Talk:Battle of Berlin/Archive 2

Fair use rationale for Image:Polacy Berlin1.jpg
Image:Polacy Berlin1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Berlin surrender
The following text was added to the article today. I have moved it here for further discussion.
 * Though Dönitz was the President and a military figure, having led the Kriegsmarine, commanders who remained in the Fuhrerbunker found themselves under the direction of Goebbels during their attempts to gain approval for a surrender to Zhukov and/or Chuikov, and were therefore unable to unconditionally capitulate due to Goebbels objections. A surrender with terms was unnaceptable to Zhukov, who was following the Allied strategy of Unconditional Axis Surrender, and who was virtually assured of victory regardless.  In other words, a German surrender with any terms at all would have at that time gained almost nothing for the Red Army (life was cheap to the Soviet Army at that time, and the loss of a relatively few more soliders while waiting for total capitulation by the Germans meant nothing to Soviet leaderhsip), but would have cost the Allies their position of Unconditional Surrender and Zhukov would have had to face the repercussions.  As a result, even though their Fuhrer was dead and those remaining in Germany Army command such as Weidling, Krebs, and Burgdorff realized both the total futility of continuing to fight given their situation and the suffering of Berlin's civilian population, they were powerless to end the fighting while Goebbels maintained his idealistic position regarding the situation.

The above is interesting but it is not sourced so I have moved it here for further discussion. There seems to be a confusion in the text between the surrender of the Berlin garrison and a general capitulation. If there is such a linkage then it needs a source.

Also according to Beevor the Soviets in Berlin were very keen for the Germans to surrender by 1 May for which would have pleased Starlin for political reasons (May day parade) and Weilding was equally keen not to surrender until after the general breakout attempt on the night of the 1/2 of May. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not sourcing it, but there are several documented sources, primarily the recollections of bunker survivors and Zhukov's staff during the negotiations with Krebs. You are correct though and I will find and list specific citings.


 * As for the difference between general capitulation and the Berlin garrison, although there were certainly dispered units throughout both fronts, direction was still coming from Berlin. Case in point was Goering's attempted "coup."  Jodl and Keitel, both of whom had been in the Fuhrer bunker near the end, were the signatories of the two main instruments of surrender on the 7th/8th of May.


 * Regarding the Soviet position on German surrender, they were keen on victory by May Day, but there were not going to sacrifice the Allied Unconditional Surrender demand in order to attain the propaganda value for May Day. For them, taking the Reichstag and placing the Red Flag over it by May Day was sufficient for propaganda purposes.  While Weidling and others, including the Flensburg government itself, was keen on breaking out West to surrender to Americans rather than Soviets (in Berlin or elsewhere), they were also not keen on dying futily and given an ultimatum would have surrendered regardless.  They also had a great deal of concern for the civilian population, who a military break-out from encircling forces would not have helped a great deal.  Again, I know this from many sources but will provide specific citings when I have the chance.

By May 1/2 direction was not comming from Berlin. Apart from anything else (like Hitler's death) means of communications had broken down. BTW I thought that Jodl had been at the OKW HQ and not in central Berlin. The breakout did not effect most of the Berlin civilian population directly, as by the time the breakout took place most of Berlin was already under Soviet administration. I am not sure that you are correct about "they were also not keen on dying futily and given an ultimatum would have surrendered regardless." lots committed suicide and many did not expect the Soviets to treat them well given the way the Germans had treated the Soviets ("Genieße den Krieg, der Frieden wird schrecklich sein." ("Enjoy the war, the peace will be terrible.")). Further there is a lot of evidence that the German high command was keen to stall the general capitulation to give as many German troops as possible time to move west and surrender to the Western Allies. That is what General Smith (who negociated with Jodl) reported to Eisenhower. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

One other thing given the size of this article I think details about the death of people like Goebbels should go into the Battle in Berlin article as apart from the suicide (and his removal from the board) they are not really relevent to the outcome of the battle. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

phantom divisions
PBS, Your version of the disputed sentence is POV, which your edit comment proves. I don't see how
 * Meanwhile, the Soviets were getting on with winning the war. The 2nd Belorussian Front had established a bridgehead on the east bank of the Oder over 15 km deep and was heavily engaged with the III Panzer Army.

is worse than
 * Away from the map room in the Berlin Führerbunker with its imaginary attacks of phantom divisions, the Soviets were getting on with winning the war. 2nd Belorussian Front had established a bridgehead on the east bank of the Oder over 15 km deep and was heavily engaged with the III Panzer Army.

The latter version reeks of unencyclopedic tone and merely serves as taking a jab at Germany. Hitler was losing the war, but that's no valid reason to try to display him and his generals as maniacs. --81.227.92.40 06:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have any source which says the commands that came out of the Führerbunker on the 21/22 were anything but fantasies? Would anyone with any grasp of the real military situation have thought that Army Detachment Steiner could attack south and pinch off Zhukov salient and the 9th could and 4th Panzer Army could simultaneously do the same to Konev salient? What were the orders to Steiner other than orders to attack with phantom divisions? --Philip Baird Shearer 06:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Communist/Soviet
I reverted a change that changed "Decisive Soviet Victory" for "Decisive Communist Victory". As possible vandalism. -Flubeca (t) 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of/in Berlin
(Probably brought up before)

Having two articles called Battle of Berlin and Battle in Berlin seems to me rather awkward, and a source of possible confusion. IIRC "Berlin Offensive" was rejected as being unsuitable as an article name, but what about "Berlin Campaign"? Then the battle in the city proper could be "Battle of Berlin". -- Hongooi 01:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No. By far the common name for the "Berlin Offensive Operation" in English is the "Battle of Berlin" this has to be the name of the campaign because it is dictated by the Naming convention. The article name "battle in Berlin" is a descriptive name made up by me. Notice the article "battle in Berlin" follows the MOS section Article titles "If the topic of an article has no name, and the title is simply descriptive, the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface."


 * I created the article because I wanted to put in more details of the fighting in the city than there was room for in this article ("battle in Berlin" is currently 57k long). I considered using the name "Battle for Berlin" for the fighting in the city, but decided against it because that name has also been used by authors as a name for the Berlin Offensive. However as the name "battle in Berlin" is a descriptive name I am happy to discuss renaming that article if someone can come up with an alternative name that they think is better. But if we do that we should discuss it on Talk:battle in Berlin --Philip Baird Shearer 05:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, see Talk:Battle in Berlin. -- Hongooi 09:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

About moving
Actually, I'm in process right now (it will be some work).

Please write a summary in the section. --HanzoHattori 06:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Philip Baird Shearer, I absolutely love your lack of attempt at discussing your edits. --HanzoHattori 08:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

PBS, stop this already. The fighting and the capitulation was already the aftermath - the operation to capture Berlin ended on May 2 (and I'm using the infobox date!), Czechoslovakian events were way south (another Soviet operation in another country, the Prague Offensive), the surrender was way west, again in another country (France)... Would someone please tell him to stop? I'm tired of the revert war, and all this is so stupid.... --HanzoHattori 15:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Guess you don't even read this. --HanzoHattori 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There were three Russian fonts involved in the battle of Berlin. One the 2nd Belorussian Front fought in the battle but did not enter Berlin, they fought to the north. There were two German Army groups involved in the battle only one corps (Weidling's LVII Panzer Corps) of these army groups retreated into Berlin the rest fought outside Berlin and as the section details surrendered at different times to different people. While they were fighting the Battle of Berlin was not over even if the city had fallen because the Battle of Berlin includes the fighting in what would become East Germany. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out this:

Date 	April 16, 1945 – May 2, 1945 Location 	Berlin, Germany

I didn't write this. --HanzoHattori 15:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The May 2 is a convinient date for the fall of Berlin because no only did Weidling surrender Berlin that day so did German XXI Army, III Panzer Army and the XXI Army. (As is mentioned in this section). The only other two sizable Armies in the field that were still in the vicinity of Berlin was the XII and 20,0000 survivors of the IX they fought on until the general cease fire. This is all part of the battle of Berlin and should be mentioned as part of the battle. Sorry it is a scrappy end but thats history for you.

As for the other stuff in that section. eg Army Group Centre. It was retreating away from Berlin and by the 2nd was no longer an active participant in the battle, but as the Soviets redeployed troops away from Berlin ("clawed out like a nail") to deal with its continued resistance, there is no harm in mentioning what happened to AGC in this section, as anyone who reads the earlier part of the battle has the right to expect a mention at the end of the battle as to what happened to two German army groups involved in the battle. You must realize that this is a joint edit project and one has to compromise, there are emphases on aspects particularly the minutia of the politics in the death throws of the Third Reich I am not to keen on including in this article but others think it is important so it is in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But the section is ABOUT THE AFTERMATH! It starts witb "The fighting did not finish with the death of Hitler and the capitulation of Berlin. Some of the German forces which had been fighting against the three Soviet fronts continued to resist up to the end of the War in Europe" and ends with "The Army Group Centre retreated south west towards Czechoslovakia, the majority of the 1st Ukrainian Front disengaged from the battle of Berlin and turned south to engage in the Prague Offensive, the last major combat operation of the European War, in which Czechoslovakia and its capital Prague were liberated and Army Group Centre, deserted by its commanding officer the newly promoted Field Marshal Ferdinand Schörner, was forced to capitulate a few days after the general German capitulation of May 7" - I don't know, read until you understand? Or do you think EVERYTHING was part of "Berlin Offensive Operation" (ending May 2), even the Prague Offensive Operation and the France-signed surrender of the garrision of Norway to the Western Allies? --HanzoHattori 23:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made my position clear already but to reiterate think that the fighting in the sector of the front which was part of the Battle of Berlin is part of the Battle of Berlin. I do not think that any of the areas of conflict and surrender that are listed in the End of World War II in Europe, off which there are many more are relevant. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You say Prague Operation (in and near Czechoslovakia, starting May 5, three days after the Berlin one ended),

The Army Group Centre retreated south west towards Czechoslovakia, the majority of the 1st Ukrainian Front disengaged from the battle of Berlin and turned south to engage in the Prague Offensive, the last major combat operation of the European War, in which Czechoslovakia and its capital Prague were liberated and Army Group Centre, deserted by its commanding officer the newly promoted Field Marshal Ferdinand Schörner, was forced to capitulate a few days after the general German capitulation of May 7 (I'm just quoting the version YOU chose)

was "part of" the Berlin Operation (ending May 2 in and near Berlin), and title this "Capitulation"? What else was, Stalingrad maybe? Come on, invent something.

ANYONE: Would someone say something? A vote maybe? This is just stupid. --HanzoHattori 08:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, you just REMOVED the following (from the section titled "Capitulation"!!):

Following Hitler's wishes in his last will and testament, on his death Admiral Karl Dönitz became the new Reichspräsident and Joseph Goebbels the new Reichskanzler. However, Goebbels' suicide on May 1 left the new head of state to orchestrate negotiations of national surrender on his own. The German high command and most German armed forces surrendered unconditionally to the Allies on 8 May 1945, which became known as V-E Day (the actual surrender took place the day before, but the ceasefire started on May 8). Although a few German units kept fighting a few days longer, the war in Europe was effectively over.

So, now all about the "capitulation" in the "Capitulation" section is laconic "the general German capitulation of May 7" regarding the aftermath of Berlin in Czechoslovakia (while pretending it was part of the Berlin), with the commplete removal of the most important events and the consequences sourrounding the Battle of Berlin. I'm just beyond words.

Everybody: arbitrary actions, PLEASE? --HanzoHattori 08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Calm down, people. Anyway, I've swopped around the sections on the immediate and more far-reaching effects of the end of the battle, which may help to make the narrative flow more natural. -- Hongooi 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention, Hongooi
Can I now insert back

Following Hitler's wishes in his last will and testament, on his death Admiral Karl Dönitz became the new Reichspräsident and Joseph Goebbels the new Reichskanzler. However, Goebbels' suicide on May 1 left the new head of state to orchestrate negotiations of national surrender on his own. The German high command and most German armed forces surrendered unconditionally to the Allies on 8 May 1945, which became known as V-E Day (the actual surrender took place the day before, but the ceasefire started on May 8). Although a few German units kept fighting a few days longer, the war in Europe was effectively over.

into the "End of the war in Europe" section? --HanzoHattori 09:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As you said before it is not part of the end of the battle of Berlin. Now are you saying that it is? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I said it's part of the aftermath - not the operation. I'm still saying this. --HanzoHattori 09:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I just say, unilateral reverts don't really help. I'll just redo my swopping of the aftermath sections, if people don't mind. -- Hongooi 09:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that unilateral reverts don't really help. I have waited 24 hours to and tried to discuss this with you but you are pressing on imposing changes that you think are justified without discussing them first even though you know that you have yet to reach a consensus for the changes. Please slow down and discuss changes before making them. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, please don't confuse me and HanzoHattori. I've only been involved in this catfight for the last half-hour. -- Hongooi 09:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake. I removed the paragraph because of what HanzoHattori complained about. If you put it back into the Capitulation section I will not remove it again. But I do agree with HanzoHattori that it is not specific to the surrender of Berlin. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But I do object to not having a section on the capitulation of the forces that fought in the Battle of Berlin. It is an integral part of the Battle - like the initial attacks over the Oder and Neisse rivers - and and should be included in the battle not as part of the aftermath. Philip Baird Shearer 09:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph by paragraph
The paragraphs in the section Battle in Berlin (apart from the opening ones are in chronological order, I suggest that we go through them seeing how we can condense the paragraphs into one per day. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the paragraph that starts "Berlin's fate was sealed," can be reduced to something like:
 * On the 23 and 24th the Soviet xyz under abc made a strong thrust into the city from the south east. A German counter attack by abc failed to stop this advance and by the night of the 24th the soviets had reached Berlin S-Bahn ring railway.

I suggest removing the paragraph next paragraph "While the fighting raged" as it is too specific for this overviews. What do others think --Philip Baird Shearer 09:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK I have done those first two paragraphs. I have also commented out some of the political stuff that I do not think is not directly relevant to the outcome of the battle.

I have also moved paragraphs that are not directly relevant to the "Battle in Berlin" to a new section "Battle outside Berlin" as while the battle in Berlin was continuing the battle outside was still being fought. At the moment because it is a new section the paragraphs are disjointed and a lot more information is needed to complete the details of what happened north and south of the city. There is already a detailed article on the IX army's fight but there were clashes between other armies that are not yet covered.

The daily details in the paragraphs of what happened in Berlin sill need reducing in size (as I have done for the 24/24), but I will stop for the moment until and let others assess what I have been doing. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What for. Listen up: ALL details are in the specific article. Can't you really KEEP IT SHORT? Yes, short. They (who, but without unnecessary details) fought this to this day there, commanded by him and him, resulting in this and this, of the IMPORTANT things happened this, this and this, and so many died. Things like (chosen completely at random) "In the afternoon, Goebbels and his wife, Magda, poisoned their children. At about 20:00, Goebbels and his wife, left the bunker and close to the entrance bit on a cyanide ampule and either shot themselves at the same time, or were given a coup de grâce immediately afterwards by the SS guard detailed to dispose of their bodies." are UNIMPORTANT. His wife is unimportant. His kids are unimportant. The details of his death are unimportant! What important is "Goebbels too commited suicide" - if you want to learn more, there is THE SPECIFIC ARTICLE (here Joseph Goebbels).

This is the article about BATTLE OF BERLIN. In general. If some parts of this article has their SPECIFIC articles (see right!), you write the details THERE. And so it works BOTH ways. The "Battle IN Berlin" starts on 23 April, so you DON'T write what happened before this date OUTSIDE - it is ALREADY in the main article (here, "Battle OF Berlin", aka "Berlin Offensive"), and possibly with the detailed accounts in their respective specific articles, too. You have the problems to grasp this idea, don't you? Read again, then. Until you understand. --HanzoHattori 14:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Several times now you have made remarks which verge on personal attacks please do not do it. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I agree with HanzoHattori (although dude, can you keep it down a bit, you'll wake the neighbours). Much of the detail you've added is extraneous, given the stated scope of this article: the overall campaign in and around Berlin. The relevant guideline is summary style; having the same information duplicated in multiple articles is unnecessary. -- Hongooi 14:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not added anything to the article that was not in the article 2 days ago. As I said above I am quite happy to go through the section Battle in Berlin reducing the size of the entries for each day. A process I started this morning by stopped until others on the talk page agreed that this was a worth while process.

As I said above "I have also commented out some of the political stuff that I do not think is not directly relevant to the outcome of the battle." I did not delete them because they were added by other editors who may have wish them to remain in the article. I am more than willing to help remove more of that sort of thing but the information that remains should be in paragraphs that include third party citations. The level of detail text should be one or perhaps two paragraphs per-day. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I've done some copyediting of the current section dealing with the fighting in Berlin; hopefully this won't get reverted into the ether. I don't think a day-by-day account is necessary, because that's covered sufficiently in the battle in Berlin article itself. All that's needed here is a concise summary of what happened. -- Hongooi 16:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as I said before the text has to be fully cited. With the exception of one paragraph the new stripped down version is fully cited. Please edit this version and not one that fails WP:V. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

PBS:

You disagree and you are one. I and Hongooi disagree with you and so you was voted down (everyone else appearently has no opinion). I've got news for you: you do NOT own this article. Can you believe this?

You attack me with WP:V - you don't (can't) understand. Maybe this will help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Soviet_counter-attack_and_conquest_of_Germany - see how this MAIN article for our one is written. Do you see ANY sources for this? No, because these are the OBVIOUS FACTS - only 1 (one), because someone QUESTIONED "Stalin had promised the capture of Berlin to Zhukov". Because it works like this: you provide links when something is not obvious, or is controversional!

So, how were the child soldiers and old men militia thing dealt with in the World War II article? "Berlin was encircled around the same time and as a final resistance effort, Hitler called for civilians, including teenagers and the elderly, to fight in the Volkssturm militia against the oncoming Red Army." - no source, of course, because these are the OBVIOUS things no one but you would ever question! AND discussed in their own article (in this case, Volkssturm).

Now, see the more detailed article for the Eastern Front: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29#End_of_War:_April.E2.80.93May_1945 - same thing! No source - what for, for the obvious things? What is written, besides the links to the SPECIFIC ARTICLE (this one):

''"The offensive to capture East Germany and Berlin started on April 16 with an assault on the German front lines on the Oder and Neisse rivers. After several days of heavy fighting the Soviet 1BF and 1UF had punched holes through the German front line and were fanning out across East Germany. By the April 24 elements of the 1BF and 1UF had completed the encirclement of Berlin and the Battle of Berlin entered its final stages. On April 25 the 2BF broke through the German 3rd Panzer Army's line south of Stettin. They were now free to move west towards the British 21st Army Group and north towards the Baltic port of Stralsund. The Soviet 58th Guards Division of the 5th Guards Army made contact with the US 69th Infantry Division of the First Army near Torgau, Germany at the Elbe river. On April 30, as the Soviet forces fought their way into the centre of Berlin, Adolf Hitler married Eva Braun and then committed suicide by taking cyanide and shooting himself. Helmuth Weidling, defence commandant of Berlin, surrendered the city to the Soviets on May 2. Altogether, the Berlin operation (16 April - 8 May) cost the Red Army 361,367 casualties (dead, missing, wounded and sick) and 1,997 tanks and assault guns. German losses in this period of the war remain impossible to determine with any reliability."''

Do you understand NOW? In short, yes, you were wrong, that's all. This is the last time I try to reason with you, because if you didn't uderstand now, you never won't. --HanzoHattori 20:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for quoting something I wrote! As I wrote in it in October 2004 I am aware of what I wrote :-) However if I was to write that section today I would have included my sources. In those good old days we were more cavalier with citations (to the detriment of Wikipedia). But today we are not. If you look through the history of this article you will see that when I expanded the article in November 2004 I did not include citations,  so I went through the article earlier this year (in February 2007) and retrofitted citations to all the paragraphs I had written to comply with WP:V. As I said before WP:V says  "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." (my emphasis). and also look at the talk page at this conversation for example Wikipedia talk:Verifiability the majority of editors disagree with you. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh. So you became so... weird only lately? Would you want me to "remove" your "unsources materials", then? (If I was an ass, which I am not really) And majority of editors here (2), disagree with you (1, unless you are Philip, Baird, and Shearer). The rest just don't care appearently (well, maybe I care too much). --HanzoHattori 21:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out that the paragraphs did not carry citations. Now that you have done so, I have edited citations for those paragraphs into the article on the Eastern Front, as I did for this article earlier in the year. So there is no need for you to remove my unsourced material. BTW if you put in a fact at the end of anything I write, if I am made aware of it, I will always attempt to find the source I used when adding it. As I said up above in the good old days the expectations for citations in Wikipedia articles was lower than it is today and I would not contribute information like that today without sourcing it. (see this article and this stub both created by me in the last week and both with citations to the level that is expected in Wikipedia articles written today. So when I ask for sources, on new information, I am not asking for anything I would not do myself. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If any of the details that remain in the article trouble you I am more than willing to discuss them further. This is not a summary article it is an article about the Battle of Berlin and although there are more detailed accounts of the battle in other articles this one should be self standing and not part of a hierarchy of articles. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems much better to me to start with too much information and cut it down rather than starting with too little information (as indicated by copyedit template on the text that was put in place over the text from two days ago). --Philip Baird Shearer 17:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And so you once again made me speechless. Do you REALLY can't understand what "This article or section needs copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling." means? Do you see this and read "too little information"? You seems to hate when I say this, but you are a very strange person.


 * I presume that you mean "I think you are a very strange person" or am I wrong and are you making a personal attack? If the version you have been inserting needs "copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling." template why are you inserting it? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * PBS: How would I tell you to understand, at lastr? I WROTE THIS JUST BELOW: because "I don't speak the perfect English"! Can't you read? Because by writing I need "copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling" for this, I meant I need "copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone and/or spelling" for this. Surprise? Really? Or did you STILL didn't understand, becuase I see you can't understand EVERYTHING I write, even the simple templates I post, and even when this simple template is explained by me in the simplest way possible. And yeah, I think you indeed still don't understand (or pretend to, whatever), it's like talking to a wall. And hey, I wrote you "Just don't misquote me at least on this the next time.", and look, you did it again, anyway). Wow. It's certainly a... weird experience to meet you. --HanzoHattori 21:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And if you now meant "my version" in general this is because it's.... short! While at the same time covering most of the most important info I thought of (for ME it's quite complete - I did NOT mean "too little information", just to remind you again, because with you no one knows). The details, all of them, being in the prominently linked specific article AND the internal links too. --HanzoHattori 21:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion is making weirder by a moment. First you misquoted me in writing to Hongooi, now you misquote or can't understand a simple template made in rather basic English (only "harder" word being cohesion). I wonder what next?


 * And just becuase you have to be told everything: What it meant was "just enough information, but I don't speak the perfect English, so please check this one for the possible grammar, spelling, or other errors". Just don't misquote me at least on this the next time. Geez. --HanzoHattori 20:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

End of the war in Europe
I see no point in this section I think it should be removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done --Philip Baird Shearer 09:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the point: the same reason as it was inserted. --HanzoHattori 11:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle for the Reichstag
From the history of the article:
 * 14:03, 17 July 2007 HanzoHattori (Talk | contribs | block) (38,483 bytes) (→Battle in Berlin - you know what is REDUNANT? it's ALREADY in Wikipedia, what you do is NOT SUMMARY, there was no SEPARATE "Battle for Reichstag" even - it was too "in Berlin"! JESUS! stop this!)

A Google search will show you that this is a common name for this phase of the battle. There are often battles withing battles, they may or may not be called that but it is not uncommon for a particularly significant struggle to be named that. Eg the Battle of Dunkirk in the Battle of France or the Battle of the Seelow Heights in the Battle of Berlin or the Battle of the Tennis Court in the Battle of Kohima --Philip Baird Shearer 17:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude. It's not OFFICIAL name AND it was nothing separate. It was just ONE of the targets of the Communist forces - other being Chancellary, Brandenburg Gate, Interior Ministry (aka Gestapo HQ, but it was more than this), Fuhrerbunker (of course), etc. The battle was for THE CITY CENTRE, and as such the government buildings and historical landmarks. The Soviets fixated on the burned-out shell of Reichstag for the odd propaganda reasons, for the Germans it was just one of the strongpoints (the building being big and sturdy). Militarily, much more important was the Zoo Flak Tower, for example. Actual political importance - none. --HanzoHattori 19:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

None of the names are official. But unlike "battle in Berlin" which is a descriptive name, "Battle of the Reichstag" is in common usage and as it is in common usage there is no harm in using it to describe that part of the battle and it does some good because the Wikipedia article will show up in searches for "the battle of the Reichstag", which will not happen with Battle for the city centre/er). The Soviets were much more interested in capturing the Reichstag because as you say they attached a symbolic importance to it out of all proportion to what it was worth. Hence the wish to capture it before the May day parade and hence a good reason for using it as section marker as it was an important part of the battle. BTW what is you source for saying that "for the Germans it was just one of the strongpoints" because that is not what the sources I have read suggest. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, what? You say it was.... not a German strongpoint? or something? Mind-boggling, again. --HanzoHattori 21:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You have misunderstood what I wrote. I am not asking if it was a strongpoint I am asking if it was a stroinpoint without special significance to the Germans. This question is not to ask for a citation but for the source of the statement out of curiosity because I do not recall having read it in the various histories and articles I have read on Berlin. Where did you read it? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And what significance these ruins (not used or restored since the building was burned by the Nazis, in a meantime also bombed by the Americans) had to them, besides "we can use it as a stronghold to stop the Soviets coming through", according to you? --HanzoHattori 11:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not making any claim that it was or was not significant to the Germans. As you are making the claim I simply asked you what is you source for claiming that it was not significant. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Reichstag building is my source. OBVIOUSLY.

Contrary to popular belief, during the 12 years of National Socialist rule, the Reichstag building was not used for parliamentary sessions. Instead, the few times where the Reichstag convened at all, it did so in the Krolloper building, a former opera house opposite the Reichstag building. This applies as well to the session of 23 March 1933, in which the Reichstag disposed of its powers in favour of the Nazi government in the Enabling Act another step of the so-called Gleichschaltung, the legal steps through which the Nazis seized power. The building (which was unusable after the fire anyway) was instead used for propaganda presentations and, during World War II, for military purposes. It was also considered to be turned into a Flak Tower, due to its general similarity, but was found to be structurally unsuitable. The building, having never been fully repaired since the fire, was further damaged by air raids. During the Battle of Berlin in 1945, it became one of the central targets for the Red Army probably mostly for its symbolic significance. Today, visitors to the building can still see Soviet graffiti on smoky walls inside as well as on some of the roof, discovered and preserved during the reconstructions after reunification (see below).

For the Soviets, it was "the heart of Germany". For the Germans, it was "a big sturdy building, burned-out and largely abandoned for the last 12 years".

Welcome to Wikipedia. --HanzoHattori 13:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Rape
During the current round of co-editing the following text was removed. I am putting it here so that anyone who notices it missing and wishes to include it can find it easily:
 * The Red Army made a major effort to feed the residents of the city. However, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (usually rear echelon units ) looted, raped an estimated 100,000 women and murdered civilians for several weeks (see Red Army atrocities). After the summer of 1945 Soviet soldiers caught raping were usually punished to various degrees. By June 1945 when the Americans arrived in their sector of Berlin they found that average calorie intake of Berliners was low as they were getting only 64 percent of a 1,240-calorie daily ration, so "rape [by soldiers of the Red Army] had become an unnecessarily strenuous way of attaining something that in a wartorn, almost starving city, hundreds of women were willing to provide on professional or semi-professional terms" The rapes continued however until the winter of 1947-48, when the problem was finally solved by the Russian occupation authorities by confining the Soviet troops to strictly guarded posts and camps.

--Philip Baird Shearer 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And why removed? Becuase you decided this as the owner of Wikipedia, like you always do? --HanzoHattori 11:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that it was I who removed this text. You moved it from one article to another before and then removing it from Battle in Berlin. I have pasted it here so that those who wrote or anyone else who thinks it is important can find it and put in back in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And then I moved it back, because the other one was about battle, and this included "Aftermath". So, you removed it. --HanzoHattori 13:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was confused: you removed it from the battle in Berlin article 09:18, 17 July 2007 and reinserted it back into this article 09:20, 17 July 2007 unfortunately it was part of such a large change (not just a re-insertion of that paragraph) that I missed the reinsertion, sorry for that. I will reinstall the paragraph immediately. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Future improvements to the article
PBS appearently think it' his own article and can do whatever he wants with it. I'll provide some examples of his recend edits I do NOT agree with this (which he will probably ignore as always, but maybe someone else won't):

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Berlin&diff=145674189&oldid=145671989

He should had do this for the SPECIFIC ARTICLE and add the Soviet forces (and also the Polish - as it is, the fact of Poles fighting IN Berlin is not mentioned at all! and they were even in my compacted version). He also seems to know how to to do this at all in this case, because he didn't use neither "br" or "hr", in result screwing up the infobox to some extent. (What he should had do, was to find the source for any German numbers.)

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Berlin&diff=145671989&oldid=145669390

It's a well-known fact Hitler was not only the nominal commander. Morever, he was actually often into micro-management, and Corporal Hitler's commanding was often the reason of the German disasters in the WWII, or aggravating them (things like "no retreat and fight to the last man" or "attack, attack, attack", including, yes, Berlin).

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Berlin&diff=145409025&oldid=145405552

He agreed to remove it with himself, and then said "Done" (reporting to himself?). This section was the result of a compromise between me and him, made by the another user - and he removed it too.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Berlin&diff=145405552&oldid=145405134

Added completly unimportant trivia about Goebbel's family (numerous officials killed themselves and they are not mentioned), instead of correcting the error of "Goebbels, (who was against surrender)," jest left to this. But this one was a minor (yet, I already told him Goebbels wife and kids are unimortant in the battle in which untold thousands of civilians died, including the families of the Nazi leaders).

Etcetera. These were just some recent examples, in addition to the things discussed before. I won't go into edit war again, so, moderation, please? (yes, again)

And yes, I'm still staying for my compact version. He'd edit/source/discuss this hoewever he wanted, instead he just removed it. --HanzoHattori 11:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1a This is an article on the Battle of Berlin. The forces that fought in Berlin are just as relevant here as in any other article.
 * 1b The sources I used do not mention the Polish contribution (to be presise Beevor mentions the Polish 1st and 2nd Armies part at the start of the offensive (last index mention page 245) but not in the fighting in Berlin.

thumb|Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg
 * No, one Soviet Front was ordered to move out of Berlin (and "stripped of their glory", even if they in fact fought each other for this), while the Poles remained (and yeah, there are rumours of the Soviets killing Poles and throwing down their flags, too). Here, they are not mentioned at all since the Preparations part, where is the one ONLY mention of them in the article, besides the infobox mention. Instead you thought more important was how the Goebbels family died, about which you elaborated in detail. It's just silly - they were so unimportant they should be mentioned only in the SPECIFIC articles such as the one on Goebbels and suicide of Hitler, and related such as Fuhrerbunker or this movie Downfall.


 * See point 4 below --Philip Baird Shearer 18:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, this shows how your so-valuable sources are just worthless on many things. Who captured, for example, the Tiergarten train station (and 4 of the U-Bahn stations), most of the Berlin Polytechnics, and the Berlin Victory Column (and flew their flags there)? Who ALSO flew their flags on the Brandenburg Gate? Whose cemetery, and memorial, is in the Volkspark Friedrichshain area? No awards for guessing. Maybe you seriously think it was "Battle for Reichstag", too. (And as always, Wikipedia is your friend.)


 * Maybe you should trust less these sources of yours, then? --HanzoHattori 13:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have reliable sources which mention the Polish contribution then by all means add the details you wish to (with of course citations). Presumably the feat of arms you mention was the Polish First Army because the Second fought in the Prague Offensive. But as the sources I have do not mention the Polish contribution to the fighting in Berlin. Perhaps if you are going to add these details then adding them with citations would be useful for the Polish First Army article as well because at the moment it is sadly lacking many citations. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 2 including Hitler is a matter of opinion. In my opinion there is no need to mention the supreme commander in the info box.


 * No, Hitler COMMANDED the operation (and the war) from the German side, issuing insane orders until he finally stopped. He only NOT commanded these who more or less openly DISOBEYED him. This in contrast to Soviet side, where the only thing interesting Stalin was to have Berlin captured, and ASAP, not where this and this division-size unit will move now (or stand and die). Man, you know so little. --HanzoHattori 13:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 3 Having moved those formations that were fighting outside Berlin into their own surrender section, I do not see the need for information on the general surrender that is not specific to this battle in a separate section. Because of the edit waring going on, I posted my intent to do this and waited 12 hours, when there were no objections I removed it.


 * There is "no edit-warring going on". Not everyone stays online 24/7, either. --HanzoHattori 13:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 4. The edit you refer to is a little biased. The Goebbel's information was added by Mkpumphrey in February 2007 I had already removed nearly all the detail of Goebbel's family in a previous edit (16:57, 17 July 2007) this change was to alter suicide to killed themselves as the children did not commit suicide but were murdered. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. --HanzoHattori 07:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Polish participation
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_berlin.html quotes the Soviet Order of Battle for the Battle for Berlin (Le Tissier, pp. 196 – 207):
 * 1st Polish Army (Lt Gen S. G. Poplowski)
 * 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 6th Polish Infantry Divisions
 * 1st Polish Cavalry Bde
 * 4th Polish Heavy Tank Bde
 * 13th Polish SP Assault Artillery Bde
 * 7th Polish Assault Artillery Btn

The name of the general was Popławski.


 * 2nd Polish Army (Lt Gen K. K. Swiersczewski)
 * 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th & 10th Polish Infantry Divisions
 * 1st Polish Tank Corps
 * 16th Polish Tank Bde
 * 5th Polish Independent Tank Regt
 * 28th polish SP Assault Artillery Regt

The name of the general was Karol Świerczewski.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=123473 - Polish Air Force.

The Film Unit went along with the Polish Army and marched into Berlin,

- The 1st Tadeusz Kosciuszko Infantry Division and some artillery and engineer units took part in a street-fighting in Berlin (ZOO, Tiergarten).

Is it a problem to find the OoB before you remove something? Xx236 10:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone summarize what Poland-related information is disputed and/or was removed? Here are a few refs: I hope this proves beyond any doubt that Polish units indeed took part in the Battle of Berlin and the Battle in Berlin.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * - from the pages of the Association "Polish Community": Meanwhile, the 1st Army was taking part in the Berlin operation. [...] The following units took part in the attack on Berlin, which was happening simultaneously: the 1st Infantry Division, the 2nd Brigade of Howitzer Artillery and the 1st Independent Mortar Brigade. The troops of the 1st Infantry Division fought in the central sector of Berlin's defences, seizing the Technical University, the Tiergarten underground station and the Tiergarten park (the Zoo), entering the rear areas of the Reichstag and the Reich's Chancellery.
 * - from a portal supported by Polish Ministry of Defence: Polish Army on the eastern front began its combat track in September of 1943 and ended it in May of 1945 on the rubble of Berlin. See also photos on another governmental portal:, ,
 * - from an article published by Polish embassy: The crowning of the combat route was participation in capturing Berlin. In the entire operation took part 180 000 soldiers from the 1st and 2nd Polish Army, and in the assault in the downtown of Berlin an important role played the 1st Tadeusz Kosciuszko Division. It was the only military unit besides the Red Army that stuck its national flag over the ruins of the German capital.
 * PS. Polish casualties in the Battle of Berlin: 7,228 killed, 17,567 wounded, 3,765 missing
 * No one is disputing that the Polish took part in the Battle. What is under dispute is adding information into the article without reliable sources. The two sources I used do not mention the Polish contribution, so I did not include them it is as simple as that. One additional item that needs to be added to the order of battle is that the Polish First Army was part of the 1st Belorussian Front (Georgiy Zhukov) and Polish Second Army was part of the 1st Ukrainian Front (Ivan Konev). Also note that the Tiergarten park and the Berlin Zoo although nearly next to each other are not the same place. A bit like Regents Park and London Zoo --Philip Baird Shearer 11:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The German article describes Polish activities, certainly not because they love Poles there. Der 1. Kosciuszko-Division gelang es entlang der neuen Kant- und Pestalozzistraße, am Karl-August-Platz, vorzurücken und die Technische Hochschule, den S-Bahnhof Tiergarten sowie vier weitere U-Bahnhöfe zu besetzen. Weitere Kämpfe wurden entlang der Franklinstraße, der Englischen Straße, bei den Mercedes-Werken sowie in Tiergarten selbst und am hinteren Teil der Reichskanzlei geführt.


 * Who says Tiergarten and ZOO are the same? Xx236 11:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote above "Tiergarten park (the Zoo)". (Association "Polish Community"). The Technical University is next to the Zoo and both are on the south side of the Tiergarten, which the First Polish Army must also have entered and captured to capture the Victory Column which is close to the middle of the park. This places them the south west of the Reichstag and west of the Reich Chancellery. Their hold around the Victory Column must have been tenuous because the bulk of the Germans who escaped the center on the night 1/2 went that way and this map shows the disposition of Soviet forces in this area up until the 2 May. Presumably the Polish First Army was on the left Flank of Chuikov's 8th Guards Army.  --Philip Baird Shearer 12:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, let's forgive the authors slight errors in their Berlin geography knowledge; I'd suggest we use this (most detailed) para and include this in Battle in Berlin; we should also link the 1st Tadeusz Kosciuszko Division in this article (since we link many other units of that level). The source is now given.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, and I do think the Battle in Berlin is the place to put, it providing that the paragraph contains citations to reliable sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Some British authors ignore there exists something between Germany and Russia. Nothing new.Xx236 11:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that only the Kościuszko Division fought in the city. Xx236 12:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't we should call them Polish formations, but rather Soviet formations where Poles were used as soldiers. At the time of the Battle legitimate and internationaly reckognised government of Poland was in London, and only its units were Polish. Those in the Battle were part of Soviet force, and while the base soldier was a Pole,the officers were in 70 to 90 % Soviet Russians or Soviet citizens like Świerczewski. So perhaps we should just put those formations together with Soviet ones, as the represented Soviet government not Polish one. They can be called Soviet Polish formations and a footnote should be given explaining their composition and status. --Molobo 13:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's call them Polish soldiers or Kościuszko Division, but the soldiers were Polish.Xx236 14:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest linking Ludowe Wojsko Polskie or Polish Armed Forces in the East, the latter particularly explains the situation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The original dispute
"No one is disputing that the Polish took part in the Battle. What is under dispute is adding information into the article without reliable sources. The two sources I used do not mention" - you know, this is your problem (or problem with you). You want everything sourced, even if it's NOT disputed ("No one is disputing"). This with just everything. I find this, simply, very tiresome. I also told you you should ass the marks if needed, or add the citations yourself, not remove stuff placing instead the redunant stuff everywhere (working both ways!) instead of the shortest possibly summaries.

Because someone asked, my summary of "in Berlin" in "of Berlin" was:



The battle of Berlin battle in Berlin started to penetrate the outer suburbs of Berlin on the April 23, 1945, and continued until May 2 when the German General Weidling surrendered the city to the Soviet General Vasily Chuikov (former commander in the Battle of Stalingrad) under Marshal Zhukov. Also involved in the fighting were the Polish soldiers allied to the Soviet forces.

Most of the defenders were members of the fanatical Hitler-Jugend and desperate Volkssturm militias composed of the boys and old men, and of the police, and paramilitary units of the hastily conscripted members of the Allgemeine SS and the SA; there were only about 45,000 regular soldiers from the undermanned units with few remaining heavy weapons, many of them members of the Waffen-SS units composed of the foreign volunteers. The main armament of the Nazi forces were the Panzerfaust infantry anti-tank weapons and generally the defence was improvised, without any real preparations against ground attack. There were also a futile relief attempts by the German forces outside of Berlin, as Hitler directed them to rescue the city (most of these units, however, attempted instead to breakthrough west in order to surrender to the Western Allies).

The Berlin S-Bahn railway system (including its underground sections) and the massive Flak Tower anti-aircraft bunkers serving as a centers of resistance (in particular the one at the Berlin Zoo) played an important role in the German defense, and the heavy fighting took place the area of the vast park of Tiergarten. The fiercest fighting in the city center concentrated in the area of the Reichstag building (probably mostly for its symbolic significance for the Soviets, who seeked to capture it by May Day).

Berlin's civilian population was not evactuated and 2,700,000 civilians (3/4 of them women) suffered severe casualties when most of the city was destroyed by the fighting and the relentless Soviet bombardment by the massed tube and rocket artillery. After refusing to be evacuated, Hitler commited suicide in his Führerbunker shortly before the fall of the city, on the night of April 30. Many other Nazi leaders including Goebbels also killed themselves.

Thousands of German soldiers and civilians managed to break out of the city the following night, led by the remnants of the Panzer Division Müncheberg, of which only few managed to get to the Western Allies while the rest of these attempting escape were captured or killed (Bormann disappeared). The battle effectively ended with the Soviet capture of the mostly abandoned Reich Chancellery on the morning of next day, after which the German military command in Berlin and most of the remaining defenders surrendered to the Soviets.

Pretty rough draft, as seen by the copyedit ask. (The Poles were just mentioned - I think the details like this should go into the specific article.) What is instead now is the main (specific) article edited to be shorter, but several times longer than my summary anyway. --HanzoHattori 17:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Polish Howitzer Brigade Berlin.jpg
Image:Polish Howitzer Brigade Berlin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)