James Hill KS

Did the Berlin blockade bring Europe close to Nuclear War?

The sources offer up a numerous opinions as to the likeliness of war following the Berlin Blockade. Amongst which is the suggestion that the Berlin blockade did not bring Europe closer to nuclear war. One such proponent of this conjecture is Source B which sets the Berlin blockade out a simply a gamble to save something from the wreckage the wreckage being Western Berlin. Whilst this source alludes to the ulterior motive of desperation, it does not suggest that war was imminent though neither does it suggest that war was out of the question. The more visual source D, also lacks any hint of wars imminence; the cartoon depicts a rather mischievous-looking group of allies being tied up on a rather comic fashion. This suggests that the Soviets are blockading Berlin out of concern for their security West Berlin in the closest Western outpost the Russia, serving both sides as an listening post (as described in source B). Source G, appears to offer more information on the subject. It outlines how Truman was not willing to risk war over Berlin (as neither were his electorate or Great Britain), instead he was forced to refute his opponents claim that he was too soft with the soviets. This lead to a series of gestures such as the public announcement that he would if need be use the atomic bomb on the soviets. However this source seems to suggest that it was not in the allies interest (they were unwilling to risk a war over Berlin). Whilst this gives a broad idea as to the possibility of the Berlin blockade not provoking war, there are questions to be raised as to the authenticity of the texts. Of the three sources aforementioned, sources B and G are of the most worth as they are lifted from history books written after the events, by people who were not particularly affiliated with the events thus lending the sources a degree of credibility. Source D, is of less use as it was a soviet publication, we know that Communist countries censor their media, so this source is indubitably biased. In Source A it is unclear as to whether bloody incidents infers nuclear war. The source seems to suggest that the soviets actions were responsible for salvaging peace and avoiding war. However, the fact that this was an official statement instantly casts irrefutable doubt over the validity of the source. Sources F and E seem to partly agree with the previous sources, more so F which describes the Pentagon requesting control of the bomb, knowing that Truman would not be so inclined as to use it. However, the Pentagon are more likely to make use of the weapon, and their request for control of it shows a possible likelihood of it being used. Similarly, in Source E Bohlen mentions that the claim that they (America) wanted war was untrue having no basis in fact. However previously he mentions that under certain circumstances, the bomb would be used. Furthermore, his keenness to mention the comment of Bevan concerning the Americans desire for war seems to be an inclusion aimed at refuting the idea that America did anticipate war. In addition, he claims that America would only fight at the insistence of the soviets, but then goes to say that they would not withdraw, which seems possibly provocative. Source F holds a greater degree of authenticity due to authorship that source E, seeing as E was written by a historian rather than a diplomat. However, source E offers more information into the possibility of war. Source H claims that the USA was prepared to drop a Nuclear Bomb out of retaliation. This being a consequence of the blockade. The account is reasonably credible, as it was published sometime after the event, by someone who worked in intelligence. This means the source is both well informed with the possibility of great detail, and possibly biased. Source C also suggests that war could be brought upon Europe by Stalins provocation as it shows him perched in a chimney waiting to shoot the storks which are bringing aid from the west. However, there is not much information to be ascertained from the source, and its authorship being of UK publication renders it intrinsically biased.

James Hill KS To conclude, the varied sources offer much support to both sides of the argument as to whether the blockade brought Europe close to war often one source contributing to both sides. Upon evaluation, it seems that more sources support the opposing view that the blockade did not bring Europe close to war but often failed to fully confront the question of war, whilst the sources supporting the propositions case give explicit detail, though are few in number. It would be nave to that the blockade was without its tensions, but to the blame it for the possibility of war would be irresponsible both academically and politically. On balance, one can conclude that the blockade did mount tensions in Europe and beyond, which may have been expressed through war, but it certainly would not have been wholly responsible if war did break out.