What if Stalin never blockades Berlin?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if in responding to the rising Cold War and unwelcome western moves in Germany, Stalin quickly discards the idea of blockading Berlin after determining it will not bring any desirable results?

How will the lack of this direct and rather pointless confrontation affect world politics in 1948 and 1949?

How does it affect the early Cold War , German politics and American politics?

without the Berlin Blockade, the Berlin airlift, the direct standoff between the occupying powers of Germany and the implied threat of a new word war, might other contemporary conflicts have garnered more news coverage and policymaker attention?

Contemporary conflicts included the Arab Israeli war, the Chinese Civil War, the Greek Civil War, the Tito Stalin split, the French War in Indochina and the Dutch expulsion from Indonesia.
 
It would make the need for NATO more delayed and that the coming of the German states would be delayed too; though inevitably both sides would be in a proxy war of sorts against each other in say the Chinese and Greek civil wars, after all the Cold War did technically start in 1947 with Truman making a speech about aiding Greece and Turkey.
 
I wonder whether, given the closeness of the 1948 election in the decisive states of Ohio, Illinois, and California, http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1948.txt no Berlin blockade and airlift would mean Truman would be defeated? The blockade helped undermine Wallace's narrative that the US was more responsible than the USSR for the Cold War (Wallace's basic response to the Berlin crisis was a rather lame argument that if he had been president, US-Soviet relations would never have deteriorated to the point where a blockade would happen). Meanwhile, Truman's response seemed suffciently tough that it was hard for the Republicans to portray Truman as "soft" on Stalin--yet sufficiently restrained that the Wallace "warmonger" charge fell flat. (Actually, the US government did not at first think the airlift could save Berlin, they thought that all it could do was to buy time--but the voters didn't know that.)

I'm not saying that the Berlin crisis changed many voters' minds in 1948, but a development doesn't have to change many votes to have Dewey win Illinois, Ohio, and California--and with them the Electoral College--that year.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
You both bring up good points.

This could be a scale tipper in Dewey versus Truman. At the same time, Truman could plausibly win.

As far as Cold War development is concerned, the Truman Doctrine (& specifically Greek and Turkish aid program), Marshall Plan and economic integration of the western German occupation zones are already underway.

The Czech coup of Feb 1948 has already given some impetus to collective security/NATO formation, but no doubt the Berlin Blockade only boosted that cause.

---Setting aside the election, will the US be more active with regard to the Chinese Civil War or Arab-Israeli war, without the Berlin Blockade taking up so much oxygen?

Will Stalin be managing his split with Tito differently, or more aggressively?

On China, while I will not say I endorse the theory, Soviet operative Pavel Sudoplatov asserted that the main purpose of the Berlin Blockade was to draw western attention and distract from the impending Communist victory in China, which he describes the Soviet leadership as being privately giddy about even while portraying an indifferent attitude in public.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Ok, I'm going to throw a contrairian opinion in. I think it would have resulted in WORSE relations between the US and USSR. Hear me out. The blockade and subsequent airlift did several things. It showed the West that Stalin and the Red Army were NOT all powerful. That Stalin could be backed down with a fast, aggressive and vigerous response. And it showed that the USSR was willing to play for keeps and had to be taken seriously.

Now, remove all that from the equation. The Red Army is still seen as the steamroller that crushed half of Europe. Stalin is still seen as someone who won't back down no matter what. The US is still believed by the USSR to be unwilling to risk another war and can therefore be pushed VERY hard if need be.

I think when all that is combined, it makes for a far more tense and suspicious environment. Short term, things are likely a bit more peaceful. But long term, when Stalin does decide to act, odds are, it will be over something that the involved parties CAN'T back down from and, IMO, could lead to at least a limited engagement between US and USSR ground forces, if not a full open war. Caused by sheer pigheadedness because no one could afford to be seen backing down
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Ok, I'm going to throw a contrairian opinion in. I think it would have resulted in WORSE relations between the US and USSR. Hear me out. The blockade and subsequent airlift did several things. It showed the West that Stalin and the Red Army were NOT all powerful. That Stalin could be backed down with a fast, aggressive and vigerous response. And it showed that the USSR was willing to play for keeps and had to be taken seriously.

Now, remove all that from the equation. The Red Army is still seen as the steamroller that crushed half of Europe. Stalin is still seen as someone who won't back down no matter what. The US is still believed by the USSR to be unwilling to risk another war and can therefore be pushed VERY hard if need be.

I think when all that is combined, it makes for a far more tense and suspicious environment. Short term, things are likely a bit more peaceful. But long term, when Stalin does decide to act, odds are, it will be over something that the involved parties CAN'T back down from and, IMO, could lead to at least a limited engagement between US and USSR ground forces, if not a full open war. Caused by sheer pigheadedness because no one could afford to be seen backing down

Hmm - Korean War leads to WWIII, because the Soviets get in directly? What else might be the blow-up? Some Soviet aggression against a southern neighbor like Iran or Turkey? Or a western neighbor like Finland or Yugoslavia?
 

SsgtC

Banned
Hmm - Korean War leads to WWIII, because the Soviets get in directly? What else might be the blow-up? Some Soviet aggression against a southern neighbor like Iran or Turkey? Or a western neighbor like Finland or Yugoslavia?
That's what I'm thinking. Maybe Stalin trying to force Turkey to ignore the Montreux Convention with regards to Soviet Warships. Or maybe trying to expand what parts of Europe are in his sphere of influence
 

Cook

Banned
The US is still believed by the USSR to be unwilling to risk another war and can therefore be pushed VERY hard if need be.

Stalin in 1949 was already extremely cautious and unwilling to push too hard, hence the theatre of the blockade, while very firm orders to Soviet forces not to overstep the mark and force an actual confrontation. We now know that Stalin had ordered Soviet forces not to block by force any US attempt to send an armed convoy to Berlin via the autobahn, but to make use of the American 'aggression' for propaganda purposes only and the occasions when aircraft were shot down were incidences of individual members of the Red Air Force getting carried away and exceeding instructions.
Stalin's caution shows up with events in Korea the following year; Stalin only approved of the North Korean invasion of South Korea following the withdrawal of US forces from the peninsula and because his advisors had interpreted the Truman Doctrine as applying only to Europe - an interpretation that is entirely understandable in light of the fact that Truman's doctrine speech had only referred to Greece and Turkey, and the Marshall Plan was only open to European countries.

What about the wall? Is it still going to be built.

The wall was built almost a decade later and in an attempt to prevent the further haemorrhaging of East German specialist workers to the West; different motivations, different key figures - so probably yes.
 

MadDog

Banned
as Czech i would like to point out Communists won Elections fairly and only then engaged in coup.
Czechoslovakia was the only country where the switch to communism happened somewhat democratically
 

MadDog

Banned
More correctly, they emerged from the elections with the largest number of seats in parliament, still well short of a majority though.

Didnt help that all Non Communist ministers Resigned voluntaliry in protest and Benes accepted it.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
as Czech i would like to point out Communists won Elections fairly and only then engaged in coup.
Czechoslovakia was the only country where the switch to communism happened somewhat democratically

Yes but that sequence of events and the initial democratic process did not make the west any less alarmed. The west increasingly saw the need to unite and worked hard to prevent any chance of a similar result in Italy.
 
Top