The Berlin Crisis 1958 - 1961

As you have read Germany had, by

Economically, West Germany was larger than East Germany with a larger population
and greater industrial output. It had also received Marshall Aid. In fact, West Germany
in the 1950s and 1960s experienced what became known as the ‘economic miracle’ and,
thus the standard of living of most West Germans rapidly increased.
Meanwhile in East Germany, leader Walter Ulbricht’s economic reforms were disastrous
for the economy. With the hardships and drop in living standards that this entailed,
along with the loss of political freedoms, many East Germans fled to the West via Berlin
as it was still easy to cross the city at this point. Indeed many people daily crossed from
one side of the city to the other to work or visit relatives or friends.
Differences in East and West Germany by 1961
Political differences

Politically, West Germany had democracy. In East Germany there had been no free
elections since 1946 and, by the 1950s, it was a rigidly Stalinist, authoritarian state.
In 1953, East Germany workers in East Berlin had revolted in 1953 to protest
against this situation. However these riots had been quickly put down with the
help of Soviet tanks.
As a result of these economic and political differences, there were no further
efforts by either side to reunite as one country. Changing the situation seemed
more risky than maintaining the status quo. However, the potential for conflict
remained, and particularly in the increasingly tense situation of Berlin, which
Khrushchev described as ‘a fishbone in East Germany’s gullet’.
Why did a Crisis Develop in 1961?
● After the Berlin Blockade, Berlin remained divided under joint
American–British–French–Soviet occupation and the economic and political
inequalities of the two Germanys could be clearly seen in the differences
between West Berlin and East Berlin.
● West Berlin appeared to be a glittering, dynamic example of what capitalism
could achieve.
● This factor, along with the political freedoms and open lifestyle of the West
Berliners, encouraged East Germans to escape from the hardships of the East
to the prosperity and freedom of the West through the open frontier in Berlin.
● All East Berliners had to do was to travel from East Berlin to West Berlin,
which could be done by train or subway, and from there emigration to West
Germany was easy.
Why did a Crisis Develop in 1961?
● Those who were defecting were very often
highly killed workers or well-qualified
managers; the East German government could
not afford to lose such people from their
country.
● Between 1945 and 1961 about one-sixth of the
whole German population took the
opportunity to move to the West via Berlin.
● In addition, the divided city of Berlin allowed
the West to maintain a unique propaganda and
espionage base 186 kilometres (110 miles) deep
into East German territory.
Khrushchev’s Reaction to the Berlin Crisis
● In 1958, Khrushchev proposed a peace treaty that would recognize the existence of
the two Germanys.
● On 27 November 1958, he then demanded that Berlin should be demilitarized,
Western troops withdrawn and Berlin changed into a ‘free city’.
● If the West did not agree to these changes within six months, Khrushchev
threatened that he would turn over control of access routes to the Western sectors
of Berlin to the GDR (East Germany).
● This was clever diplomacy; it would allow the GDR to interfere at will with traffic
using land corridors from the FRG (West Germany).
● The Western allies would then have to negotiate with the GDR, which would force
them to recognize the existence and sovereignty of the GDR (which it had so far
refused to do).
● It was a dangerous situation. The West could not contemplate losing face over
Berlin or giving up its propaganda and intelligence base, but to resist Khrushchev
could mean the possibility of war.
Khrushchev’s Reaction to the Berlin Crisis
● In the face of Western outrage at his proposal, Khrushchev dropped his ultimatum. He was
successful, however, in forcing the Allies to discuss the German question.
● In February 1959, they agreed that a foreign ministers’ conference should meet in Geneva in the
summer. At Geneva both sides put forward proposals for German unity, but no agreement was
secured.
● Khrushchev then met in the United States with Eisenhower in September 1959, but again no
agreement was reached. A follow-up summit to be held in Paris in May 1960 was called off at the
last minute after the shooting down over the Soviet Union of an American U-2 spy plane.
● As the numbers of refugees fleeing from East Germany via Berlin continued to grow, the leader
of East Germany, Walter Ulbricht grew increasingly frustrated with Khrushchev’s failure to solve
this problem.
● He wanted Khrushchev to sort out the Berlin problem immediately and not wait for a broader
German peace settlement with the West.
● Khrushchev, however, hoped that he would have more luck in getting concessions over Berlin
with the new American president, John F. Kennedy who he regarded as young and
inexperienced.
Khrushchev’s Reaction to the Berlin Crisis
● Kennedy and Khrushchev met in Vienna in June 1961.
Khrushchev tried to bully Kennedy over Berlin
renewing his ultimatum for the West to withdraw from
Berlin.
● However, Kennedy, was determined to appear tough
with the Soviets and was not prepared to give any
concessions to them. Calling Berlin ‘… an island of
freedom in a Communist sea …’ and ‘… a beacon of hope
behind the Iron Curtain …’, (see above) he announced in
a television broadcast that ‘We cannot and will not
permit the Soviets to drive us out of Berlin, either
gradually or by force’.
● Kennedy also responded with an increase in military
spending and a civil defence programme to build more
nuclear fallout shelters.
The Building of the Wall
● With the tension growing over the situation in Berlin, the number of
refugees moving from East to West increased.
● On 12 August 1961 alone, 40,000 refugees fled to the West. Khrushchev
had no intention of starting a nuclear war over Berlin, and so following
Kennedy’s threat to defend Berlin ‘by any means’ and the growing crisis in
East Germany, he bowed to Ulbricht’s pressure and agreed to the closure
of the East German border in Berlin.
● On the morning of 13 August 1961, barbed wire was erected between East
and West Berlin.
● This was followed by a more permanent concrete wall which ultimately
would surround the whole of West Berlin preventing any escape via
Berlin to the West.
What Were the Results of the Wall?
The Berlin Wall became a key moment in Cold War developments in Europe:
● The Wall was a visible admission that the Communist propaganda message had failed
● Families and friends were split with no hope of reunion
● Khrushchev was now able to regain control over the situation; there was no longer a danger of
Ulbricht acting independently
● Ulbricht was able to consolidate control over East Germany
● The drain of skilled workers from East to West ended
● The GDR did not obtain control over access routes to Berlin despite promises from Khrushchev to
Ulbricht that this would happen
● Over the next three decades, hundreds of people were killed trying to defect to the West
● The Wall became a powerful symbol of the division between East and West; Churchill's 'iron
curtain' became a reality
● The Berlin Wall removed Berlin as an issue in the Cold War
● The focus of the Cold War moved from Europe
● The Americans were able to use it as a propaganda weapon against the Soviets e.g, Kennedy's Ich
bin ein Berliner speech
Impact of the
Nuclear Arms Race
What is the
message of each
of the following
tables with
regard to the
arms race
between the
superpowers?
Increase in Tension 1958-62
● The origins of the Cuban Missile Crisis can be traced back to
the overthrow of the pro-USA Cuban government of
General Fulgencio Batista by Fidel Castro in 1959.
● The proximity of Cuba to mainland America, and the
suspicion of the US that Castro was a Communist, meant
growing tension between Cuba and the US.
● This resulted in the botched Bay of Pigs invasion by the US
in an attempt to overthrow Castro and, as relations
worsened between Cuba and the US, increased friendship
between the USSR and Cuba.
Increase in Tension 1958-62
● It is not totally clear why Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba. Khrushchev wrote
in his memoirs that the reason was to protect Cuba and also because 'it was
high time America learned what it feels like to have her own land and her own
people threatened'.
● The United States had missiles in Turkey, which bordered the Soviet Union
and putting missiles a similar distance away from the United States was seen
as a way of redressing the balance.
● Equally important was Khrushchev's aim to seize a propaganda advantage
after the humiliation of the Berlin Wall and to acquire a bargaining chip
against the stationing of US nuclear missiles in Europe.
● John Lewis Gaddis, however, believes that Khrushchev put the missiles into
Cuba mainly because he feared another invasion of Cuba - that he was
determined to save the Cuban revolution.
Impact of Berlin on Cuban Crisis
Read the following extract which comes from Tony Judt's Post War Europe.
1. What point is Judt making regarding the impact of Berlin on Cuba?
2. How do you think this might have affected the actions of the Americans
with regard to the Cuban crisis?

Just as Truman and Acheson had seen the Korean incursion as a possible prelude to
a Soviet probe across the divided frontier of Germany, so Kennedy and his colleagues
saw in the missile emplacements in Cuba a Soviet device to blackmail a vulnerable
America into giving way over Berlin. Hardly an hour passed during the first ten
days of the Cuba crisis without American leaders reverting to the subject of West
Berlin, and the need to 'neutralise' Khrushchev's anticipated countermove in the
divided city. As Kennedy explained on October 22nd 1962 to British Prime Minister
Harold Macmillan: 'I need not point out to you the possible relation of this secret
and dangerous move on the part of Khrushchev to Berlin'.
The Soviet “Problem” in Cuba
● ExComm considered several options in dealing with the Soviets and
Cuba. Kennedy rejected calls from the military for an immediate air
strike followed by an invasion of Cuba and ordered instead a naval
blockade of the island.
● The President went on television to announce the establishment of the
'quarantine' around uba to prevent the delivery of any nuclear
warheads to the island.
● Although the Soviet ships initially continued to head to Cuba, on 24
October, six ships turned back.
● At this point Dean Rusk, the US Secretary State, commented, 'We're
eyeball to eyeball and I think the other fellow just blinked.'
Nevertheless the crisis continued as the missiles sites still remained
on Cuba.
Consequences for Khrushchev and Kennedy
The Cuban missile crisis had significant consequences for both Kennedy and
Khrushchev. It can also be seen as a turning point in the relations between the USSR and
Cuba and between the USSR and the USA:
● The outcome was a personal triumph for Kennedy; his prestige soared nationally
and internationally
● The crisis was a humiliation for Khrushchev; he was deposed in 1964 and this
was a key factor in his removal
● Both sides realised the danger of nuclear war; the Limited Test-Ban Treaty was
signed in August 1963 and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed in
1968
● Cuba no longer faced the threat of an invasion as the USA had promised it would
not invade Cuba as part of the final deal
Consequences for Khrushchev and Kennedy
● The arms race continued unabated as the Soviets attempted to reach parity
with the USA - but it was carried out within an increasingly precise set of
rules.
● Neither side would challenge each other's sphere of influence
● Castro was furious that he had not been consulted in the negotiations; Cuba
now pursued a more independent foreign policy
● China saw the outcome as a sign that the Soviet Union had ceased to be a
revolutionary state; its relationship with the USSR worsened considerably
● A hotline was established between the USA and USSR to make immediate
communication easier and avoid another confrontation such as this
happening again
The Significance of the Cuban Missile Crisis
According to Mike Sewell, what was the signficance of the Cuban Missile Crisis?
The significance of the crisis lies in the fact that the world has never been closer to a
nuclear exchange. It was also a hinge, or a turning point, in the history of the Cold War.
Among the experiences that shaped policy makers’ approaches to any issue in the post
-1962 period was a memory of the way in which crisis management was not crucial to the
very survival of life on earth. As Defence Secretary McNamara later put it, the very idea of
crisis management was shown to be a dangerous misperception. Crises, by their nature are
unmanageable.... the outcome of the crisis, cemented the position of Cuba and West Berlin
as outposts of their respective blocs and changed both sides’ negotiating styles..the crisis
bred new perspectives in both superpower capitals and helped contribute to the rise of
détente. Although it changed the cold war confrontation, it did not end it…’.
Sewell, The Cold war, CUP, 2002, pg 88
Sino-US Relations
● During the Second World War, the United states had given some
aid to the CCP to help it fight against the Japanese.
● However, most aid went to the GMD. During the civil war that
followed the defeat of the Japanese, the USA continued to aid the
GMD and following the victory of the CCP, it refused to recognize
the People’s Republic of China as a legitimate state.
● Rather they continued their support of Jiang Jieshi and the Chinese
Nationalists who had fled to the island of Taiwan.
● The Americans then ensured that it was Taiwan rather than the
PRC that was given a seat on the security council of the United
Nations
Sino-US Relations
● Following the end of the Korean conflict, hostility between the Chinese
and Americans became a key factor in international relations.
● The USA now pledged themselves to the defense of Taiwan. Prior to the
war, they had been reluctant to do this but now they were determined to
thwart Chinese aims in every sphere and to keep them diplomatically
isolated.
● This included keeping the PRC out of the UN, instigating a regional
containment bloc, SEATO and instigating a trade embargo with the PRC.
The fact that Mao was now less in awe of the power of the USA and,
indeed, had increased both his prestige internationally and domestically
through standing up to the US in the war further deepened the conflict.
Sino-US Relations
1. What does the following report by Nixon tell us about why the US changed its attitude
towards China?
2. How accurate is the US’s assessment of the Communist World being ‘a monolithic
challenge’ up to the 1960s?
China exemplified the great changes that had occurred in the Communist world. For years,
our guiding principle was containment of what we considered a monolithic challenge. In
the 1960s the forces of nationalism dissolved Communist unity into divergent centers of
power and doctrine, and our foreign policy began to differentiate among the Communist
capitals. We would deal with countries on the basis of their actions not abstract ideological
formulas..[The US and China] seemed to have no fundamental interests that need collide in
the eager sweep of history
(President Nixon’s Foreign Policy Report to Congress, 1973)
Sino-Soviet Relations
● There was a basic ideological difference between Soviet and Chinese
Communism.
● Stalin never endorsed Mao’s method of revolution: he believed that Mao’s
interpretation of Marxism which used peasants as the basis for revolution
could not be genuine revolutionary Marxism; this should feature workers
leading an urban-based warfare.
● During the Civil war, Stalin had not given aid to the CCP. This was partly
because of ideological differences but also because he feared Mao as a rival for
the leadership of the Communist world and he knew that Jiang’s GMD would
recognise Soviet claims to the disputed border territory along frontiers in
Manchuria and Xinjiang.
● Crucially, he also underestimated the CCP believing that the GMD was bound to
be the victorious party in any conflict with the CCP.
Sino-Soviet Relations
● However, once the CCP had won the civil war, Mao was invited to the
Soviet Union where the Sino-Soviet Treaty was signed.
● The Treaty offered the Chinese Soviet expertise and low-interest aid
and, as a result the First Five Year Plan was modeled on Soviet
planning.
● However, the Chinese felt that they were poorly treated when in
Moscow and the fact that Soviet ‘aid’ was to be loans, paid back with
interest, indicated that the USSR was going to exploit the Treaty in its
own interest.
● Indeed, following this brief period of ‘friendship’, relations started to
decline, particularly when Khrushchev came to power in 1953.
The Vietnam War - Long Term Causes
● American involvement in Vietnam started in 1950 when the US gave aid to
the French government to help resist the forces of Ho Chi Minh, a
Vietnamese nationalist who had been fighting for Vietnamese
independence since before World War Two.
● In fact, the Americans had actually given aid to Ho during World War Two
to assist in his resistance against the Japanese who had taken over the
region.
● But in the growing hostility of the Cold War after the Second World War,
Ho Chi Minh's credentials as a communist were emphasised far more than
his nationalist credentials and so when the French refused to relinquish
its hold over its ex-colony, Truman decided to help them defeat the
Vietnamese forces.
The Vietnam War - Long Term Causes
● Key to explaining US actions in Vietnam are the events going on in the Cold War in
Europe after 1947 and in Asia from 1949 with China's successful Communist revolution
and then the invasion of South Korea by North Korea in 1950.
● In addition, the 'Red Scare' inside the US, which was intensified from 1950 by
'McCarthyism', meant that Communists could not be tolerated.
● In this situation any US President would be expected to be 'tough' on Communism
overseas.
● Indeed, following the Korean War, all US presidents accepted the idea encapsulated in
NSC 68, and also in the concept of the Domino Theory articulated by Eisenhower, that
the Soviet Union was a danger and that there was a real threat of communism
spreading globally.
● This severely limited the course of action open to the US and meant that they had to
support the French against what they saw as the spread of 'imperialistic communism'.
By 1954, the US was funding 80% of the French war against the Vietnamese.
The Vietnam War - Long Term Causes
What is Eisenhower's justification here for US' involvement in the Vietnam
conflict?
You have the specific value of a locality in its production of materials [rice, rubber,
coal, iron ore] that the world needs. You have the possibility that many human beings
pass under a dictatorship that is inimical to the free world. You have the broader
considerations that might follow what you would call the 'falling domino'
principle...You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what
will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly'.
Eisenhower's speech above gave rise to the idea of 'The Domino Theory' which
came to dominate US thinking in the context of the Cold War. The domino effect
identified Vietnam as a key domino which must not be allowed to fall if Laos,
Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Indonesia and even possibly Singapore and Japan
were to remain safe from Communism.
The Vietnam War - Short Term Causes
● The man that the US backed to lead the
government in the South was Ngo Dinh Diem,
a Catholic who had been educated in the US.
● In October 1955, Diem proclaimed the
establishment of the Republic of Vietnam
(also known as South Vietnam) with himself
as president.
● US aid worth millions of dollars was sent to
Diem and the US also began its military
involvement in the South with the
commencement of training of the South
Vietnamese army.
● By 1960 almost 1000 Americans were serving
in South Vietnam as military 'advisers'.
Warm-Up Activity
According to the source below, in what ways did Kennedy widen US involvement in
Vietnam?
Kennedy's policy towards containing communism was known as 'flexible response'
which involved expanding the available means of fighting Communism.This
expansion included increasing the number of military advisers in the South to 17,000
by 1963 and starting counter-insurgency operations against Communist guerillas in
the South. These included 'search-and destroy' missions and using defoliants such as
Agent Orange to destroy the jungle where they were hiding. His government also
supported the Strategic Hamlets programme which consisted of the resettlement of
the villagers into fortified villages were they could be kept 'safe' from Communists.
Kennedy also set up a military counterinsurgency group called the 'Green Berets' who
were trained in guerilla fighting.
Vietnam Wars - Short Term Causes
Kennedy resisted in sending troops to Vietnam
and there is much speculation as to whether in
fact he would have withdraw US support
entirely from Vietnam had he not been
assassinated in 1963.
1. In pairs, discuss the extent to which the US
would have been able to withdrawn from
Vietnam in 1963.
2. Do you agree with General Westmoreland
who argued that Diem's assassination 'morally
locked' the US into Vietnam'?
The Factors Leading to USA Involvement
Discuss the following factors:
Ideological: consider the anti-Communist speeches of the Presidents, the domestic
red-scare within the, USA, the impact of the cold war in Europe and previous
events in Asia - all of which affected how the US saw Ho Chi Minh and blinded the
US to the nationalist aims of Ho Chi Minh
Economic: consider the point made by Eisenhower in his Domino Theory speech
Strategic; consider the idea of the Domino Theory - that all US Presidents believed
that if Vietnam fell to Communism so would other countries within Asia
What are your overall conclusions as to which factor/s were most important for
explaining why the US got involved in the Vietnam war?
Why Were VC Tactics Successful?
● They seized weapons in small scale engagements where their superior position and
superior numbers would give the assurance of easy victories (90% o f their weapons
seized from Saigon or US forces up to 1964)

● They relied on surprise attacks and lethal booby traps

● They cut most of the roads leading to Saigon so that political liaison between the capital
and the villages was effectively broken

● There was a tight organization; new recruits joined a 3 person cell attached in turn to a 3
cell squad which worked tightly together on military operations

● They followed a 12 point code to show respect to local communities

● Every soldier was encourage to know what his/her role was; they were given political
training and self-criticism was encouraged
Why Were VC Tactics Successful?
● Even when they were supported with weapons from the North down the Ho Chi Minh Trail allowing them to do
more large scale attacks, guerilla tactics continued throughout

● The guerillas could always choose targets and accept or reject combat at will

● They used the tunnel system extensively

● Their knowledge of the terrain and the support of the local people remained essential to their strength and
success

● They carried out political education in the villages

● They were ruthless against opponents assassinating or kidnapping officials who were working for the Saigon
government

● In much of South Vietnam, the NLF became the only government operating its own schools, hospitals etc

● The VC maintained a viable economy in the areas they controlled; they collected taxes and revenues from
commerce

● They reorganised the villages economically; they encouraged villages to set up village organisations which
controlled taxes and planned defense
Why was the USA unable to defeat the Vietcong?
The bombing of North Vietnam meant that the North got increasingly involved in the
fight against the US so that by 1967 virtually all first line combat troops of the VC were
provided with modern Chinese and Soviet weaponry
The bombing raids in the North also failed ot have any serious impact on the rural
economy and failed to break the morale of the North
Search and destroy tactics alienated the local population but were also ineffective in
allowing the Americans to hold land; they could clear land of VC in the day but when
they returned to their bases at night the VC could return
Defoliation through Agent Orange further alienated the local population; thousands of
refugees were created through US tactics. As Tabor writes, 'to oppose the guerilla tactics,
the American tactics were compelled to destroy the very country they were fighting
for...every battle meant the attrition of native support and the creation of a new VC'.
(Tabor: The War of the Flea)
Why was the USA unable to defeat the Vietcong?
The US faced the problems of fighting an enemy who knew the territory, had the support
of the local population and was mostly indistinguishable from the local population
The US also faced the problem of supporting a government in the south which was
ineffective and corrupt. Diem's nine successors were all corrupt and oppressive and
failed to improve public support or to improve the fighting quality of the AVRN which
was very poor.
Time was on the side of the Vietnamese; the American government could only maintain
public and Congress support for a limited time for a war that they were clearly not
winning.
The Vietnamese were fighting a total war mobilising all their resources to fight the US;
the US was trying to fight a limited war and so was never put on a war footing. There
was a lack of unity and co-ordination within the American military machine
Why was the USA unable to defeat the Vietcong?
The extent of public opposition at home further made it difficult for the US
to continue the war. There had been no declaration of war by the US on
North Vietnam and there was a lack of unity within the country. there was
no media censorship and the images on TV about the suffering of the
Vietnamese further eroded public support for the war
The US never understood the nature of the Vietnamese conflict (see
McNamara video on this above). the Americans were involving
themselves in a civil war in a country that had fought against foreign
domination for centuries; the Americans were portrayed as foreign
aggressors and the Vietcong were able to portray themselves as liberators
from foreign rule
The Impact on the USA
In June 1969, Nixon issued the Nixon Doctrine:
The nations of Asia can and must increasingly shoulder the responsibility for
achieving peace and progress in the area with whatever cooperation we can
provide. Asian countries must seed their own destiny for if domination by the
aggressor can destroy the freedom of a nation, too much dependence on a
protector can eventually erode its dignity. But it is not just a matter of dignity,
for ht dependence of foreign aid destroys the incentive to mobilize domestic
resources - human, financial and material - in the absence of which no
government is capable of dealing effectively with its problems and adversaries.
1. What does The Nixon Doctrine indicate about the impact of Vietnam on US's
global policy?
The Impact on the USA
● The Vietnam War had a profound impact on the US. Not
only did 58,000 Americans die in the war, but it left a
divided country and a determination not to get involved in
any other wars - 'the Vietnam Syndrome'.
● Meanwhile, Johnson's domestic programme of improving
society for all, The Great Society, was seriously curtailed.
● In addition the American economy faced inflation, a
weakened dollar and increased federal deficits as a result of
the war
Historiography of the Vietnam War
Debate the evidence that supports each one and how far you agree.
'Defeat only came when Congress refused to provide military aid to Vietnam
equal to what the Soviet Union provided for Hanoi' . Nixon
'America was not only right about Vietnam, but the sacrifices it made there, far
from being in vain, accomplished in a spectacular way the broader aims of Asian
stability and prosperity that the intervention was intended to serve' Jim Rohwer
in Asia Rising.
(In this quote, Jim Rohwer is commenting on the fragility of other South East
Asian countries after World War Two such as Malaysia and Thailand and
arguing that by putting all the focus on Vietnam, these countries were given a
breathing space in which to establish political stability).