Misplaced Pages

Talk:Battle in Berlin: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:59, 14 March 2012 editPBS (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled116,854 edits →Map of the participation of Polish troops in the Battle in Berlin: If this map belongs anywhere it is in the article on the First Polish Army← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:01, 21 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,940,507 editsm →top: Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings: -Start, keep BTag: AWB 
(109 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WPMILHIST
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Poland|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Military history
|class=start |class=start
<!-- B-Class checklist --> <!-- B-Class checklist -->
Line 5: Line 8:
|B-Class-1= yes |B-Class-1= yes
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2= no |B-Class-2= yes
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3= yes |B-Class-3= yes
Line 12: Line 15:
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5= yes |B-Class-5= yes
|German=y|Polish=y|Russian=y|WWII=y}} |German=yes|Polish=yes|Russian=yes|WWII=yes}}
{{WikiProject Germany|class=B|importance=Low|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes|b6=}} {{WikiProject Germany|importance=Low}}
}}
==Mass rape==
{{User:MiszaBot/config
... by "vengeful Soviet troops" is of course here to be sure. Fine, but please put this in the proper context and site what exactly Beevor is sayin, not through a chain of newspaper articles about the book. Book is available for search in Google books, btw. --] 06:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Battle in Berlin/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Soviet (and Polish) casualty figure ==
:The Newspaper article you refer to in the citations to was written by Beevor. --] 07:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


is definitely for the whole "Berlin Strategic Offensive" in and around Berlin (and even then it's bigger than listed in ])
== Article name ==


== 1st Polish army ==
Per PBS' request, taking the discussion here. Having two articles named Battle in/of Berlin seems to me awkward and confusing. Since Battle of Berlin must refer to the overall 1945 conquest of eastern Germany, that leaves Battle in Berlin. How about:
* Assault on Berlin / Berlin assault
* Siege of Berlin / Berlin siege
* Storming of Berlin


the 1st Polish army participated in battle of Berlin so how come they were removed? i tried adding it back but it got reversed. funny how people can remove a country from a historic battle with no reason other than uneducated statements such as "belarus and ukraine are not there" yet they are because they also were soviet union. and Poland was removed with no good reason. ] (]) 15:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
A parenthetical (1945) could also be added but that's probably not necessary. -- ] 09:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


== Is anyone checking edits made by silent anonymous editor? ==
:Definitely not siege as it was not one, the Soviets were entering Berlin before the ] was finished. The name Storming has POV connotations. Assault is probably the best of the three it is technically accurate but it carries an attackers POV. Hence the reason the that the ] suggests that battle and siege are prefered over '' terms such as "attack", "slaughter", "massacre", or "raid"'' --] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


I mean "49.36.110.63", who goes in w/o edit summary or any explanation on this talk-page, and makes substantial edits. ] (]) 01:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I would say that making the distinction clear between this article and ] takes priority over the POV issue. The overarching campaign has a neutral title and that's the one that I guess most people will look at first. -- ] 11:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:Lets see what others think, because I think that it is already clear. If it is not, then the first first sentence should makes it so. If you do not think that it does then we should perhaps change the first paragraph so that it is. The other think we have to consider with the name is "]" --] 12:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::It's interesting that you should mention the first sentence, because that was what caused my confusion in the first place. It mentions "The ''']''' was decided outside the city...", and the switching of "of" for "in" is a subtle enough thing that it wasn't immediately picked up. That led to questions as to why an article on the battle '''in''' Berlin was mentioning events taking place outside. I do think a more obviously distinct name is a Good Thing. As for hierarchy, I'm not suggesting anything like "battle of Berlin/Berlin assault" or some other two-level name. -- ] 13:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be moved to ] the trouble is that that introduces a Commonwealth/American English spelling into the title -- what do other think? --] 23:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:'Battle inside the City of Berlin'? With or without a (1945)? Does that help? ](]) 23:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

After reading the article I had a feeling that the Nazis are the heroes and the Soviets are the bad guys. I think there is a need of change of akcent. Facts need to be interpreted as facts. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I've never seen this battle called the 'Battle in Berlin'. Aside from being uncommon, it's also inaccurate and confusing: some of the most important fighting in this battle took part in the outskirts of the city and relatively few German units fought inside the city proper. ] (]) 01:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

::The most often used '''book titles''' in English use either "Battle of Berlin" or Battle for Berlin". These books in fact contain descriptions of three separate Frontal parts of the Berlin strategic offensive operation that were a number of smaller operational phases. Battle in Berlin is meant to focus on the fighting in the metropolitan Berlin and not describe the entire strategic operation. ] is supposed to deal with the larger strategic operation, although Philip Baird Shearer decided that vague references are better then actual operational names, and removed those. Something I'll return to in future--] (]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 02:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

== battle for the Reichstag ==

From the edit history
:14:14, 17 July 2007 HanzoHattori (Talk | contribs | block) (55,024 bytes) (okay? there was no a real "battle for reichstag", there was a fight fight for reichstag (too) - maybe now you will understand (and no, "Battle for the city center" was not a separate battle, too)) (undo)

If there was no "battle of the Reichstag" why does a google search return "''about 3,070 for "battle for the Reichstag"''" It is well sourced that this stage of the battle is known as the Battle for the Reichstag. --]

There was no SEPARATE battle worthy of the header in THIS article. It was "battle" as "fight". Jesus.

Maybe you don't understand, so I'll give you an example we have only "Battle of the Oder-Neisse", but we DON'T have the sub-header for the "]". Look: http://en.wikipedia.org/Berlin_Offensive#Battle_of_the_Oder-Neisse - SEE? --] 06:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, for some reason you put:

<blockquote>
In the early hours of the 29 April the Soviets crossed the Moltke bridge and started to fan out into the surrounding streets and buildings. The initial assaults on building, including Ministry of the Interior, were hampered by the lack of supporting artillery. It was not until the damaged bridges were repaired that artillery could be moved up in support. At 04:00 hours, in the Führerbunker, Hitler signed his last will and testament and, shortly afterwards, married Eva Braun. At dawn the Soviets pressed on with their assault in the south east. After very heavy fighting they managed to capture the Gestapo headquarters on Prinz-Albrechtstrasse, but a Waffen SS counter-attack forced the Soviets to withdraw from the building. To the south west Chukiov's 8th Guards Army attacked north across the Landwehr canal into the Tiergarten.
</blockquote>

in your section of "Battle of the Reichstag". So, the German part of this "speific battle" was Hitler marrying, and the Soviet was the GENERAL attack in various directions? (what I also said already, "Gestapo headquarters" was really the the German Interior Ministry)

Still NO TRACE of the Polish contribution, EVEN in the ] article, where I think they are not mentioned by a SINGLE word. You know what? This is just quite simply outrageous - you removed when I wrote, and you didn't wrote yourself. (Instead you are keen on the redunant flood of "Prelude".) Only because your stupid book is not informed, or Soviet-centric. Amazing.

You censored (removed) my appeal of the administrator intervention previously. So, '''CAN WE HAVE THE ADMINISTRATOR INTERVENTION NOW''', please? (PBS: You REALLY don't own this article, and it's NOT about how you interpret some book or whatever.) --] 07:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This was about this AND the main article. --] 07:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:I think you are confused, the article as of (an edit made before you wrote the above and for days before) did not have a section entitled "battle for the Reichstag", instead it has a section called "In the city centre".

:I am perplexed by you mention of ''"Gestapo headquarters" was really the the German Interior Ministry.'' AFAICT the "Gestapo headquarters" was on ] (south of the centre while the Ministry of the Interior was on next to the Moltke Bridge north of the centre on what is now ] but used to be Moltkestrasse.

:AFAICT I have not "(removed) appeal of the administrator intervention" where in the edit history did I do that? --] 08:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:As I said on the ]
::''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 ] because the Second fought in the ]. 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. --] 18:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)''
:--] 08:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

== Prelude ==

From the history of the article:
:

It is not I who is "COPY-PASTING from OTHER articles" into this article. It is you who have deleted information that was already in this article before you ever edited it (see

Please read ] it suggests that the article should have four sections:
:''The article can be structured along these lines:
:''1. The background. Why did it take place? Which campaign did it belong to? What happened previously?
:''2. The prelude. What forces were involved? How did they arrive at the battleground? Was there a plan?
:''3. A description of the battle. What tactics were used?
:''4. The aftermath. Who won, if anyone? What were the casualties? Was there a pursuit or followup? What happened next? How did the battle affect the course of the war?

Please stop deleting the prelude --] 17:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I repeat please stop deleting the prelude --] 08:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:I repeat stop inserting. Practically nothing of this is about "battle in Berlin" - it's all in the main article ("of Berlin"), where is its place. --] 12:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles should be stand alone, and battle articles need a "Prelude" (see above ]) --] 12:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

==Polish troops==
The article ignores the participation of Polish troops. : ''Meanwhile, the ] was taking part in the Berlin operation.'' ''The following units took part in the attack on Berlin, which was happening simultaneously: the ], 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.''--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

:It needs reliable sources before it can be added to the article. Unfortunately the sources I have do not include the Polish contribution within the city. --] 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

::I didn't know this article is called "A summary of some book(s) as interpreted by Philip Baird Shearer". But now I do. --] 12:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

::Just look at my post above, where I have an external link to a reliable article, published on the pages of the ]. You can find more by reading books such as . Plenty of other refs have been preseted at ]. See also . And if you can, go for the ''Poles in the Battle of Berlin'' by Stanislaw Komornicki and Piotr Borowy, translated by Andrzej Zielinski - Ministry of National Defence . --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 13:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Then please add what you wish. Do you have the dates when they captured their objectives, as it would make it easier to slot into the text which is broadly in chronological order? --] 16:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
::::I was hoping that you, as the main contributor, would chose the most relevant fact and add them. Over the coming weeks, I will look into that matter (my university seems to have a copy of both Komornicki & Borowy and Bahm book).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, the article has a picture with the caption "Polish flag in Berlin", without mentioning the role of Polish troops or even the very fact of Polish participation in the battle at all. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 19:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:] you have had months to add additional information to this page if you think it is necessary. You have not chosen to do so. There are two significant viewpoints of this battle that of the Allies and that of the Axis forces. Both significant viewpoints are represented, there is no need for such a misleading template as {{tl|Toofewopinions}} at the top of this article --] (]) 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

::It is not my responsibility to fix all the errors on Misplaced Pages. I have pointed that one out and provided information how one can fix it. I will fix it, eventually. Until I do so, or somebody else does, the tag is valid.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 02:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And I don't so lets get a ] --] (]) 09:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, ] might not be entirely suitable in this case, as it is not completely obvious that it is a "viewpoint" and this tag does not indicate what exactly has to be changed... Maybe ] or ] would be more suitable? For example, "<nowiki>{{expand-section|discussion of participation of Polish troops}}</nowiki>" or "<nowiki>{{expand|talksection=Polish troops}}</nowiki>"? --] (]) 18:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
:We don't have a section for it, but the <nowiki>{{expand|talksection=Polish troops}}</nowiki> seems as good as the toofewopinions (and perhaps better indeed).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 19:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure how this claim can be made that ''"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."'' These units were detached from the 1st Polish Army to the 2nd Guards Tank Army during the Seelow-Berlin Offensive Operation. The 2nd Guards Tank Army operated to the north of Berlin, and its objective was to cut off the routes into and out of Berlin to the north and west of the city. The area you attribute to operation of Polish troops would in fact put them in the area of operations of the 3rd Shock Army because the 2nd Guards Tank Army never got further then Charlottenberg though some of its troops did penetrate into Moabit. The Polish troops are given credit for the operation because they did enter the metropolitan area of Berlin, but their role in the operation as a whole was one of support, and a minor one at that, so their point of view would have been far from an influencing one given this is a reference work and not an in-depth study of street-by street fighting in Berlin--] (]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 00:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

::::The areas described is geographically compact (south western and western end of the ]). If operating in that area the Poles were on the western flank of the main thrust by Chuikov's 8th Guards Army towards ]/] and the ]. The Polish area of operations had a low density of buildings, but would have involved bridging at least one seizable water obstacle. The Poles must have been operating under the shadow of the Flak tower at Berlin Zoo. --] (]) 10:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

::::Two references from Google Books that mention the Poles contribution: Race for the Reichstag: The 1945 Battle for Berlin By Tony Le Tissier , Berlin 1945: End of the Thousand Year Reich By Peter Antill, Peter Dennis . Antill puts the Polish combat to the west of the web page given above. --] (]) 11:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


I suggest that we keep a banner at the top about Polish troops until a paragraph is written about their contribution, only if a non Polish source claims that they contributed significantly to the battle in Berlin. Hopefully if such a source is provided it will also describe their contribution and it can be added. Additional content improvements should be mentioned on the talk page (that is what they are for) not left as a banner in article space for months or years. If the text "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not include all significant viewpoints." was not in a pretty box it would be removed from the article onto the talk page. Just because it is in a box does not change its nature. --] (]) 10:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

:Hi guys; Piotrus asked for third opinions on the main talk page, so I thought I'd give you my thoughts. In my view, Polish troops were allied forces operating slotted within the Soviet structure, so in the detailed chronology of the battle, when the formation involved is Polish, I'd simply make that clear maybe with a (Polish) or some such. I'd add a separate casualty figure with the casualties and, in the initial tally of forces, maybe add a line or two of description of the status of Polish force (both First and Second Armies, or just First?) - specific logistical and morale concerns having been supported through a allied rather than national support chain, and maybe a note about whether or not they were now directly drawing on the parts of Poland that had been liberated. Disagreement welcome.
:(update)I see now there isn't an initial tally of forces to army level on the Soviet side; maybe there, just above the section on German forces, could be a note on the status of Polish forces at the end of the battle. I see there's been some reverting going on; would appreciate if you both considered working on a draft at this talkpage. Kind regards to both of you, ](]) 23:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

::That was not my point. There is no doubt that Polish troops were in Berlin during the operation. The question is, was their viewpoint significant? Several armies with literally dozens of divisions were in Berlin during the operation. Was the Polish viewpoint significant because of their operational participation, or because they were Polish? My argument is that there was nothing operationally significant about 1st Polish infantry division's participation. The significance of Polish troops participating in the taking of Berlin was undoubtedly significant for Poland, but any reference to that are likely to be found in Polish sources, are likely to be highly political, and very emotive. Is something like that worthy of inclusion in a reference work?--] (]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 00:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
:::] I think you would benefit from reading the pages from two books that came up in Google Books search I did, particularly, Tony Le Tissier , and then look at a map such as , although one seconded division of Poles (not an army) fought in the west of Berlin under the command of the 2nd Guards Tank Army and helped in the capture of ], there were dozens of Soviet divisions doing similar work all over Berlin, and the only reason why the Polish division's contribution may be notable is that is was not a Soviet Army division. This short article inevitably concentrates on the spearheads that were fighting their way into the "lair of the fascist beast" and as far as I can tell from the few sources I have read (all listed here), the Polish division was not directly involved in that. Please understand that I an not arguing that the Polish contribution should not be mentioned in this article, it's just that I don't think that there needs to be a banner at the top of this article for months implying that there is a significant POV missing from the article, or a banner at the top that says it needs expanding -- it is already 57 kilobytes long and is itself a more detailed description of some sections in the ] article -- because such banners are IMHO misleading. --] (]) 09:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
::::Ah; it was only one division, rather than the whole First Polish Army. I was aware this was a two-front, ~10 army or plus operation (and the famous story of Stalin drawing the dividing line that stopped half-way between Koniev and Zhukov etc). OK, in that case, if we mention 2 GTA, I'd mention sort of in passing that one of it's divisions was Polish, and that would be about it. Given that yes there were ~50 divisions rampaging through Berlin, I wouldn't even give the designation - thinking WP:UNDUE, but we could wiki-link the mention of a Polish division to the division in question. But the question desn't arise unless there's already a paragraph, or several sentences through the article, covering what 2 GTA was up to. Only if that's done does the Polish division get mentioned, because otherwise we get back to WP:UNDUE. Yes in that case I'd remove the banner. But some mention should be added to the ] article; that's where that combat path belongs to. ](]) 10:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess there is one more mention in a non-Polish source: ''Коллектив авторов. Советские танковые войска 1941-1945. — М.: Воениздат, 1973; Глава пятнадцатая. Вперед, на Берлин!'' (Approximate translations - "Soviet tank forces 1941-1945", "Chapter 15. Forward, to Berlin!") - "2-я гвардейская танковая армия и 1-я пехотная дивизия Войска Польского, овладев северо-западной частью Берлина, вышли к западной окраине парка Тиргартен." (Approximate translation - "''2nd Guards tank army and 1st Infantry division of Polish Forces captured north-west part of Berlin and reached western limit of Tiergarten park.''"). Not much (and it seems relatively unreasonable to expect much more), but no other individual division is mentioned in that section. The extent of the section about the Battle in Berlin ("Штурм Берлина") in the source seems to be more or less comparable to the extent of this article, so, I guess, it might be argued that a mention like that (one sentence) would not give obviously undue weight...

And another possibility to consider - maybe it would be a good idea to add orders of battle for both sides (which might list every individual division, just as, for example, ], avoiding any problems with undue weight)? For a start, something like a list from ] could be added to ]... Soviet order of battle for Battle in Berling might be taken from ''Справочник «Освобождение городов: Справочник по освобождению городов в период Великой Отечественной войны 1941–1945» / М.Л.Дударенко, Ю.Г.Перечнев, В.Т.Елисеев и др. — М.: Воениздат, 1985. — 598 с.'' --] (]) 14:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

:I look forward to someone writing such an article. The point in this article is not whether to include a mention of the Polish division it is whether keeping a template with "Please help improve this article or section by expanding it." is justified. I do not think that it is (given that any article can be expanded by anyone and most articles do not carry such a banner). --] (]) 15:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

:: Looks like similar concerns have been voiced in ] where one of the users (]) noted "''While in theory, anyone could at any moment come along and add information to an article, this tag is useful in situations where 1.) the article is too long to be considered a stub and either 2.) there is a specific request for expansion (which is what I most often use this tag for) or 3.) there are obvious gaps.''". As in this case "there is a specific request for expansion" (even if it looks like it could be met by adding one sentence to the article or a template <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>, <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> to some section - most likely "Preparation", or some new one), technically, the tag seems to be appropriate... --] (]) 17:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Time for the banner to go. It has been there for more than 8 months which is plenty of time for anyone who wanted to include more on the Polish contribution to do the work. -] (]) 10:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
:<s>Nope. The article doesn't become complete simply because nobody made it so.</s> I've added a brief mention, that should suffice for now. I completly support the idea for adding an order of battle section.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 12:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

==Fair use rationale for Image:PzDM Tiger II berlin.jpg==
]
''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], 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 ].

Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->

] (]) 06:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

==Fair use rationale for Image:PzDM Tiger1 - Berlin.jpg==
]
''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], 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 ].

Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->

] (]) 06:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

== Clausewitz ==

Philip raised this as something that needs to cited, but I have nothing although being aware of it. Apparently much was made of the proposed evacuation of Berlin in the German movie about Hiterl (2004), but I have not seen it. Clausewitz was the codeword that was supposed to be broadcast to begin the evacuation. I am dubious as to the role of SS in its execution--] (]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 23:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

==Image copyright problem with Image:Polska Flaga Berlin.jpg==
The image ] is used in this article under a claim of ], but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the ] when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an ] linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

:* That there is a ] on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
<!-- Additional 10c list header goes here -->

This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. --21:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


== Artermath ==
That part must be rewrited - "100.000 raped" - well, it WERY big count, incredible count.
Mass violence was not possible - to each battalion was assigned "politruk" - person with an officer rank, and tracking to prevent looting, rape, and so on. "Politruk's" also have the right to a quick execution of persons found guilty of war crimes. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Relevant content from BoB ==

I think most of the content I mentioned, ref-ed, at ], should be added to this article. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 19:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

::The question is how to add it. There is nothing on the 2nd Tank army's assault on the city, and that is integral to the Polish advance on the city as they were part of that army. At the moment the attack is broadly written as chronological narrative rather than in sections on the attacks made by individual Soviet armies. Should the assault of the 2nd Tank army be woven into the current chronological narrative or should it be added as a separate section?-- ] (]) 18:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:::I finished expanding from the book source I mentioned. I am open to content being further tweaked, or moved around, but I hope you'll agree it is relevant. A map of the Polish troops participation in the battle of Berlin is . I am not sure when it will be transformed into a free map, unfortunately (but if anybody here has map making skills, check ]. Unfortunately, Lonio, while saying he is almost done with Bautzen, is not sure if he will find time and will to do the Berlin maps. While most of the maps I found for him are about Polish participation, I am surprised that we have no map of German defenses (see ). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 21:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
::::Tweaked and edits to your recent edition, Piotrus; you guys review same and see what you think; added in a couple of points by Hamilton with one cite added (I was going to add a second cite but decided it was not needed). I wanted to keep the chronological timeframe in order as best one can. Cheers, ] (]) 15:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::Thanks. Why did you remove the "Polish units took possession of the ] and approach the Reichstag from the rear." sentence? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 16:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::Because, Hamilton states the Soviets and Poles did that together as the Red Army, and I was also trying to keep the chronological timeframe in order as best one can-at that point, 1 May. Hamilton states the Tiergarten was taken in the early morning hours of 2 May. ] (]) 17:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
==Headed north==
]

I have removed
:Rhein and his men headed north crossing the Friedrichstraße S-Baun Station where they moved into the ruins hours before the main breakout across the Spree.
because I think it is misleading.

As can be seen from the map (right) the land directly north of the Reichstag is between the Reichstag and the Spree. It was held after very heavy fighting by the Soviets who were using it as one of their main thrusts to try to enter the Reichstag. Those Germans who did retreat out of the must have gone east or south east, like the sentence confirms by mentioning Friedrichstraße S-Baun Station <s>the railway bridge of which was used as one of the breakout routes</s>. See for clarification. -- ] (]) 08:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
:PBS, your problem as to the entry is with the wording by historian, Hamilton. I was quoting him, as I said when we went through all this on the "Battle of Berlin" talk page, under the section, "And headed north" which is in Archive 7 . My guess is they first went north and then turned south east. I have re-inserted the book cited text without the words "and headed north", since I don't feel those words are necessary to illustrate the Germans withdraw. ] (]) 14:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

:::You quote him "The Germans remaining in the Reichstag began to pull out of the building by the evening. Rhein and his men broke out, and then headed north. They initially crossed Friedrichstraße S-Baun Station and moved into the ruins hours before the main breakout across the Spree. They ominously saw Russians crawling all over the streets"
::I think you have misunderstood the attachment of the phrase "broke out"; it is not referring to breaking out of the Reichstag, they "pull out" of the Reichstag. Then they headed east to Friedrichstraße S-Bahn, (by the way it is "Bahn" not "Baun") and then took part in the "break out" presumably along Schönhauser Alle with others from that north eastern area of the perimeter. So what Hamilton has done is give a brief 2 sentence description "The Germans remaining in the Reichstag began to pull out of the building by the evening. Rhein and his men broke out, and then headed north" and then a more detail "They initially crossed Friedrichstraße S-Baun Station and moved into the ruins hours before the main breakout across the Spree. ..." Least that is my reading given the impossibility of trying to head north out of the Reichstag. -- ] (]) 03:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
:::I know they withdrew (as I said above) or "pull(ed) out", as you phrase it, from the Reichstag; But, I think you are right in that Hamilton gives a general description of their overall action; followed by detail of more immediate (preceding) movement. ] (]) 13:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
::::"pull out" is quoting his words (that you kindly supplied) and I think "withdrew" is a perfectly adequate synonym (but "break out" has a different meaning as it implies that someone would be in the way trying to stop the ''pull out/withdrawal'' and those withdrawing would have to fight their way thorough (eg the contemporary and close by ])). -- ] (]) 02:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::PBS, I know; what needed dissecting was the way Hamilton was conveying the movements ("headed north"), which has been done. ] (]) 14:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

== Polish participation ==

I've just stumbled upon an article on the subject (in Polish): . For future reference. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 18:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
==File:CaptureOfBerlinMedal.jpg Nominated for Deletion==
{|
|-
| ]
| An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for deletion at ] in the following category: ''Deletion requests January 2012''
;What should I do?
''Don't panic''; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is ] then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no ] then it cannot be uploaded or used.

''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --] (]) 16:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
|}

== Map of the participation of Polish troops in the Battle in Berlin ==

] I do not think that this map should be included because:
# it is unreadable for an English monoglot
# the colour scheme and the size of the arrows overemphasise Polish contributions
# The advance through the ] represents an advance along a road already under the control of the Soviets, and the sources I quoted in ] state it occurred on the morning of the 2 May (after the capitulation). -- ] (]) 20:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
:It should be removed, undue weight and unreadable, as well. ] (]) 21:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

:We commonly use foreign language maps if no English language version exists. If you disagree, cite the policy that supports removal of foreign language maps.
:The map is about Polish troops participation, so it obviously is going to focus on, well, Polish troops. It's not a map of the battle in Berlin, it's a map of certain troops participation in it. The legend clearly states that only selected Russian advances are shown (we could add this to the caption if you think it is not clear enough).
:The map is referenced; sources can vary. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 19:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

: Well, looks like we have to use what we have and not what we don't... It is true that this map isn't perfect, but, unfortunately, it looks like it is one of only two really different maps of this battle stored in Commons... If the other map (]) gave an overview of the whole battle, as opposed to a small (though important) fragment of it, perhaps removing the "Polish" map would be a good idea. But we do not have an overview map, and the "Polish" map is the only one showing that specific part of battle (the other map covers just a small part of the territory covered by the "Polish" map)...
: Still, maybe the problems with undue weight could be diminished if we added some additional maps? ] and ] do not really show the battle ''in'' Berlin, but maybe it could be argued that they would put the fights in context (for example, German attempts to relieve Berlin might have had some influence)...
: Also, the current caption ("''Participation of Polish troops in the Battle in Berlin''" - ) might be changed to something like "A map of the battle emphasising the Polish contribution")...
: Finally, concerning "'' the sources I quoted in Talk:Battle of Berlin/Archive 7#Polish forces April 2011 state it occurred on the morning of the 2 May (after the capitulation).''" - for what it's worth, the map does give this same date to this advance... --] (]) 21:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
::For the record, I could easily translate the legend and map abbreviations, if somebody would like to list the map in the Graphic Lab Map Workshop. We did this for the maps of the ]. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 22:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

''Race for the Reichstag: the 1945 Battle for Berlin'' by Tony Le Tissier
{{quotation|
:In their brief appearance within the city the 1st Polish Infantry Division and the accompanying 1st Polish Field Artillery Regiment lost 88 killed and 441 wounded}}

The Soviet casualties in Berlin were 20,000 total casualties for the Poles was about 500 or about 2.5% of the causalities. It is reasonable to assume that the Poles suffered about the same percentage casualties as other soviet lead forces in which case this map shows the advance of about 2.5% of the forces assaulting Berlin. It also emphasises an advance made after (or close to the time of) the the general capitulation of the city. This is misleading as the map implies that Polish forces were involved in the capture of Reichstag and the Brandenburg gate. If this map belongs anywhere it is in the article on the ]. -- ] (]) 22:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:01, 21 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle in Berlin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPoland Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: European / German / Polish / Russian & Soviet / World War II
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
German military history task force
Taskforce icon
Polish military history task force
Taskforce icon
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force
WikiProject iconGermany Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soviet (and Polish) casualty figure

is definitely for the whole "Berlin Strategic Offensive" in and around Berlin (and even then it's bigger than listed in that article)

1st Polish army

the 1st Polish army participated in battle of Berlin so how come they were removed? i tried adding it back but it got reversed. funny how people can remove a country from a historic battle with no reason other than uneducated statements such as "belarus and ukraine are not there" yet they are because they also were soviet union. and Poland was removed with no good reason. Jakub2k03 (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Is anyone checking edits made by silent anonymous editor?

I mean "49.36.110.63", who goes in w/o edit summary or any explanation on this talk-page, and makes substantial edits. Arminden (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Battle in Berlin: Difference between revisions Add topic