Talk:Battle of Berlin/Archive 10

Need to obtain actual consensus for controversial edits
“[C]hanges me and CurtisNaito worked on” (sic) do not a consensus make. It’s becoming more than evident that you are not willing to read, understand, and apply Wikipedia policies, e.g., WP:Bold, WP:RS, WP:Undue weight, etc., even when they are cited and quoted for you and it is explained to you how your edits violate them. Several editors have pointed out policy to you which you just ignore in favor of your POV push.

Given the involvement of multiple editors in this discussion the last few months, until discussion-based consensus is reached, you have no authority to make these edits. As another editor (who is also an admin.) pointed out to you several weeks ago, you need to comprehend and follow WP:Bold rather than trying to ram your POV version through once reverted—in this case a WHOLE BUNCH of times reverted.

SUGGESTION: One way would be to poll the involved editors; asking other already involved editors for input does not AFAICT violate WP:Canvassing.

CurtisNaito has expressed a willingness to compromise; and if you want the controversial material to stay, you also need to be willing to compromise, and to obtain consensus of the relevant participants, including User:PBS.

Here are just three examples of problems other editors have identified rel your edits and/or editing style IN THIS MATTER:


 *  YMB29, please stop bickering about process. You have been edit-warring to insert your preferred text but it is disputed by every other editor who has commented or acted to revert it. You have no consensus to make the changes you want to make.  Binksternet  ( talk ) 18:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 *  [Y]ou have implied Beevor is the only one by your edit. I have stated valid reasons as to the problems as has PBS; it appears it is you YMB29 who "don't like it."  Kierzek  ( talk ) 18:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 *  I am categorically opposed to statements implying that mass rape did not happen in Berlin. A ten-minute search on Google Scholar will show multiple independent historians reporting that Red Army forces committed mass rapes. The scale of the rapes is up for contention, using scholarly or academically sound sources, but YMB29, you are warned (a) not to imply that these rapes did not take place, and (b) not to edit war. I encourage anyone to report instances of WP:3RR to me. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC) ( User:Buckshot06 )

So MONTHS LATER when other editors are tired of your contentious, tendentious editing approach and take a break, that doesn’t mean you’ve suddenly “won.” Even after another editor who is also an admin. told you to disengage, you’re still at it using the same tired m.o.

It’s really time to add a few additional strings to the instrument you’re playing. And a good way would be to familiarize yourself with the WP policies that have been cited to you seemingly ad infinitum to no effect. '"Outlasting''" other editors who tire of your behavior does not mean you’ve suddenly arrived at consensus. On the contrary.''' Another suggestion would be to read Tendentious editing, an IMO excellent essay that, although it is not black-letter WP policy, has a lot of valuable info.


 * Prior proposal from Binksternet:
 *  You have two Russian historians saying Soviet soldiers did not rape as much as they have been accused of. Do they have estimates of how many rapes? Or do they just say the Western sources are exaggerated? I think we need their estimates so that hard numbers can be compared. At any rate, these two historians do not erase previous scholarship, they add to it. We will present the reader with both views. We will not pick which view is correct.  Binksternet  ( talk ) 19:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I’m not opposed to Binksternet’s approach—put ALL the numbers in there—From a million down to 72, apparently—BUT only with the proper weight—which includes the proper relative SPACE--the minority view deserves. And what you write in the endnote also has to not violate WP:Undue weight; in any case, you can’t write a whole separate article in the endnote. These are things that need consensus of the participating community, and not only “consensus” between you and CurtisNaito.

The biggest problem I have with your edits is your downgrading the clear, longstanding majority view to parity with your newfound minority/fringe view. If you give the mainstream view the weight it deserves, I personally have no problem including the information. But agreement/consensus among the already involved editors has to be reached on how much RELATIVE space overall just as on what to say.

Paavo273 (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that you are on your way to repeating your behavior from the Continuation War article's talk page...
 * A lot has changed since this debate started in January. You are just repeating outdated arguments that were made months ago.
 * Now the consensus is that the Russian view should be in the article, and two of the users you quoted have made it clear that it should be added (see above).
 * How does the current text violate WP:UNDUE and how can a view held by the leading Russian historians be fringe?
 * You are just throwing baseless accusations. -YMB29 (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The reliability of Senyavskaya has been discussed already; she is a reliable source (see this section). -YMB29 (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC) This link is used only because it has the translation. The original interview is from the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper. So the tags should be removed. -YMB29 (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Senyavskayais a biased source, and would probably have real problems finding an academic post anywhere outside Russia, when she takes positions on rape in Berlin for which her use of primary sources is far from that of an objective historian. However if we are going to present a biased Russian view, then she is as reliable sources as we are likely to find. -- PBS (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Removing the word "mass" from in front of rape is a violation of WP:UNDUE, "how can a view held by the leading Russian historians be fringe" The view of the Russian historians you have presented is a biased one and very few Russian historians have been shown to hold the view that mass rape did not occur in Berlin. The wording you have introduced into the footnote "while not denying that rapes by Soviet forces took place, have called into question whether they were widespread" is not what the sources say and I think needs to be rewritten. -- PBS (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you ever actually read this section?
 * Also, there is a source directly saying "leading Russian historians": ...leading Russian historians denounced this volume as neo-Nazi propaganda, questioning Beevor's sources....
 * Russian historians cannot be objective, while Western "historians" like Beevor are? Again, there is no place for your personal bias against Russian sources here. -YMB29 (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * YMB29 you have yet to produce one non-Russian source that denies that the Red Army carried out mass rapes, yet you write "" why do you use the term Western and why do you put historians in quotes? Why not instead write "non-Russian historians like Beevor"? I suspect you do not because you are making an old cold war dichotomy as a rhetorical tick for further your argument. If Russian historians are writing about for example the history of the South-West Africa Campaign of World War I, then I am sure that they would be seen as neutral historians. But as has been pointed out by a source you brought to this page "", they are tainted when it come to defending the honour of the Red Army during World War II when they use terms such as "neo-Nazi propaganda" while failing to produce academic papers with detailed refutation based on criticisms of the sources used by non-Russian historians, does not bolster their credibility. -- PBS (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you not see that anyone who uses the term "neo-Nazi propaganda" who do not present a detailed analysis of the sources used in the book is not an objective historian they are instead using neogationists' tactics of not refuting a point, but trying to besmirch it by associating it with tainted sources ("tainted by association"). Do you support such views and tactics? As has been pointed out to you repeatedly there are dozens of sources that make similar claims to Beevor for example where is there any detailed refutation of Grossman's Jews, Germans, and Allies: Close Encounters in Occupied Germany (chapter 2). -- PBS (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Russian historians compare some Western portrayals of the Red Army to Nazi propaganda not without basis. Many of the words used are the same, such as "barbarians" or "Asiatic hordes".
 * Sources used by Beevor and others are analyzed. I have provided some details to you earlier and can provide more, but I would have to translate them.
 * Of course Russian historians are offended by the Western portrayal of the Red Army. If someone accuses your ancestors or living relatives of crimes based on questionable evidence, would not you be upset?
 * I put historian in quotes, because Beevor is not a historian. He is a popular writer. Being able to sell his books well and getting an honorary doctorate, does not make him a true historian.
 * As I have said in the section above, the term Western is accurate when describing sources that accuse the Soviets of mass rape. This is not my biased interpretation as it is directly supported by sources I have quoted before:
 * Western historians have written at length about the large-scale rape and violence committed by Russian soldiers in Germany...
 * Beevor pointed out that his book relied heavily upon evidence from Russian archives...and other prominent Western historians defended the accuracy of his sources.
 * Western historians have generally accepted that rape and other forms of troop violence were committed primarily by the Red Army...
 * In Western post-World War II historiography...there was a whole "school" formed whose main subject was to show "Russian atrocities" on German soil.
 * -YMB29 (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "If someone accuses your ancestors or living relatives of crimes based on questionable evidence, would not you be upset?". No, I would not. "Of course Russian historians are offended by the Western portrayal of the Red Army" Why? To give two examples from recent British history, I can not think of one British historian who would be upset if someone accused members of the the British Army of murder during Bloody Sunday or of committing torture in the Mau Mau Uprising, they may want to debate the conclusions drawn from primary sources, or they may even want to do further research and publish their own papers either supporting of denying the previous papers, but they would not be upset. If the paper is presented by historical revisionist/neogationist) then a professional objective historian ought to be able to construct an academic case for refuting questionable evidence: see for example the devastating attack by Richard J. Evans on David Irving in Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt. What conciousness historians do not do is base their criticisms on polemics such as have been presented on this page.
 * "[Beevor] is a popular writer. Being able to sell his books well and getting an honorary doctorate, does not make him a true historian." Clearly you do not know what the English word historian means. Here is the OED definition "A writer of history, esp. one who analyses events critically, as opposed to a chronicler or compiler; an expert in or student of history", or see the definition at the start of the Wikipedia historian article. Beevor's book on the Battle of Berlin is widely cited in academic papers so by he is clearly someone "regarded as an authority on" the battle.
 * You still have not answered my question: Do you have any non-Russian source that supports the contention that there was no mass rape in Berlin in 1945?
 * -- PBS (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Why do you need a "non-Russian" source? Russian sources are just as valid as Western ones. Again, keep your biases to yourself.
 * Anyone writing about history is often called a historian. However, if a person lacks an academic degree in history, he/she is an amateur historian.
 * Beevor is regarded as an authority on the subject? Well that is the problem with Western historiography. Academic reputation is judged by commercial success.
 * Somehow I don't think that if British WWI or WWII veterans would be accused of being rapists and looters, there would not be any heated comments from British historians...
 * Russian historians don't rely on polemics to counter claims made by Beevor and others. You don't need to repeat the same accusation over and over. -YMB29 (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See the link to this book: What Soldiers Do: Sex and the American GI in World War II France by Mary Louise Roberts (2013) -- it is divided into three parts: Romance, Prostitution, and Rape. Far from heated comments see the American academic reviews on the web page provided (under "Review Quotes"). See the review in the NYT: The Dark Side of Liberation by Jenniger Schuessler (May 2013) or this British tabloid article in the Daily Mail: The GIs who raped France: We know about the mass rape of German women by Stalin's soldiers. Now a new book reveals American troops committed thousands of rapes on French women they were 'liberating' by Guy Walters (May 2013). So would the British reaction differ greatly from that of the Americans? Possibly, we will have to see if such a book is published, but there is no reason to believe that the reaction in Britain would be different from that in the US. -- PBS (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Why do you need a "non-Russian" source?" because without it, it is Russian and "non-Russian" sources (rather than Russian and First World?) or to put another way a Russian view and a "World view". Without at least some support from a third party it looks like a parochial Russian view. -- PBS (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I just quoted sources that say it is a Western view, and you still claim it is a "World view"...
 * As for US rapes, WWII is not as important to Americans as it is for the British, not to mention the Russians. The book you linked to does not seem to be making the same types of accusations against American soldiers that Beevor makes against Soviet soldiers.
 * Also from the NY Times article:
 * Work that looked at sexual assaults by American soldiers, even on a small scale, remained controversial. J. Robert Lilly’s "Taken by Force," a groundbreaking study of rapes of French, German and British civilian women by G.I.’s, based on courts-martial records Mr. Lilly uncovered, drew a strong response when it was published in France in 2003. But the book, which emphasized the grossly disproportionate prosecution of black soldiers, struggled to find an American publisher amid tensions between the United States and Europe over Iraq.
 * "American presses wouldn’t touch the subject with a 10-foot barge pole," said Mr. Lilly, a sociology professor at Northern Kentucky University. (Palgrave Macmillan published his book in the United States in 2007.)
 * -YMB29 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are you still claiming that there is no consensus to make any changes? I suggest you reread this page starting with this section. You should stop hiding behind the "no consensus" excuse. Also, it is not a good sign when a user refuses dispute resolution while continuing to make reverts. I still don't understand why you are against dispute resolution. Are you concerned that you will not be able to make your accusations against Russian sources or ignore information you don't like when an experienced user, most likely another admin, carefully reads what you write? -YMB29 (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * One or two people does not make a consensus, particularly when the sentence was recently the subject to an RfC and it has been in the article for years. It is time that you dropped the stick and walked away. Come back again in six months or a year or so, and then hold another RfC and see if the consensus has changed. -- PBS (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You are the only user who has consistently been against making any changes. You don't represent consensus.
 * Even the result of the rigged RfC called for changes, so, again, stop making baseless claims of no consensus.
 * If you don't have any other arguments and if you refuse dispute resolution, you should walk way. -YMB29 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can refute your statment "You are the only user who has consistently been against making any changes." by simply showing you this diff to the article. Was that or was that not change? Who apart from you is consistently removing the word mass in front of rape and replacing "pillage" with "looting" (why?) and reordering the phrases in the sentence (why?)) contrary to WP:BRD? You have made a bold edit it has been reverted it is up to you to show that there is a consents for the change you wish to make. No such consensus exist. As to your demand to add attribution if the "phrase mass" is there, see further up the page this has been rejected by many editors for the reasons as explained to you repeatedly. It is time that you dropped the stick and walked away. Come back again in six months or a year or so, and then hold another RfC and see if the consensus has changed.  -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with replacing pillage with looting, or moving "in many areas of the city" to make the sentence more readable? Any edit I make is no good for you and requires consensus?
 * What does your diff from months ago prove?
 * Why are you still claiming that there is no consensus to attribute the statement about mass rape? Not only is it a clear violation of WP:ASF, but the RfC result says to attribute it unless there is a source that proves WP:RS/AC. Not only is there no such source, but there are sources that directly attribute the statement to Western historiography.
 * So it is simple, either the statement about mass rape is attributed or the word mass is removed as discussed above. -YMB29 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Western sources that are critical of Beevor's portrayal of the Soviets
''James Mark accuses Antony Beevor of emphasizing the "role of the victim" in order to appeal to a British audience and to acquire higher book sales. He also criticizes Beevor for ignoring the German crimes which had been committed on the Eastern Front. Mark attempts to expel the illusion that all Russian soldiers were "sexually repressed" and "out of control". Furthermore, Mark argues that the reason for such a heavy placement of blame on only the Soviets is partly due to nationalist agendas of post-war political groups. He contends that after the war many countries, such as West Germany and Hungary, in their search for identity, used the stories of Russian atrocities to further their national interest and strengthen anti-communist movements. This reevaluation of the "distribution of blame" is important to acknowledge and understand, for although the crimes committed against German civilians were atrocious and inexcusable, they may not have been accurately depicted in popular scholarly works and not placed properly within historical context.''
 * Crimes Committed By Soviet Soldiers Against German Civilians, 1944-1945: A Historiographical Analysis by Mikkel Dack

''In 2002 a best-selling book by British author Antony Beevor crammed with allegations of wickedness by Russian soldiers in Germany in 1945 was published in London (Berlin, the Downfall, 1945). The book was immediately attacked by the Russian Ambassador in London, Grigory Karasin; and later by Professor Dr Joachim Fest, one of Germany's senior historians. Mr Karasin called publication of the book 'an act of blasphemy, not only against Russia and my people, but also against all countries and the millions of people who suffered from Nazism'. Dr Fest, an expert on Hitler and on Berlin at the end of the war, described the book as 'patchwork history', and also a book that is peppered with factual inaccuracies. Serial rape and looting, vengeance and atrocities - these are central to Beevor's book and he indicates that all this took place on Marshal Zhukov's watch; that is, during the first year after the collapse of Hitler's regime when Georgi Zhukov was Commander-in-Chief of all Soviet forces in Germany. There is a sentence (on page 413) which says that 'many people' think the Russian troops were given two weeks to do as they pleased with the German population before any discipline was enforced. But Beevor does not know Zhukov, especially his swift reaction to lack of troop discipline. A careful reading reveals lacunae, or missing statements in the book, from five or six top Russian generals and others (including Zhukov) who were in Berlin in May 1945 during the allegations of wanton misconduct, even insinuations of atrocities on a level with the Nazi regime, who spoke directly to the German people about security and discipline, and recorded these conversations in their memoirs.''
 * Marshal Zhukov: The Man Who Beat Hitler by Albert Axell

-YMB29 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

YMB29 I did not ask you for articles that think Beevor made mistakes (I would be suppriesed if he did not, and his analysis of why things happen will of course be analysied and counter proposals will be put forward that is what scholarship is about), what we need are articles that say mass rape did not take place in Berlin. For example the first article you quote can be found online here It is called
 * "Crimes Committed by Soviet Soldiers against German Civilians 1944-1945: A Historiographical Analysis" by Mikkel Dack, (University of Waterloo), Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, Summer 2008, Vol. 10, Issue 4.

It article starts with a Analysis five pages long of the what happened. It starts with:


 * "What resulted was a whirlwind of violence and hatred inflicted by German soldiers on innocent civilians. Atrocities were often indiscriminate, in some cases entire towns were burnt to the ground, their inhabitants murdered and women raped." (page 3)
 * "By the time German forces had reached Moscow and Stalingrad they had left in their path a trail of death and destruction. Villages along the German offensive were devastated and Soviet civilians had become all too familiar with crimes of torture, rape, and murder." (page 3)
 * "What resulted in these final months of the war was a degree of atrocity and bloodshed which can only be compared to that of the German crimes committed earlier. In East Prussia civilians were routinely rounded up and executed, their houses burnt, and crops and livestock destroyed. As many as 1.5 million incidences of rape are estimated to have occurred during the initial five month occupation of East Prussia alone".(page 4)
 * "In the Nazi capital, the Soviet crimes committed against German civilians culminated in one of the most devastating and tragic episodes of human brutality occurring over a limited period. As the Soviets neared the Reichstag the rear echelon troops ravaged the civilian population. With no overall central leadership and few disciplined regiments to safeguard the people, Berlin lay at the mercy of Russian soldiers. Not only were tens of thousands of non-combatant civilians killed, it is also believed that anywhere between 50,000 and 100,000 German women were raped by Soviet soldiers, 10,000 of whom died, mostly by suicide."(page 5)

Dack then looks at the historiography starting:


 * "...the history of the crimes committed against German civilians receded from scholarly interest and public awareness. Western scholars chose to ignore and overlook the topic, giving interest only to the Holocaust, while Soviet writers, upholding their political and social dogmas, chose to silence and cloud the truth through propaganda and superficial claims of German guilt. Archives were closed by Soviet authorities, popular culture entrenched political and social stereotypes, and there was little interest in the academic study of social history; it is no surprise that this significant and tragic topic took so long to emerge on the scholarly scene. As a result of these conditions, the first writings published about the conditions of the Eastern Front were from German and Russian scholars. Written only in their native languages and confined to strategic and military topics, these initial publications gave no mention of crimes, let alone those committed against German civilians. ..." (pages 6-7)

There are then pages of detailing the development of historical analysis of Soviet war crimes and which historians have contributed to the historiography of this history.

Dack mentions James Mark’s "Remembering Rape: Divided Social Memory and the Red Army in Hungary, 1944-1945" (Past & Present, Number 188, August 2005 pp. 133-161) in which there are criticisms of some of Beevor's assertions about the Red Army officer corps, but Mark does not question that mass rape took place. In the first two sentences of his article Mark states:

"... accounts of mass rape available in the West were first published by Eastern European leaders who had been forced into exile because of their opposition to Communism. Within the Soviet Union, perpetrators of the atrocities defended their actions. Boris Slutsky, the Russian poet who travelled with the Red Army through Eastern Europe, suggested in his memoir Things That Happened that Hungarian women had enjoyed being raped: "Hungarian women loved the Russians in their turn, and along with the dark fear that parted the knees of matrons and mothers of families, there was also the affectionate nature of young women and the desperate tenderness of the women soldiers, who gave themselves to the men who had killed their husbands."

Despite the demise of the Soviet Union, ex-Soviet citizens' persisting pride in the Red Army for defeating Fascism has meant that such war crimes have continued to be denied. One documentary film-maker found that many ex-Red Army soldiers still refused to accept that rapes had occurred at all, admitted only to consensual sexual relations or claimed that Eastern European women deliberately used sex to spread diseases in order to weaken the fighting capabilities of the Red Army."

Enough said! Far from finding a paper that denies that mass rape took place you have found two more that claim that it did!

I have not done a similar analysis on the second paper you have found, but where does it sate that mass rapes did not happen in Berlin? I did read a critical review on Amazon of Albert Axell's book Marshal Zhukov (to which Axell posted are reply on Amazon) and here is another on his book Russia's Heroes 1941-1945. I don't know either of the critics and they are probably just men on the Clapham omnibus but it is striking that their criticisms are similar about two different books published years apart. The question that comes to mind is has anyone cited Axell's Marshal Zhukov given the alleged deficiencies in the book?

-- PBS (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Alleged deficiencies based on reviews from amazon and a blog...
 * The book is cited by others.
 * The phrases "allegations of wickedness by Russian soldiers" and " allegations of wanton misconduct, even insinuations of atrocities on a level with the Nazi regime" don't mean that the author is critical of the mass rape claim?


 * I did not say that the article by Dack says that there was no mass rape. I quoted the piece about James Mark's criticism of Beevor.
 * In his article, he mentions the number of estimated rapes in Budapest, but then notes that the true number cannot be determined. He writes about what the Soviets are accused of, but that does not mean he agrees with all of the accusations.
 * The point is that Mark writes that portraying the Soviet Army as an army of rapists (as the sentence you are pushing for does) is incorrect. Such portrayals are used for political purposes in countries with troubled pasts. In the case of Beevor, Mark suggests that the image of the brutal Soviets was used to help sell books. -YMB29 (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The point you seem to be missing is that Beevor is not a lone voice crying in the wildness, his work in one of a canon of work published about this issue (as is described in detail by Mikkel Dack). You have yet to show that anyone outside Russia, seriously questions that mass rape took place in Berlin. As far as I know this issue was first brought to a mass awareness (in Britain and other English speaking countries) in the The World At War television documentary series in the 1970s in the episode "Nemesis: Germany February May 1945" (see mins 36-39), so it is not even as if Beevor popularised the idea that Russians committed mass rape. Although perhaps Beevor brought the issue of Soviet war crimes to a mass Russian audience (as the Soviet authorities censored their citizens access to information), that does not mean that events were not common coin in the rest of the world:
 * Are there any 21st century non Russian reliable sources that describe in detail the assault on Berlin that deny that mass rape took place in Berlin?
 * Are there any 21st century Russian reliable sources that describe in detail the assault on Berlin that agree that mass rape took place in Berlin?
 * Are there 21st century any Russian reliable sources that describe in detail the assault on Berlin that agree that mass rape took place in Berlin?
 * -- PBS (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have not come across any reliable Russian historians that say that mass rape occurred.
 * Again, I have quoted the reliable "21st century" Russian historians that criticize the mass rape claims (Senyavskaya, Isaev, Myagkov). I don't know why you keep asking me this question.
 * Mark does not only criticize Beevor, but all similar populist accounts of the Soviet Army in Berlin: "Populist historical accounts of the behaviour of the Red Army in Central Europe, such as Antony Beevor's Berlin: The Downfall, 1945..."
 * You are again attributing the mass rape claims from Western historiography to "the rest of the world", even though they are directly attributed to Western historiography in reliable sources. How can you keep on ignoring this? Like I said, this is probably one of the reasons you don't want dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed all references to Senyavskaya. That was an unnecessary promotion of someone who was caught in historical falsification. My very best wishes (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You removed it based on what someone said in a blog? -YMB29 (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Following appeals at my talkpage
Following appeals at my talkpage, I have inserted what I believe to be the Western scholarly consensus, which is broadly in agreement with the use of the term 'mass rape', and temporarily protected the page. YMB29, with all due respect, you have been warned before on this issue, and this remains the English wikipedia: there is no serious disgreement that this kind of thing occurred after the fall of the city, except by former Soviet writers. I've gone over your quotes immediately above, and they simply don't invalidate the Western scholarly consensus: protests, possibly, but no evidence that says the acts did not occur. I would remind all users that ArbCom has established discretionary sanctions for cases like these, specifically here WP:ARBEE. I do not want to see further tendentious, disruptive editing occurring on this page. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Buckshot06, the quotes immediately above are those from Western sources. Quotes from Russian historians (not "former Soviet writers") are here.
 * If you want even more details or analysis, there are texts that need to be translated. However, we should be concerned here with presenting all significant views in reliable sources, not finding out who is right or wrong.
 * I don't dispute that there is a Western consensus; that is what I am trying to explain to PBS. It is the Western view vs. the Russian view, and the Russian view can't be just ignored.
 * I was not against including the word mass, but just wanted it to be attributed to Western sources. PBS refused to allow this.
 * As for non-English sources, I don't think WP:NOENG refers to cases where there is a potential violation of WP:NPOV (if non-Enlgish sources are excluded). -YMB29 (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason why it should not be attributed to Western sources it two fold. First of all what was Western mean? I brought to the talk sources from countries such as Turkey, is Turkey a Western sources. A better way of descending it is non-Soviet sources, as all the historians that suggest that mass rape did not take place seem to be ones who earned their Doctorates under the old Soviet system. Basically it comes down to the wording in WP:ASSERT "We do not write: 'According to the Daily Telegraph, the capital of France is Paris' because doing so would create the impression of doubt or disagreement where there is none." and WP:WEIGHT "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view." -- PBS (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be true if the sources were fringe, but they are not.
 * Also, I have presented enough sources that directly state that this is an issue of Western vs. Russian historiography, so the word Western is appropriate. -YMB29 (talk)

Consensus for use of unreliable sources
I'm failing to see any consensus amongst editors for the inclusion of sources deemed to be unreliable or, at the least, undue. Can anyone please demonstrate where this has taken place? In reading over the talk page (and archives), plus the edit history of the article itself, there seems to be nothing outside of a momentum picked up on again, eventually, by a POV editor. The POV pushing of one editor is not the equivalent of WP:CON. The fact that these same sources have started cropping up on related articles outside of consensus smacks of tendentious editing. Has anyone else noticed the WP:TROJANs being wheeled in? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want go read through the archives. Coming to an article you never edited before, making a revert, and asking others to explain things to you is disruptive.
 * Those other articles had most of the sources before the dispute here last year. You should understand what is going on before following me here and making reverts. -YMB29 (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not terribly good at nuances. I'm being facetious because there is no evidence for consensus in adding the sources you've added. As for your accusations of my being disruptive, please read this: WP:HA. You've been popping up on all sorts of articles on my watchlist and rehashing the same arguments, trying to introduce the same rejected content, and basically making it abundantly clear that you're willing to wait around until no one is watching in order to continue with your tendentious editing practices. In other words, I understand precisely what is going on both here and in related pages: your WP:ADVOCACY. Now I will ask you again, civilly, to desist from your WP:SPA activities. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your personal attack is noted.
 * You should not follow users to articles you never edited before to make such attacks.
 * You are claiming that I sneaked in text when there was so much discussion going on and an admin even protected the page... Surely, he would have reverted the stuff I was trying to push. -YMB29 (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * " YMB29, with all due respect, you have been warned before on this issue, and this remains the English wikipedia: there is no serious disgreement that this kind of thing occurred after the fall of the city, except by former Soviet writers. I've gone over your quotes immediately above, and they simply don't invalidate the Western scholarly consensus: protests, possibly, but no evidence that says the acts did not occur." - User:Buckshot06, right above. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I replied to him above. I did not question the "Western scholarly consensus," so what is your point? -YMB29 (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Further to this, when was the article 'protected' and when was the 'protection' removed? Any page protection has long since been removed. Do you actually understand what page protection means? Do you imagine that Big Brother is constantly watching this article, or that sysops are only human and not infallible even during periods where an article is 'protected'? The issue is that you are reintroducing dubious sources which, in itself, calls for reviewing where and how they've been used. If you believe your sources to be kosher, take it to the WP:RSN. An argument as to the reliability of these sources and the context in which they've been used has arisen yet again. No previous version using these sources is sacrosanct while the subject of their being RS or UNDUE is under dispute. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So you are questioning sources that meet all of the RS criteria? There were no questions about the reliability of these sources by the end of the discussion here anyway, and you know from other pages that they are reliable.
 * Are you claiming that I made invisible changes while this article was protected? -YMB29 (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See this old edit. The text you removed (Senyavskaya cites an official record of the Soviet military prosecutor of the 1st Belorussian Front, which states that on the Belorussian Front from 22 April to 5 May 1945, only 124 crimes against civilians were recorded, including 72 rapes) was actually added by the user I was disputing with. So can you admit that you were wrong and undue your revert? -YMB29 (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This revert by YMB29 does not add any content to the article. It only inserts references to Senyavskaya. Therefore, it looks very much to me as promotion of Senyavskaya by YM29, especially given his insistence on including references specifically on her publications in multiple articles. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read above? How could it be promotion by me if it was added by another user? That does not make sense. -YMB29 (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it was you who inserted these bare references twice ,. My very best wishes (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That was when you reverted it recently. Don't pretend that you did not see my comment above. Originally, it was added by another user, again see here. -YMB29 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh man, I spent enough time here, but I have never seen anyone who would denied obvious so persistently. Not only two my diffs above show that you edit war to include bare references to Senyavskya, but your diff (let me repeat it ) shows that the reference to Senavskaya existed before the edit by PBS, he only replaced/modified it. My very best wishes (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, modified the text that you removed recently. Note that he modified it, not removed it, so the claim that I sneaked the source in is false. You three should apologize for stalking me to this article, removing text, and making false accusations. -YMB29 (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So in conclusion, the text recently reverted by users who never edited the article before was added by the very user I was disputing with. There was consensus for including the source (reached by discussion, RfC and editing). The issue back then was not if the source and text should be added to the article, but where it should be added. It was eventually left in the footnotes. -YMB29 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The text by Bird was added by another user too years ago. So again the false accusations continue. -YMB29 (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It was added by Paul Siebert back in 2009. -YMB29 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

There was never a consensus for including the fringe views of some Russian historians with undue weight in this article. At first you, YMB29, tried to change the wording from

to

Which was wording in such a way as to imply that Beevor is a Neo-Nazi historian. As to the wording "The Russian historian Elena Senyavskaya has stated that mass rapes did not occur," That was put in to show what a ludicrous position she hold, (Let the Facts speak for themselves) as any one reading it will see that she is not an objective historian. I stopped arguing with you YMB29, not because I think that you have not harmed this article by including the text that you have, but because it was too much of a time sink, and I have more constructive things to be doing with my time. A am pleased that someone else has taken up the baton and is willing to discuss it further with you. So to be clear I am in favour of resorting the wording "mass rape, pillage and murder," and of downplaying the views of these fringe Russian historians, who clearly do not represent the majority view. -- PBS (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus was that the Russian historians are not fringe, but are obviously in the minority. So you said that they should be mentioned in the footnotes, and eventually that is what happened; they were left in the footnotes.
 * These users never edited the article and are simply stalking me.
 * The text that was removed recently was the exact same text you put into the footnotes. As for not being an objective historian, that is your opinion, but reliable sources say otherwise.
 * Plus Bird's text was not added by me, and had consensus for a long time. -YMB29 (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody's stalking you. It's just that if you're up to some shenanigans sooner or later more and more people notice. PBS's comment that they gave up editing the article not because they thought your actions were not disruptive but rather out of exasperation, and your reply to this comment, is a perfect illustration of your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and your tendentious POV pushing. You are not trying to convince anyone, you are simply trying to wear them out.
 * I too have better things to do with my time. And it is crystal clear that consensus is against you. So until you can muster new sources and new arguments, there is little point in further discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PBS was not the only user forming the consensus here. There was enough support for the Russian view to add it to the article, see here. Claiming that I simply wore out all the other users, including an admin who made the last edit in the dispute, is ridiculous.
 * Plus how are you going to excuse your removal of Bird's text? -YMB29 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "As for not being an objective historian, that is your opinion" See above and the archives. That she fails several of the bullet points that are used to assess what an objective historian is:
 * The historian must not dismiss counterevidence without scholarly consideration; -- she dismisses all the claims that mass rapes took place either by suggesting it is Nazi propaganda, or obfuscating by asking "what about the behaviour of western Allied troops" implying that the motive of other historians who suggest that the Red Army committed mass rape are somehow not themselves objective historians.
 * The historian must be even-handed in treatment of evidence and eschew "cherry-picking"; using one official Soviet document that goes against the mass of other evidence (It is simply not credible that only 72 rapes took place).
 * The historian must weigh the authenticity of all accounts, not merely those that contradict a favored view;
 * Means that she is not an objective historian.
 * You are doing it again for example the like you give includes a section with a wall of text by you and one other editor who was not exactly whole heartedly behind you proposals does not a summer make. Most other editors left me to argue with you and as I said above there comes a point where it is just not a useful to continue to engage with an editor over a few words in an article when there is so much more that can be done to improve Wikiepdia with less effort. Now if you are true to form you will come back with a long obfuscating response as is your want. I probably will not respond again, as you clearly are continuing to behave in the same way.-- PBS (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not "Russian view", and there is no such thing as "Russian view". These are views by several nationalist/revisionist historians that were cherry-picked by YMB29. These revisionist historians were criticized for falsifications and scientific misconduct (no less) by other Russian historians, such as Mark Solonin. Unfortunately, these revisionist historians were placed "in charge" of History by Putin's administration . My very best wishes (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Mark solonin doesn't even have a historical academic degree (he got his higher education as aviation engineer). He is also widely accused of history falsification and folk-history by the russian historians such as D. Gavrilov, Georgy Kumanev, A. Ermolaev, Alexey Isaev, A. Kilichenkov and the veteran of the Great patriotic war Yazov Dmitry (the last surviving Marshal of the Soviet Union). Do you have any other proofs of your statement except your own opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForzeX (talk • contribs) 01:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So, where people you mentioned accused Solonin of falsification and what exactly falsification(s) they are talking about? Any references? My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Something that I think needs to be said here is that the test of whether the reputation of Senyavskya has been damaged by these revelations will be how many scholarly papers in future cite her books and papers. Both David Irving and Ward Churchill where frequently cited by non-specialist works before their fall from grace -- see also Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation and the article on Irving's discredited book The Destruction of Dresden (1963) that contains a section on why Kurt Vonnegut wrote "135,000 Hansels and Gretels had been baked like gingerbread men" (at the time he used Irving's book for the numbers killed, few but some experts, doubted that Irving was a objective historian). -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

rationale for mass-rapes in Berlin
"All they knew about foreign countries was there was unemployment, starvation and exploitation. And when they came to Europe they saw something very different from Stalinist Russia... especially Germany. They were really furious, they could not understand why being so rich, Germans came to Russia"." - while possibly adding to the motives for those Russian soldiers that did commit rape, the behavior of the Nazi's in the USSR was no doubt the primary reason, and since there are many Reliable Sources that point out this motive, they should also be cited in the article. 98.67.183.143 (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I had the same reaction - the facts of German mass rape, and German and Finnish genocide in the USSR are well documented but always underplayed. Bergstrom's new book on Barbarossa is very good on these topics. We need to correct this without excusing war crimes of either side. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree "they are underplayed" at this point in time and frankly all this was discussed and debated at length in the recent archive pages herein (including this page as shown above); what is there is by the consensus reached. Kierzek (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect, I cannot agree. The Operation Barbarossa article, for example, does not contain the term 'rape' nor is any reference made to sexual assault. Surely it should receive similar weight to the entry here and should perhaps be referenced here? DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that is an exception to what I have seen overall and if that one needs tweaked then discuss it on that talk page; I note, that article is GA rated and has a "War crimes" section but I don't work on that page and it is not on my watch list. Has it not been discussed therein what should be included? But as to this page, I still am not seeing a need at this point for an addition. Kierzek (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest a good approach could be first to address it on the Barbarossa page and then link to that from here. Otherwise we have an undue weight problem that plays into neo nazi historiography. DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well as I said, I don't edit that page as there is enough others who have and do edit/watch it (and my time is limited). I leave that up to you to discuss with them on that GA article talk page. Kierzek (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Battle of Berlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525014346/http://www.onwar.com/articles/9905.htm to http://www.onwar.com/articles/9905.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514001340/http://www.onwar.com/faq.htm to http://www.onwar.com/faq.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070318230858/http://www.argo.net.au:80/andre/osmarwhiteENFIN.htm to http://www.argo.net.au/andre/osmarwhiteENFIN.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

See also section
From the history of the article:
 * 12:35, 31 March 2017‎ PBS . . (70,345 bytes) (-62)‎ . . (→‎See also: put back Leonidas Squadron as it would be mentioned in the completed article. Culled some other more general ones)
 * 18:21, 31 March 2017‎ DMorpheus2 (70,407 bytes) (+62)‎ . . (Undid revision 773120314 by PBS (talk) Undue weight)

@DMorpheus2 How is it undue weight to include the article on the Leonidas Squadron in this article when the major source for that article is Beevor's book about the battle for Berlin?

From WP:SEEALSO
 * "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.... Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number."

With an article header of Battle of Berlin (RAF campaign) there is no need to include Bombing of Berlin in World War II in the see also section. Given that head-note the article Bombing of Berlin in World War II is not something that would be included in a finished article.

The actions of the Leonidas Squadron during the battle of Berlin is something that is relevant to the battle and probably ought to be included in the article, there bombing of Berlin by the RAF and the USAAF both stopped before the battle in Berlin a started.

-- PBS (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The battle of Berlin involved hundreds of thousands of soldiers and we want to include a link to a tiny Nazi kamikaze unit? It is ridiculous on its face. Nor does it seem that there is much actual unit history anyway. DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) You have not addressed the issue of the RAF articles in the hat-note and also in the see also section.
 * 2) The argument you are advancing would suggest that you do not approve of including Mikhail Minin in the see also section. A mention of this unit in the See also section meets the specific guidelines I have listed above. It is relevant because compared to the Japanese there were so few such German units, yet it is often argued that many young Germans were fanatical Nazis. So the unit is relevant simply because it is unusual, and it was deployed during the Battle of Berlin.
 * --PBS (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Still utterly irrelevant. You yourself acknowledge it is unusual. It should be removed. I will hold off on reverting till others weigh in but frankly I think this is silly. Might as well include links to every other company-sized unit in the battle. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Concur that this is irrelevant and does not belong. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of Berlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/g2/story/0%2C3604%2C707835%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150218155036/http://sti.clemson.edu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&Itemid=310&gid=189 to http://sti.clemson.edu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=189&Itemid=310
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728094923/http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/apr45.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/apr45.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0%2C1518%2C551972%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.argo.net.au/andre/osmarwhiteENFIN.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Section "Commemoration" - Victory Banner on Reichstag in 2007 ?
In the section "Commemoration" it is stated that "... on 7 May 2007, as a copy of the flag was raised on the Reichstag ..."

This might just be bad wording, actually meaning that the Russian flag-law refers to the banner of 1945,

but it made me spend hours trying to find anything on a Russian flag being raised on the Reichstag in 2007 (There was nothing).

Naturally, me hitting google for a few hours isn't the end all be all, so a check would be greatly appreciated. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:4000:a02f:31f6:f151:99bc:3ccf (talk • contribs) 22:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Added War End announcment
Dear Contributors, I have added the front page of Pravda when the Soviet side announced the victory. I think it is important illustration. If disagree please sate here. --Armenius vambery (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the addition. It is not specifically relevant to this article (surrender of the City of Berlin was a week earlier) and it is unreadable to most English language readers. -- PBS (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sabaton hint
Hello everybody,

I put hints to the songs of the Swedish metal band Sabaton in the articles to wich their songs relate. Do you think it would be appropriate to put a hint in this article to the Sabaton song Attero Dominatus wich deals with the battle of Berlin?

Thanks for your answers! --Merkið (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's pointless trivia. (Hohum @ ) 15:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The Fuhrerbunker
This should be worked into the article: The French soldiers of the Charlemagne SS were the last defenders of Hitler's bunker, remaining until the morning of May 2. 47.201.190.68 05:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No. It is a myth cited to unreliable source author, Jean Mabire. They were not holding anything. The fact is, they were some of the last troops (a mere 30 men left), in the area where the bunker complex was underground (the area, which included the ruins of the Reich Chancellery). Most French SS men then surrendered near the Potsdamer rail station to the Red Army troops. And Weale, who is reliable, does not state that specifically, as implied by including his book cite above. Kierzek (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove Poland as an belligerent
Poland de facto didn't exist in 1945. Just because a part of the Soviet army had Polish speaking divisions didn't mean they liberated Berlin more than any other ethnic group of the soviet union. Either remove Poland or add Russia SFSR, Ukraine SSR etc. as an belligerent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.14.202.87 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unlike the SSR Poland had semi-autonomy within the Soviet political apparatus (Polish Committee of National Liberation), and its units were called Polish, whereas there were no Ukrainian divisions or such in the Red Army. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Civilian Circumstances
I wonder if it would be appropriate to add more information on the circumstances surrounding the civilians in this battle. The mass rape of the female population is a significant aspect of the battle.LOGANMCDONALD (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. Mass rapes data are based mostly on several anekdotal evidences, which were later extrapolated based on the statistics of abortion rate in one hospital. It is not clear if the rapes during the battle really were massive, an if their scale were greater than the (totally ignored) rapes committed by German military in the Eastern Front. There is a significant controversy around that. Many modern scholars (Heinemann, Bos etc) note that rapes were considered by contemporaries as lesser evil than, e.g., massive bombing raids. They also note that German women were not just innocent victims, they were beneficiaries of the Third Reich's policy, they actively contributed into that, and the modern attempts to attenuate that fact are a part of a more general feminist discourse. In connection to that, I don't understand why killing of German women during American bombing raids is considered an acceptable collateral losses (because German cities, populated mostly by women and children and senior persons were considered a legitimate military target), but raping and killing of German women by Soviet soldiers, whose moral exhaustion was enormous, and incomparable with that of Western Allies, is not considered as a direct result of the land warfare. Note, the American troops who liberated Dachau concentration camp spontaneously executed Nazi guards upon having seen the bodies of thousands camp's inmates, and we perfectly understand that. Now imagine that virtually every Soviet soldier was a witness of much more terrible things during their path to Berlin, and importantly, in contrast to American or British soldiers, the homes of majority of Soviet solders were destroyed by Nazi, and at least one their relative was killed or died from war related disease and starvation. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you defending wartime sexual violence as a reasonable practice? Vae victis. Dimadick (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not more than massive conventional/nuclear bombing of cities. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hearing your reasoning for not including it is like listening to a murderer try and explain to the police why it was okay for him to murder. The bombing/nuking of cities was a military action meant to directly affect war effort and save lives in the long run, the other (rape) is a tool of selfishness and terror used against innocent civilians.  You're clearly extremely biased and I'm thinking whether or not I should flag you as a disruptive user.  Absolutely disgusting.2601:49:1:5316:4593:80AB:ABAE:A9E0 (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It all ready Mentions it in the article Jack90s15 (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

If it happened. You mention it. Period.

Unbelievable that someone tried to reason with war crimes by citing “exhaustion.” JasonMoore (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "moral" exhaustion was the actual phrase - a different beast altogether; the article fails to mention that the actions of the Nazi troops in Russia had elevated the sense for revenge beyond any rational limits (which is understandable) - giving the Nazis back some of their own was a part of what went on, and there are RS's that support this point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Clodfeller reference
Above reference sites 125,000 civilian casualties. Reference match made. JasonMoore (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What? 50.111.19.34 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Who removed Poland as an participant?!
Poland had its own army fighting in Berlin so why remove them??? The user who removed them said they were fighting in soviet union but that is untrue they were fighting in the 1st Polish peoles army not the red army so whoever deleted them is clearly uneducated and should not be allowed to edit. 82.132.219.206 (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Soviet AND Polish victory
can we add "soviet and Polish victory" since these 2 countries were the only allies to win in Berlin and not just the soviet union. Jakub2k03 (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Please post what sources describe the Battle of Berlin as a "Soveit and Polish victory".
 * What sources say that the Battle of Berlin was Germany v. Soviets + Poland, as opposed to Germany v. Soviets? Levivich 22:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You removed Poland from the Belligerents section claiming that Polish forces were part of the Soviet Army that is false . In your own words--> Polish troops in the Soviet Army. Did Poland participate in the battle of Berlin or not Levivich? -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Levivich? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  23:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the two sources cited (Zaloga 1982, p. 27 and Glantz 1998, p. 261), it was the Polish People's Army (LWP) that participated in the Battle of Berlin, not "Poland", not forces loyal to the Polish government-in-exile, and not "Polish Armed Forces in the East". Levivich 23:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh.... the Polish People's Army WAS part of Polish Armed Forces in the East. It helps to know basic info about a subject before starting edit wars on an article.  Volunteer Marek   23:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * According to those two sources, it was specifically the Polish People's Army part of the Polish Armed Forces in the East, and not Anders' Army, that participated in the Battle of Berlin. The Polish People's Army was created by Stalin, trained south of Moscow, and led by officers loyal to the USSR, 40% of whom were non-Polish Red Army officers. These army units did not in any sense belong to Poland, according to the two sources cited. Levivich 23:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, PPA was part of PAFitE. What's your point? And no, the sources do not say "these army units did not belong to "Poland"". That's your own original research.  Volunteer Marek   23:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What source says that "Poland" was a belligerent or participant in the Battle of Berlin? Levivich 23:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Already given. Now, it looks like you're going to try insisting on very specific particular wording here - that a source must use the word "belligerent" or it doesn't count - but that of course is just trying to play word games.  Volunteer Marek   21:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before. While the Polish troops were under Soviet command, so what? That just means we should only put Soviet commanders in the commanders infobox. A lot of WW2 campaigns and battles involved multinational forces on both sides. To single out the Poles here seems quite problematic.  Volunteer Marek   23:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Zaloga 1982 p. 27 expressly talks about the establishment of the Polish People's Army (LWP) by Stalin, trained south of Moscow. "Troops were recruited from the prison camps, from Soviet soldiers of Polish extraction and from volunteers ... On average, about 40 per cent of LWP officers and NCOs were non-Polish Red Army men, but these percentages were far higher in technically oriented units like air, artillery or communication groups." They weren't Polish troops (i.e., belonging to Poland) under Soviet command, they were a Soviet unit populated by Poles.
 * The other source cited, Glantz 1998, lists the 1st and 2nd Polish Army as part of the "Soviet Forces" in its Orders of Battle tables; the tables have two columns, not three columns. They're not called "Soviet and Polish Forces". But that's secondary; most important is that these aren't troops raised by, or loyal to, Poland. The state of Poland did not send troops into that battle; it was the Soviet Union who created Polish army units. Poles fought in the Battle of Berlin, but not Poland. Levivich 23:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * None of this is irrelevant. By the same logic, the Polish People's Army between 1945 and 1989 was also "not loyal" to "Poland".  Volunteer Marek   23:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean, "None of this is relevant". How can the text on the page of the cited source not be relevant? Levivich 23:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources state that this army was created by Stalin and was to a significant extent staffed with Red Army officers. So what? The same thing was true of Polish armed forces up until 1956 yet no one disputes that it was a Polish Army. The forces in question here were in fact "loyal to Poland" - to communist, Soviet controlled Poland. But again, same thing was true for all armies of the Eastern Bloc up until 1989.
 * Now please stop it with the original research.  Volunteer Marek   23:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not OR, I'm quoting the sources cited. I'm not even doing any research, the sources were already in the article.
 * The "Polish Army" under Stalin is not "Poland". An army unit created by Stalin does not belong to the country of Poland. If an army unit created by Stalin fights in a battle, that doesn't make the country it's named after a participant in that battle. The fact that these army units created by Stalin were called "Polish Army" doesn't make them part of Poland.
 * More importantly, no source tmk says that Poland and the Soviet Union fought against the Germans at the Battle of Berlin. They all say it was the USSR against Nazi Germany. Not USSR and Poland. Levivich 23:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The OR is your claim that this was not a "Polish army" because something something something. None of these sources say "this was not a Polish army". The "something something something" you invented is the original research part.  Volunteer Marek   00:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Look at Normandy Invasion. It lists "Belgium" and several other countries as belligerents. Do you think there really was an independent "Belgian Army" at Normandy?  Volunteer Marek   00:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was not a "Polish army", I said it was not part of "Poland", doesn't belong to "Poland", doesn't make "Poland" a belligerent in this battle. What source says "Poland" participated in the Battle of Berlin, I ask again? Levivich 00:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Virtually all sources on the subject discuss the role of Polish troops in the battle. Your objection is a convoluted word game. "Polish army" is "part of Poland". Or not. What does that even mean? By the time of the Battle there were two Polish governments, the one in London and the Communist controlled one. Both the communist controlled Polish government as well as its Polish Army were Soviet run. Again, so what? All your arguments apply equally well to post WW2 Polish army. Are you willing to seriously argue that the Polish army in, say, 1968, didn't belong to "Poland"? If you're serious about it and are acting in good faith, then perhaps you might want to start by removing any mention of Poland from the infobox over at Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia? Let's see how that goes first.  Volunteer Marek   00:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich, in contrast to France, Poland never surrendered after it was conquered by Germany. Therefore, it seems correct to consider all hostilities where Polish military were involved in as a part of Polish war efforts. I see no difference between the degree of involvement of Poles in Battle of Berlin and, e.g., Battle of Monte Cassino.
 * You made only one strong argument: we need a source saying that BoB was a Soviet AND Polish victory (or, at least, a source that list Polish troops as a separate belligerent). So far, I was unable to find such a source, but my search was not exhaustive. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * At the first glance, VM's rationale looks quite rational. Indeed, Polish People's Republic was internationally recognized as an independent (although Soviet-aligned) state, and Polish troops that fought in Berlin later would become a part of Wojsko Polskie (Polish Army). There is no indication that "London Poles" was an internationally recognized Polish government, and that only those troops that were under control of "London Poles" should be considered "true" Polish troops (even Warsaw uprising was poorly coordinated with London). In connection to that, it would be unfair to deny the fact that numerous troops composed of Polish citizens were fighting in the Battle of Berlin. Yes, they were under a tight Soviet control, but, as far as I know, most Polish regular military units (in the East and in the West) were, to some degree, under a foreign command. Therefore, I cannot understand most Levivich's arguments.
 * However, there is one argument here that deserves attention. When I started to write this post, I made a brief search for sources that confirm that the Polish troops that were fighting for Berlin are described as "Polish troops" (or something like that) in a historic literature. To my big surprise, I found just a couple of Wikipedia mirrors and some irrelevant sources.
 * In connection to that, can you VM provide a source that directly supports the statement that the battle of Berlin was a Soviet and Polish victory? Again, I find your arguments convincing, but I couldn't find sources that confirm them. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Paul, what exactly is the phrasing you're looking for? Pretty much every sources talks about Polish troops or Polish divisions, Polish army etc. Are you insisting on the word "forces"?  Volunteer Marek   00:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In particular sources frequently distinguish between "Soviet" and "Polish" armies as distinct (all of which participated in the battle), for example .  Volunteer Marek   01:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Same source refers to "Soviet and allied Polish forces". I think that's what you're looking for, no?  Volunteer Marek   01:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This book you cite to by Steven Zaloga published by Osprey Publishing is 96 pages long including illustrations. Yes, it does refer to "Soviet and allied Polish forces", although it only mentions the 1st Polish Army and 2nd Polish Army briefly in passing. But 96 pages long? Surely this isn't one of the top academic works about the Battle of Berlin. I can't find a review of the book, and it only has one citation on Google Scholar . Do we have anything better to point to? Does anyone else besides this book talk about "Soviet and allied Polish forces", or similar distinctions, at the Battle of Berlin? Levivich 15:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Omg. This is the *same* author you were quoting right above ! But now that it turns out the author doesn't support your position you're looking for excuses to dismiss it? Come on!  Volunteer Marek   21:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Paul, "Poland", the state, did not raise, train, equip, staff, or command, the Polish People's Army in 1945. Stalin captured Polish soldiers and later put them into two army units and used those units in the Battle of Berlin (and elsewhere). That doesn't make the state of Poland a participant in those battles. There was a Polish government in exile and it had a Polish Army in the West loyal to it, plus there was Anders' Army loyal to it, but the Polish People's Army was part of the state of USSR, not the state of Poland. It's an army unit that was created by and (in 1945) commanded by the government of USSR, not the government of Poland. The sources say "1st Polish Army" and "2nd Polish Army" and "Polish People's Army", but not "Poland". Participation in the battle by Polish troops in a Soviet army unit called "Polish Army" does not make the state of "Poland" a "belligerent" in that battle. I hope this clarifies my argument for why "Poland" shouldn't be listed as a "belligerent" in the infobox. Levivich 01:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, this is half irrelevant (it doesn't matter who trained or equipped the army, lots of armies have been raised, trained and equipped by foreign powers) and half incorrect. I'm not even sure what it means for an army to "be part of a state of USSR". This is the convoluted wording that you yourself invented. As already mentioned, there was indeed a Soviet sponsored Polish government at this time. Sources - an author which you yourself quoted - distinguish between "Soviet forces" and "allied Polish forces" so.... that kind of settles it. You should probably drop the stick now.  Volunteer Marek   01:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are wrong Levivich . Okay? . - GizzyCatBella  🍁  06:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the problems with writing "Poland" in the infobox is that the reader will understand that to refer to the Polish government-in-exile, and not to the "puppet government" set up by Stalin. Levivich 16:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We can certainly have it link to the appropriate article.  Volunteer Marek   21:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * By contrast, Antony Beevor seems to consistently describe the 1st and 2nd Polish Armies as belongs to the Soviets, not Poland, and contrasts these two Polish units, loyal to the Soviets, from Anders' Army, loyal to the Polish government-in-exile.
 * From chapter 42 of The Second World War (book):
 * Similarly, in Berlin: The Downfall 1945, Chapter 2, he refers to the Polish formations as belonging to the Red Army:
 * Same book, Chapter 13, also talks about soldiers wanting to defect from the Soviet 1st and 2nd Polish Armies to the Polish forces loyal to the Polish government:
 * Not sure if these two are among the "best" works on the Battle of Berlin, but they're at least wiki-notable works. I will keep looking at what other sources say, and if anyone else wants to share any cites/quotes on the subject, I'd appreciate it.
 * One of the problems with writing "Poland" in the infobox is that the reader will understand that to refer to the Polish government-in-exile, and not to the "puppet government" set up by Stalin. Levivich 16:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * None of this actually supports the contention that "Poland" was not present on the battle. Nobody is disputing that these were Polish armies under Soviet command. So what?21:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Tony le Tissier:
 * Zhukov at the Oder: The Decisive Battle for Berlin (Praeger, 1996), Chapter 2:
 * Soviet Conquest: Berlin 1945 (Pen & Sword, 2014), introduction to Chapter 4, p. 73:
 * Maybe instead of "Poland" we should clarify that it was the "Lublin government"? Levivich 16:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The first source doesn't really contradict or even add anything to the discussion. One more time - no one is denying that the Polish forces fought under Soviet command, just like French, Belgian and other countries' forces fought under American or British command on the Western Front. So what? The second source is kinda trashy (and it is incorrect and contradicted by other sources).  Volunteer Marek   21:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a doctoral thesis (PDF) from U of Calgary 2020, not an RS, but it goes into some depth about the Polish People's Army (pages 15-18) and has a nice bibliography I intend to plunder. Posting here in case anyone else wants to have a look. Levivich 17:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The question is if Polish People's Republic can be considered an internationally recognised predecessor of the present days Poland. If yes, which is highly likely, then why should we separate Lublin government (which would latter become a core of PPR's government) from "Poland". Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Polish People's Republic was established in 1947, but we are talking about the Polish People's Army in May 1945. I think the question is what "Poland" was in 1945, not what it was after the war. Levivich 17:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Polish communist government was actually established in July 1944.  Volunteer Marek   21:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If the PPR was around in 1945, I would agree to write "Polish People's Republic" in the infobox, but it wasn't. Hence, I suggest maybe writing "Lublin government" or "Poland (Lublin)", or something like that. By analogy, it's confusing if we were to describe army units of the French Third Republic and Vichy France as both "France". Similarly, we shouldn't describe army units of East Germany and West Germany as both "Germany". When a country is divided and there are two separate governments competing for right to the national title, we should not treat them as one monolithic entity. In this infobox, we write "Soviet Union", not "Russia", even though present-day Russia is a successor of the historical Soviet Union. So we shouldn't write "Poland" on the basis that it's the successor of the Lublin government. Levivich 17:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with "Poland (Lublin)".  Volunteer Marek   21:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Linked to Lublin government, i.e. Polish Committee of National Liberation? Levivich 16:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah that'll work.  Volunteer Marek   17:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Frankly, keeping in mind Beevor's story of "2 million of raped German woman" (the figure that was obtained by making an extrapolation of some extrapolated figure that was made based on several liberal assumptions), I am not sure we should treat him as a top expert.
 * I also disagree with your "Stalin captured Polish soldiers and later put them into two army units". In reality, most Polish solders were not "captured" (mostly officers were detained, others were exiled to eastern parts of USSR). Later, some (if not majority) of them volunteered to join Polish military formations. Many of them (like Berling) were devoted Communists.
 * In general, your argument that Poland, as a state, did not raise, train, equip, staff, or command, the Polish People's Army is quite correct. However, we have to be consistent. In many WP articles, some country is listed as a belligerent because military units composed of its citizens participated as a separate military formation. Frequently, those units were not trained, equipped or commanded by their state. Does it mean we should remove them all?
 * I think we should discuss that issue not at this page, but at MilHist talk page, because if your approach will be recognized as valid, it must be applied consistently and universally. In connection to that, I propose to leave Poland in the infobox (at least for a while) and ask a general question at the Military History project page. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is getting off topic but Berling was certainly not a devoted communist. He was a straight up opportunists who felt slighted by the Polish military command in the 1930's and who agreed to cooperate with the NKVD (including by infiltrating the Anders Army for them) to save his own skin, since the alternative was getting killed by NKVD at Katyn.  Volunteer Marek   21:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not just raise, train, equip, staff, or command, but also the units were loyal to Lublin, not London (the government-in-exile). What does "Poland", in May 1945, refer to? If it's a state, what is its government? If it refers to the Polish government in exile in London, then the 1st and 2nd Polish Armies were not part of "Poland" because they had nothing to do with this government. If "Poland" means the Lublin government, well, we should clarify that in the infobox, because the reader will think "Poland" refers to the exiled government, not Stalin's.
 * As for other articles, I have no idea. I have no doubt that these infobox problems are widespread, as I keep coming across them often when I read WWII articles. I remember the USSR successor/predecessor debate, and the Axis Powers co-belligerent debate, recently. I think, though, that the Soviet Polish Armies are perhaps unique from other units.
 * Here, I think the question is whether the 1st and 2nd Polish Armies are part of the state of "Poland", and what state that word exactly refers to in 1945. MILHIST should definitely get involved as those editors will be familiar with these issues, but before I go asking them, I'm trying to gather and look through some sources first. Not sure if the ones I'm finding are any good, but it's what I'm finding that talks about the Polish Army in the Battle of Berlin. Levivich 17:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It refers to a country, not to a state. Poland had no full scale and universally recognized government during that time, but we can hardly exclude a part of military contribution of her citizens from her total war efforts just because they were acting not under a control of "London Poles".
 * Actually, in a situation if "London Poles" were an internationally recognised government that assumed a full control over Poland after the war (or at least after the end of the Cold war), then, yes, you are right. But in reality, the situation was different. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with that logic. If Polish troops fought in a battle, that doesn't make the country of Poland a participant in that battle. The Soviet union taking Polish prisoners from the gulag and putting them into an army unit doesn't, in my view, constitute a contribution of troops by the country of Poland. Anyway, by that logic, it seems we should also be listing Ukraine, Belarus, and probably many other countries. That gets back to your point, I guess, about this being a broader issue than just one article. But, before talking about changing any rules or practices, if the status quo practice is that if people of X ethnicity fight in the battle, then X country is listed as a "belligerent", then we should add more countries to the infobox for this article? Levivich 17:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The Soviet union taking Polish prisoners from the gulag and putting them into an army unit" That is not what happened. After Hitler's invasion of Soviet Union, Stalin agreed to formation of Polish army. The first one was the Anders army of course. But neither the Anders one or the Berling one involved forcibly putting gulag prisoners into their ranks. Rather, these were volunteers. Yes, some of them were prisoners or exiles in the Soviet Union, but many, most even, were simply *in* Soviet Union after having fled there or been caught there by the front in 1939. The situation with the officers was a bit different, as most of these were in fact prisoners and there weren't that many of them, Stalin having murdered most at Katyn, and a good chunk of the survivors leaving with Anders (that's actually the main reason why the officer corps had so many Soviet citizens in it).  Volunteer Marek   21:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * According to Getty, Rittersporn&Zemskov, there were 16133 Poles in Gulag in 1940.
 * WRT Ukraine or Belorussia ("Belarus" is a neologism), no such states/countries existed in mid XX century.
 * WRT "if people of X ethnicity fight in the battle, then X country is listed as a "belligerent"", that is not what I say. Thus, participation of Blue Division in EF does not make Spain a belligerent: Spaniards who fought in Blue division were volunteers who joined Wehrnacht, took an oath to Hitler, and the division was an ordinary Wehrmacht division under German command, they wore German uniform and were just ordinary Wehrmacht military. A situation with Armia Ludowa was quite different. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Poland did exist in 1945 but not as PPR but PKWN. on 22nd of june 1944 Poland was reborn and in the communist era it was a national celebration hence the reason in 1966 Poland had a parade celebrating 27 years Of Poland. and PKWN had its armed wing, the PPA which was under the command of Michał Rola-Żymierskim who was in charge of the general command of Polish army (naczelne dowództwo wojska Polskiego). he (M. R-Ż) asked zhukov if Poland can Participate in BoB which later stalin approved and thats how Poland was in Berlin. (Sorry for bad english:)) Jakub2k03 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Also i think BoB is a "Polish and soviet victory" because it is just common sense.. because what else would you classify Poland in BoB... a loser or a winner there is no inbetween. Jakub2k03 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted your change to "Soviet and Polish victory". "Common sense" is not a reason. We need WP:RS that say "Soviet and Polish victory"; the sources cited in the article, as far as I can see, say "Soviet victory" (not even "Allied victory", but "Soviet"). Levivich 19:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about People's Army (Poland) (Armia Ludowa). The specific Polish troops that fought in Berlin were the 1st Polish Army and the 2nd Polish Army, not AL. AL was created by Poland, but 1st and 2nd Polish Armies were created by Stalin. Levivich 17:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The confusion here is that "Armia Ludowa", People's Army, was also used for the Polish People's Army which was what the 1st and 2nd Polish Army became. Regardless of the naming confusion, Paul is right in that the situation here is quite different. Maybe time to WP:DROPTHESTICK Levivich?  Volunteer Marek   21:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Polish token force was mere cannon fodder, under Soviet command, and had no effect on the direction of the battle. Entirely inconsequential in relation to 1st and 2nd Belorussian Fronts and the 1st Ukrainian Front.--HQGG (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't disparage ~150,000-200,000 people who risked their lives as a token force or cannon fodder. In fact, that's a giant army, by any reasonable measure. The only reason it seems small in context is because it was part of what was maybe the largest land force ever assembled in history, consisting of about 2.3 million soldiers. Levivich 16:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with the changes made to the info box and id like to make a suggestion of adding 'Michał Rola-żymierski' to the commanders box just so the reader understands who was in charge of the Polish armies. again this is only a suggestion and id like to hear feedback on this and i only make this suggestion because on the Polish wikipedia version of BoB 'Michał Rola-Żymierski' is listed as a commander. Jakub2k03 (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Few thoughts:
 * this has been discussed before and the consensus and long-standing version has been, each time, to leave Poland in the infobox. Past discussions: Talk:Battle_of_Berlin/Archive_7, Talk:Battle_of_Berlin/Archive_2, Talk:Battle_in_Berlin/Archive_1
 * Poland is listed as a participant in Polish, German and French Wikipedias (the three I checked)
 * from Template:Infobox_military_conflict: for combatants field: "the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding.". For result field: "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." I think it is pretty clear that Poland can be included as a combatant, and I don't think we have qualifiers to indicate who was the major or minor participant outside the order of listing (so, Soviet first, Poland second). Whether we need to clarify it was the "Lublin Government" Poland, I am unsure and lean against as unnecessary for infobox (but the link pipe of Poland to Lublin Poland or whatever could be considered) - I don't recall seeing "Poland (Polish gov't in exile)" format used for the Polish participation in the battles on the Western front (Battle of Monte Cassino, Siege of Tobruk, etc.). As for the result, Soviet and Polish victory is ok, although I'd not be that averse to just calling this Soviet victory, since Poles were clearly subordinate here and the Lublin government was a puppet one. We could also just say "Allied victory", since in theory Soviet Union and its Polish auxiliaries were "Allies". We could review what infoboxes for other battles in which First Polish Army (1944–1945) was involved say, I'll note that Battle of Lenino result clearly does not follow MILHIST recommendations, and ask at WT:MILHIST what are the bet practices for the Eastern Front (as noted, a common compromise for the Western front is to say "Allied victory", granted, the Western front also had more participants and they tended not to be puppet states...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Piotrus - Poland is listed as a participant in Polish, German and French Wikipedias - Poland is listed as participant in ALL other versions of Wikipedia except one single two version --> and  -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Really, you gonna call out Hebrew wiki like that? Damn those Hebrew speaking people, always following their own path...
 * Anyway,, , ... not sure if they were all added by the same IP address, I'm too lazy to track them all down, but it really doesn't matter what other wikis do. Levivich 16:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Poland was included in Hebrew wiki until some IPs edit warred to remove it (established users tried to put it back but looks like they didn't have patience to stick it through ).   Volunteer Marek   22:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ..doesn't matter what other wikis do.. - so all other wiki versions are wrong in your opinion Levivich? GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, if they list "Poland" as a belligerent in the infobox for Battle of Berlin, especially if they link it to Poland. If I think the English-language version is wrong (for the reasons discussed above), and I think "Poland (Lublin government)" is better for the English-language version (for the reasons discussed above), then it logically follows I think the same thing for all other language versions (for the reasons discussed above). Anyway, it doesn't matter what other wikis are doing, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Levivich 17:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, Polish troops during the BoB were not Armia Ludowa. They were a part of Polish Armed Forces in the East. In connection to that, I am not sure why you are arguing against inclusion of Poland as a belligerent: Polish armed forces in the East were Polish forces, not Soviet, and, therefore, it would be logical to describe the victory as "Soviet and Polish". As I explained, those troops were not just "released from Gulag" (there were just 16 thousands Poles in Gulag in 1940, which is insufficient to create Polish armed forces. In addition, contrary to modern belief, Communism was popular among a part of Polish population, and not all of them decided to move to the West with Anders.
 * Furthermore, as 's quote says, the parties participating in the conflict are " most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict". It does not say "states", and we have no reason to claim Polish Armed Forces in the East were not "Polish": they were composed of (predominantly) Poles, wore Polish insignia and were not considered (de iure) Soviet. What else is needed to link them to Poland (as a country, not as a state)?
 * Frankly, I sincerely cannot understand why you continue to argue: I agree there are many problems with representation of Polish (and Polish-Jewish) history on Wikipedia pages, but this article is hardly an example of such problems. Why cannot you focus on real problems (which really exist)? In my opinion, this discussion is more harmful than useful, because it undermines credibility of your opinion in the topics that really need your attention. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A few things:
 * First, I am not continuing to argue anything. I don't like it when I am pinged with questions, and then when I respond, someone characterizes that as "continue to argue".
 * Second, I'm not "arguing" at all, I'm collecting and quoting from sources. Also, I'm not "continuing" anything because I agree with VM's recent edit following our discussion here. I have no objection to the current infobox entry, "Poland (Lublin government)".
 * Third, I really don't care what you think about my credibility or what topics really need my attention. I don't work for you, or for Wikipedia. I'm not here to build credibility with other editors. I was reading the article on Battle of Berlin, saw what I thought were errors, read the sources cited, and made corrections per the sources. I did what I thought was necessary to improve the article and make it more accurate per the sources already in the article. When, where, and how I choose to volunteer my time to improve articles is entirely up to me (as it is for every editor). I'm not here to fix the "many problems with representation of Polish (and Polish-Jewish) history on Wikipedia pages"; that's not a crusade I'm on. I almost never edit in this topic area -- only when I see things on major articles that I think are majorly wrong, such as previously at Holocaust, Axis powers, and now here. If you don't think this particular content dispute is worthwhile, you are not required to participate. I don't tell you how to spend your time editing, don't tell me how to spend mine.
 * Fourth, the sources cited in the article that I have linked to and quoted on this page do not, AFAICS, talk about "Polish Armed Forces in the East". They talk about "1st Polish Army", "2nd Polish Army", and "Polish People's Army" (LDW), with the former two being more common than the latter.
 * Whether the 1st and 2nd Polish Armies were or were not "Polish" is the subject of the doctoral thesis I linked to above, which goes over decades of historiography in multiple languages. It's complicated, scholars have multiple views on it, there is no clear right or wrong answer.
 * Most importantly, I'm fine with the current state of the article, and I've thoroughly explained my reasons, and cited supporting sources, above. So I'd appreciate it if everyone stopped pinging me here unless you really need my attention. Thanks. Levivich 19:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am busy now, so I haven't read the whole discussion carefully. If you guys have already come to some agreement, just disregard my post.
 * WRT yours "third", I neither expect nor want you to care about your credibility in my eyes. I am talking not about me (consider it more like a notion of a side observer). WWII-time history of Poland is a very complex topic, and your attempts to make its description on Wikipedia pages more balanced and adequate are highly commendable. In connection to that, I've just noticed that this dispute hardly deserves your time and efforts. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am fine with the current solution, GCB's edit that pipes Poland to Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland (note: PKWN or Lublin Government transformed into the Provisional Government in Dec'44 so that was an incorrect link/term in the context of 1945 anyway) while removing the unnecessary clarification "Lublin government" from the infobox (just like we don't add "Polish government in exile" or such to the infoboxes listing Polish participation in the Western front). That said I did notice that the infoboxes usually use "Free French" instead of linking to France. Again, I wonder if this has been discussed somewhere and France got the "exception" through consensus? If someone still cares about this, I'd suggest a discussion at WT:MILHIST, asking about Free French and best practices for the level of detail and links in infoboxes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Observation - Levivich writes above -->So I'd appreciate it if everyone stopped pinging me here unless you really need my attention. Note that was user Piotrus pinged today not Levivich. They replied to the comment not addressed to them. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  23:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Pipe or no pipe?
Editors involved in this discussion may want to check Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history which I just started. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What is the consensus above @Levivich? This is regarding your recent revert {and problematic edit summary also, but that later). I’ll ask again and I’m asking other participants. @Paul Siebert, @Piotrus and @Volunteer Marek What is the consensus?  -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  13:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't canvas with selective pinging, ping everyone involved or no one. The consensus at MOS, MILHIST, and here, is to not pipe the link. You and Piotrus need to stop piping that link, as you're in a two-against-many situation. If you think the link should be piped, start a discussion and see if there is consensus for it. You two can't just continuously reinstate each other's edits and ignore everyone else. Levivich 14:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Who did I miss Levivich? Who else from the established editors partook in the discussion  above ? Do you mean this brand new account who suddenly showed up to support your mysterious idea and then supported you in edit warring . Is that who you want me to ping Levivich? -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hard to say (what is the consensus). I am not familiar with a discussion at MOS. The discusion at MILHIST I started did not attract many people (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_166), I think one person was for, and one was against the piping. Two vs two if you factor in mine and Levivich's comments there. I prefer the long standing stable pipe version, given the lack of consensus. But if people keep disagreeing, I also suggest an RfC. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  16:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Countries or governments
It is completely illogical to assert that one of the belligerents was the Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland when the other two were Germany and the Soviet Union. If the PGRP was a belligerent, the other two must have been the Government of the Soviet Union on one side; Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party on the other. Governments don't fight battles, but countries do.

As belligerents are countries, it is correct to say that the Soviet Union (or USSR) and Poland fought against Germany in this battle. WP:COMMONSENSE applies. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @No Great Shaker Indeed, I pointed that out before (or at least in a similar way, making the point that we use pipes for Soviet Union not Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Germany, not Nazi German). Your point about government vs the country is another layer, indeed. We should keep it simple (also infobox is a place for short stuff, summary style is a good thing). Btw, if you haven't noticed, this very issue is discussed in the section just above (, and a bit in the preceeding discussion too) - maybe, to avoid needlessly repeating them, you could remove your heading 'Belligerents' and just consider adding our discussion to that section? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I've made it a sub-section of the above but please adjust as you see fit. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @No Great Shaker and Piotrus - Recently one user, who after 20 years of the article's existence, initially removed Poland from the list of belligerents and now is edit warring against multiple editors forcing the bizarre concept that it was the Polish government that fought in Berlin. (.. in their suits and briefcases, I suppose). This has been settled now folks from what I can see. -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  13:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . LOL! That was just the sort of vision I had. Maybe they staged an umbrella charge against the Waffen SS! If the problem persists, you should report it. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2022
the true deaths of the battle 102.41.31.113 (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Raising a flag over the Reichstag 2.jpg

Battle for the centre
First sentence is

There'r two ways to take this: It's just not clear which he meant. Maybe no one knows. Every place I've looked online uses the exact same wording "during the night" except one unreliable source that does have "that evening" which would mean #2.
 * 1) ) During the current night, the few hours until dawn
 * 2) ) During the following night, 18-22 hours or so away.

Is there any solution to this? Or is it just unknown to history what Weidling exactly said, or meant? Herostratus (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Map May 1945
I think there is a small mistake in the May 1945 map, that of the white, pink and red zones. To my knowledge, the areas in red should be the territories won by the Allies between 16 April and 1 May 1945 and not disputed territories DevilandDaughter (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)