1. The caption below the picture of the Berlin Airlift is: "America saves West Berlin (1948), risking another world war".
I believe the opposite was the case: avoiding another war was the point. Stalin had blocked the rail and road connections across communist East Germany that had been used by the West to supply the residents of the section of Berlin that was under the authority of the western powers: the US, Britain and France. The loathsome Soviet dictator figured that the West, or rather the US, would quit supplying those Berliners' needs, thereby abandoning West Berlin to the mercies of the East German regime. In the US there was some support for going to war over this, but cooler heads prevailed, because earlier on, when relations were still good, flight corridors across East German territory for western planes had been agreed upon, and the US still had lots of planes left over from the war (the British had quite a few too). Soon the surplus C-47s were replaced by 4-engine C-54s that could carry three times the loads of the former, but even so, it meant 600 flights a day. It was hardly an economy move; those planes carried items that no sane person would have put on a plane, like building materials and coal, but it was better than going to war -- and that was the point of it all; after a year it was clear that the West won, and the Reds gave in.
2. Your statistical graph, about the difference between national tariffs, may have a misleading effect because the small print indicates that those other countries' tariffs are for one specific product: for example, the EU levies high tariffs on American mushrooms & truffles, rather "niche" products, though also for wine. But as a communication, this approach may be seen as selective, hence somewhat misleading.
1. Perfectly valid points all, though I stand by my point: it was not at all obvious to Truman that relieving Berlin wouldn't provoke the Soviets. It was a gutsy, difficult move and it paid off.
2. I will consider what you're saying here, but I think the graph is clear. Take for instance EU auto tariffs. There's no spinning that they charge 4X what we charge them. It's unfair and it greatly diminishes the number of cars we sell in Europe (which is the point: it's rarely about the revenue). Cars are not the only sector, but they're a pretty huge one. And don't even get me started on the Common Agricultural Policy!
Anyway, your thoughts are always highly welcome. Thank you!
Thank YOU! I certainly agree that the Airlift was a gutsy move by Truman, and there WAS anxiety; but every alternative would have been worse; one would have consisted of starting a new war, the other to just giving in to the Russians, and I shudder to think of what that might have led to. At that time a common opinion in Europe was that the Russians might invade at any time they chose, and nothing could be done. To illustrate that mindset, we had a neighbor woman -- I cannot bring myself to use the word "lady", who was kind of nuts, and was always screaming at us kids in the back yard, from the other side of the hedge. And one day she yelled, out of the blue: "When the Russians come, they'll send you to Siberia!" My mother just shook her head ...
Maybe more important, post-WWII-Europe might have looked a lot different -- and better -- if Truman had taken over from FDR much sooner. Truman may have been a Democrat, but he was a dogged realist who lacked Roosevelt's overestimate of himself -- like the latter's breezy assurances that he could handle "Uncle Joe".
As to the tariff graph -- I think we can both be right, just about different aspects.
Outstanding
Two remarks:
1. The caption below the picture of the Berlin Airlift is: "America saves West Berlin (1948), risking another world war".
I believe the opposite was the case: avoiding another war was the point. Stalin had blocked the rail and road connections across communist East Germany that had been used by the West to supply the residents of the section of Berlin that was under the authority of the western powers: the US, Britain and France. The loathsome Soviet dictator figured that the West, or rather the US, would quit supplying those Berliners' needs, thereby abandoning West Berlin to the mercies of the East German regime. In the US there was some support for going to war over this, but cooler heads prevailed, because earlier on, when relations were still good, flight corridors across East German territory for western planes had been agreed upon, and the US still had lots of planes left over from the war (the British had quite a few too). Soon the surplus C-47s were replaced by 4-engine C-54s that could carry three times the loads of the former, but even so, it meant 600 flights a day. It was hardly an economy move; those planes carried items that no sane person would have put on a plane, like building materials and coal, but it was better than going to war -- and that was the point of it all; after a year it was clear that the West won, and the Reds gave in.
2. Your statistical graph, about the difference between national tariffs, may have a misleading effect because the small print indicates that those other countries' tariffs are for one specific product: for example, the EU levies high tariffs on American mushrooms & truffles, rather "niche" products, though also for wine. But as a communication, this approach may be seen as selective, hence somewhat misleading.
1. Perfectly valid points all, though I stand by my point: it was not at all obvious to Truman that relieving Berlin wouldn't provoke the Soviets. It was a gutsy, difficult move and it paid off.
2. I will consider what you're saying here, but I think the graph is clear. Take for instance EU auto tariffs. There's no spinning that they charge 4X what we charge them. It's unfair and it greatly diminishes the number of cars we sell in Europe (which is the point: it's rarely about the revenue). Cars are not the only sector, but they're a pretty huge one. And don't even get me started on the Common Agricultural Policy!
Anyway, your thoughts are always highly welcome. Thank you!
Thank YOU! I certainly agree that the Airlift was a gutsy move by Truman, and there WAS anxiety; but every alternative would have been worse; one would have consisted of starting a new war, the other to just giving in to the Russians, and I shudder to think of what that might have led to. At that time a common opinion in Europe was that the Russians might invade at any time they chose, and nothing could be done. To illustrate that mindset, we had a neighbor woman -- I cannot bring myself to use the word "lady", who was kind of nuts, and was always screaming at us kids in the back yard, from the other side of the hedge. And one day she yelled, out of the blue: "When the Russians come, they'll send you to Siberia!" My mother just shook her head ...
Maybe more important, post-WWII-Europe might have looked a lot different -- and better -- if Truman had taken over from FDR much sooner. Truman may have been a Democrat, but he was a dogged realist who lacked Roosevelt's overestimate of himself -- like the latter's breezy assurances that he could handle "Uncle Joe".
As to the tariff graph -- I think we can both be right, just about different aspects.
It occurred to me that you might enjoy this take on the Berlin Airlift, on the part of the DDR -- and Stalin's regime, I suppose:
https://wimdevriend.substack.com/p/the-communist-take-on-the-berlin
https://wimdevriend.substack.com/p/the-communist-take-on-the-berlin-cea
I’m rubber, you’re glue. That should be the motto in the US. Not just for trade, but all of our relationships with other nations…
We genuinely want partners. We do not want dependents. The Cold War is over.
It almost feels like something has to be missing here because this makes so much sense. Well written!