Skip to main content
  • 42 Accesses

Abstract

Berlin, the one-time capital of a great world power, is today a city of unusual complexity and interest — the center of competing jurisdictions and international rivalries. It is virtually a beleaguered island, physically isolated within the Communist-controlled East German Democratic Republic. Formerly the epicenter of the Weimar Republic and the mighty Nazi Third Reich, it now is dependent upon outside economic and financial assistance for its very existence. It is many times divided — geographically, politically, economically, and governmentally.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. There are many accounts describing this contrast between West and East Berlin. Among the more recent are the “Berlin” issue of Germany: The Magazine of the Federal Republic (April, 1960), and “Berlin, the Hub of Germany,” special issue of Berliner Illustrirte (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  2. These paragraphs are based upon United States, Strategic Bombing Survey, A Brief Study of the Effects of Area Bombing on Berlin… (2nd ed., 1947), especially pp. 3, 8, 11; and Homer L. Thomas and James K. Pollock, “A Survey of Greater Berlin” (typewritten, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1944), pp. 1-4.

    Google Scholar 

  3. “Berlin, the Hub of Germany,” op. cit., p. 241.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Perhaps especially remarkable is the Karl-Marx-Strasse, in the West Berlin district of Neuköln — the “poor man’s Kudamm” where both West and East currencies have been exchanged briskly without ado, and East Berliners could window shop, buy many commodities unavailable in the East, or rest inconspicuously for a few moments. This trade thrived despite the fact that every purchase in West Berlin by an Easterner was officially regarded as an “economic felony” in the East. See ibid., p. 182.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ibid., pp. 148-152.

    Google Scholar 

  6. These matters are also discussed in ibid., passim.

    Google Scholar 

  7. See, for example, H. R. Trevor-Roper, The Last Days of Hitler (New York, 1947), Chapter 7.

    Google Scholar 

  8. For additional information, see “Berlin, the Hub of Germany,” op. cit., pp. 210-215.

    Google Scholar 

  9. For additional discussion on Berlin’s government prior to 1933, see Roger H. Wells, German Cities: A Study of Contemporary Municipal Politics and Administration (Princeton, 1932), pp. 203-217; also see Roger H. Wells, “Local Government,” pp. 57-84 in Edward H. Litchfield and Associates, Governing Postwar Germany (Ithaca, N. Y., 1953).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Originally it had been agreed to administer Berlin tripartitely (Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and United States), but in 1945 it was decided that the French also would participate in the occupation of the metropolis. These determinations paralleled those concerned with Germany as a whole; initially the Allies agreed to organize three occupation zones, but this was increased to four when France was added as an occupant. For pertinent documents, see United States Senate, Documents on Germany, 1944–1959, 86th Cong., Ist Sess. (Washington, D. C, 1959), pp. 1-5, 18, 21–24; Rudolf R. Legien, The Four Power Agreements on Berlin: Alternative Solutions to the Status Quo?, trans, by Trevor Davies (Berlin, [n.d.] 1960). Also see Appendices 1–5 below.

    Google Scholar 

  11. For example, during these initial two months, Soviet unilateral dismantling operations entailed the seizure of more than 80 per cent of the city’s remaining industrial equipment and nearly 70 per cent of its stocks of raw and finished materials. For the text of this order, see Appendix 6.

    Google Scholar 

  12. During the airlift, the Allies flew more than a quarter of a million flights, and delivered more than two million tons of food to Berlin. Some thirty-one Americans and forty-one British airmen lost their lives during the venture; their names are engraved upon the Airlift Memorial at Tempelhof Airport.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lowell Bennett, Berlin Bastion: The Epic of Post-War Berlin (Frankfurt/Main, 1951), p. 9. Other studies on this question include: Ferdinand Kuhn, Jr., The Facts Behind the Berlin Crisis, a reprinting of a series of articles appearing in The Washington Post, October 4–8, 1948 (Washington, D. C, 1948); and United States, Department of State, The Berlin Crisis: A Report on the Moscow Discussions — 1948 (Washington, D.C., 1948). Also see Frank L. Howley, Berlin Command (New York, 1950); W. Phillips Davison, The Berlin Blockade: A Study in Cold War Politics (Princeton, 1958).

    Google Scholar 

  14. To meet various exigencies, principally the obvious necessity of joint Allied decisionmaking and cooperative military government administration for all of Germany, the Allies created the Allied Control Authority for Germany, the supreme military government agency. It was established on June 5, 1945, and structurally it was composed of an Allied Control Council, on which the four Military Governors served and which met in Berlin, and a number of lesser agencies. The latter included a Coordinating Committee, comprised of ranking generals who were Deputy Military Governors, and a number of functional committees called Directorates. See Chart 1 in the following chapter. In less than three years the Allied Control Authority issued approximately 125 instruments of “legislation,” including 61 “laws,” and 57 “directives.” Because of Soviet obstructionism, eventually the Control Authority’s deliberations tended to degenerate into wasted effort, and on March 20, 1948, after approximately thirty-four months, the Soviet representative walked out of the Control Council, and the Allied Control Authority came to an end. See Elmer Plischke, Contemporary Government of Germany (Boston, 1961), pp. 11-13.

    Google Scholar 

  15. The Kommandatura is discussed more fully in Chapter 2.

    Google Scholar 

  16. This was established by the Soviet Government for the Administration of Berlin when the Soviet representative terminated his participation in the Kommandatura in 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  17. This was created by the Soviet Government to deal with East German affairs after the Allied Control Authority was terminated, and the Western Allies established the Allied High Commission for Germany in 1949 to handle their relations with the West German Government. Subsequently, this was replaced by the Soviet High Commission, which eventually was superseded by a Soviet Embassy in 1955.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1963 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Plischke, E. (1963). Introduction. In: Government and Politics of Contemporary Berlin. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9135-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9135-7_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8424-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9135-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics