[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

1948 didn't involve any shooting. The other examples that you cited (barring Kuwait) are mismatches where the forces controlling the ground were unable to significantly impede operations; those mounting the evacuations had air superiority (or supremacy even). Neither of those caveats would apply in East Germany, c. '95.

The Soviets did everything in their power to prevent the Berlin Airlift from succeeding in 1948. No shooting but plenty of harassment, including buzzing the transports, obstructive parachute jumps within the air corridors, and shining searchlights to dazzle pilots at night. Also reportedly flak, air-to-air fire, rocketing, bombing, and explosions. But no shooting!!!

But the political situation of Berlin is unique I think, no real parallel to compare with in history but also nowhere else in the world were the stakes are so high. During Operation Frequent Wind the North Vietnamese could certainly have caused a lot of trouble for the US evacuating Saigon. Maybe the situation in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba could be similar, surrounded by hostile Cuba but America still keeps its base and dares Cuba to stop it from maintaining it.

Originally Posted by Raellus

And this is what I was contending in my previous post. The more hawkish elements in the Soviet high command would likely oppose any airlift or resupply missions, fearing such operations were actually Trojan Horse-style ruses to reinforce the W. Berlin garrison or facilitate the W. German offensive in E. Germany.

This would have also have been the Soviet position about West Berlin in 1948 and now its 1996! Also there is only so much that you can transport by air into West Berlin, you wont be able to sneak in an armoured division under the noses of the Soviets. In fact there is not even any airforce in the city other than a few helicopters.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Right. So if NATO is willing to shoot down Soviet combat aircraft over W. Germany, the Soviets wouldn't respond in kind? That's a really big reach, in my opinion.

They did respond, they invaded Norway!

Originally Posted by Raellus

I agree that the Soviets wouldn't want to provoke the rest of NATO into joining the fracas, but would they be willing to project weakness by allowing NATO aircraft to operate over E. Germany?

Strictly speaking its not NATO aircraft, its aircraft of the Western Allies of WW2 who were once Soviet allies. And we are not talking about combat aircraft, we are talking about transports or more likely commercial airliners.

Originally Posted by Raellus

What's the realpolitik response? Once again, it depends on leadership. If you see the Soviets as cautious, prudent, and pragmatic, then I guess it makes sense for them to allow NATO continued access to W. Berlin. I see the Soviets taking the opposite tack, though, trying to convey strength and resolve. It's essentially a game of double-bluff.

They acted though and tried to convey strength and resolve by invading China. How did that work out for them?

Originally Posted by Raellus

In my T2KU, the Soviets were tired of losing these tests of will- Berlin '48, the October Crisis (what we call the Cuban Missile Crisis). In fact, as I see it, the hawks in the Politburo are arguing that it's precisely the Soviet responses to those past crises that have emboldened the W. Germans, and that further displays of weakness will only worsen the situation.

I think that you're presupposing a very rational Soviet leadership. I see quite a bit of evidence in canon that the Soviet gov't. and military were not thinking or acting in a particularly rational way (launching a full scale invasion of China, for example). Given that, my views on Berlin make sense.

Yet the Soviet Army never crossed the inter-German border into West Germany. In fact it is NATO who crosses into East Germany in December and starts a full scale war in Central Europe.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I know this, and actually I think canon says that they used them in Europe first, albeit sparingly, then far more liberally in China. I could be wrong

I though it was in China first and then used in Poland against NATO. Not quite sure at this moment, as I haven't gone through the books and looked it up.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I respect your opinions- they're rational and well-supported- and I'm not trying to impose mine on anyone. That said, I wouldn't argue this if I didn't think that my POV was justified by the available evidence. I'm totally cool with continuing a cordial, respectful debate here, and I'm equally cool with just agreeing to disagree.

No bother.