Berlin in 1996

[RN7]

I see this as more likely:

The Soviets offer to evac Western personnel from W. Berlin- civilian and military. They also announce that anyone who elects to stay behind is taking his/her life into their own hands, as the Soviets cannot/will not acknowledge responsibility for their well-being. They also offer to provide basic humanitarian supplies (food, water, medical) to those who elect to remain, but they make it clear that the "roads" to Berlin are closed.

West Berlin is under Allied administration not German, and no NATO power is helping the Germans in East Germany and in fact many are condemning it including France. Also the Soviets are assisting their ally East Germany in resisting a West German invasion, not a NATO invasion. The Allied garrison in West Berlin is separate from West German forces. If they do the above which is to all intensive purpose an ultimatum to evacuate West Berlin or else, then the US and the rest of NATO (which means Britain, Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Turkey), but also France will support Germany and send their forces into East Germany.

Y'all make some good points about just how dire the straits the Soviets are in and I agree that the Soviets don't want the rest of NATO to join in on the fun at the frontier. I just don't see the Soviets allowing Western traffic through an active war-zone during a full-blown shooting war. I'm hard pressed to come up with another example of "neutrals" being allowed safe passage through an active war-zone during a modern war. Was the Suez canal open during the 6-Day War or Yom Kippur wars Look what happened to that Malayan airliner over Ukraine a couple of years ago- and that was through a designated "safe" air corridor over a "low intensity" conflict zone!




And who are we kidding With the West actively supporting the Chinese in their war against the USSR, there are no neutrals, really. The Soviets would already be pissed about that and I'm sure there would already have been incidents where Western-flagged merchantmen on their way to China had been sunk by Red Fleet commerce raiders. Tension would already be incredibly high. I just don't see a riled up, backed-into-a-corner Stavka/Politburo being OK with U.S./British/French aircraft flying across the contested frontier and landing in Berlin. What if "relief" flights actually include reinforcements That paranoia would be there.

The situation of Berlin in 1996 is unique, but there are other examples of flights into war zones or through hostile territory. The original Berlin Airlift itself in 1948. Operation Frequent Wind which evacuated Americans and South Vietnamese from Saigon, the evacuation of one million Portuguese from Angola and Mozambique in the 1970's, and the 1990 airlift of 110,000 Indians from Kuwait City during the First Gulf War. The political and strategic position of Berlin in German Reunification is obviously quite different to those airlifts, but West Berlin is under the administration of three nuclear powers who if they intervene on the side of Germany will radically change the Soviets defence position for the worst. The Soviets quite frankly do not have the resources and manpower to take on so many powerful countries in Europe and also fight a war in China. The Soviet Union would be reckless in the extreme to provoke the US, Britain and France by issuing ultimatums.

And would the West be willing to push an aggressively pro-W. Germany agenda in Europe It's brinksmanship all around. If the West insists on supplying W. Berlin, it's provocative. If the Soviets declare a land/air blockade, it's provocative. The Soviets have an incentive to de-escalate but we also know that the rest of NATO is extremely reluctant to go to war on behalf of W. Germany. I mean, some of NATO quits over this. Is the U.S., as the helmsman of NATO, going to push an action that could lead to an escalation I guess it all depends on whether the gov't. is hawkish or not. From canon, it's hard to tell. But canon seems to suggest that the Soviet gov't. is quite hawkish. Does that change between '95 and forced reunification.

The West is not pushing a pro-West German agenda in Europe, they like the Soviets are shell shocked by events in Germany. But its also quite clear that German Reunification is not solely a West German affair as the East Germans are also in on it. So we have a situation from October until the beginning of December were the both NATO and the Soviet Union are trying to contain the issue of German reunification without being dragged into a general war in Central Europe over it. But its also clear that their are divisions within Germany, NATO and the Warsaw Pact strategy. All sides seem to want to avoid a war in Central Europe, but certain actions by all concerned indicate that some do not want to compromise and want a war.

NATO continues to defend West German territory and airspace despite the Germans fighting the Soviets in East Germany, and by November they start to shoot down incoming Soviet raids on West German territory. In November the Soviets send the Czech and Polish armies into East Germany which will rub NATO's nose in it as half of NATO's members don't want to get involved. Then the Luftwaffe starts to attack Warsaw Pact bases in Poland, and the Soviets invade northern Norway to divert NATO's attention from Germany. By December the US, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Turkey support Germany, but Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain declare their neutrality and France and Belgium pull out of NATO (the Atlantic Alliance in France's case). Romania also refuses to support the Warsaw Pact military operations in Europe leading to an invasion by the Soviets, Bulgarians and Hungarians. Turkey then invades Bulgaria and starts fighting the Greeks, and neutral but communist Yugoslavia supports Romania. At the end of the year the Soviets pull off another master stroke and launch and invasion of Iran!!!

Strategies all over the place and reckless to the extreme. But in regards to West Berlin some aid flights into early November before it all starts going to hell and then nothing until NATO takes Berlin at the end of December.

And, as a fait accompli, we know from canon that the Soviets were willing to use nukes, and use them first, on both fronts. Therefore, I don't think it's outlandish that the Soviets draw that proverbial line in the sand. You shall not pass! (into W. Berlin).

They didn't use nukes until the late summer of 1997, and that was firstly in China when the could see the writing was on the wall.

[RN7]

My best friend from high school was in the Berlin Brigade, '88-92. He told me the Berlin police were curiously heavily armed, having rifles and AT weapons, almost like light infantry.

Do you think the West Berlin police were expecting something

On top of that, West Germany had 3 airborne brigades. If one is fighting defensively, what good are those Fighting in an urban area behind enemy lines, that's more like their style. No idea if that was true, but that's what this wargamer often did. FWIW, I almost always bypassed West Berlin when I played the Pact, leaving the ugly fighting to the Polish armies coming up on mid-game turns.

The problem with German paratroops being dropped into Berlin would be that the airspace over East Germany was dominated by the Soviet Air Force and the German paratroops probably would not have reached the city. The Luftwaffe at this particular time used older and inferior fighter jets to the Soviet Air Force. The Eurofighter Typhoon hadn't yet entered service so the Germans would be using mainly F-4's and Mig-21's.

So, yeah, I agree that the Stasi had to have been in on the unification; the Soviets in and around Berlin had much bigger fish to fry when the West Germans crossed the border and the East Germans flipped sides. I'd have to check, but wouldn't the SGFG now be outnumbered

The issue of the Stasi may need another thread. The Stasi were redder than the KGB and were used by them as they were so effective at doing their job.

[Raellus]

The situation of Berlin in 1996 is unique, but there are other examples of flights into war zones or through hostile territory. The original Berlin Airlift itself in 1948. Operation Frequent Wind which evacuated Americans and South Vietnamese from Saigon, the evacuation of one million Portuguese from Angola and Mozambique in the 1970's, and the 1990 airlift of 110,000 Indians from Kuwait City during the First Gulf War.

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 political and strategic position of Berlin in German Reunification is obviously quite different to those airlifts, but West Berlin is under the administration of three nuclear powers who if they intervene on the side of Germany will radically change the Soviets defence position for the worst. The Soviets quite frankly do not have the resources and manpower to take on so many powerful countries in Europe and also fight a war in China. The Soviet Union would be reckless in the extreme to provoke the US, Britain and France by issuing ultimatums.

Quite right. I don't contest the validity of these points, I just disagree about how the Soviets would approach the situation.

The West is not pushing a pro-West German agenda in Europe, they like the Soviets are shell shocked by events in Germany. But its also quite clear that German Reunification is not solely a West German affair as the East Germans are also in on it. So we have a situation from October until the beginning of December were the both NATO and the Soviet Union are trying to contain the issue of German reunification without being dragged into a general war in Central Europe over it.

A very valid point. In fact, this argument swayed me a little.

But its also clear that their are divisions within Germany, NATO and the Warsaw Pact strategy. All sides seem to want to avoid a war in Central Europe, but certain actions by all concerned indicate that some do not want to compromise and want a war.

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.

NATO continues to defend West German territory and airspace despite the Germans fighting the Soviets in East Germany, and by November they start to shoot down incoming Soviet raids on West German territory.
Strategies all over the place and reckless to the extreme. But in regards to West Berlin some aid flights into early November before it all starts going to hell and then nothing until NATO takes Berlin at the end of December.

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.

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 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.

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.

They didn't use nukes until the late summer of 1997, and that was firstly in China when the could see the writing was on the wall.

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, though (I'm on my 30 min lunch break at work and can't access my rulebook). Either way, the Soviets were willing to use tac-nukes. "When" does matter, but they clearly had the will. It's the difference between pointing a gun at someone and actually pulling the trigger. The Soviets pulled the trigger first, so to speak. They had the will, as well as the way. That suggests to me a mindset where defeat/surrender were not an option- a more hawkish mindset, if you will.

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.

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.

[RN7]

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[Raellus]

They did respond, they invaded Norway!

Exactly. It kind of proves my point by refuting your assertions that the Soviets would have gone to great lengths to avoid a war with NATO. Attacking a NATO nation not already involved in the war in Germany would be the ultimate provocation.

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.

IIRC, Soviet Spetsnaz used civie airliners during their coup-de-main in Kabul, 1979. Just because it's a United 747 doesn't mean it can't be full of troops.

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

Granted, not so well. But there's plenty of historical precedence for governments reinforcing failure, or making the same mistakes multiple times. Hitler, a most infamous example, was a master of both.

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.

That's a bit of a straw man argument because I've never suggested that the Soviets would attempt to cross the inter-German border.

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.

"On July 9th, with advanced elements of 1st German army on Soviet soil, the Red Army began using tactical nuclear weapons." (page 25 of the v1 Referee's Manual)

Han shot first.

[RN7]

Exactly. It kind of proves my point by refuting your assertions that the Soviets would have gone to great lengths to avoid a war with NATO. Attacking a NATO nation not already involved in the war in Germany would be the ultimate provocation.

Well if was specifically to distract NATO's attention away from Central Europe.

"In late 1996, the Soviets moved against northern Norway in an attempt to score a quick victory and draw some of NATO's attention away from central Europe." (Page 11, Boomer)

So the Soviet hawks get their way to an extent, but saner elements also prevail by diverting it to NATO's northern flank and avoiding an all out war with NATO in Central Europe which they can't win.

IIRC, Soviet Spetsnaz used civie airliners during their coup-de-main in Kabul, 1979. Just because it's a United 747 doesn't mean it can't be full of troops.

That is a good example, but its also an example of how the Soviets prepared for a surprise invasion of Afghanistan. West Berlin would hardly be a surprise to anyone. There are already 10,000 Western troops in West Berlin they have been there since the late 1940's, and the composition of the Berlin garrisons have hardly changed in all of those 50 years.

Granted, not so well. But there's plenty of historical precedence for governments reinforcing failure, or making the same mistakes multiple times. Hitler, a most infamous example, was a master of both.

If the Soviets can't defeat an unprepared China after a year of bludgeoning them across Manchuria and northern China, how are they going to defeat a better prepared and far better armed NATO in Central Europe the following year

That's a bit of a straw man argument because I've never suggested that the Soviets would attempt to cross the inter-German border.

If the Soviets are going to preserve the state of East Germany and stop German Reunification they are going to have to defeat the Bundeswehr, and that will mean pushing it back into West Germany and crossing the inter-German border.

"On July 9th, with advanced elements of 1st German army on Soviet soil, the Red Army began using tactical nuclear weapons." (page 25 of the v1 Referee's Manual)

Han shot first.

The use of tactical nuclear devices began in July. In the east they were used on a massive scale, first against Chinese military columns and then against Chinese industrial centers. In the west, they were limited at first to tactical attacks against front-line units. (Page 11 of Boomer)

Some ambiguity, but the implication is that China got wacked first.

[Raellus]

Well if was specifically to distract NATO's attention away from Central Europe.

"In late 1996, the Soviets moved against northern Norway in an attempt to score a quick victory and draw some of NATO's attention away from central Europe." (Page 11, Boomer)

So the Soviet hawks get their way to an extent, but saner elements also prevail by diverting it to NATO's northern flank and avoiding an all out war with NATO in Central Europe which they can't win.

Attacking a NATO nation doesn't avoid an all out war with NATO. It simply moves the focal point away from Central Europe. It doesn't mean that NATO won't also add its strength to the fighting in E. Germany. In fact, it does, starting with U.S. and British forces.

If the Soviets can't defeat an unprepared China after a year of bludgeoning them across Manchuria and northern China, how are they going to defeat a better prepared and far better armed NATO in Central Europe the following year

I agree that it's foolish, but that was my point. Nations sometimes do foolish things in war. This particular argument is becoming rather circular. I point out that nations don't always behave rationally and you give another example of how the Soviets don't act rationally. Yes.

If the Soviets are going to preserve the state of East Germany and stop German Reunification they are going to have to defeat the Bundeswehr, and that will mean pushing it back into West Germany and crossing the inter-German border.

No, they don't. They just have to force W. Germany to the negotiating table.

The use of tactical nuclear devices began in July. In the east they were used on a massive scale, first against Chinese military columns and then against Chinese industrial centers. In the west, they were limited at first to tactical attacks against front-line units. (Page 11 of Boomer)

Some ambiguity, but the implication is that China got wacked first.

I agree that it's ambiguous, but I think it's more clearly implied that it starts in Europe, since that's the first theater mentioned (in the quote I posted). If it started in China, why wasn't that the first theater mentioned German forces setting foot on Soviet soil is clearly the trigger for the nuclear option. Why would the Soviets use nukes in China first when the existential threat is in West

I like debate, but this is starting to seem like arguing for argument's sake. I clearly can't persuade you to accept my ideas, and I've not been swayed by yours. I guess at this point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. In your T2KU, the Soviets allow Western access to W. Berlin after the W. German invasion. In mine, they don't.

[RN7]

Attacking a NATO nation doesn't avoid an all out war with NATO. It simply moves the focal point away from Central Europe. It doesn't mean that NATO won't also add its strength to the fighting in E. Germany. In fact, it does, starting with U.S. and British forces.

NATO has no forces in East Germany (excluding West Berlin) until December 1996.

I agree that it's foolish, but that was my point. Nations sometimes do foolish things in war. This particular argument is becoming rather circular. I point out that nations don't always behave rationally and you give another example of how the Soviets don't act rationally. Yes.

There are a lot of things about Twilight 2000 that are irrational!

No, they don't. They just have to force W. Germany to the negotiating table.

They will have to defeat them which means pushing them back into West Germany to do that.

I agree that it's ambiguous, but I think it's more clearly implied that it starts in Europe, since that's the first theater mentioned (in the quote I posted). If it started in China, why wasn't that the first theater mentioned German forces setting foot on Soviet soil is clearly the trigger for the nuclear option. Why would the Soviets use nukes in China first when the existential threat is in West

I like debate, but this is starting to seem like arguing for argument's sake. I clearly can't persuade you to accept my ideas, and I've not been swayed by yours. I guess at this point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. In your T2KU, the Soviets allow Western access to W. Berlin after the W. German invasion. In mine, they don't.

Alright Raellus.

[kato13]

This was a great series of posts. Lots of food for thought and rational explanations. Kudos to all. Keep it up.

Personally I would probably roll a d100 with 1 being the Soviets taking the most hardline position possible and 100 showing the Soviets being as passive and interested in detente as possible. With the middle ground pulling aspects from both sides of the discussion.

Same could be done for the Stasi. 01 having them as the instigators and complicit at every level and 100 having them be totally clueless. The middle ground would be interesting in how far up or down the chain the information goes.

As always something with a bell curve might be a better fit that a d100, but the simplicity of a single number often give me clarity on motivations.

[RN7]

So its now December 6th 1996 and the gloves are off.

NATO sends 9 American divisions, 3 British divisions, 1 Canadian brigade and a host of armoured cavalry regiments rolling across the inter-German border, backed by the airpower of two NATO' tactical airforce's to help out the Bundeswehr in East Germany. Following up in the rear will be at least another dozen NATO divisions, multiple regiments and 50 plus combat squadrons on their way.

Despite the sound advice of Field Marshal Raellus (a recipient of the Order of Lenin and Knights Cross of the Iron Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds), more timid voices in the Kremlin decided not to cut off the Western garrisons in West Berlin and provoke NATO. In hind sight Field Marshal Raellus may have been right, as the Soviet's have their hands full, and eliminating NATO forces in West Berlin is now a less pressing priority. The Soviets however can't rely on the loyalist East German forces to take control of West Berlin, as over 90% of the NVA has changed sides and the Stasi and other security forces do not have the firepower to take on regular US and British troops.

With NATO on the march across East Germany the city of Berlin is an obvious target for them. Unless the NATO garrisons in West Berlin are eliminated and the Soviets and Warsaw Pact allies can entrench themselves in Berlin and establish powerful defences, the city will probably fall to NATO by Christmas. If the symbolic capital of Germany falls to NATO the Soviets are going to face the dilemma of not being able to defend its most important Warsaw Pact ally despite the size of its forces based in East Germany. Also Berlin is only a stone throw from the Oder-Neiss Line and Czechoslovakia and Poland, and if Berlin falls the other Warsaw Pact states are going to question the commitment and capability of the Soviet Union to defend them from NATO.

So how will the Soviets try and eliminate the Western garrisons in West Berlin in December before NATO forces are upon them

[rcaf_777]

Question

What kind of resistance dose one expect at the East/West Border

[Raellus]

I think that the Soviets will throw newly arrived reinforcements, either Red Army or PACT units, at W. Berlin.

Since CIC among polyglot allies is probably going to be an issue, it might be preferable/easier to send Soviet reinforcements to the front, where Soviet units are already engaged, and leave W. Berlin to the PACT.

On the other hand, the Soviets could place so much symbolic and/or strategic value on W. Berlin, that it's capture becomes a Soviet-led, Soviet-executed enterprise.

It's a moot point now, but in my T2K, W. Berlin would have already been weakened by at least a couple of months of no electricity, running water, or food/medical supply deliveries, making it a bit softer a nut to crack, regardless of who does the final cracking.

[RN7]

It's a moot point now, but in my T2K, W. Berlin would have already been weakened by at least a couple of months of no electricity, running water, or food/medical supply deliveries, making it a bit softer a nut to crack, regardless of who does the final cracking.

Not necessarily.

The division of Berlin caused some problems in the early years, but in regards to electricity and water supply West Berlin was relatively self-sufficient.

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/bewag-ag-history/

https://books.google.ie/booksid=8VqRAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=water+supply+to+west+berlin&source=bl&ots=nmJhpVzjyR&sig=aeZI_vf1t99TWu_1cIBfZ4O-aT4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOr9mN4P7OAhXlA8AKHS-0Bq8Q6AEIZTAO#v=onepage&q=water%20supply%20to%20west%20berlin&f=false

http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umweltatlas/edd211_01.htm#Tab1

In regards to food and medical supplies, it would be obviously less sufficient as there was not much space for an agricultural industry. But I think West Berlin would have been expecting a Soviet blockade throughout its history, and I am sure there were sizeable stockpiles of food and medical supplies built up over the years. Certainly the Allied garrisons would have been planning for it. So with a bit of rationing and without any major attack on it I think it could have survived for two months even without air supplies from the west.

[RN7]

Question

What kind of resistance dose one expect at the East/West Border

Fairly heavy I would expect. But remember the Germans planned Reunification themselves and managed to keep NATO and the Soviets (and the East German government) out of the loop. So they opened the border and by the time the Soviets could react it was too late for them to stop it.

[Jason Weiser]

Well,
Actually doing research for a wargaming supplement here. And to be honest, I have heard different numbers on just how big the stockpile was. I have heard numbers anywhere from "30 days worth" to "several months". Take it for what it is worth. I think 60 days of combat operations is probably about right. Then again, where are the stockpiles

And do the East Germans and Soviets know where they are If they do...then that's something that the MfS saboteurs, as well as the Willi Sanger Air Assault Battalion was supposed to take care of..then again, Willi Sanger was also supposed to seize the airfields at Templehof and Tegel....hard to say what the real role of those guys were.

I am basing a lot of my opinions on this article, which I am sure many of you have read, which appeared in Armor Magazine in 1994. While most of the East German war plans did not survive the fall of the East German regime in 1989, the plans for West Berlin, strangely did.

The article is quite illuminating, and can be found here.