23 Pages
5639 Words
Introduction : History Course Work: Role Of Stalin & Ussr In The Berlin Crisis
“The Berlin Crisis of 1948-1949 was a watershed moment at the beginning of the Cold War, with the Western Allies and the Soviet Union at disagreement”. The upheaval concluded in the Soviet blockade of West Berlin in an attempt to drive the Allies out of the city as a result of philosophical disputes and Germany's partition following World War II. “In the aftermath, the Western Allies organised the Berlin Airlift, a vast humanitarian operation to provide needed items by air to West Berlin”. The economic downturn emphasised the geopolitical battle that exists between the liberal West and the communist East, emphasising Europe's wartime divisions. The effectively executed air-based evacuation not only prevented Soviet intentions but also represented Western determination and togetherness in confronting the backdrop of Cold War obstacles. The recession eventually put in motion the long-running ideological conflict between the Eastern Bloc and the Western Allies. The assignment here will delve deep into the Berlin Issue with a specific thesis to establish. The thesis argues that Stalin, the leader of the USSR block (Eastern Bloc) was not to be blamed for the Berlin Crisis of 1948-49, and rather the crisis must be analysed as a defensive response of Stalin, who projected this as a threat from the USA. The study here will take instances from the arguments put forward by contemporary and recent historians who hold Stalin the culprit of the blockade. The study, however, will focus on finding evidence to argue that Stalin was not a dictator with a philosophical agenda of expansion rather he only reacted to the difficult times thrown at him by the USA. To argue this, the study will comprehensively take up an assortment of evidence including arguments provided by scholars and a few primary sources of contemporary times.
Section One
Argument to be Explored
This section will argue that Stalin was partially responsible for the incident of the Berlin Crisis as clearly under his command, the USSR blocked the Allied section of Berlin, pushing the limits of the inhabitants there. However, it was a propaganda and biased argument put forward by the Western Bloc for blaming Stalin. Thus, the USSR leader was not totally at fault.
Historians Supporting the View
During the time of the Cold War, the world was not only divided into two sections comprising Eastern and Western Blocs, led by the USSR and the USA respectively, but also the academic world was separated from each other. One group leaned towards the USA and another towards the USSR, supporting each Bloc with their arguments and writings. Thus, there were plenty of historians and scholars who argued for the Western Bloc and projected Stalin as a dictator, a brutal expansionist whose main aim was to force Communism on the whole planet. Needless to say, this category of historians was majorly American in origin and argued that Stalin was the sole reason for the Berlin Crisis. “Researchers and academics such as George F. Kennan, John Lewis Gaddis, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., and Paul Nitze advocated in favour of the Western Bloc and blamed Stalin for the Berlin Crisis”. According to the American scholar Roger G. Miller, Stalin was an inhumane dictator and the only culprit of the Berlin Disaster. However, it was the US-led propaganda and a biased opinion against the USSR. Historians and scholars like Gwinn, Bittner and Fischer argue this issue that Stalin was alone in this conflict and the USA played an equally menacing role.
Contextual Knowledge to Analyse This Interpretation
According to historian Roger G. Miller, Stalin was a harsh tyrant with a restricted objective of spreading communism and establishing Sovietization in eastern European states. “He said that the USSR planned to break apart Germany and bring it under universal control, resulting in the Berlin Crisis” (Miller, 2008). Another historian, George F. Kennan, contended that the Policy of Containment was required for the Eastern Bloc or the United States to prevent Sovietisation. “Kennan criticised the Soviet Union for the Berlin Blockade but emphasised caution over outright combat as a means of preventing the spread of socialism”. Historians like Gaddis and Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. were biased towards the context of the Cold War. They believed that Stalin was a dictator like Miller and argued that the USSR had an evil plan of spreading Communism all around Europe. “Both these writers Gaddis and Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. portrayed and projected Stalin as a paranoid dictator”. “Gaddis moreover argued that Stalin’s absolute power made him super powerful and thus he surpassed all restraints and unleashed the horrors”. However, it must be remembered that the Cold War was an incident of many years in modern times of history, and blaming a single Bloc and a single leader for all the incidents proves to be a biased approach to analysing history. In this argument, blaming Stalin for the whole Berlin crisis without a clear background understanding of the rationale behind it proves to be a biased approach.
Primary Sources to Support
Refer to appendix for image. This is a propaganda cartoon by Daniel Robert Fitzpatrick, an American author who illustrated the Soviet Union as a grizzly bear spreading its arms over the city. As it looks threateningly at its town centre, the animal's talons are stained with lifeblood. The deeper meaning here is impossible to overlook as the cartoonist was arguing that Stalin was a bloodthirsty monster who was making the Germans suffer as a result of the Blockade. “With death on the palms from previous conquests, the Soviets now regard Berlin as a fresh prize”.
Evaluation of Primary Source Provenance/Context
This primary source is a fit for the context as this initial argument portrays Stalin as the main villain. However, this is an instance in which Stalin has been projected as the main culprit of the Berlin crisis of 1948-49 as per the arguments provided by the Western Bloc. “The Western Bloc for reference was full of propaganda during the Cold War period and found ways to project USSR leaders as enemies with pictorial analogies”. Even though later it was found that the USA was the initial force of Cold War and Berlin animosity, this primary source provides an overview of the treatment received by the Eastern Bloc for its Western counterpart. However, the blockade followed by Stalin made Germans suffer, undoubtedly. Thus, the source is not only relevant for understanding the dictatorial approach of the USSR but also of the Western media agenda to portray the acts of the same.
Primary Sources to Support
“If we mean that we are to hold Europe against communism, we must not budge [from Berlin]. I believe the future of democracy requires us to stay here until forced out.” Said Lucius D. Clay, US general, April 1948.
Evaluation of Primary Source Provenance/Context
In the face of a Communist attack, the statement emphasised a firm determination to protect Berlin, providing a heroic message to the world. However, it must be remembered that this was a propaganda set up by the USA and the Western Bloc writers to portray the USSR and its policy in a negative light. “Western historians wanted to portray the USSR's rule as being devoid of democratic rights, as it was now their responsibility to settle democracy in Germany” . The scholar named Fischer argued that it was the propaganda of the USA and the Western Bloc to degrade the USSR. “This argument portrays the Cold War propaganda that the USA had towards the USSR”.
Mini Judgement
While scholars such as Lucius D. Clay, Gaddis, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., and others emphasise the determination to fight communism, it is critical to understand the propaganda context of such utterances. Although Stalin's actions were criticised, blaming him entirely oversimplifies the complicated geopolitical context of the Berlin Crisis, which entailed larger tensions related to the Cold War and the acts of both countries.
Section Two
In this section, the focus will be on the policies formulated by the USA and how they provoked the USSR to act. In this section, the focus will be on the Marshall Plan of Trumanand the ways in which it provoked Stalin to act defensively, thus arguing that the Berlin Crisis was not the fault of Stalin.
Historians Supporting the View
As the world was about to view the incident of the Cold War as the brainchild of the USSR and the aggressive policies of Stalin, there emerged a new wave of historians with fresh sets of evidence. Hamilton and others in 1994, argue that the Cold War and the Berlin Crisis were the acts and deeds done by the USA. Stalin was not interested in confrontation yet the initiation of the propagandist Marshal Plan forced him to take responsive actions. Similarly, scholars like Micheal Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe argue that it was the policies of the USA that provoked the USSR to act defensively rather than offensively as portrayed by the US historians and their propaganda (described in Section One). Following this, another historian Scott Parrish argues that Stalin and Molotov believed that the Marshall Plan reflected an aggressive campaign meant not only to unite Western Europe to form an anti-Soviet alliance but also to destabilise the Communist bloc.
Contextual Knowledge to Analyse This Interpretation
According to historians, namely in the work of Hamilton and others in 1994 said that the Cold War period was an immediate time after the disastrous war of Second World War which showed humankind the horrors of nuclear warfare. Thus, according to Hamilton et al., (1994), Stalin as the new leader of the USSR Bloc had no desire to begin a confrontation with any nation at a given time. Thus according to these historians, Stalin was looking forward to a neutral and rather peaceful time during the Cold War in which they would not be involved in aggressive actions. “However, historians argued that the initiation of the Marshall Plan was the trigger that forced Stalin to act against the Western Bloc” . Marshall Plan if implemented would have divided Europe on the basis of supporters and anti-parties of the USA. And Stalin wanted to stop this situation of division, resulting in his blockade of the space. “This argument has also been formulated by the historians, Micheal Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe”. They argue that the USA designed their Marshall Plan in such a manner that would forcefully divide not only Germany but also Europe. They argue that America played a major role in this issue of division and provoking Stalin into action as they kept Western Germany in their aid plan and intentionally left the Eastern part under the control of the USSR. They also argue that in resonance with Hamilton and others, Stalin avoided confrontation with the USA. Similarly, Parrish, (2016), argued with new evidence that Stalin was hoping for cooperation between the USSR and the USA in post-war Europe, however, the biased Marshall Plan destroyed the hopes. Stalin’s correct understanding of the biased Plan made him act, and unfortunately making him the main villain.
Primary Sources to Support
Refer to appendix for image. This image provides an idea of the US propaganda regarding the Marshall Plan. “This image depicts how the US is being helpful however in reality the nation wants to create a pro-USA Bloc that will be used against Stalin and the USSR who had no intention of confrontation at the start”.
Evaluation of Primary Source
This main source of information, a Cold War propaganda photograph from the United States, illustrates Cold War emotions. It shows the Marshall Plan as benign assistance while implying sinister objectives, therefore establishing a pro-USA bloc. Comprehending the content of this cartoon is critical for understanding the ideological framework of the times, illustrating the ongoing conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union throughout the period following World War II. era.
Primary Sources to Support
Refer to appendix for image. The cartoon in question is titled 'Peace is Excluded from Paradise.' “The Soviet satirical journal Krokodil condemned the Marshall Plan on July 20, 1950, depicting it as a hazardous shelter supporting America's financial, armed forces, and religious objectives”.
Evaluation of Primary Source
“The Soviet publication Krokodil's illustration "Peace is Excluded from Paradise" depicts a strong anti-Marshall Plan attitude”. The proposal, dated July 20, 1950, is shown as a dangerous haven supporting American financial, armed forces, and spiritual interests. This source represents the Soviet condemnation of the Marshall Plan, revealing the propaganda of the Cold War and philosophical tensions.
Mini Judgement
Historians like Hamilton and others, Cox, Kennedy-Pipe, and Parrish contend that the Marshall Plan aroused Stalin instinctively because of its prejudiced design favouring nations that are close to the USA. They claim that Stalin, who was originally opposed to conflict, regarded the idea as a danger to Soviet hegemony and unification in Europe. Primary materials, such as Uptton's pro-Marshall Plan propaganda and Krokodil's anti-Marshall Plan cartoon, demonstrate the ideological contradictions, offering insight into how the plan's views affected the USSR's defensive actions.
Section Three
In this section, the focus will be made on a similar stance of establishing the fact that Stalin was not to be blamed and the initiation of Deutschmark forced Stalin to act like an Anti-Western Bloc dictator.
Historians Supporting the View
Historian, Mary Elise Sarotte digs into the complexity of German-Soviet interactions in her book "Dealing with the Devil: East Germany, Détente, and Ostpolitik, 1969-1973," analysing how currency changes and the introduction of Deutschmark by the USA and the UK affected the events of the Berlin Crisis . Historian Daniel F. Harrington in their book “The Berlin Blockade Revisited” examines the different causes that contributed to the Berlin Crisis, particularly monetary concerns and the introduction of Deutschmark (Harrington, 2023). According to historian Sewell, Stalin couldn't manage to regulate what he decided to bring the new Deutschmark into West Berlin, which Sewell emphasises as the "trigger" for the upheaval .
Contextual Knowledge to Analyse This Interpretation
Historians like Mary Elise Sarotte, Daniel F. Harrington, and Sewell provide varied viewpoints on the Berlin Disaster, highlighting the importance of shifting currencies and the adoption of the Deutsche Mark in sparking Soviet responses. The Soviets viewed the Western Allies' secret efforts to establish a new German state and reintroduce the Deutschmark to Berlin's west side in early 1948 as financial and political threats. Sewell identifies Stalin's failure to control the decision to launch a fresh currency in West Berlin as the "trigger” emphasising the conflict between the superpowers. Sarotte's investigation of German-Soviet exchanges during Ostpolitik reveals the complexities of the catastrophe, revealing how finance improvements were interwoven with bigger diplomatic manoeuvres. Harrington's examination of the multiple reasons for the Berlin Crisis, especially fiscal worries, is consistent with Sarotte's emphasis on economic considerations. The historical background supports Sewell's focus on the Deutschmark as the recession's cause since its introduction disturbed the fragile wartime equilibrium and prompted Communist reactions. The Soviet blockade of the Berlin region and the interruption of vital supplies to West Berlin reflected a sophisticated geopolitical chess game. Historian Sewell's theory recognises Stalin's geopolitical reasons for forcing the Western Allies to reassess their German strategies. The crisis highlights the complex factors that led to the Berlin Blockade and lays the foundation for further tensions over the Cold War.
Primary Sources to Support
Refer to Appendix for the image.
Evaluation of Primary Source
The opening page of the German daily Die Welt, which announced the Deutschmark's distribution beginning on Monday, acts as the primary source demonstrating the general declaration of the monetary shift. This paper provides personal proof of the Deutschmark's commencement, correlating with the historical record of its adoption and its subsequent influence on the Berlin Crisis.
Primary Sources to Support
“In his memoirs of 1987 Helmut Schmidt, former German Chancellor, published the following passage about the key person in Lucius Clay’s U.S. Military Government who orchestrated the harsh 1948 reform against resistance from German experts: “One of the masterminds behind German currency reform, the young American Edward A. Tenenbaum, very unjustly penetrated little into public awareness of Germans”.
Evaluation of Primary Source
Helmut Schmidt's recollections provide vital information, highlighting Edward A. Tenenbaum's crucial involvement in the 1948 German monetary reform. This main document demonstrates the impact of an American young personality on postwar economic policy. It implies that internal factors, notably US-led modifications, had a substantial influence on events, casting doubt on the concept that Stalin was solely responsible for reactionary actions during the course of the Berlin Crisis.
Mini Argument
Historians including Mary Elise Sarotte, Daniel F. Harrington, and Sewell question the historical account that blames Stalin for the Berlin Conflict. Sarotte and Harrington dive into the complexity of German-Soviet contacts, focusing on the influence of changes in currencies and the creation of the Deutsche Mark by the United States and the United Kingdom. Sewell emphasises Stalin's insufficient authority over his choice to deploy the fresh cash in West Berlin, labelling it the "triggering event" for the uprising. This perspective is supported by the original sources. The widespread use of the Deutschmark is announced on the headline page of Die Welt, providing ample proof of the money shift, which was conducted outside Soviet approval. Helmut Schmidt's recollections disclose Edward A. Tenenbaum's important involvement in organising the 1948 German financial change, casting doubt on Stalin's position as the lone instigator. This position is reinforced by the past context, which details the Western Allies' clandestine efforts to construct a new German government and implement the Deutschmark outside Russian consensus. The unilateral measures, revealed in original sources, highlight the disparity between public perception and the hidden manoeuvrings of the United States and the United Kingdom. Finally, the Berlin Crisis surfaces as a complicated result of diplomatic game shifts with domestic considerations and Western Allies' actions playing an important part, undermining the simple portrayal of exclusively demonising Stalin and exposing the subtle variations in the legacy of the Cold War.
Section Four:
Argument to be explored
This section will discuss the policies or aims of the USA and the USSR in terms of Germany because both of the countries have different viewpoints or aspects to have control over Germany.
Historians who argued
Denna Fleming, and Eric Hobsbawm have disclosed some of the main policies led by the US and the USSR regarding the division of Germany. “These historians have helped to promote a brief discussion on the events related to the Cold War and have also provided their views from the period of 1945 till 1991”. The historians have demonstrated each and every contribution of different countries that can help to prove “Stalin is not to be blamed for the overall crisis faced by Berlin”. For instance, Alperovitz (an American revisionist) stated that the policies laid by America were the main factors that contributed towards global crisis and tensions.
Contextual knowledge to analyse this interpretation:
As per the historians both the countries that are the USA and the USSR have different policies that basically led to the crisis of Berlin. In this case, Germany was further divided West and East parts that are into federal republic and German democratic Republic respectively. “The policies of the USA included the reconstructions of the allies leading the Western regions”. In addition to this, the USA provided different types of financial support to provide appropriate assistance in improving Germany’s infrastructure and promote a stable economy for the long run as compared to the normal communism. The formation of West Germany was also supported by the government USA to encourage a free economy. The North-Atlantic treaty was also formed in 1949 by the USA which is also known as NATO with the help of West Germany. Lastly, the main policy of Germany was to organise Berlin Airlift during the process of blockade from 1948 till 1949 so that essential resources can be provided to East Germany controlled by the USSR or the Soviet Union. Thus, defending Berlin from the extreme pressure from the union. “On the other hand, the policies laid by the USSR included the formation of allies with Eastern Germany. Under the effect of World War 2 the Soviet Union established GDR or the German Democratic Republic in 1949 to keep a strong control over the country”. A community of eastern bloc was created with Eastern Germany and Eastern Europe that further helped to maintain a well-structured military assistance. However, in terms of the Berlin crisis during 1948, the USSR literally starved the individuals living in the West regions of Berlin as a new currency was established. The blockade was removed with the help of Western communities. Lastly, Eastern Germany built a wall in Berlin in 1961 with the assistance of the USSR. This wall was considered as one of various reasons that led to the division of the country during the period of the Cold War.
Primary source(s) to support this interpretation:
Refer to appendix
Evaluation of primary source provenance/context:
The above-mentioned figure supports an anti-communists behaviour that increases the stress and panic among the individuals living in the US and the USSR. But the government tried to increase the moral values of the individuals so that they are able to take a stand in front of the Soviet Union and are not scared to fight at any moment.
Primary source(s) to support this interpretation:
Refer to appendix
Evaluation of primary source provenance/context:
The pie chart in the above figure shows the rate of overall production of the industry from 1948 till 1960. The pie chart in the middle shows the transformation of the states in the period of communism. Apart from this, the bar graph mentioned in the top of the picture shows the economic growth in different countries like the US, Berlin, England, Canada, Netherlands, France, East Germany, Italy and Japan from the period of 1953 till 1960. However, the arrows represent the growth in the 10 years in the communists as well as the capitalist’s countries so that the entire situation can be analysed. The picture thus analysed that communism is far better than capitalism as it increases the economic growth for the long run. The pie charts in this case, refers to the loss of power, finances and production volume in the capitalist countries by the end of 1960. In addition to this, the capitalists and the communist countries are using this data to predict their future so that appropriate decisions can be undertaken.
Mini judgement:
In the viewpoint of the USA, the cold war led to the destruction of Berlin that further contributed to the blockade. But the main reasons for the crisis was the distinction in the policies between the USA and the USSR that also generated a lot of conflicts between these two states. The crisis also led to the poor response to the Red Army and the formation of the Berlin Wall that decreased all the potential trade between two states further contributing to the financial crisis.
Section Five:
Argument to be explored
This section will provide discussion on how the government of the USA aggravated the crisis of Berlin that can help to prove the absolve of Stalin in terms of the crisis during the Cold War. The topic can also help to explore different reasons for the crisis and can also provide a deep insight on the divisions of Berlin so that the main factors can be evaluated.
Historians who argued
Historians like Gar Alperovitz, Herbert Feis, Francis Fukuyama and Ernest May discussed the aggravations of the USA to discover the entire situation regarding the crisis of Berlin and to assure the irresponsibility of Stalin. Alperovitz in this case, believed that the global tensions increased between the unions due to the policies generated by America during 1940. He also believed that Stalin was imposed for everything as the USA took the help of the Red Army to ensure a strong position during the Cold War.
Contextual knowledge to analyse this interpretation:
“In 1948, Berlin was assisted to block the western individuals and the unions from entering the city. To further respond to the blockade the USA used airlifts to continue the supply of food and emergency units in the city”. The issue of blockade was further mitigated in 1949 and the USA maintained a high position in the city by providing free access to the unions within Berlin so that a proper flow of finance could be maintained. This encouraged the GDR or German Democratic Republic that is also referred to as East Germany to enter Berlin and claim control over Europe. “However, in 1958, Nikita Khruschev, the soviet premier, demanded the USA to tie allies and form new roles to reduce the impact of the crisis in Berlin”. Khruschev in this case, broke all ties with Stalin after securing the allies with the USA and blamed Stalin for everything by giving a “Secret Speech”. “This speech further framed Stalin to change the personality of Berlin and create a huge difference in the principles led by the communist states”. Nikita also stated in the speech that Stalin caused the imprisonment of the Serbian individuals that helped the people to believe “Stalin was the main culprit”. However, the speech led to a vast destruction in which Hungary called a communist party in 1956 to reform the entire communism but it was invented by the Soviet union's further contribution to violence. Various protests were killed in this case and Khruschev arrested thousands of individuals following the society community.
Primary source(s) to support this interpretation:
Refer to the appendix
Evaluation of primary source provenance/context:
“The above newspaper denotes that the crisis of Berlin spread fast as compared to light or fire as thousands of individuals came to surge throughout days and nights so that freedom can be achieved. In this case, millions of individuals from East Germany also contributed to see the Kurfurstendamnn that led to a huge traffic in the city”. The article provided in the newspapers also enlightened the laughter and happiness of the individuals living in Berlin when the wall came down because most of them were heartbroken due to the captives held during the Cold war.
Primary source(s) to support this interpretation:
“Imagine, Mr. President, what if we were to present to you such an ultimatum as you have presented to us by your actions. How would you react to it? I think you would be outraged at such a move on our part. And this we would understand. ?????Having presented these conditions to us, Mr. President, you have thrown down the gauntlet. Who asked you to do this? By what right have you done this? Our ties with the Republic of Cuba, as well as our relations with other nations, regardless of their political system, concern only the two countries between which these relations exist. And, if it were a matter of quarantine as mentioned in your letter, then, as is customary in international practice, it can be established only by states agreeing between themselves, and not by some third party. Quarantines exist, for example, on agricultural goods and products. However, in this case we are not talking about quarantines, but rather about much more serious matters, and you yourself understand this.” Letter provided by Khruschev to Kennedy in 1962.
Evaluation of primary source provenance/context:
The letter focuses on giving a second thought to the war where Khruschev asks Kennedy to think about different situations where the USA and the Soviet Union were standing on different sides. He also enlightens the aspects where the Unions talk about using different kinds of force if the USA community did not accept their orders. Khruschev also condemns the entire situation with the help of “Tyranny” so that a logical decision can be undertaken.
Mini judgement:
The primary sources and the secondary sources prove that Stalin is not to be blamed for the situation of Berlin as it was a mere result of the competition acquired from the Eastern and the Western communities. However, Stalin treated Russia improperly and refused the trade practices from different international regions in the country.
Conclusion
The study concludes that the main reasons behind the cold war and the crisis of finances or food in Berlin was due to the conflicts between Eastern and the Western communities that are between the USA and the Soviet Union. However, the crisis of 1948 started with the dirty politics and mind of Joseph Stalin that led to an increase in death after the period of war. Lastly, the decisions of the Soviet Union to generate the wall in the mid area of the city are considered as one of the main reasons for the crisis in early 1948.
References
Secondary Alphahistory (2018) Historian: Gar Alperovitz, The Cold War. Available at: https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/historian-gar-alperovitz/ Britannica (2023) Toward a new world order, Encyclopædia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/event/Cold-War/Toward-a-new-world-order Christopher Brooks, (2023) 12.5: The USSR during the Cold War, Humanities LibreTexts. Available at: https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/History/World_History/Western_Civilization_-_A_Concise_History_III_(Brooks)/12%3A_The_Soviet_Union_and_the_Cold_War/12.05%3A_The_USSR_During_the_Cold_War Marc Randall Cheek, (1991) At the core of the Cold War: Soviet foreign policy and the German ... Available at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4699&context=etd editor, To what extent was Stalin to blame for the Berlin crisis 1948-9?, 2023 Gwinn, TOWARDS A CRITICAL HISTORIOGRAPHY OF ORTHODOX-REVISIONIST DEBATES ON THE ORIGINS OF THE COLD WAR: BETWEEN DISCIPLINARY POWER AND U.S. NATIONAL IDENTITY, 2009, The University of Birmingham. Hamilton, Cari, Bennett, Powell, Billington, Carlin, Paige, Cartwright, Foster, Hennessey, Lamaute, Mausui, Reedy, Zirkin, Parrish, Narinsky, Ostermann, Cohen, Gaddis, and Hershberg, WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS NEW EVIDENCE ON THE SOVIET REJECTION OF THE MARSHALL PLAN, 1947: TWO REPORTS COLD WAR INTERNATIONAL HISTORY PROJECT, 1994. Daniel F. Harrington, The Berlin Blockade Revisited on JSTOR, 2023. Jstor.org, Review: Moderation in Pursuit of Truth is No Virtue; Extremism in Defense of Moderation is a Vice on JSTOR, 2023. John Kadar and Eric Engle, Truman and the Rise of the Cold War: Lessons from the Past for the Present. Miskolc J. Int'l L., 2012. Roger G. Miller, To Save a City: The Berlin Airlift, 1948-1949, Texas A&M University Press, 2008. Scott Parrish, Soviet Reaction to the Marshall Plan: Opportunity or Threat., 2016 Robert J. Pauly (2009) The Ashgate Research Companion to US foreign policy, Routledge; CRC Press. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/The-Ashgate-Research-Companion-to-US-Foreign-Policy/Pauly-Jr/p/book/9780754648628 Stanford.edu, The fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years later, 2009. State.gov, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/berlin-airlift , (2023). State.gov. (2023). Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian. [online] Available at: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/kennan [Accessed 27 Nov. 2023]. Marc Trachtenberg, The Marshall Plan as Tragedy on JSTOR, 2023.
Primary “(4) ????? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ??????????? / Russian Posters Collection, 1919-1989 and Undated / Duke Digital Repository.” Duke Digital Collections, n.d. https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4nz82m30. Alamy Limited, 1948 Die Welt newspaper front page Introduction of the Deutsche Mark, 2023. alphahistory, Germany, Berlin and the Berlin Wall, 2016. Anti-Communist Poster Depicting Stalin | Harry S. Truman. n.d. http://Www.trumanlibrary.gov. Accessed July 7, 2021. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/photograph-records/2013-3702 Bittner, 2012. Kurt Brazzil, The Berlin Airlift, 2019. cvce.eu, Cartoon by Ganf on the Marshall Plan, 2011. George Fischer, Genesis of US-Soviet Relations in World War II. The Review of Politics, 1950. Carl Ludwig Holtfrerich, The American Behind the Deutsche Mark, 2018. Jstor.org, Review: Hearts and Minds: The Unconventional Cold War on JSTOR, 2023. Jeff Jacoby, (2019) America stood down as the Berlin Wall went up, Jeff Jacoby. Available at: https://www.jeffjacoby.com/23489/america-stood-down-as-the-berlin-wall-went-up Images of artwork by Daniel Robert Fitzpatrick (1891-1969) from Bridgeman Images, 2023. “Letter from Khrushchev to John F. Kennedy,” October 24, 1962, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, Library of Congress https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/111552 The National Archives, Marshall Aid Cartoon - The National Archives. The National Archives, 2022.
