![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Sorry, I didn't see you were in the middle of making changes. Kingturtle 04:38, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
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)
Is that all you are missing? Correct dates, references would be nice.
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
Does anyone know how many airplanes crashed and how many servicemen died?
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)
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)
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)
The idea of dropping coal from bombers appears in Leon Uris's novel "Armageddon," but only as an amusing and disastrous one-flight experiment. You can't dig coal with bayonets, and you can't usefully bomb it from Skymasters. It just goes all over the place, and ends up mostly as air pollution.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 21:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
I know what I'm going to do next - visit a bunch of talk pages linked to articles about serial killers and ask if they're biased because of not saying anything from the perps' point of view. 108.59.1.241 ( talk) 17:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
This is definitely biased, Miller's account of the origins of the blockade, which is cited in the beginning of this article, is known to be an ideologically motivated account attempting to establish US moral authority and demonize the Soviet Union without addressing competing viewpoints or criticisms of his perspective. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macp5 ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
There is significant overlap of this article with a new article: Berlin Crisis of 1961 - Canglesea ( talk) 14:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help) (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)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)
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)
An element of this story is that the Soviets were provided with their own set of printing plates for the Occupation's currency, a fact which is adduced in evidence in the ongoing controversy over whether the US Treasury Department official responsible was secretly a Communist. Be that as it may, the currency was nearly worthless, and the use of the new Deutschmark meant an end to the Soviets' financing their part of the Occupation with funnymoney, i.e. out of the pockets of the Geman consumer.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 21:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
All flying is done closely. Even if you take your hands off the controls, you're not going outside for a walk. You mean "flying kinda close."
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)
...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)
"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."
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)
The second paragraph reads "time span of one year that provided 13,000 tons of daily necessities such as fuel and food" implies that over one year and 200,000 flights, 13,000 tons were delivered. Perhaps this would read better as "time span of one year that provided up to 13,000 tons daily of necessities such as food and fuel". Just a suggestion. Panagea ( talk) 20:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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? Grjako ( talk) 08:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
There's no citation on this, so I can't see the point of having it in the article. It's a romantic thought but seems disconnected from hard reality, and again, no citation. 83.136.89.52 ( talk) 09:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Theres a photo of him here - > http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/BERLIN_A/BAPIC_77.HTM < I'm not sure if it can be used in Wikipedia. Can someone confirm? If we can use it, then it'll be great, seeing as the general did some daring stuff by blowing up a Soviet radio tower. Kbar64 ( talk) 15:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The following image might improve the article. ~ Fopam ( talk) 01:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I deleted "Events were turning against the Soviets". It feels like an unnecessary statement which is shown in the following sequence of event, and the rest of the section does a much better job showing that things weren't going well for the Soviets instead of a short blanket statement. Nerovingian ( talk) 16:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe a reference to the historical novel Armageddon: A Novel of Berlin by Leon Uris is due, but I have doubts as to proper formatting. -- Kshpitsa ( talk) 18:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The article's Berlin Air-Lift: The Story of a Great Achievement is a very cool old British newsreel-type film about the airlift, but (perhaps understandably) it's decidedly British-oriented. This emphasis seems questionable in context, since according to the article "the USA delivered 1,783,573 tons and the RAF 541,937 tons." I wonder whether a U.S.-sourced film might be more even-handed. Sca ( talk) 23:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The article mentions that 692 aircraft participated in the Berlin Airlift. Does anyone know if any of these aircraft survive today? Elsquared ( talk) 22:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no explanation why the blockade ended! Here are good sources:
The data given, 1946, is not coincident with dates of the Airlift. There shouild be plenty of matching photooes, or is the caotion a typo. GioCM ( talk) 22:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The lead says Canadian aircrews participated, but in the sections about the airlift, it says that Canada refused to supply planes and crews. It also says that pilots came from Canada in 'the blockade ends' section. Can anyone clarify this in the article? Maybe something is missing? Alaney2k ( talk) 16:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I propose to move this article to Berlin Airlift as this appears to be the most common title. A google search for each phrase yields almost twice as many results for Berlin Airlift, one would expect the present title would yield many more results given the number of times Google picks up Wikipedia articles and mirrors. That indicates that the most common usage is "Berlin Airlift". Kablammo ( talk) 14:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Berlin Blockade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
On this English language Wikipedia edition it has been LeMay who initially favoured military force to break the blockade:
>> Commander of United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) General Curtis LeMay reportedly favoured an aggressive response to the blockade, in which his B-29s with fighter escort would approach Soviet air bases while ground troops attempted to reach Berlin; Washington vetoed the plan.[40]<<
Howevever, the
German language Wikipedia edition is naming Lucius D. Clay as the one who tried to convince Washington to use military force. The German version is referring to The Clay Papers and to an interview with Gen. Howley - both sources seeming rather persuading.
===> So I am wondering: Is the source [40] (
http://jch.sagepub.com/content/42/1/117) which is used in the English version correctly referred to ?
Havaube (
talk)
19:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I've recently read that the Allies established a counter-blockade in East Berlin that caused severe shortages, but I can't find a mention in the article about this. Is it possible to include such information? ( https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/berlin-airlift )( http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9639/why-did-the-soviet-union-lift-the-berlin-blockade ) ( http://alphahistory.com/coldwar/berlin-blockade/ ) -- Jamez42 ( talk) 00:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
::The first and third sources do not make such claims; the second source is an internet forum. In any event, a refusal to purchase items from the surrounding countryside (if that is what it was) is different than a blockade. The subject needs to be developed further.
Kablammo (
talk)
01:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC) <corrected>
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Berlin Blockade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Might want to add a source (Baugher), including the serial number ;-). However, Baugher also says there were two other YC-97As, so this was not "the only" one. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 16:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Sorry, I didn't see you were in the middle of making changes. Kingturtle 04:38, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
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)
Is that all you are missing? Correct dates, references would be nice.
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
Does anyone know how many airplanes crashed and how many servicemen died?
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)
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)
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)
The idea of dropping coal from bombers appears in Leon Uris's novel "Armageddon," but only as an amusing and disastrous one-flight experiment. You can't dig coal with bayonets, and you can't usefully bomb it from Skymasters. It just goes all over the place, and ends up mostly as air pollution.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 21:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
I know what I'm going to do next - visit a bunch of talk pages linked to articles about serial killers and ask if they're biased because of not saying anything from the perps' point of view. 108.59.1.241 ( talk) 17:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
This is definitely biased, Miller's account of the origins of the blockade, which is cited in the beginning of this article, is known to be an ideologically motivated account attempting to establish US moral authority and demonize the Soviet Union without addressing competing viewpoints or criticisms of his perspective. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macp5 ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
There is significant overlap of this article with a new article: Berlin Crisis of 1961 - Canglesea ( talk) 14:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help) (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)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)
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)
An element of this story is that the Soviets were provided with their own set of printing plates for the Occupation's currency, a fact which is adduced in evidence in the ongoing controversy over whether the US Treasury Department official responsible was secretly a Communist. Be that as it may, the currency was nearly worthless, and the use of the new Deutschmark meant an end to the Soviets' financing their part of the Occupation with funnymoney, i.e. out of the pockets of the Geman consumer.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 21:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
All flying is done closely. Even if you take your hands off the controls, you're not going outside for a walk. You mean "flying kinda close."
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)
...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)
"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."
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)
The second paragraph reads "time span of one year that provided 13,000 tons of daily necessities such as fuel and food" implies that over one year and 200,000 flights, 13,000 tons were delivered. Perhaps this would read better as "time span of one year that provided up to 13,000 tons daily of necessities such as food and fuel". Just a suggestion. Panagea ( talk) 20:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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? Grjako ( talk) 08:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
There's no citation on this, so I can't see the point of having it in the article. It's a romantic thought but seems disconnected from hard reality, and again, no citation. 83.136.89.52 ( talk) 09:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Theres a photo of him here - > http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/BERLIN_A/BAPIC_77.HTM < I'm not sure if it can be used in Wikipedia. Can someone confirm? If we can use it, then it'll be great, seeing as the general did some daring stuff by blowing up a Soviet radio tower. Kbar64 ( talk) 15:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The following image might improve the article. ~ Fopam ( talk) 01:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I deleted "Events were turning against the Soviets". It feels like an unnecessary statement which is shown in the following sequence of event, and the rest of the section does a much better job showing that things weren't going well for the Soviets instead of a short blanket statement. Nerovingian ( talk) 16:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe a reference to the historical novel Armageddon: A Novel of Berlin by Leon Uris is due, but I have doubts as to proper formatting. -- Kshpitsa ( talk) 18:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The article's Berlin Air-Lift: The Story of a Great Achievement is a very cool old British newsreel-type film about the airlift, but (perhaps understandably) it's decidedly British-oriented. This emphasis seems questionable in context, since according to the article "the USA delivered 1,783,573 tons and the RAF 541,937 tons." I wonder whether a U.S.-sourced film might be more even-handed. Sca ( talk) 23:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The article mentions that 692 aircraft participated in the Berlin Airlift. Does anyone know if any of these aircraft survive today? Elsquared ( talk) 22:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no explanation why the blockade ended! Here are good sources:
The data given, 1946, is not coincident with dates of the Airlift. There shouild be plenty of matching photooes, or is the caotion a typo. GioCM ( talk) 22:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The lead says Canadian aircrews participated, but in the sections about the airlift, it says that Canada refused to supply planes and crews. It also says that pilots came from Canada in 'the blockade ends' section. Can anyone clarify this in the article? Maybe something is missing? Alaney2k ( talk) 16:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I propose to move this article to Berlin Airlift as this appears to be the most common title. A google search for each phrase yields almost twice as many results for Berlin Airlift, one would expect the present title would yield many more results given the number of times Google picks up Wikipedia articles and mirrors. That indicates that the most common usage is "Berlin Airlift". Kablammo ( talk) 14:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Berlin Blockade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
On this English language Wikipedia edition it has been LeMay who initially favoured military force to break the blockade:
>> Commander of United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) General Curtis LeMay reportedly favoured an aggressive response to the blockade, in which his B-29s with fighter escort would approach Soviet air bases while ground troops attempted to reach Berlin; Washington vetoed the plan.[40]<<
Howevever, the
German language Wikipedia edition is naming Lucius D. Clay as the one who tried to convince Washington to use military force. The German version is referring to The Clay Papers and to an interview with Gen. Howley - both sources seeming rather persuading.
===> So I am wondering: Is the source [40] (
http://jch.sagepub.com/content/42/1/117) which is used in the English version correctly referred to ?
Havaube (
talk)
19:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I've recently read that the Allies established a counter-blockade in East Berlin that caused severe shortages, but I can't find a mention in the article about this. Is it possible to include such information? ( https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/berlin-airlift )( http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9639/why-did-the-soviet-union-lift-the-berlin-blockade ) ( http://alphahistory.com/coldwar/berlin-blockade/ ) -- Jamez42 ( talk) 00:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
::The first and third sources do not make such claims; the second source is an internet forum. In any event, a refusal to purchase items from the surrounding countryside (if that is what it was) is different than a blockade. The subject needs to be developed further.
Kablammo (
talk)
01:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC) <corrected>
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Berlin Blockade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Might want to add a source (Baugher), including the serial number ;-). However, Baugher also says there were two other YC-97As, so this was not "the only" one. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 16:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)