Talk:Berlin Blockade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Sorry, I didn't see you were in the middle of making changes. Kingturtle 04:38, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

That's alright. I was more my fault, I think. Also, sorry for perhaps making changes that might've accidentally reverted some of your changes during the edit conflict. 172 04:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

still needed[edit]

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)

Gotta love that British sense of humour. The guy above is hilarious, especially about putting great pressure on the U.S. I wonder what it(the pressure) was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This article still needs a lot of work. I haven't gotten around to expanding upon this part yet. 172 04:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Is that all you are missing? Correct dates, references would be nice.

The RAF operations were code named; Operation Knicker, which was then enlarged to become Operation Carter Paterson (after a pre-war removal company - later merged with Pickfords) and this was then renamed Operation Plainfare. The RAF also used chartered civilian aircraft, such as Avro Tudors & Lancastrians, as well as Handley Page Halifax, Halton & its own Hastings transports, in fact, just about the entire UK air freight fleet. Most of the coal flown into Berlin was carried by the Yorks, as a result of which, when they were eventually scrapped in the 1960s-1970s upon breaking-up the breakers were puzzled to find coal dust everywhere.


(Stalin assumed that Japan and Germany could menace the Soviet Union once again by the 1960s.)

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

this has been changes to 2,500,000 and 2,350,000, but someone might want to make these the same if the know which one is correctsay1988 22:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Changed (along with flight numbers) to 2,326,406 from the Air Force's Berlin Airlift anniversary page [1] Mfv2 21:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
RAF figures would have been in long tons, USAF ones in short tons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How many airplanes crashed?[edit]

Does anyone know how many airplanes crashed and how many servicemen died?

I've just seen the german movie "Die Luftbrücke - Nur der Himmel war frei" about the Berlin Airlift. Thanks to all our friends out there for making this possible! To answer part of your question: The movie states that 39 british soldiers, 31 americans and 8 germans died during the airlift. I assume this is accurate but don't take it for granted. Bluehorn 23:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Why did they crash? The article gives no explanation for this. Were they just routine aviation accidents? Were any ever fired on by Soviet forces? Other causes? This should be addressed in the article. Pimlottc 20:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I second this. How on Earth did they die? It doesn't make any mention of the circumstances at all. I'm sure they didn't just keel over one morning after the return fight.

: Most of the casualties were from crashes due to pilot error during takeoff or landing. Possibly poor trimming of the aircraft or in-flight shifting of cargo (an EXTREMELY deadly hazard, even today) Though it's possibly worth mentioning that there was more than one jeep/truck driver lost by driving directly into operating propellers (this evidence is from R. Miller's "To Save a City" an excellent read)

Agreements for access[edit] 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 (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Hump[edit]

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)

I am putting them back. If the Hump had not been flown it is doubtful if the expertise would have existed to organize the Berlin airlift. That the major organizer of the Hump was assigned to same postion for the Berlin airlift is testament to that. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Berlin Food Drop ?[edit]

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)

Some dropping of coal happened, as an experiment; it was stopped fairly quickly, as it didn't work as they had thought it might.
Signed: Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV violation?[edit]

It says "it was a terrible occasion", isn't that POV? 00:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

some twat has seriously messed with this page. can someone sort this?

Soviet Currency[edit]

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 (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? 01:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Small Berlin Blockade"[edit]

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? 14:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The soviets left the control council on 20. March and starting 1. April 1948 the soviets started to stop and search vehicles passing through their sector. Other transport obstacles were created at will including road blocks on the borders. Starting 3. April the British and US troops increased air transport to their Berlin sites to get around the street transport bottleneck = the "Small Berlin Airlift". Guidod 01:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm Unacurate?[edit]

It says that WWII ended in 2007 and calls the Soviets "bamas" and the Westerns "punk bitches" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Better leadoff image?[edit]

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)

Repeated vandalism[edit]

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. (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. (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 (talkcontribs) 16:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Etheridge on Miller, 'To Save a City: The Berlin Airlift, 1948-1949' | H-German | H-Net".

WikiProject class rating[edit]

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)

Chronology in Airlift-part[edit]

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)

Air traffic control[edit]

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 too am suspicious of this sentence. If it were true then the Soviets clearly missed an obvious way to scupper the airlift by withdrawing their controllers. It also seems highly unlikely that the US and British would allow Soviets to act as ATC on an airport where large numbers of military planes are landing. (I am also extra suspicious of sentences that start "it must also be mentioned that..." as they have usually been dropped in by editors who want to emphasize some point of view. I suggest we remove it pending a better reference. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like consensus to me: I've removed it. If anyone knows of a reference, do please re-add. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:28, 15 May 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 (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My uncle was an RAF pilot during the Berlin Air Lift and he tells me "absolutely no way" was there any Russian involvement in the air traffic control system. The controllers he spoke to on the radio daily during his flights were British, American and German only. With all respect to M. De Vos and M. Rooms I suspect they may have heard about "There was an obstacle in the way on the approach to Tegel, however. A Soviet controlled radio tower caused problems with its proximity to the airfield. Pleas to remove it went unheard. Finally, on November 20, French General Jean Ganeval made a decision. If they would not take it down, he would simply blow it up. So, on December 16, the dynamite was used. The tower fell, and the obstacle was gone" and misunderstood what the Soviet radio tower's role was during the lift.
Can we please leave this comment out of the wiki article until any other citation can be found. It is such a remarkable and noteworthy prospect that it surely must have been recorded by someone's history of the lift 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The dynamite incident is described in Andrei Cherney's recent book "The Candy Bombers" which is a pretty good resource in general for anyone wanting to improve this article. (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Report of decrease in tonnage delivered winter 1949 is misleading[edit]

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)

Berlin Crisis of 1961[edit]

There is significant overlap of this article with a new article: Berlin Crisis of 1961 - Canglesea (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering a major rollback[edit]

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)

I support whatever measures are necessary to restore the cited material. If someone wants to compare diffs, and try to restore the deleted material while keeping recent productive changes, that would be good, but it's obvously a lot of work (and beyond my time contraints). A wholesale revert would of course be much easier to carry out. Also, could we look into getting the article semi-protected? I gather multiple IPs were involved in the deletions, so IP range blocking would probably be a non-starter. - BillCJ (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm on a plane on Tuesday, perhaps I should just leave it if no one else wants to take a crack at it. The edits don't look like outright vandalism though, there definitely seems to be some logic to a group of them at least. Unfortunately there's no checkin notes, so I'm not sure what that logic is! Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually that's wasn't that hard. All fixed! Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


File:Wiesbaden C-54 1949.jpg
Wiesbaden Air Base after a snow fall in March 1949

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)

Vienna during the blockade[edit]

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)

The Airlift Movie[edit]

Is this includable in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

300 what?[edit]

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)

Changed it to 300 tons of supplies per day doesnt need to be any more exact for a comparison. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Telephone lines[edit]

What happened to telecommunications links between West Berlin and the outside world during the blockade. Did the Soviets try and cut the lines ? (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Entry into NATO[edit]

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)

They were, but NATO didn't form until April 1949, in the last four weeks of the Blockade, which helped prompt their entry into NATO as original members.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
But it seems very strange to say that they decided to "enter" a non-existant (at the time of decision) organization. They founded NATO. Would you say the US at some point decided to enter NATO? And what about those countries that had been WEU members - certainly they did not need to be further convinced that the USSR posed a danger. If they did, what would have been the point of creating the WEU in the first place? Yaan (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Entry is non-exclusive -- it can be as a founder or later. In fact, most people entering into contracts, for instance, are original parties.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Capacity of C-82 and C-97?[edit]

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)

Unknown Casualty[edit]

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)

I think it means "casualties" (as in deaths) as there were several dozens. The German wikipedia article states 101 deaths (39 British 30 American, 13 German and others), citing page 108 f of Miller, Roger G. To Save a City: The Berlin Airlift 1948–1949. Air Force History and Museum Program. U. S. Government Printing Office. 1998-433-155/92107. (better direct download link from [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)
In fact, the first paragraph on page 113 provides a more impressive statement of the memorability of the airlift (and by a scholar no less). Maybe a good writer could work it in somehow? 84user (talk) 19:12, 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)

Just revert a change like that when you see it in the history. It was the last change in the article.
I think that the Berlin Blockade article must be used as an example for instruction in computer-related class curriculum used by some junior high schools. There is a large amount of kiddie-style vandalism in an article that likely wouldn't normally be on the radar for those users, barring its mention on American Idol or Rock of Love.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

West or East Berlin?[edit]

On June 18, the United States, Britain and France announced that, on June 21, the Deutsche Mark would be used, but the Soviets refused to permit its use as legal tender in Berlin.[28]

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)

My understanding from reading the article is that technically, the city was still under joint control (for example, see the references to administration taking place in the Soviet zone, and those on elections), so presumably it was understood that all four sectors of Berlin should use the same currency. This would play in to the Soviet efforts to keep Germany impotent. --RealGrouchy (talk) 00:13, 25 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)

Copyedit review[edit]

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)

  • "Clay" has not been introduced prior to the first reference to him in section 1.2, "The Soviet zone and Berlin access rights". His name is linked in two subsequent references.
  • Section 2.1, "The Marshall Plan", contains undefined and non-linked references to "JCS 1067 and ... JCS 1779"
  • Section 2.1, "Western Germany beginnings", refers to ""Bizonia".[11] (to be re-named the Trizone, when France would join it).", whereas the "Afterward" section (s.7) refers to it as "trizonia" (vs. "Trizone")
  • The "Afterward" section ends with a link to what should be a reference(?)


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)

To fly by kinda closely. Basically somewhat like the aerial version of someone riding your bumper and then passing you real fast. It's done basically to rattle the people you're "buzzing" and to show off. Whether it's a control tower, another aircraft, a ship, whatever. Sometimes it's used to intentionally provoke incidents, see the Hainan Island Indecent from 2001. Just watch Top Gun and you'll get an idea of it, as it's done several times in the movie. (talk) 05:59, 10 September 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."

David Lloyd-Jones (talk)

Bad English[edit]

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)

Soviet responses[edit]

...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)

I can find a reference to a collision between a Soviet fighter and a British Airliner, but the details are different:

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.

(To save a city: the Berlin airlift, 1948-1949 ISBN 9780890969670 p. 25)
The whole paragraph needs reworking and references. Hohum (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

I have rewritten the paragraph and referenced it. Hohum (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
It was RAF Gatow (not 'Caton') and there's an article on the accident here: 1948 Gatow air disaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


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)

"Dylan kissed a guy"?[edit]

In the very first paragraph, there's a random "dylan kissed a guy." I guess I'll delete it. (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Poland's borders adjusted on Stalin's (unilateral) order?[edit]

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)

I thought the same, when reading that paragraph. It should be made clear, that a territorially aggrandized Poland was in the interest of western Powers - in order to contain Germany, but also in a further regard to Russia. If memory serves me right, the Yale historian Hajo Holborn (The Political Collapse of Europe; 1951) dated the issue back to the Peace of Riga of 1919 and it's revision towards the Curzon Line in the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939. The suggestion to solve the conflict of British guarantees for the borders of Poland by compensation with German territory was presented by Winston Churchill at the Conference of Tehran in 1943. In his memoirs Churchill refered to a set of matches to illustrate this concept. I would support a change of that pararaph with a reference to the Tehran Conference. Christophmahler (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"In remembrance of the airlift, three airports in the former western zones of the city served as the primary gateways to Germany for another fifty years."[edit]

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. (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Gen. Jean Ganeval image[edit]

Theres a photo of him here - > < 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)

Photograph of children playing[edit]

The following image might improve the article. ~ Fopam (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

German children with model American planes at Tempelhof in 1948

Initial Response edit[edit]

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)

Explanation for my edit last edit here: Appears I was a little heavy handed when I thought I was simply removing a wildly inappropriate entry. Instead of simply removing/fixing the whole "child intercourse" (good Lord!) text, I removed the entire section that included the above image that was initially used properly. Sorry about that. Cheers to whomever cleared it up. Jersey John (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference to a Historical Novel[edit]

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)

British film[edit]

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)

any surviving aircraft?[edit]

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)

reasons for end of blockade[edit]

There is no explanation why the blockade ended! Here are good sources:

Photo of C-54[edit]

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 file description says 1948 in any case, so I've changed the caption. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 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)

Yes I noticed that, I think the source mentions Canadian pilots serving with the RAF (RCAF) but no actual RCAF units/aircraft taking part. Perhaps we can clarify on this? Shire Lord (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed retitling[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

LeMay and/or Clay ?[edit]

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] ( which is used in the English version correctly referred to ? Havaube (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not correctly referred to, since the only citations to this article include all pages. However, the article does make this statement on p. 125, relying on LeMay's papers. Both sources in the German article would appear to be primary sources. I don't see why LeMay and Clay couldn't have agreed on this, though. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Counter Blockade[edit]

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? ( )( ) ( ) --Jamez42 (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems your link does not work. Blurryman (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
They will work now. Kablammo (talk) 01:26, 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>

@Kablammo: I found another source saying that on 24 June the West stopped all rail traf­fic into East Germany from the British and US zones. ( The Frontiers Are Sealed section). I also found this article from The Camberra Times ( ) and a mention of it in The Berlin Airlift: Breaking the Soviet Blockade ( ). I'm not sure if is thorough enough to be included. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with those sources. Feel free to add them. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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)

Difference between blockade and airlift[edit]

I am pretty sure that the Berlin Airlift and the Berlin Blockade are two completely separate things. There isn't a page for the Berlin Airlift and the info on this page does not relate to the blockade, only the airlift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardtanker (talkcontribs) 22:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The two topics are VERY closely related, as there would have been absolutely no need for an airlift if there hadn't been a blockade.
The obvious being said, I agree that this article, while covering the airlift in a quite good fashion, is highly deficient in covering the blockade, its reasons, effects (including the counter-blockade mentioned in at least one documentary I've viewed on the matter), and the process of the ending of it, where Stalin sought to end it in a manner that might save a little of his (by then very tarnished) reputation.
Signature: Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Decision for an airlift: Confusion over units[edit]

In "Decision for an airlift" the article cites "a minimum daily ration of 1,990 kilocalories (July 1948)" but I don't see how this can be right, and suspect the intended meaning is 1,990 *calories* (per person per day). I will gladly correct it if there's no objection. Victimofleisure (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Kilocalories is exactly correct. The problem is that too many people use the unit "calories" where it should be "kilocalories", and this leads many people (apparently you included) to think what you just wrote - which is just plainly wrong.
Happily, I can see that the article (at least at present) is still written with the correct version of the unit. (Another point is that the calorie is an imprecise unit, better replaced by Joules, but obviously not here, as this is in a historical context, as a quote...)
My signature: Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)