No West Berlin

In OTL Stalin, having had his forces take Berlin (at significant cost) made and kept a deal that allowed the Western Powers to control most of the German Capital.

WI some other deal had been done.

In OTL Berlin was seen as a possible flashpoint capable of starting WW3.

It occurs to me that there was in reality no way to successfully defend the Western zone in the event of hostilities given the geography.

How much difference does this make to the Cold war?
 
In OTL Stalin, having had his forces take Berlin (at significant cost) made and kept a deal that allowed the Western Powers to control most of the German Capital.

WI some other deal had been done.

In OTL Berlin was seen as a possible flashpoint capable of starting WW3.

It occurs to me that there was in reality no way to successfully defend the Western zone in the event of hostilities given the geography.

How much difference does this make to the Cold war?

it was more of a political point- in several ways.

Potsdam declared 4 power responsibility, so giving up western positions in Berlin would undermine the whole position in western germany.

(that´s why Kennedy is for some people, quite awful with his 4 essentials)
 
My dad was stationed in Berlin in the 70's and he tells me stories of how the tatics were basicaly 'you're gunna die but take down as many Soviets as you can before you do'
 
My dad was stationed in Berlin in the 70's and he tells me stories of how the tatics were basicaly 'you're gunna die but take down as many Soviets as you can before you do'

I can't imagine what that must have been like to come to terms with.
 
Being part of an armed formation you take part in its mission.

During my time of conscription at Vaerloese AFB in Sjaelland we were warned that the place was ideal for a gas attack as it is situated in a depression.
So we did a lot of gas drill as anybody else serving during the cold war must have done.

Recognizing the dangers of the place nobody ever talked of not doing his duty! ;)
 
In OTL Berlin was seen as a possible flashpoint capable of starting WW3.

It occurs to me that there was in reality no way to successfully defend the Western zone in the event of hostilities given the geography.

How much difference does this make to the Cold war?

Soviet strategy concerning Berlin in case WW3 was to break out was to withdrawal from the Eastern part and fall back, leaving the city to the Western powers to occupy in full.
 
My guess rather then heroic last stand's we would see a lot of "Hey I am a German civilian why shoot me?"

I don't know he tells me stories of a unity that you don't get outside the military, I don't doubt for a second that they would give up their lives for the lads.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
My dad was stationed in Berlin in the 70's and he tells me stories of how the tatics were basicaly 'you're gunna die but take down as many Soviets as you can before you do'

More realistic would have been:
If the Soviets attack it doesn't matter what you do, because hours later Europe would have gone in a lot of nuclear explosions anyway.

Don't get me wrong, beeing a Western Berliner myself, I really wouldn't have wanted to be any different.

But as far as I know, US troops lived a lot more comfortable in Berlin, than on any other US base.

And appartfrom the La belle bombing in the late 80s it was a very save place to be stationed.

If you want to have a plausible POD you should have differnt borders drawn at the Potsdam Conference.
It would be quiete interesting if the US kept Schwarzenberg, the area where most of the uranium for the first Soviet bombs where mined.

Without Berlin(West) immigration from East to West would have basicly come to a stop in 1952 not 1961.
This means a stronger base of skilled workers for the GDR, but also unrest is more likely.
 
In OTL Stalin, having had his forces take Berlin (at significant cost) made and kept a deal that allowed the Western Powers to control most of the German Capital.

WI some other deal had been done.

In OTL Berlin was seen as a possible flashpoint capable of starting WW3.

It occurs to me that there was in reality no way to successfully defend the Western zone in the event of hostilities given the geography.

How much difference does this make to the Cold war?

it does actually raise the question of whether the soviets try to pressure the west the way they did in berlin, and where.

No blockade, no airlift, no wall, no checkpoint charlie. JFK never becomes a Berliner. Reagan never tells Gorby to tear down this wall. Willy brandt may never rise to prominence.

The cold war may still follow the same general course, but a lot of the flavoring that marked it ITTL will be different.
 
Last edited:
I had forgotent about no Brandt, I do not know all his bio details but if there were no West Berlin he could not have been Mayor of it.
 
More realistic would have been:
If the Soviets attack it doesn't matter what you do, because hours later Europe would have gone in a lot of nuclear explosions anyway.

Don't get me wrong, beeing a Western Berliner myself, I really wouldn't have wanted to be any different.

But as far as I know, US troops lived a lot more comfortable in Berlin, than on any other US base.

And appartfrom the La belle bombing in the late 80s it was a very save place to be stationed.

If you want to have a plausible POD you should have differnt borders drawn at the Potsdam Conference.
It would be quiete interesting if the US kept Schwarzenberg, the area where most of the uranium for the first Soviet bombs where mined.

Without Berlin(West) immigration from East to West would have basicly come to a stop in 1952 not 1961.
This means a stronger base of skilled workers for the GDR, but also unrest is more likely.

My Dad would have been in the British sector, and lived in Ahorn Alle (Charlottenburg).

Also as far as I know if the Soviets attacked conventionanly we would fight back conventionaly, if they used battlefield nukes we would use battlefield nukes. If they launched ICBM's we launched ICBM's. So it doesn't nessisarily mean European doom
 
Top