Not quite, no
Except, while there was an airlift of supplies, there was no Berlin blockade.
In the National Archives at Kew, I found documents from 1948 showing, in the Foreign Office’s words, “the blockade of Berlin is NOT a siege” and that “movement in and out of Germans is possible all the time”, for example to obtain food. A press campaign, however, pushed for “a massive and sensational story of air power applied to humanitarian ends”. The US secretary of state, George C Marshall, argued via telegram to “utilize to the utmost present propaganda advantage our position”, “stressing [Soviet] responsibility for … threatened starvation of civilian population”. The story was so effective, it became a cold war myth that stuck. In the UK, teenagers still learn for their GCSEs that Berlin was blockaded by Stalin and risked starvation.
Blockades and sieges are different things. As is allowing the movement of population but not of coal/food.
Yes, yes, I know he’s a noted historian and I’m not. But I’d suggest that his findings are a little less revisionist than he’s saying they are.
