots and GIs a.s.o.
But on highest levels that enterprise was waged for well calculated reasons.