Talk:Battle of Berlin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Berlin article.
WPMILHIST This 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 World War II task force
Portal:Germany
 Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Germany To-do:

Contents

[edit] POV Comment

This bit seems POV - "Away from the map room in the Berlin Fuhrerbunker with its imaginary attacks of phantom divisions, the Soviets were getting on with winning the war". The paragraph before this mentions no such 'phantom' divisions, but rather Jodl's suggestion of moving the XII army into Berlin, as the Americans werent intending to move past the Elbe. user:ratzinger81

[edit] RAF's Battle of Berlin

Isn't the Battle of Berlin the street fighting and eventual occupation of the city by the Soviets in 1945? What kind of raids is this article referring to, aerial bombing raids? Adam Bishop 13:57, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes. The RAF stands for Royal Air Force. In the (Air) Battle of Berlin sixteen major raids were organised, with up to a thousand bombers in each between November 1943 and March 1944. But the RAF losses were high and the damage caused was not as great, bomb for bomb, as that on Hamburg where bombing induced firestorms devistated the city.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWberlin.htm
When complete photographic cover of Berlin was obtained at the end of the war, it was found that 6340 acres of the main built-up areas had been destroyed.

[edit] Flak Towers (AAA Towers)

Not a comment, but a request: I was watching a TV program about the final days of the Third Reich (UK History Channel) and there was a very brief mention and shot of fortified bunkers in Berlin, referred to as flatowers (or flat towers, or flat-towers) - these looked like square, blockish, armoured, multilevel forts poss. up to 50 feet tall and similar diameter. I think they might have had AA guns. But I can't find any info ANYWHERE on the net. Anyone know anything? Tom Hiles, UK. Sorry I don't know how to edit this properly. 12:28, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

There are lots more, Google on Anti aircraft towers Berlin'

FYI A link to the "The Sea Forts" Built by the British and
http://freespace.virgin.net/line.design/forts/sea_forts.htm
and then follow the links to see what one can do with old AAA towers! Philip Baird Shearer 11:40, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

-Thanks a lot! Yes, I did manage to figure out that they were flak towers, not "flat", hohoho, eventually. Kind of crucial for googling I suppose! Tom ---

[edit] Copyright violation?

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/berlin.htm

A copyright violation?! Szopen

Certainly looks like it. Oberiko 16:52, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] causalities

The Soviets sustained 305,000 dead; the Germans sustained as many as 325,000, including civilians.

What is the source for the causalities?Philip Baird Shearer 18:45, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Casualty means the number of dead, wounded AND missing. Battle casualty is completely different from battle fatality. These two terms shouldn't be used interchangeably.

Interesting as that is, it is not a source on number of casualties or killed. Do you have one?

As for the battle itself, it is a know fact that more the Axis Army Personel were killed than Soviet Army Personel in Berlin.

You are suggesting that "only" 20,000 civilians died! Where is this fact published? Is far as I know, because of the total breakdown of German administration, there are no accurate figures for German dead. If there are, what is the source? AFAIK, until the end of the Cold War, there were no detailed figures for Soviet casualties, if there are now, what is the source? As for those taken POW in Berlin, did the soviets publish figures if so what is the source?

By late April 1945, Hitler's so-called "People's Army" was literally un-trained senior citizens and callow young boys. They had no chance against the battle-hardened Soviet Red Army. SecretAgentMan00 06:20, 26 Sep 2004 (UCT)

It is interesting that un-trained [however, I thought that most men in Germany who were "senior citizens" would have been conscripted as young men and would have received military training and many would have fought in WWI] "senior citizens and callow young boys" seemed to have killed so many "battle-hardened Soviet Red Army" personnel. Philip Baird Shearer 09:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

True but as you can clearly see from the battle deaths, more Axis Forces, whether they were Wehrmacht or civilian resistance, died compared to the battle deaths for the Red Army. Also in almost every single battle on the Eastern Front, the Soviets ALWAYS lost more men. Yet when it came to Berlin, the soldiers KIA were reversed.--Secret Agent Man 00:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Definition for the Battle of Berlin

At the moment this article seems to confuse two diffrent actions. The first is the attack on the area which would become East Germany from the River Oder. Which involved 2.5 million men and 3 Fronts. The 2nd BELORUSSIAN Front (2BF) commanded by Rokossovsky which was to the North, The 1st BELORUSSIAN Front (1BF) commanded by Zhukov in the middle and the 1st Ukranian Front (1UF) commanded by Konev. But for the encirclement and attack on Berlin only units from the 1BF and 1UF were involved in the Battle for Berlin with Stalin letting Zhukov and Konev compete for the honour.

Using Ziemke's "battle for Berlin" the Russian main ground units involved in the Battle for Berlin came from "only" two Soviet Fronts, (not the three mentioned in the article) and were 2nd Guards (GDS) tank Army, 3rd Shock Army, 5th Shock Army, 8th GDS army, 1st GDS tank army, 28th Army and 3rd GDS tank Army. With more armies between the Berlin and German Armies like the IX which had become encircled. Is this list correct? If it is, this is a force of much less than the 2.5 million on the Oder who invaded East Germany and with much less kit than is mentioned in the battle box.

Is this article about the 1945 Soviet campaign for East Germany (former GDR) or the Battle for Berlin? If it is the 1945 Soviet campaign for East Germany then there are several phases and battles which need mentioning. The Battle of the Seelow Heights by 1BF, the hard fought advance over the river Nisser by 1UF, The Battle of Berlin by 1BF and 1UF, and the Battle of Halbe in which the German IX Army and IV Panser Armies tried to fight their way through the Soviet 1UF to the German XII Army and then on to American Lines.

If it is just about the Battle of Berlin for Berlin once the encirclement has been completed then all the extra stuff needs moving into another article.

Either which way the article needs a lot of work because at the moment the total amount on the fighting in Berlin is this: Berlin's fate was sealed, but the resistance continued. Fighting was heavy, with house-to-house and hand-to-hand combat and As the Soviet forces fought their way into the centre of Berlin Philip Baird Shearer 16:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] German Units in Berlin

At the moment the article says:

The main German defenders were the 12th Army, withdrawn from the Western Front by Hitler specifically to defend the city.

and

On April 20, Hitler ordered the Twelfth Army facing the Americans and the Ninth Army to break into Berlin and relieve the siege. Neither unit was able to get through.

They both can't be true.

Using Ziemke's "battle for Berlin" the main regular German army and SS units in Berlin were XX Motorised Division, IX Airborne Division, Muncheberg Panzer Division, Nordland Panzer Grenadiers Division and XVIII Panzer Division. Is this list correct?

No, I'm almost certain that there was no 18th Panzer Division at that time. It had been destroyed way back in 1943, and the HQ reused to form the 18th Artillery Division, which in turn was disbanded in July 1944. I commented out the entire OB list until someone can find a reliable source for it. I do know that Nordland was there, but haven't got time to track everything else down right now. (Alas, the WWW is becoming so saturated with copies of Wikipedia that you can hardly find any independent sources of information on this kind of stuff anymore.) — B.Bryant 07:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did any units from the German XII Army make it to Berlin? Or were they all stopped short of Potsdam by divisions from the 1UF? The IX Army did have physical links with Berlin for a time did it leave any units in Berlin when the link was severed? Philip Baird Shearer 16:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Battle Box

If the battle of Berlin is more than the street fighting in the centre of the town then the commanders are not correct because there were two soviet armies involved in the encirclement of Berlin and 3 in the attack over the Oder-Neisse

  • General Konev 1st Ukrainian Front ->south and Berlin
  • Georgy Zhukov, 1st Belorussian Front ->centre and Berlin
  • General Rokossovsky, 2nd Belorussian Front -> North East Germany.

There were also 3 German Generals involved in the defence:

  • General Heinrici, Army Group Vistula, north and centre
  • General Schorner, Group Army South, south
  • Berlin comandant for less than a weeek Helmuth Weidling( Not Karl Weidling)

As the size of the armies etc is given for the The East German offensive, either those numbers need fixing to be those of the troops used to fight in Berlin or the list of commanders needs fixing.

Not sure why the 21st is given as the start of the battle (as shelling of the centre had started on the 20th), I think it should either be April 16th, when the attack over the Oder-Neisse started or April 23/24th when the Encirclement was completed. Philip Baird Shearer 09:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On 27 Dec 2004 user:66.42.0.186 changed the battle box figures

  • From 2.5 million men, 6,250 armored vehicles, 7,500 aircraft,
    • To 4.5 million men, 8,250 armored vehicles, 9,500 aircraft
  • From 80,000 killed, 275,000 wounded/MIA, 1,997 armored vehicles, 2,108 artillery pieces, and 917 aircraft
    • To 94,000 killed, 375,000 wounded/MIA, 3,997 armored vehicles, 3,108 artillery pieces, and 1,017 aircraft
  • From 150,000 killed, 134,000 POWs
    • To 185,000 killed, 134,000 POWs

From the source I have the figures for men etc are not correct. Not sure about the casualty figures, but as the first are wrong the second can not be trusted without sources. So I am going to revert them.

I am also changing the date of the start of the battle to 16 April to match up the date with the figures. The trouble is that althought there is a date for the fall of Berlin the casualty figures are until the end of the war. Philip Baird Shearer 12:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Poland in the Battle Box

Should the Polish Army be placed into the battle box?

Was the 1st Polish Army under a independent or joint command or were they part of a soviet command? For which government did they fight? Unless the forces were under a joint or independent command it is not usual to group armies by nationality in the command box. Philip Baird Shearer

The Polish Army in western Europe was also under Allied command like the Polish Army under Soviets. I dont know precise details of the command structure of the Soviets, but Berling Army was considered by the Soviets as the only official Army of Poland.--Emax 15:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The USSR and Poland were part of the Alliance. Call it a unified command if that is less ambiguous. The short lived ABDACOM was the first WWII example of an unified command. Were there any Polish officers in the higher echelons of the decision making loop? eg was one of them of the a deputy to a Soviet Front commander? If not what makes the 1st Polish Army, (apart from unit size), any different in the command structure from those enemy units designated for foreigners fighting in the SS (eg the Charlemagne Division? Philip Baird Shearer

The difference is that Charlemagne was a division of the German Wehrmacht with foreign soldiers, while the Polish Army was part of the Polish Army under Soviet overall command, much like British units or ANZACs under American generals during WWII. Finally, 80 000 soldiers "ain't no nothing", it was not some auxiliary brigade, it was composed of 5 divisions and 4 brigades, and as such it was used as a separate part of the entire front. The front commanders were indeed Russian, but the command over the divisions and the army was in Polish hands (at least theoretically). Halibutt 16:49, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

You have not shown that apart from size (a division of 300 men) and an Army that there is any real difference in their status.

  1. Which front? There were three. I presume that as the text for the 1PA says where they fought, that they were part of the 1st Belorussian Front is that correct?
  2. To whom did the 1st Polish Army owe allegiance? Which civilian government?
  3. The whole point of that joint command example is that Western Allies fought under a Allied commander who contributed the most forces, eg AFHQ and SHAEF, but in the command there were a lot of officers from the contributing countries. On the Western Front the French Army serving in the US US 6th Army Group and the Canadian Army serving with the British 21st Army Group did not report directly to an allied joint commander they reported to their respective army group commanders. Consequently the Western front is said to have had 3 Army groups one British, two American. It is only when one starts to look at the breakdown of the forces into armies and divisions or smaller than one starts to pick out forces like the Polish units. As a Soviet Front seems to correspond to an Army Group and all three fronts were Soviet, I think it is misleading to put Poland into the battle box as they contributed less than 4% of the manpower and do not seem to have been part of a joint command or to have had an independent command. Philip Baird Shearer 19:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I must admit I didn't really understand your division of 300 men remark. As of January 1st, 1945, the 1st Polish Army had 90 787 soldiers, including 69 850 in front line units. The divisions were as follows:

  • 1 Infantry Division Tadeusz Kościuszko - under Wojciech Bewziuk, 9 444 men
  • 2 Infantry Division Jan Henryk Dąbrowski - under Jan Rotkiewicz, 9 832 men
  • 3 Infantry Division Romuald Traugutt - under col. Stanisław Zajkowski, 9 477 men
  • 4 Infantry Division Jan Kiliński - under Bolesław Kieniewicz, 9 609 men;
  • 6 Infantry Division - under Genadiusz Szejpak, 10 283 men
  • 1 Cavalry Brigade - under Włodzimierz Radziwanowicz, 3 047 men
  • 1 Artillery Bde Józef Bem - under Józef Błoński, 1 079 men
  • 2 Howitzer Bde - under Kazimierz Wikientiew, 1 973 men
  • 3 Howitzer Bde - under Stanisław Skokowski, 2 055 men
  • 5 Heavy Artillery Bde - under Włodzimierz Kierp, 1 127 men
  • 1 AA Artillery Bde - under Kazimierz Prokopowicz, 2 334 men
  • 4 AT Artillery Bde - under Piotr Dejnechowski, 1 617 men
  • 1 Armoured Bde Heroes of Westerplatte - under Aleksander Malutin, 1 441 men

So, none of the divisions had 300 men. As to your questions:

  1. 1st Belarusian and 1st Ukrainian (if we count both the 1st Polish and 2nd Polish armies)
  2. To the Highest Command of the Polish Army (Naczelne Dowództwo WP), subject to the Society of Polish Patriots and, since July 22, to the Committee of National Liberation - the Soviet-backed provisional government of Poland.
  3. Well, other WWII articles apparently use different system. The Battle of Normandy lists all Allied forces, eventhough the command was held by a Brit. Battle of Monte Cassino also lists all the forces that took part in the battle, including the Indian forces.
Anyway, the commander of the 1st Polish Army was subordinate directly to the front commander, especially that for great part of the war the unit had its' own part of the front and acted as a unit and not as separate divisions. Just like American units were subject to British army commanders and the other way around. Halibutt 05:26, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

The Charlemagne 'division' was down to about 300 men for the final battle. The other articles you mention, Normandy and Monte Cassino, Normandy does not and Cassino does list national participants. But possible a better example would be the Battle of the Bulge, where the British committed troops, but only a small percentage compared to the USA. Britain is not mentioned in the Battle Box and despite a British Army group commanding a significant number of the Allied troops involved in the counter attack, this is in my opinion correct because the overwhelming majority of the Allied forces committed to the battle were American. This is not to say that the Polish contribution should not be mentioned in the text, just not in the Battle Box because their contribution was relatively small at 4%. Philip Baird Shearer 07:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In most modern national armies officers takes an oath to a constitution or a head of state. It is not clear to me if you this is what you are describing. Philip Baird Shearer 07:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As to the oath - below is the original text and my (rough) translation.

Składam uroczystą przysięgę ziemi polskiej, broczącej we krwi, narodowi polskiemu, umęczonemu w niemieckim jarzmie, że nie skalam imienia Polaka, że wiernie będę służył Ojczyźnie.
Przysięgam ziemi polskiej i narodowi polskiemu rzetelnie pełnić obowiązki żołnierza w obozie, w pochodzie, w boju, w każdej chwili i na każdym miejscu, strzec wojskowej tajemnicy, wypełniać wiernie rozkazy oficerów i dowódców.
Przysięgam dochować wierności sojuszniczej Związkowi Radzieckiemu, który dał mi do ręki broń do walki z wspólnym wrogiem, przysięgam dochować braterstwa broni sojuszniczej Czerwonej Armii.
Przysięgam ziemi polskiej i narodowi polskiemu, że do ostatniej kropli krwi, do ostatniego tchu nienawidzieć będę wroga - Niemca, który zniszczył Polskę, do ostatniej kropli krwi, do ostatniego tchu walczyć będę o wyzwolenie Ojczyzny, abym mógł żyć i umierać jako prawy i uczciwy żołnierz Polski.
Tak mi dopomóż Bóg!
I hereby swear to the blood-rinsed Polish land, to the Polish nation tormented by German yoke, that I will not desacrate the name of a Pole and that I will courageously serve my Fatherland.
I swear to the Polish land and to the Polish people that I will honestly serve the duties of a soldier, in march and in battle, in the camp and at any other moment I will guard the secrets and fulfil the orders of my officers and commanders.
I swear to be a loyal ally of the allied Soviet Union, which gave me the arms to fight our common enemy, and I swear I will preserve the brotherhood of arms with the allied Red Army.
I swear to the Polish land and to the Polish nation that to the last drop of blood, to the last breath shall I hate the enemy - the German who destroyed Poland; to the last drop of blood, to the last breath shall I fight for the liberation of my Fatherland, so that I could live and die as a rightful and honest soldier of Poland.
So help me God!

So, there was nothing about the loyalty to any command but the enigmatic commanders and officers. But this is a Polish tradition, we barely ever swear to the government or any person, it's usually the Fatherland, the Country, Liberty or Freedom (or other similar abstracts). For comparison I post the oath of the Polish Army in France created by Haller in 1918.

Przysięgam przed Panem Bogiem Wszechmogącym, w Trójcy Świętej Jedynym, na wierność Ojczyźnie mojej, Polsce, jednej i niepodzielnej. Przysięgam, iż gotów jestem życie oddać za świętą sprawę jej zjednoczenia i wyzwolenia, bronić sztandaru mego do ostatniej kropli krwi, dochować karności i posłuszeństwa mojej zwierzchności wojskowej, a w całym postępowaniu moim strzec honoru żołnierza polskiego. Tak mi, Panie Boże, dopomóż.
I swear in front of God Almighty, One in the Holy Trinity, that I will remain faithful to my Fatherland, Poland, sole and indivisible. I swear that I'm ready to give away my life for the sacred matter of its' unification and liberation, I swear to defend my banner to the last drop of my blood and to remain loyal and obedient to my military supperiors, and that by all my deeds I will guard the honour of a Polish soldier. So help me God.

As to the other battles - Battle of Normandy lists the Allied Powers - so it links to an article that lists the countries that took part in it. This way it doesn't omit any names, even if the forces were small. Among other battles that list all countries that took part in them include Siege of Tobruk, Operation Battleaxe, Battle of the River Plate (mentions the wikis, eventhough there was no Royal New Zealand Navy back then), Battle of the Coral Sea (mentions Australia that contributed 7% of the forces), Battle of Gallipoli (mentions India eventhough there was no such country back then) and even Nirnaeth Arnoediad, not to mention the battleboxes I placed myself. So, this seems like a standard to me, not an exception. Halibutt 22:38, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

To include in the oath loyal ally of the allied Soviet Union is not the sort of thing that any Commonwealth officer would have sworn in their oath, even if the majority of their arms had come from the USA. I can not image a British or Australian oath including the line I swear to be a loyal ally of the United States of America, which gave me the arms to fight our common enemy, and I swear I will preserve the brotherhood of arms with the allied American Army. I like the phrase "I hate the enemy - the German" just in case they might think the enemy was also someone else who had in an unprovoked move invaded their country in 1939 ;-) You have not convinced me that the Polish 1st Army was an independent allied army under its own command and I think that the oath confirms this.
On a slightly different tack Halibu, I suggest that you copy the battle order and the oath into the article on the 1st Polish Army because they make interesting reading. Philip Baird Shearer 17:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We have a saying here which can be roughly and harshly translated as It's hard to prove that you're not a camel. To word it differently, you're reverting the whole thing upside down, IMO. Try to prove that it was not an independent unit and that it was but a Russian unit with some Poles here and there and fighting as an integral part of the Red Army.
Also, these oaths I presented here (now at the Polish Army oaths, not sure if that's the best title I could chose, but what the heck) prove only one thing: that the wording of the oaths used by various armies has nothing to do with the allegiance of the forces. Regular armies usually have a set of rules that regulate that and they are usually far more complicated than a simple oath that is usually limited to a few phrases about honour, victory and last drops of blood.
I'm still convinced that there should be no double standards here on wikipedia. If the Polish forces fought in the battle, they should be mentioned, just like the Indians are mentioned in Gallipoli and others who are mentioned in the articles I listed. After all these soldiers paid for their recognition with the hardest currency ever - their blood. Halibutt 19:18, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belorussian or Byelorussian

Moved to Talk:3rd Byelorussian Front. Mikkalai 20:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the length of the battle

We all know the basic defense strategy on the Eastern Front was street fighting. Soldiers fight from city to city, taking street by street and through house by house. Stalingrad was a great example of this. My question is how come the Soviets, using street fighting, defended Stalingrad for 4-5 months yet the Germans barely defended their key cities like Berlin, Prague, and Budapest for a couple of weeks? Is the Soviet style of street fighting somehow "better" than the German style of street fighting? It would've made sense if Berlin was tiny but it was and is HUGE, at least 2x that of Stalingrad. 02:36, 30 Jan 2005 SecretAgentMan00

It is customary to sign you postings to talk pages and to place new topics at the bottom). A three year old demands attention, (I shall return) Philip Baird Shearer 13:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • By 1945 the Soviets had lots of experience of fighting their way into cities and had developed special tactics based around combat teams of 80-100 men with very close integrated artillery support. The tactics on both sides were very sophisticated compared those earlier in the war. Indeed if the tactics used by the foreign contingents of the SS to defend Berlin had been used in Iraq, the American death totals would have been very much heavier in the last two years. But as the Germans retreated, few sieges were lifted, German with experience of sieges tended to be dead or captured at the end of the siege, so individual Soviet units tended to have taken part in more sieges than their German enemies and so had more experiance of street fighting. To see how good the Soviets had become at all types of fighting one only has to look how they chewed up the Japanese in the final week of the war during Operation August Storm.
  • At Stalingrad both sides had continuously moved fresh troops up into the meat grinder. The buildings which were most heavily fought over were factory buildings with lots of machinery and/or built of ferrous concrete. Most buildings at the core of German cities at the time were brick. Some buildings, like the Reichstag and the Flak Towers were fought over floor by floor, but unlike Stalingrad there were no new supplies coming in to the defenders.
  • The depots of arms and ammunition had not been move into the centre of Berlin, so they were captured early in the assult, and other preparations had not started until very late.
  • The manpower the German had in Berlin was relatively weak. Units designated by Hitler to move into the City were either too weak to break through and/or their commanders were more interested in saving their men form the Soviets by moving west than taking part in the Gotterdammerung. In contrast the Soviet (and Polish ;-) ) troops were highly motivated and experienced, However the casualties were huge.
  • Having 41,600 tubes of artillery is useful! The Soviets dropped a heavier weight of ordinance on Berlin in 2 weeks than the strategic bombers of the western Allies had in the whole war.
  • Berlin is not an easy city to defend because although large it was spread out (the RAF was never able to start a fire storm in it). It is a relatively modern city most of if was built after 1880. As a new imperial capital it was built with very wide streets compared to cities with an older street plan like London. There is one particular street which is as big as a four lane motorway (free way) right thought the city from East to West which in the city centre is called Unter Den Linden. UDL was used as an improvised runway until the last few days of the battle which give you an idea of how wide Berlin streets are. It has lots of very big green parks and is very flat compared to many cities. There are a also lot of waterways however which did allow defensive lines to be built. The old moat which follows the line of the long since gone city walls built in the trace italienne style (star type shape) was not wide enought to prove to be a serious hinderence. Besides most of the importand sites like the Reichstag were outside the line of the old city walls.
  • This is speculation but I suspect that more rational Germans in the high command knew the war was lost, and had hoped to hold the Soviets on the Oder-Neisse line for long enough for the Western allies to advance further east and so capture Berlin by default. In that scenario building defences in Berlin was counter-productive as the knew Hitler and his smaller and smaller band of supporters would order that German troops to fight the Western Allies for Berlin and pre-prepared defences would have made this easier.
  • Finally the sections "The battle of the Oder-Neisse" and "The encirclement of Berlin" are much more developed than section "The battle of Berlin" , so this article makes it look that it was all over bar the shouting once the city was enveloped. It was not. The encirclement of Berlin" took 5 days (April 20-25) so the section "The battle of Berlin" which took longer fomr (April 25 - May 2) should be at lest as long as that and probably longer. Philip Baird Shearer 21:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • in my opinion it was a combination of poor german morale, poorly trained and equipped troops, lack of artillery support, and lack of numbers (which the russians certainly had at stalingrad) which led to Berlin holding out for a relatively short period of time. Besides at this point of the war the german army was sorrounded everywhere where it still existed and was poorly organized where fighting did take place. At stalingrad the russians were concentrating all of their force on repelling the germans from the city in order to immediately turn the tide of the war in the east (which they did). This combined some other things, the experience of the russian army and commanders in street fighting, the pressure from stalin to capture the city for may day (which was extreme) and a lack of good german leadership to make the fight relatively short. (im not signed in but my user name is CptBuck and its currently 7:53 eastern time.)

[edit] Regarding the mysterious fifth division in the Berlin defense

As B. Bryant correctly has pointed out above was the 18 Panzer division almost wiped out in 1943, and part of it became the 18 artillery division. But what about the fifth german division that fought in the Battle of Berlin?

I just found out from the Axis history factbook (http://www.axishistory.com) that it was the 18 Panzer greadier division that was the reserve positioned in central Berlin, between the Olympia stadium and the Zoo.

The remanants of the division had been fighting in East Prussia and the lower Oder and was wihtdrawn/retreated to Berlin. Some parts of it successfully tried to breakout to the west on 2 May.

/Tony Gustavsson

[edit] Edited work not shown

I recently edited the article on the Battle of Berlin, or more specifically, I edited the battle box on the top right of the article. I did two things: add on to the "Commanders" section, and I also added on a new section called "Formations" where I put the different armies and major units that took part in the battle. When I clicked on "save page", the "Formations" sectio did not appear. Could someone tell me why this is so and could someone fix it so that the "Formations" section would appear?

[edit] Link to reliable numbers of casualties

Could someone add link web page listing /reliable/ number of casualties of the battle? Today the number has moved by hundredths of thousands. Pavel Vozenilek 22:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

-The best source for that, at least for the Soviet side, is that of Krivosheev's book on Soviet combat casualties in the 20th century. It is listed in the bibliography. -Eline

[edit] Rape

During and after the Battle the Soviets raped many women and murdered some civilians.

I have several times had to restor these references:

I am not sure why they are being deleted because they are an historical fact and are relevent to this article. Philip Baird Shearer 02:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Beevor's book was more a journalistic work intent at causing a sensation than it was a historical work. If you take a look at the bibliography you'll see that it's very shoddily done - he'd take the story of one old woman and generalize until he had every Soviet soldier raping dozens of women. Of course, rape did happen, but not on as wide a scale and not by as many soldiers as alleged by Beevor. It may seem as though something is "missing" from the article to Beevor fans, and that is because it doesn't harp on rape as Beevor does. Kazak 22:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Beevor's book is not a journalistic work. The bibliography is six pages long (466 to 475) and the source notes are pages 435-465, 30 pages of double column text. He sources much more than one rape. His is not the only source for examlple have you read "A Woman in Berlin: Six Weeks in the Conquered City"? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is about the battle of Berlin. No one denies that rape was present in every war, since a man with a rifle was far from a romantic Hollywood cowboy. In fact every battle of every town may be ended with: "...and they entered the town and f**d everyone within the reach". You are welcome to write yet another article, Raping Red Army, to collect all these facts, with sources and all (an I will gladly help you there), and refer to it from here. Just the same, among the population of Normandy there are plenty of descendants of friendly Allies, and so on. Singling out Berlin right here smacks cold-war propaganda; yes, I live in California, and I know very well that it is United States who in fact had won this bloody war. (irony intended here) mikka (t) 00:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The current state of the article in this regard looks good. It makes note of the rapes without dwelling on them. --Kizor 22:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If in fact very large numbers of women of all ages in Berlin were subjected to rape over an extended period of time (as Beevor and other sources clearly indicate), making only brief mention "without dwelling" on it is appallingly unfactual, to the extent that the events were quantitatively worse than other events. Conversely, not including more information than the absolute minimum which currently appears is POV, to the extent that these events were more well-documented. The point is the sheer extent of the rapes. How ridiculous to militantly insist on removing any substantive discussion of this on the trite basis that rape is something which always occurs during war and armed conflict. Obey 03:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is called battle of berlin. Why is it so difficult to understand that in encyclopedia an article must stick to its topic? Or you are saying that each time Soviets took over a building diring the battle the first thing they did was to rape everyone there? Once again, feel free to write a special article on the subject of Red Army rapes in the longest possible way, and no one will say ou a word. mikka (t) 04:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether these comments add anything to earlier comments, or respond substantively to my comments. Obey 07:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Around 2 million German women were reported to be raped by Soviet soldiers. This happens to be the world's single largest mass rape ever.Killer files.This comment was there in the main page but was deleted by Pavel as he felt the comment inappropriate in the text.I dont see how.--Jayanthv86 07:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As someone of German descent I say with no compunction whatsoever that it is a well known fact that the Soviet Army committed one of the worst acts of mass rape in human history. To hide this fact while talking about the last weeks of WW2 in the Battle of Berlin is more than shameful. If we as a people of the human race are to more forward we must confront all our demons rather than ignoring the inconvenient facts. --Delos 23:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish In Berlin

http://www.ww2.pl/Polish,Army,on,the,Eastern,Front,24.html


Just go there good information, and teh casualty numbers conflict with the numbers of wikipedia.

[edit] Axis and "Eastern Allies"

Such term as Eastern Allies was never used, and Germany was the only Axis power that took part in the battle.

You have no mandate to unilaterally impose your preference, like in all other articles you go around and deleting things. You have vandalized this page many times by altering numbers changeing and removeing key paragraphs. This is just one of your many acts of vandalism to this page and to the whole of wiki(Deng 19:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Thank you

I must thank you for those kind words. How creative...

"This is just one of your many acts of vandalism to this page and to the whole of wiki"

I expect that you have a reliable source that can name the other Axis countries that took part in the battle. And where does the term "Eastern Allies" come from.

It is simple the eastern allies are not the western allies And you have vandlised this page many times when you tried to change the numbers have you forgoten that you changed the numbers and then said those numbers were the original (Deng 17:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] All mighty

Don't try go change the subject.

"eastern allies"

Where does this term come from? Can you give me a source which states that such term was used. And where do you get more than one Axis country in Berlin?

Kurt.


I am not changeing shit let us look at your altering of numbers one can see it here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Berlin&diff=41225715&oldid=41015442

Then you say that those altered numbers "have been here for a long time" this proves that you are a vandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Berlin&diff=47625819&oldid=47451264

It is clear you are a vandal and you have vandlized this page before (Deng 17:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Well, well..

As a matter of fact it does not, and you still haven't answered my question.

Really you didnt change numbers and you didnt say "These figures were here for long time" Who are you trying to fool you vandalized this page as I have just shown with 2 links then you say that the vandalized numbers "These figures were here for long time" (Deng 17:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Lord...

I do not have to continue this "discussion" since you refuse to answer me.

Kurt.

Yes when I show you your acts of vandalism then you refuse to answer because you can not say anything about it because it is pure vandalism (Deng 17:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Whatever you say...

I refuse to continue this. You haven't still answered my question and for my part this is over.

Kurt.

Ofcurse it is over You can not reply to the fact that you tried to change numbers so now you say it is over (Deng 17:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Last day of the battle

The article says, "General Weidling, defence commandant of Berlin, surrendered the city to the Soviets on 2 May", so why does the infobox say the battle didn't end until 8 May? Angr (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Because heavy fighting continued untill May 8th, when the last Germans in the city (including Wilhelm Mohnke) surrendered. Kurt.
Nevertheless the surrender was on May 2 as cited in many sources. Many major battles with formal surrenders are also characterized by some fighting after the formal surrender. There was fighting between German and Soviet units for at least several days after the surrender at Stalingrad and again at the end of the war. Nevertheless we do not have articles giving the end of WW2 in Europe as May 20 (the latest date I have ever seen for combat). The dates are given per the surrender date. DMorpheus 12:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Rather than engaging in an edit war, which already appears to be in violation of 3RR, this issue should be discussed here, citing sources. My source for the May 2 surrender is Max Hastings' Armageddon. DMorpheus 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign SS Units

There is a brief mention of foreign SS units fighting in the battle. Can anyone contribute which units took part? I know the remnants of División Azul did.

Waffen-SS Division "Nordland" was there, and I have heard mention of the French SS also. DMorpheus 17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similar Battles

What were some other battles in which defeat was inevitable and the war ended with that defeat? example the Fall of Saigon LCpl 18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panzerfausts

I'd just like to note that it says that Panzerfausts were effective shoulder fired weapons, but in actuality Panzerfausts weren't shoulder fired like bazookas, they were held like rifles.70.48.210.224 02:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)JodoYodo, July 28th 2006

Two things: First, it depends on which version of the faust you are writing about. There were different sights on various versions, some designed for firing with the tube held on top of the shoulder (bazooka style) and, more commonly, with the tube held under the armpit. No Panzerfaust was held *at* the shoulder like a rifle; doing so would have led to a burned shoulder. The tube was hollow to allow escape of hot gases at the back end. Second, the term "shoulder-fired" doesn't literally mean the weapon must be fired exactly at the shoulder. Your own example demonstrates that; rifles and assault rifles are virtually always considered to be shoulder-fired weapons; pistols aren't. Machineguns generally aren't, except light ones that *can* be shoulder-fired. Perhaps a better term would be "man-portable" since that is the more critical characteristic anyway. DMorpheus 14:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poland in the battle box....Again.

I don't think Poland should be listed in the battle box. There was a bit of a discussion a year ago, but I'd like to re-open the floor on it. If you look at the wikipedia page on the 1st polish army it makes it clear that it was a russian controlled and dominated military formation. Why not also list "Russia" with the white flag and blue diagonal cross as a combatant in the Battle of Normandy, as some members of the Russian Liberation Army did fight in and around Normandy. I just feel that listing poland as a combatant is misleading to the casual viewer looking for information about the battle, though of course the "Polish" 1st army should remain mentioned in the article as it is. Any comments on this are appreciated, as I'd like to see Poland removed from the battle box but don't want to do so without any discussion. --Detruncate 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course you are wrong :-) It was, as you mentioned earlier, discussed, with Halibutt providing even the text of the oath taken by Polish soldiers. Nominally it was independent army of the independent country, even if in reality it was different. Szopen 08:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


There Was no "Russia" there was only the Soviet Union. And those traitors who fought with the Germans were not "Russian" but mostley from the Ukraine and the Baltic countries. Weedro 22:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Polish People's Army was under soviet control, no doubt about it. But still, nominally it was an army of independent Polish state, fighting in polish uniforms and uder polish flag. That's why I think Poland should be mentioned in battle box, just as german puppet states are mentioned in Battle of Stalingrad article battle box.84.10.253.80 18:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3,300 German aircraft?

Is that a joke? Luftwaffe didn't exist since the end of 1944. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.139.13.231 (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Actually large amount of german aircraft still existed after the war, and many aircraft were surrendered mainly in Norway and Denmark. Enlil Ninlil 07:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
How many of those 3,300 were used in the Berlin area? How many of those aircraft could not be operated due to lack of fuel and pilots? Andries 07:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually 3,300 for either side is fancyfull. Enlil Ninlil 09:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Rough statistics on the lineup for battle. Though not reputable maybe from a reliable sorce.

I think this article needs much more inine references from reputable sources. The way it stands now is partially a piece of misinformation. Andries 10:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The German article mentions >100 airplanes which sounds far more realistic. Andries 11:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Why all the Soviet pictures, and from the German side? Enlil Ninlil 07:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_Berlin_1c9d.html"