Diving into one of the most pivotal events of the early Cold War era, this article presents an in-depth case study and model answer on the Berlin Blockade, tailor-made for students pursuing H1 or H2 History. Offering a top-quality response to key questions, this piece serves as an invaluable resource to enhance your understanding and analytical skills. As you navigate through the case, take a moment to reflect on the two probing questions presented, before examining the model answer to grasp what excellence in historical analysis looks like. Notably, two paragraphs within the model answer has been deliberately left blank, encouraging you to engage deeply and formulate your own insights. Should you wish to have your work reviewed and gain further guidance, feel free to reach out to the tutor at https://www.h2historyguides.com/tuitionlessons.
THE BERLIN BLOCKADE
1 Read the sources and answer the questions that follow.
Source A
The United States Government categorically asserts that it is in occupation of its sector in Berlin with free access thereto as a matter of established right deriving from the defeat and surrender of Germany and confirmed by formal agreements among the principal Allies.
Restrictions recently imposed by the Soviet authorities in Berlin have prevented [the USA], the United Kingdom and France from fulfilling their responsibilities in an adequate manner. The responsibility is for the physical well-being and the safety of the German population in its sector of Berlin, including hundreds of thousands of women and children, whose health and safety are dependent on the continued use of adequate facilities for moving food, medical supplies and other items indispensable to the maintenance of human life in the western sectors of Berlin. The most elemental of these human rights are thus placed in jeopardy by these restrictions. It is intolerable that any one of the occupying authorities should attempt to impose a blockade upon the people of Berlin.
Taken from a note from USA to USSR, 6 July 1948.
Source B
The Soviet Government has familiarized itself with the note of the Government of the United States of America on July 6, 1948. The Soviet Government cannot agree with the statement of the USA and considers that the situation which has been created in Berlin has arisen as a result of violation by the Governments of the United States of America, Great Britain, and France in the carrying out of a separate currency reform, in the introduction of a special currency for the western sectors of Berlin and in the policy of the dismemberment of Germany.
The decisions adopted at the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences and the agreement of the four powers concerning the control mechanism in Germany have as their aim the demilitarization and democratization of Germany, the removal of German militarism and the prevention of the e power and thereby the transformation of Germany into a peace-loving and democratic state. These agreements envisage the obligation of Germany to pay reparations and thereby to make at least partial compensation for the damage to those countries which suffered from German aggression.
Taken from a note from USSR to USA, 14 July 1948.
Source C
The three western occupying powers specifically invited the Soviet military administration to discuss on a quadripartite basis the most feasible method of protecting the economy of the people of Berlin. At the meeting on 22 June, the western zone representatives offered to consider and work out with the Soviet authorities a reasonable and satisfactory method for the handling of the currency and monetary reform measures for Berlin as a whole. The western proposals were refused by the Soviet military authorities. Instead, the Soviet military authorities insisted that it alone would write the currency law for the city of Berlin. By virtue of the attempt by the Soviet military administration to usurp for itself the authority to dominate the economic affairs of Berlin and issue its own currency for the quadripartite city, the western powers find it necessary to introduce the Deutschemark in the three western sectors of Berlin.
Announcement of the extension of currency reforms to West Germany, 24 June 1948.
Source D
The thing is that those in the United States and Great Britain who inspire an aggressive policy do not consider themselves interested in an agreement and in cooperation with the USSR. What they want is to put the blame on the USSR by preventing agreement and thus to “prove” that co-operation with the USSR is impossible.
It is for this reason that they disrupt agreements that have already been reached, that they disavow their representatives who have drawn up such agreements together with the USSR, and in violation of the United Nations Charter refer the question to the Security Council, where they have a guaranteed majority and where they can “prove” whatever they like. All this is done to “show” that co-operation with the USSR is impossible and thus to prepare the ground for the unleashing of war. .
An extract from an interview of Stalin by the main Russian newspaper, October 1948.
Source E
Stalin’s road to the Cold War, in the years from 1946 to 1950, was strewn with miscalculations. He did not want to provoke American and British “imperialism”, yet he overreacted to any perceived threat of it in Germany and in Eastern Europe. In response to the Marshall Plan, Stalin began to consolidate a Soviet security zone in Eastern Europe by ruthless police methods and intensive Communist propaganda. Trying to stop Western separatist policies in Germany, he triggered the Berlin Blockade crisis. In short, Stalin’s post-war foreign policy was more defensive, reactive, and prudent than it was the fulfilment of a master plan. Instead of postponing a confrontation with the United States, he managed to draw closer to it with every step.
Extracted from a book by Soviet historians, 1996.
Source F
The cartoon shows (from bottom) Stalin, Molotov and Vyshinsky (USSR permanent representative to the United Nations). Vyshinsky is holding a net which reads “Demand for Air Control”.
By a British cartoonist, 1948.
(a) Compare and contrast the evidence in Sources A and B on the aims of the Allies’ policies in post-war Germany. [10]
Sources A and B are similar in showing that the Allies role in Germany was to manage it and mete out its consequences in the aftermath of World War II. In Source A, America refers to its right of access to Berlin as one of the victors who had received the surrender of Germany, and consequently had received the mandate of “occupation of [a] sector in Berlin”. As a result, it also had a role in managing the people living in that sector as well. Source B agrees with this, referring to Germany has having been “dismembered and demilitarized” by the four powers that function as the “control mechanism” in Germany. Both sources therefore reflect that the Allies had divided the management of Germany, after its defeat in World War II, amongst themselves.
On the other hand the sources are different in demonstrating American and Soviet priorities with regards to Germany. In Source A, America prioritises the ‘well-being and safety’ of the German people, as seen by its urgency in providing food and health utilities to the German people as part of its humane treatment of the defeated population. America saw this as necessary to prevent a repeat of the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles, where the humiliation indirectly contributed to the rise and popularity of the Nazis. Source B, however, argues that the Allied forces had agreed to “demilitarize and democratize” Germany and prevent its resurgence as an aggressive military power. This was of concern for the USSR as it had twice undergone invasions by Germany and was eager to ensure that Germany would not be able to repeat that. This difference in the aims is reflected in the different treatment by the powers in their respective sectors. Unlike America, the USSR extracted reparations and transported factories to the USSR as compensation for the damage suffered in World War II.
Sources A and B are similar in recognizing their general role as caretakers of their respective sectors in relation to their role in defeating Germany, and demilitarization in order to create a system where the government would be democratic, and therefore less likely to go to war with fellow democracies around it. In this context therefore, it explains why both sources agree on that point. However the sources differ due to their respective context. For America (Source A), apart from it seeking to avoid a repeat of the Versailles, America also say a rejuvenated and rehabilitated Germany, with its industrial prowess, as critical to the economic recovery of the whole of Europe. Considering that America was also seeking new markets and places for investment of its companies, it then employed a stance that would enhance such opportunities, including the rehabilitation of Germany. On the other hand, Stalin was paranoid of the threat posed by the West, and in particular, German aggression. Therefore, it prioritized the aim of preventing its sector’s ability to recover and contribute to the Western threat against the USSR. This threat was both historical, as threats to the Communist state had consistently come from the West, but ideological as well, in that Communists perceived that the West would seek the undermining of Communism. It is in these contexts that the sources share similarities and disagree with each other.
(a) How far do Sources A — F support the view that USA provoked the Berlin Blockade? [25]
Sources B and D agree that the USA provoked the Berlin Blockade. Sources A, C, E and F challenge it, arguing that it was the USSR that initiated the Berlin Blockade.
Sources B and D support the statement. Source B says that the “separate currency reform” contradicts the “prevention of the revival of Germany as an aggressive power”. This is because the introduction of the Deutschemark was meant to replace the ailing Reichsmark, which had undergone massive inflation, and was not unhelpful to the rehabilitation of post-war Germany. The resulting in ability of the USSR to agree to such a reform was then treated and perceived as obstinance (implied in Source C). Such a scenario is represented in Source D, which accuses the West for introducing policies that are unsuitable by the USSR, and then saying that the USSR was uncooperative. Whilst one might argue that it is the interpretation of Stalin is based on paranoia, but our contextual knowledge shows that the Marshall Plan was created and offered to the USSR with expectation and hope they would reject it. In this way, Sources B and D support the statement that the USA provoked the Berlin Blockade by introducing a currency reform that threatened the USSR and caused it to react. Source B is largely unreliable. It is a reply to Source A, and rebuts the suggestions of America that the Berlin situation was the result of Soviet desire to prevent the USA from fulfilling its goal of taking care of the people in its sector of Berlin. That perspective would match the knowledge that Stalin had hoped to force the West out of Berlin, and possibly even the Germany as a whole through the blockade. The source’s purpose is to justify its intervention and blame the West for violating the agreements at Yalta and Potsdam. This is in conjunction with the Soviet fear of a revitalised Germany and a repeat of the invasions in World Wars I and II, or Germany being part of a Western attempt to snuff out Communism in the rivalry between the two ideologies. In that Source B creates a narrative of causality attributed to Western actions, it focuses on the role of the West in the Berlin Blockade and therefore renders the perspective unreliable. The source is however useful in showing the official Soviet stance on the cause of the Berlin Blockade. Source D is also questionable in that it is the Soviet justification for the Blockade. It also reflects Stalin’s paranoia that the West seeks to undermine the USSR by disrupting and misrepresenting the USSR, although it is true that at the time, the USA and its allies dominated the UN Security Council, which allowed it to dominate international decision-making. In that it is an interview with Stalin, Stalin focuses on his perspective of the West, and the presentation of the Western antagonist and Soviet victim resulting in a one-sided and unreliable source. As a whole the Sources present a weak support for the statement.
On the other hand, Sources A, C, E and F challenge the statement.
Given what you’ve seen in Sources B and D, now try to do your own reworked paragraph, focusing on X-referencing and showing a narrative that links all the sources together. Send your paragraph to me once you have done it. My contact information can be found here: H2 History A-Levels Private Tuition in Singapore (h2historyguides.com)
Sources A and Cs’ reliability are questionable. As a note to the Soviet (A) and the announcement regarding the currency reform (B), both sources reflect the official Western policy perspective towards the Berlin Blockade and occupation policy respective. They are useful in reflecting the American stance, but given its aim of displaying its dissatisfaction with the Soviet policy, it focuses on its legal right to a presence in Berlin in contrast against the unjustifiable actions of the Soviet response. In A, the focus on the humanitarian aspect appears to be an appeal to the Soviets to release the blockade. Therefore the sources’ perspectives are somewhat questionable. Source E is reliable. As an extract from an academic work by Soviet historians, it presents an objective account relating to the causal events and Stalin’s response. The historians’ range of research would have been aided by their access to Soviet documents, and further enhanced by the release of classified documents with the opening of the Soviet archives after the collapse of the USSR in 1991. As a work meant to present updated analyses and perspectives based on extensive research, the source is reliable. Source F is unreliable. It is a cartoon that serves to mock the Soviet Union’s failure at maintaining control, as can be seen with the net labelled “Demand for Air Control” that is unable to contain the plane that represents the Berlin Airlift. As a source created during the time of the Berlin Blockade, it represents that Soviets as the instigators of the blockade and by making a mockery of its failure and an unreliable source.
Now that you have read the support and challenge sources, and evaluated them, write out the conclusion. Do you think the support sources are preferred or the challenge sources are preferred? Or should the hypothesis be modified? Send your paragraph to me once you have done it. Goodluck!
