This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
What are you doing in the battle of Berlin article
From your edits it looks like that 45,000 soldiers and 40,000 were ALONE fighting 2,5 million Soldiers and these 85,000 men were able to inflict some 280,000 casualties
If you look at all other languages they all say that the Axis had 1,000,000 men
So why do you say that the Axis only had 85,000? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shipslong45 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If the number of Germans is known and sourced then please add a citation to a Verifiable, Reliable Source, that states how many Germans were involved.
The sentence I restored says: "In Berlin about 45,000 soldiers, supplemented by the ..." (my emphasis), also please read the footnote to the sentence that explains that "A large number of the 45,000 were troops of the LVI Panzer Corps that were at the start of the battle part of the German IX Army on the Seelow Heights". --Philip Baird Shearer 10:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This internet LEARNING home page also says 1 million
The source provided is not good enough because there is no information about how the figures are arrived at and it does not cite its sources, and it is not published in a peer review journal or by a person who is an acknowledged expert historian of this period. For example do the figures include the German Twelfth and Twenty-First Armies which were initially facing the Western Allies, or is it only counting the figures for the formations on the Oder-Neisse front, Does it include all of the German Army Group Centre even those that did not take part in the Battle? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This is very Verifiable and Reliable since it is an official site sanctioned by the United Kingdom to educate its citizens, it does not get more reliable then that Shipslong45 10:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
As to your last edit you still have not cited your source. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The 1 million was the figure initially given in Soviet estimates. In other words, 1 million defenders is what the USSR prepared for in their plans. However, due to the depleted nature of the divisions facing them, the actual strength was probably somewhat less. My gut feeling says ~700,000, which would account for the difficulties encountered in the campaign, as well as the high body count and the numbers of prisoners taken. The German strength total couldn't have been much less than 600,000, in my estimation. Combining the five field armies, plus Op Group Steiner, plus Volkssturm, plus police units you have something at least on the order of 50-60 divisions. Given that German divisions tended to be on the large side, if you treated those 50-60 divisions as full strength you would very well end up with a figure close to 1 million. Allowing for some depletion but retaining combat effectiveness, a more realistic total would be somewhat less, but not significantly less. There's no way to go here except by estimating, since Germany didn't have an accounting system in 1945, and what they did have was already breaking down in 44.
Unfortunately, the only figures that hint at an accurate total either this immediate postwar Soviet estimate of casualties I found (~937,000 killed/captured out of the expected 1,000,000), which is more of historigraphic rather than historical interest, or slanted pro-German accounts that seek to minimize any and all German engagement in this campaign out of some perverse sense of national honor (and I'm not bashing Ziemke, just idiots like Albert Seaton). It's true that the total Berlin garrison numbered 80,000-100,000, but if one wants to confine the operational area to the city itself, Soviet troop strengths would have to be revised to 350,000 for the seven armies that participated in the assault itself.
That said, there has to be some way of putting up reasonable estimates, but all the sources I have read either use the 1,000,000 figure (probably more accurate but not good enough for reasons stated above) or play the transparently disingenuous lowballing game that assumes the reader has no grasp of basic arithmetic. When/IF I find a sourced statistic that seems reasonable, I'll try to put it up. Until then, would it be all right to qualify the 1,000,000 figure as an initial estimate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.55.123 (talk) 15:07:42, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the problem with German figures is that in the last few weeks of the war there was a big difference between the Order of Battle and the number of men actually available. A further problem is that as Beevor (p.287) points out when the battle was over the Soviets took into captivity as POWs any man in a uniform including many none combatants such as firemen and railwaymen. So it is probably impossible to know. However if the Soviets estimates were 1 million Germans and it is noted in a footnote with a source, I think we should included it. If for no other reason than it will stop it being put into the article every so often without an adequate source or footnoted comment that the primary source is a Soviet planning estimate. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
All right, I think I have found a solution to this conundrum. I just spent some time footnote digging in my books, and I think David Glantz has a definitive answer to this. He talks about the 1 million figure that is commonly repeated in Soviet sources, and he indicates that it includes all of Army Group Vistula, XII Army, and probably more of AG Center than engaged in the operation. In a classified postwar study titled Berlinskaya operatsiia 1945 goda prepared by the Soviet Army General Staff, German strength in and forward of Berlin was determined to be 766,750 men, 1,519 AFVs, and 9,303 guns. Considering that this document was kept classified while the more propagandistic figure of 1 million was allowed to float around and, well, propagate, I would suppose that this figure is likely to be realistic and definitive. The question is whether we should delete the unit list that is currently in the battlebox and replace it with a straight number or simply append this information to it. 68.160.55.123 18:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I say delete and replace the units the with a straight number, but leave the numbers for in Berlin. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. I also took the liberty of putting a sourced note about the 1 million figure, in case anyone tries to put it back.68.160.55.123 19:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Berlin Defense Area Figures
Even though the claim of 1,500,000 men committed to the Berlin Defense Area is supposedly backed up by Beevor, I would have to question it. You can take a look at the map yourself for the total forces committed in the storming of the city.
http://www.geocities.com/sonzabird/berlin.jpg
Counting the units, we have 1st Guards Tank Army, 2nd Guards Tank Army, 3rd Guards Tank Army, 3rd Shock Army, 5th Shock Army, 8th Guards Army, and 28th Army. That's a total of seven Soviet field armies, each of which number anywhere between 30,000-60,000 men (fewer in the tank armies and more in the shock armies). There is no way that those 7 armies could ever total more than half a million men, and the likely figure is more in the 300,000-400,000 range. I would delete the claim or seriously qualify it. There's too much history done by people who don't take the time to add the basic numbers in their head.68.160.55.123 19:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
From Christopher Duffy's Red Storm on the Reich, these are the typical unit strengths of Soviet formations.
Tank Army
35-50,000 men
900 (three corps) tanks
850 artillery pieces
Combined Arms Army
40,000 men
400 tanks
1,100 artillery pieces
Guards and shock armies are largely similar, except that they have additional reinforcements and shock armies are proportionately heavier in artillery. In any case, there's no way that seven of these could total half a million, let alone 1.5 million. 68.160.55.123 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
A couple of quibbles with the numbers: you have not included the tactical air armies also engaged in the battle, and there were several other Armies engaged not on the map ... for example First Polish and the Soviet Forty-seventh Army. I have not been through all the armies engaged in storming the city, but lets assume that you are correct I agree it comes to less than 1.5 million. In defence of Beevor, I would guess that he came to that number by taking those available in the two Fronts (army groups) that were initially engaged in the race for Berlin and were available for the assault. I guess he includes in his numbers those that were involved in the investment as well as those in the assault because it is I who have put in the words assault on BDA not he. His words are "Weidling found he was supposed to defend Berlin from 1.5 million Soviet troops with ..."
I am more than willing to accept other figures, but they must be sourced, but for the moment I'll add investment to the wording. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I just went through John Erickson's The Road to Berlin, and I am largely right. On the encirclement of Berlin (April 25th), Erickson writes, "Soviet command could now count on an encirclement line manned by at least nine armies--47th, 3rd and 5th Shock, 8th Guards, elements of the 28th, and four tank armies (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Guards)" (p. 590). Now, flipping back to the operational map on page 587, one can clearly see that 47th Army and 4th Gds Tank were holding their encirclement cordon about 20 miles west of Berlin near Ketzin, which means that only the seven armies I stated earlier were in assault positions on the outskirts of the city. And according to Erickson, the 28th Army was also maintaining an encirclement cordon around IX Army and IV Panzer, so it was only half there.
As for 1st Polish, they did commit one division (probably ~10,000 men total) to the Berlin assault, but the map shows that the army largely bypassed the city pushing west to the Elbe alongside 61st Army. The operational map shows a total of 22 Soviet army-level formations, they are all shown to be engaged in front-line combat so it's apparent that rear area logistical formations are probably not included (reserves and logistics are however, included in the 2.5 million figure). So essentially, the immediate Berlin encirclement in assault positions consisted of 6.5 field armies along with some additional air support. Out of a total of 22 army formations, that's about 30% of total combat forces. It's highly unlikely that there were 1.5 million troops directed at the Berlin Defense Area, considering that 1.5 million would mean commitment from every single combat unit from all three fronts.
Also, I am going to add the numbers from the Second Polish Army in the article where it mentions Polish involvement, since they were advancing on the extreme southern flank on AG Center. *Actually, I reverted the edit, because it isn't clear whether they were technically part of the operation or not. According to a document published by the Polish Embassy, the 2nd wasn't a part of the Berlin Operation. They were a part of the 1st Ukrainian, though.68.160.55.123 23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The troubles you are running into now is that if you are only counting ground armies actively involved in fighting in and Berlin, then we would need to do the same for the whole operation and you seem to be saying above that the 2.5m include the rear echelon troops. If not then the numbers we give will not be measuring the same thing. I think you are straying into original research, because if we change the 2.5 to be a number that reflects only combat armies then we will contradict most historians. I think for the number involved in the attack on Berlin city we have to go with a number published by a respected historian like Beevor, not one we calculate ourselves, even if our own figure would be a better reflection of the numbers involved.
That's funny because that's exactly what Krivosheev does. According to his book on combat casualties, he lists the strength total for the Berlin Offensive as 2,062,100. That said, I do agree that sourced statements are preferable and unless we have a better figure we should go with Beevor.68.160.55.123 15:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The 47th was involved in fighting in Spandau (a suburb of Berlin). The second Polish took part in the Prague Offensive, the Poles who contributed to this talk page did not mention any divisions from that army taking part in the fighting in Berlin. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up.68.160.55.123 15:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Grammar edits
I've tried fixing some small grammatical errors in the article three times over the last two weeks and they continue to be reverted. Here's a suggestion. Next time, please consider reverting only the objectionable content and try to avoid putting incorrect grammar into the article. Thanks. DMorpheus 14:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Red Army Units
I have put several Red Army unit designations into the article and it has been reverted back out three times. I see German units below Divisional level are included in the article. I therefore think it is reasonable that Soviet units be named at similar levels. If there is some really solid reason why we name the German units but not the Soviet ones, please discuss here before reverting again. Or if we're going to avoid naming any Soviet unit below the Front or Army level, let's do likewise with the German units - nothing below Army or Corps. That would be nonsense but at least it would be consistent. Thank you very much. DMorpheus 14:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The sections where I reverted you additions was the Battle in Berlin. There is a detailed article on that phase of the battle there is much more detail about soviet units down to the man where necessary. But as there were almost as many Soviet armies in Berlin as the Germans had divisions, it seem reasonble to keep it at Soviet army German division level in this article.--Philip Baird Shearer 19:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I strongly disagree. First, the separate Battle of Berlin article is not very good. Second, even if it were superb, that's not a good reason to leave out valid information here. Third, naming German units at the division level and even below, while naming Red Army units only at the Army level, may be taken as a sign of bias. Fourth, there is a long record in western historiography of treating the Red Army as an anonymous mass rather than looking at each unit. Since we know the units involved let's name them. It is the typical practice in other articles. DMorpheus 19:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
In the section Battle in Berlin which German unit below division is mentioned? --Philip Baird Shearer 19:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The Zoo flak tower garrison, some 300 men. The Hermann Von Salza heavy tank battalion. The "Youth Divisions" (obviously 'divisions' in name only - there was no such thing as a formal TO&E for youth divisions in the Whermacht or W-SS) Clausewitz, Scharnhorst, and Theodor Korner. The foreign Waffen-SS battalions. To be perfectly clear: I don't disagree with this level of detail at all. I am simply saying it should be roughly equal for the two opposing forces. The seizure of the Reichstag is, in Soviet eyes, as iconic as the flag-raising on Iwo Jima is for US citizens. I can't think of a good reason not to name the men and regiment that did it. DMorpheus 20:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems with mentioning the regiment that placed the flag the Reichstag, but in general I do not think that in an article that is already over 32K we should put in too much detail on Soviet forces as there is a more detailed article for that information. Just as in general in the section Battle in Berlin there does not need to be much mention of German forces below divisional level.
As to the units mentioned in the article:
The Zoo flak tower was a building of some importance in the fight and without mentioning it it is difficult to explain why it took the Soviets so long to enter the Reichstag. No mention is made of the German units that made up the garrison.
There is no mention of foreign Waffen-SS battalions other than on the 24th to say: "all the German forces ordered to reinforce the inner defences of city by Hitler, only a small contingent of French SS volunteers" which emphasises the desertion of Hitler and Berlin by generals like Steiner and it does not name any of the units from which they came or went.
The tank battalion is mentioned only because it is not clear in the sources I used if it was all the German Tiger tanks left in the centre or if there were more attached to other units, and I don't know how many were placed there. So unless the wording is changed to "some German Tiger tanks" (but it might "all remaining German Tiger tanks"), or another source is used that contains the exact number of tanks using a description that names the unit is IMHO the best way to convey that informaion.
All the other units you mention are in sections not covered by the "Battle in Berlin".
Again we are beating a very small horse to death. There is no harm in including the Soviet unit designations and in my opinion it is biased to not do so. The length issue is a trivial issue. DMorpheus 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
And I think that the level of unit designation for bothe is fine for the section Battle in Berlin and as it stands is not biase. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Red flag of the Reichstag
From the history of the article:
19:27, 11 September 2007 DMorpheus "Battle for the Reichstag - removing weasel words for perhaps the fourth time."
The change:
"The Soviets forces fought their way to the top of the building claimed that they hoisted the red flag on the top of the Reichstag at 22:50," to "The Soviets forces fought their way to the top of the building and hoisted the red flag of the Reichstag at 22:50,"
That it is a "claim" is sourced, as is the explanation as to why it may only be a claim, do you have an independent source that verify the Soviet claim? If not then the words "claimed that they" are not "weasel words" but a statment of fact (as the claim can not be verified by an independent source, and the Soviet actors in the drama had a vested interest in not displeasing Stalin by delivering the flag raising after the 1st.) --Philip Baird Shearer 19:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
From the first reference already listed in the article: "Sergeants M. A. Yegorov and M. V. Kantaria managed to find their way around to the rear of the building where there was a stairway up to the roof. Finding a mounted statue, they wedged the staff of their banner into a convenient crevice and thus the Red Flag, at 22.50 on 30 April 1945, finally flew over the Reichstag " DMorpheus 20:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
From Tony Le Tessier, "Berlin Then and Now" page 240, "....the flag was triumphantly wedged into position....just seventy minutes before the deadline of midnight."
From Max Hastings, "Amageddon" , p. 474, also places the flag raising just before midnight of the 30th and gives the same names and units. DMorpheus 21:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
What are the independent primary sources, other than official Soviet ones, that these secondary sources rely on for the timing of the event? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
What primary source could possibly exist other than the Red Army itself? I cited three sources, two of which were already listed as sources for the article. While I am sure I could find others as well, three is plenty. There is no need to flog this point to death. DMorpheus 13:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If there is no other independent primary source then it is a claim by the Soviets. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
With respect, that is a patently ridiculous argument, hardly worthy of response. There are no other independent primary sources for the US flag raising on Iwo Jima - are you going to label that a "claim" now? The same argument could be advanced for thousands of accepted historical events. DMorpheus 17:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There were the US journalists there and the US was not a totalitarian regime where the consequences of displeasing the US President by contradicting the official line carried the same consequences as displeasing Stalin. For example see the AP bulletin issued by Howard Cowan after the SHAEF press conference about the Bombing of Dresden in 1945. There was no fourth estate worth the name in the USSR.
The time of raising of the Red Flag over the Reichstag is a claim because Stalin wanted it raised before midnight and it would have been a very stupid soviet citizen who questioned the official Soviet line on this subject while Stain was alive. For most events during the battle the timings were not of political significance for the Soviets so there is no reason for someone to suggest political interference, but in this case Beevor does suggest it is possible. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
According to a 10 hour documentary on the history channel called "Hitler's War" Episode 9 The Eastern Front: The End of Berlin, Mikhail Minin took the Reichstag. Guy Montag (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Then let us bow down before the awesome intellectual power of the History Channel. ;) It took several regiments to take the Reichstag. Not one man, and not a platoon as you've claimed, without citation, elsewhere. If you have a published source we should by all means include the info. But right now you don't. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The battle on the streets required regiments, but the actual fight within the Reichstag did not have stiff resistance, just a combinatation of Volksturm, Hitler Youth, SS men and a ragtag of regulars who were fleeing to Berlin from other battles. This doesn't require a published source. Boris Yeltsin honored Mikhail Minin for being the first person to take the Reichstag. Why? because history was reported and taught incorrectly and new information came to light 4 years ago. Please stop defending outdated propaganda taught is Soviet history books. I am reverting because the information has been cited and noted. Guy Montag (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Guy. As an exercise, I would invite you to check out the block the Reichstag is located on. Its not a small building in its own right, but the assault on it required approaches from several directions. As a matter of well known (though not to yourself) fact there were nine flags issued for the very purpose of having one hoisted as a symbol of victory, and two were hoisted in the Reichstag on the 30th of April, one flag on one of the floors while combat was still going on for the upper floors and the western wing of the building, and another a couple of hours later on the roof when the building's upper floors were secured. That was flag number five; one was issued to each of the divisions of the 3rd Shock Army (Soviet Union). The taking of Reichstag area (not just the building) took a better part of the day and was assaulted principally by two divisions with the result that two different regiments claim the honour of hoisting of one of the nine flags, but the one that was officially recognised was the 756th Rifle regiment (150th Rifle division, 79 Rifle Corps). Several flags were seen on the 30th of April on the lower floors of the Reichstag, but one had to be selected and a decision was made. It was made by Zhukov, not Stalin. It seems to me that propaganda has nothing to do with it. Your assertions that "the actual fight within the Reichstag did not have stiff resistance" are not supported by eye wittiness reports. The fact that Minin's group was the first into Reichstag with its copy of the flag may matter, but he was not the fist since the saying goes "alone is not a warrior in the field", and he erected the flag while the objective, the Reichstag, was still being fought over. Do you think that propaganda is limited to Stalin's days? Did Yeltsin maybe have a motive also?
It seems to me that you need to learn how to research beyond the History Channel, and understand something of what happens in combat before you start making statements like "Minin was first". The truth is that unlike Iwo Jima, Reichstag was a large building, and no one will ever know who was the first to enter it because there were very few people taking pictures. Regardless of your belief in Stalin's omnipresence and power of his regime, it was beyond him to control tactical combat from thousands of kilometers away. As it happens almost everything is known about the "Flag of Victory" and its copies.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 06:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Guy Montag please read the description in the article Battle in Berlin#In the city centre it gives far more detail and is based on Antony Beevor's book and it also includes the query on the timing that Beevor has. See the paragraphs that start "At 06:00 on 30 April the 150th Rifle Division had ..." and "Because of the smoke, dusk came early to the centre of Berlin...". Then use Google maps and enter Reichstag and using the satellite view where you can see the size of the building not only by the scale in the bottom left by the people on the roof. What is your source for "but the actual fight within the Reichstag did not have stiff resistance"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If I am to understand correctly, your assertion is that the 150th Rifles and perhaps the 756th Rifles all breached the Reichstag sector simultaneously or perhaps from different fronts. Perhaps your assertion is that these units were responsible for taking the Reichstag centre (secure it) and due to that the entire unit deserves recognition and its irrevelent who raised the flag. That is not what this discussion is about.
I have never claimed that 5 soldiers were responsible for securing the Reichstag center, I simply made a correction regarding who was the first Soviet soldier on top of the Reichstag who installed a symbol of Soviet Victory there before the counterattack that required soviet reinforcements you've mentioned.
It is important because Mikhail Minin was promised to be made Hero of the Soviet Union and due to propaganda and Stalin's personal politics, he was denied this for over 50 years. The reality is that the picture that exists now with Meliton Kantaria was taken on May 2nd, not on April 30th. Soviet records of Minin's promotion confirm that on April 30th Minin hoisted the Red Flag on top of the Reichstag. The next day the German troops attacked when they saw the Soviet Victory Flag flying above.
Only with Soviet reinforcements was the Red Army able to beat off the counter-attack. While the Nazis didn’t force the Soviets from the building, they did manage to bring down the flag. The Germans trapped in the basement finally surrendered and on the morning of May 2, 1945 they left the building under a White Flag. That is the same day Kantaria's re-enactment happened, but because the report from the front that the Reichstag was taken on the 30th was never corrected, (Stalin wanted the Reichstag before May Day for propaganda reasons) we associate Kantaria with the 30th and the day the Reichstag was taken.
I will post an abituary for Mikhail Minin and the name of the Documentary where this information comes from. It is time to make a correction about what happened inside.
[1]
If you would like, I can send you a copy of the documentary through mail or you can rent it. There are two versions The War of the Century and Hitler's War The Eastern Front: The Fall of Berlin. The Pictures attached is of Giya Zagitov, Aleksandr Lisimenko, Aleksey Bobrov, Mikhail Minin, the four men who took the Reichstag. Guy Montag (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
"the four men who took the Reichstag"? The 150th was a division within which the 756th Rifle regiment was a part of as were other regiments. That should be a clue to yourself how many participated in the engagement over control of the building. A regiment by this stage was about 900 personnel. In all nine divisions participated. Do the math. If Minin's group did make it to the top, bu the flag was taken down by Germans then the Rechstag wasn't taken on the 30th of April, was it? So it seems that Stalin didn't get his 1st of May prize. Dozens of Soviet soldiers didn't get to live to see 1st of May at all. Newsflash: Minin was not the only individual that was nominated for, but never received his HSU award. I have read of one tanker who was nominated thrice for one and didn't get one because he was Jewish. His company commander was also nominated and wasn't given one because he was a Volga German. That's war for you. It seems not all is fair in it.
About your note on the evidence of Soviet looting by the analysis that the Soviet officer on the image is wearing two watches. Watches were very expensive in Soviet Union at the time, and were given in the same way jewelry is given today. Its just possible that the other watch was a gift from a wife or parents of his fallen comrade, and he took it to return it to them after the war as a memory-sake. My grandfather brought four such watches from war, and it was his unhappy duty to distribute this "loot". BBC is notorious for getting things wrong, just ask Her Majesty the Queen of England.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 03:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I am not retarded. I did not claim that four men surrounded the Reichstag and took it, I am merely mentioning facts. After the Reichstag building was surrounded by said 150th devision, volunteers were asked to take place flag on the Reichstag according to Stalin's orders and before May Day. Minin volunteered and after brief resistance, he took the interior of the building. When the Germans counter-assaulted, the soviet front lines moved and the Reichstag wasn't important to the Soviets as it it was already reported that the Reichstag was taken on the 30th. The Germans were not able to hold the building or even take it because the Soviets simply returned and threw them out. They were able skirmish in to briefly hold the basements, and take the flag down, and after brief fighting surrendered. Its the equivalent of harassment of firmly established front lines. The Germans even set fire to the building.
The important note here is that Minin was the first Soviet soldier to claim the roof of the Reichstag, per Stalin's orders, on the 30th and that Kantaria had nothing to do with the battle to take the Reichstag's building but was part of a staged scene on May 2nd well after the reported taking of the Reichstag. This is important and should be mentioned in the article.
Regarding the watches commentary, its not mine. Guy Montag (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Where did I suggest you are "retarded" (not a nice word in any use except engineering)? I am only suggesting that you are basing your assertions on faulty research and understanding of the event's circumstances.
150th was one of nine divisions involved in the combat around and inside Reichstag.
Minin was one of several volunteers within his division, and his group was one of nine such group of volunteers.
Resistance was not "brief"; assault begun in the morning, but the lower floors were not reached until mid-afternoon. Minin and his group made it to the roof at 2240, i.e. 10:40pm - night.
Why say "he took the interior of the building" when by your own acknowledgment he was in a group of at least four (that survived reaching the building)? In any case, his group was not the only group from his division, but the one with a copy of the flag.
How does one "skirmish in the basement" and "take the flag down" when the flag is located on the roof?! Clearly this was more then a skirmish. Unfortunately I have to rely on Wiki images of the inside of the building after it was secured. If you think that taking the Rechstag was a "skirmish", then you will also call the Omaha landing a "walk on the beach".
The Germans did not set fire to the building unless you refer to this. There is no confirmation to who set the fire, but in all likelihood the fire was started by the numerous use of firearms, grenades, flame-throwers and artillery firing into the building full of flammable materials.
Lastly, IF you mention Minin, then you MUST mention the other members of his group since he would have never made it to the roof alone. Aside from that, if the flag wasn't there on the 1st of May, then it had to be replaced. The photograph was as obligatory as the flag to prove the event, and it could hardly have been proven if the original was carried away by German troops! Someone had to do it, so why not Kantaria and his group; there were more then one in the No.5 group also.
Lastly, I think all members of all nine groups should be listed--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 08:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any more of the details of the Reichstag battle need to be included in this article. There is a more detailed article where this information can be included in the text. However I think we are arguing at cross purposes here. The initial morning assault on the Reichstag failed to penetrate the building. The evening assault was successful. The evening assault would have been carried out by soldiers formed into assault groups. For such a large and important objective there would have been many of them. One group would have been the first through the main entrance --which had been opened up during the day by artillery bombardment-- This forlorne hope was decimated by the defenders. More assault groups followed these would have had different objectives, either pre-planned or assigned by an officer in the building directing the assault groups. As the battle progressed one group would have been given the objective of reaching the roof and raising a flag, probably by a route that was already largely cleared of defenders. A fire support team (to borrow an American term) in that combat group would have raised the flag. As there seems to be controversy over this issue it can be footnoted as:
"Soviet histories credited Sergeants M. A. Yegorov and M. V. Kantaria (who, like Stalin, were Georgians) with raising the flag on the Reichstag roof (a claim contained in many English language histories) but recently the Russian government has credited Mikhail Petrovich Minin (a Russian) with the achievement (citation)."
Which explains the internal politics for anyone who wonders why the soldiers credited with the event may have been altered. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I entirely agree with you that the mention of the raising of the flag need only be cursory here since another article Victory Banner exists and needs to be expanded. There were two investigations of the issue before 1991, and one since. These determined that:
On the 8th of may 1946 Hero of Soviet Union was awarded to the first group consisting of: Captain Davidov V.I., Sargent Yegorov M.A., Junior Sergent Kantaria M.V., Captain Neustroyev S.A., and Senior Lieutenant Samsonov N.Ya.
The original group of reconnaissance section from the 136th artillery brigade consisted of Senior Sergents Bobrov A., Zagitov G., Lisimenko A., and Sergent Minin M., under command of Captain Makov V. were awarded Orders of Red Banner.
Above-mentioned Nestruyev was part of the later group of the 1st battalion, 756th Rifle regiment that made it into the Reichsatag, but the composition of that group was (in addition to himself) Lieutenant Pechersky, Senior Sergeants S'yanov and Talak, Junior Sergent Glotov and private Kabulov.
The one person that was not presented for the Hero of Soviet Union award was Lieutenant Aleksey Prokofieyvich Berest, the politruk of the rifle battalion that participated in the assault and provided cover for the assaulting groups. He was the one who led Yegorov and Kantaria to the roof because he knew the way due to the main stairs having been destroyed in the fighting and the fire. Yegorov and Kantaria were actually the troops sent to bring the No.5 flag from the division HQ when it was realised the original had been lost in the fighting that followed the assault. However because he was a political officer Zhukov rejected him for the award, and he receive the Order of Red Banner instead as did Yegorov and Kantaria BEFORE they were sent to the top of Reichstag (although they were not in the second assault; so clearly they did see some action somewhere)--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 12:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This is quite the sticky wicket. Just to keep the conversation in one place, is there a replacement image to signify the end of the war in Europe that's commonly used or lined up in place of the Victory Banner? Oberiko (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Mostly used is the image you used, but without a correct caption. The only image I found of the actual Victory Banner (albeit moved to the top of the building in the morning) was taken from an aircraft and can hardly be seen in the picture. Sadly there is no publicly available image of the original Victory Banner on the Reichstag--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 04:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
EDIT:
There was no photograph available at the first "live" time that the flag (or cloth) was raised, so it had to be done the next day, but with a photograph present. THAT photo was edited to hide the 2 watches.
Readd objectives
Added back objectives with an unsourced tag. The material is rather uncontroversial, and sources for German objectives is a summary of material on articles on Wenck and Heinrici.
I'm pretty sure that the the material can be found in Cornelius Ryan's "The Last Battle" but I don't have that book handy, and any of the other fifty books that are on the subject.
I added citations. These are from various articles that are linked to this one. The paragraph seems to me to be uncontroversial, and absolutely essential to example why the generals did what they did.
The third paragraph is in my opinion misleading. At the start of the battle, Theodor Busse objective was to defend Berlin by holding the Seelow Heights. His objective of creating a corridor to the west only because an objective once the battle was lost. Likewise at the start of the Battle Walther Wenck objectives was to continue to hold the line against the Americans. It was not until after he was ordered to turn around face East and failed to relieve Berlin that his objectives became those described in the section.
Hmmmm... Good point. Let me see if the statements can be put into the article elsewhere Roadrunner 18:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. The one who I think sums this point better than the others is SS-Obergruppenführer Felix Steiner. Who I read took temporary nominal command of the XXI Army[2] when Tippelskirch took temporary nominal command of Army Group Vistula and made dam sure to surrender to the Americans rather than join the gotterdammerung in Berlin. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Wo tan or Wotan
Wotan seems to have been a popular German name there was a Wotan line during WWI and a Panther-Wotan line in 1943. So it is quite possible that the line near Berlin was the Wotan position but the source I used for the original paragraph was:
The armies added depth to the front line by constructing the Wot an position ten to fifteen miles to the rear of the Oder line (Ziemke, Earl F. Battle For Berlin: End Of The Third Reich, NY: Ballantine Books, London: Macdomald & Co, 1969. page 79).
Now that may be a typo in the original source, but unless there is another source (and I could not find one on the net) I think it should be left as Wo tan.
This position was called Wotan-Stellung according to Tony Le Tissier's Zhukov at the Oder: The Decisive Battle for Berlin (1996). Alastair Haines 21:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
And "Stellung" means "Position". So problem solved as we have another source that confirms it is Wotan :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Ausgezeichnet! Tchüß! :D Alastair Haines 23:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The (first) Wotan Line (1943) was a hastily conceived and equally hastily constructed series of field defenses that were intended to halt the Red Army in the Autumn of 1943. It ran from Pskov - just east of Vitebsk - Gomel - just west of Chernigov - Kiev - Kanev - along the eastern bank of Dniepr to Kremenchug - east of Zaporozhye - Sea of Azov coast (just west of Berdyansk). The Panther Line was an extension of the Wotan Line between the Chud Lake and the Gulf of Finland (including the fortress of Narva). The Wotan Line was not completed (and in some places not even begun) when it was breached by the Soviet Autumn offensives in the Gomel - Kiev and the Kremenchug - Melitopol sectors. I am looking for a German source on the construction of the Line because not much is extant from Soviet sources. Most of the Line was demolished during the offensives and after the war so there is almost nothing to see there now despite its length (I only have information on the Ukrainian part).
The Wotan Line constructed on the Order should really be called the Wotan Line (1945) in my humble opinion. However it seems to em that the second Wotan was no more completed then the first before it was breached.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 04:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
image caption
Hi Philip. I know I need not explain to you the difference between a depiction, and a reenaction. Given that the original act (and its "Kantaria" repetition) was performed at night, this photograph can not possibly be a depiction of the actual act, and therefore must be a reenaction to enable the photographers to take the picture.
in regards to the rest of the caption text: "Red Army soldiers [ [Mikhail Yegorov]] and Meliton Kantariaof the 756th Rifle Regiment depict the raising the Flag of the Soviet Union over the Reichstag building during the Battle of Berlin, April 30, 1945. Picture taken on May 2nd1945.The soldier holding the other has a wristwatch on both wrists! A sign of looting. source Peter Caddick-Adams Images of victory BBC 23 August 2006
image analysis
A careful analysis would suggest that:
Firstly we have no idea which actual people are depicted on the photograph, but it is clear that one of them is neither since neither Yegorov (sergeant) nor Kantaria (junior sergeant) were officers. In absence of not knowing who is on the photograph, neither can be named.
Nor can we say with any certainty which unit they were from, the original team being from an artillery brigade, the 136th Army Red Banner, Order of Suvorov and Kutuzov, Rezhetsk gun artillery brigade. This means that the troops depicted can have been from any unit assigned to the 3rd Shock Army.
What is absolutely certain is that the depiction is neither "during the Battle of Berlin" (note parked trucks below), nor on April 30, 1945 (see previous note about night event).
I would now like to find out how the deduction that a person wearing two wrist watches equated to his participation in looting. For example the other figure in the photo is armed with an MP40 machine-pistol. Should we therefore assume that this other individual participated in war crimes, cruelty to prisoners, or some other crime by which he secured this German firearm? Peter Caddick-Adams is a Lecturer of Military & Security Studies, Cranfield University. Is he an expert in Red Army behaviour in Berlin? Was his explanation of the officer having two wrist watches the only one possible? If the photograph was retouched, what was the reason for adding a second watch? Speaking of which, how do you know the image was retouched? If the picture was retouched, then can we really know when the picture was taken? In fact if the picture was retouched then its final version dates from the date of retouching which we do not know.
The photograph was taken by a military correspondent Yevgeny Khaldei [3]. He brought the flag with him, and the people on the photo are not those that particip[ated in the original assault. Even the name of the maker of the flag is known. There is no suggestion the photo was retouched. In any case, the photographer was eventually in the 1990s awarded the Knighthood of the Arts and Literature in France after having published many photographic works and becoming quite celebrated in the Soviet Union and later Russia.
It seems to me there is very little that can be said about the image other then that it is a reenactment of the original erection of the flag which was attached with the original group's belts to one of the roof figures (seen in the background) and not to the roof decoration as is shown here. This is because by the 2nd of May (assuming the date) the original No.5 flag was already on its way to Moscow.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 12:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe that's a PPS, not an MP-40, which doesn't matter at all unless we want to drill down even more into this trivia ;) Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It is more then likely to be an MP-40 where were often used by 1945. There were a limited number of PPSh with folding stock made for the tank crews, and the individual in the image is not wearing a tanker uniform. Doesn't mean much, but I was just trying to illustrate the point.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I am quite certain it is a PPS (note I did not say PPSh, a completely different weapon). By the way, how can we all be so certain he is wearing two watches as opposed to, say, a watch on one wrist and a compass on the other? Of course watch looting was common and that is the most likely explanation, but it isn't the only one and we cannot prove it one way or the other. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't need to prove it, we only have to provide a source that says it is, and one is provided. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind if the word depict or reenact the is used, (the advantage of depict does not exclude reenactment, but neither does imply that it definitely is) -- but I think the BBC footnote on looting is worth keeping. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
About the retouching: this is the original image, but ones published during the Soviet era were allegedly retouched to remove one of the watches. There was an interview with Yevgeni Khaldei, I can not now remember if it was a documentary or a magazine article, I think the former but I am not sure, where he goes into great detail about the image: how he had the flag made from a table cloth in Moscow and that he made a speciality of flags over landmarks as the Red Army retook Eastern Europe. In that interview he makes the point that the second man was asked by the first man to hold him and Khaldei was worried about the two watches would get it banned by the censors, but he said the censors at the time missed that detail. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I did/doing more research on this. BTW, lieutenant Berest after being denied HSU moved back home (Rostov) and became an ordinary worker. Apparently he had a bit of a character and eventually ended up in jail and camps for something he didn't do. He was rehabilitated, but it was too late and he got into drinking. His last act in life was again that of a Hero in saving a girl from a train. He died on the operating table, and has a memorial in Rostov, a school (No.7) and a street named after him there. In 2005 he was posthumously awarded Hero of Ukraine Star. Not the least was the realisation that Berest came from the same village as the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yuschenko. An offer was made to move the grave to the "Hill of Valour" in Kiyiv, but refused by the widow and family. It seems the wrongs are eventually righted one way or another.
No books have been published about the whole episode that I have found so far, but there were several stories published in various newspapers during the 60th anniversary of the VE day.
I have found several images online of several different flags used for photographs. At least six different photographers took pictures, of which Khaldei was either third or fourth. The first photo was taken from an aircraft, and hardly ever used because Stalin thought the flag looked too small. The original flag erected by the artillerymen became lost. The second flag was m=oved tot he top of the roof in the morning and the No.5 flag was taken to Moscow. Another flag was used by another photographer in the "one soldier" photographs, which is also lost. The Khaldei flag is in a museum somewhere in Moscow also (no name yet).
I don't understand why you want to retain the suggestion of looting. We all know that looting took place during the Second World War. It was perpetrated by all forces on all sides. Would you be making this assertion if you had to face the actual person in the photograph, or is this only made because it can be made because there is no way to prove that it was not looting? Is taking a watch off a corps looting? Officers have to have watches for operational reasons, so carrying a spare makes perfect sense to me since watches tend not to survive combat for very long. I will leave it to you Philip what happens to the caption because I think you are the sort of a person who does the right thing. --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 23:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
90% of the German female population of Berlin at that time and murdered civilians totaling the civilian dead to 150,000 at the end of several weeks. The majority of Berliners fled the city to the Western Allies before the battle began, reducing the population from 4,339,000 in 1939 to a few 100,000 at the start of the battle.
Because Berlin's population in early April stood at anything between 3 and 3.5 million people including 120,000 infants. At a meeting in the Bunker around that time General Hellmuth Reymann asked how these children could be fed Hitler told him there were no children of that age left in Berlin, Reymann stated later that this is when he knew Hitler had lost contact with reality. (Beevor p.177) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you misquoted hitler. What he actually said was "Aha, that's another 12 divisions!" At which point Reymann knew he had lost his mind, because that was only six divisions ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
On the serious side, I do remember that there was a discussion of civilian treatment as early as Yalta for all of Germany. The agreement over prosecution of war criminals, and leading Nazis meant that troops were under stringent orders to not let anyone pass, so the suggestion that civilians could flee in their millions after Berlin had been surrounded is somewhat far-fetched. Nikolai Berzarin was asking Stalin what resources were going to be provided for feeding "these millions of Berliners", so clearly he had some idea of the numbers under his jurisdiction. I am also certain that there was no way to get out in the direction of Potsdam because the roads had been choked with bot the troops and the refugees, and all were halted by the Red Army troops as early as the 3-4 May, well before Allied troops reached Berlin occupation zones. There was just no way to walk to the Allied sectors outside Berlin in the immediate aftermath of the end of the war. Just some thoughts--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
section names
Philip Baird Shearer deleted these because he thinks he knows better then anyone what's right to have in an article. I would like them restored as I had done on the 2 May 2008
"Battle north of Berlin" - Stettin-Rostock Offensive Operation 16 April 1945 - 8 May 1945 2nd Byelorussian Front
"Battle south of Berlin" - Cottbus-Potsdam Offensive Operation 16 April 1945 - 2 May 1945 1st Ukrainian Front
"Battle south of Berlin" - Spremberg-Torgau Offensive Operation 16 April 1945 - 5 May 1945 1st Ukrainian Front
"Battle of the Seelow Heights" - Seelow-Berlin Offensive Operation 16 April 1945 - 2 May 1945 1st Byelorussian Front
Unmentioned in the article - Brandenberg-Ratenow Offensive Operation 3 May 1945 - 8 May 1945 1st Byelorussian Front
Regards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Descriptive names are far better for the average English language reader than Soviet names that will be unfamiliar to the vast majority of the people who read this article. mrg3105 you have raised such arguments over the names of articles and the usually you are in a minority of one this issue. But lets see what others think. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, guess what, others don't think
Have you had a chance to survey any average English language readers on their familiarity with names of Red Army operations?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Mrg, i'm willing to discuss anything and reach agreements with you if there would be any issues, so i'm kindly asking you not to disturb anything considering that this article is undergoing a FAC at the moment. Thanks, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
German losses
There should be a breakdown between military and civilian casualties. If the entire strength of the Germans was 760,000 how can they have lost 900,000+ killed and captured? Dapi89 (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The current source gives those numbers. No one would argue with you that the numbers do not add up, one think to remember is that as the article explains the Soviets took away as POWs any civilian in uniform (postal workers, railway workers etc) as well as combatants. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Then I believe efforts should be made to include this in our new agreed footnote system. Dapi89 (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Layout, footnotes and citations
some of the edit made to this page today contravene three guidelines WP:LAYOUT, WP:CITE, and WP:FOOTNOTES. Unless a very good reason is presented for the changes which breach these guidelines I think that they should be reverted. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Philip, use your common sense. I suggest you check out the Battle of Britain article, or the Battle of Kursk, and you will find it is perfectly acceptable.
Putting "notes" with "citations" doesn't make any sense. They are two different things. If note templates were not supposed to be used, why do they exist? I can't see any specific reason on those links that explains why they shouldn't be there. Dapi89 (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Article pages should follow guidelines. If you do not like them then argue for changes and once you have gained a consensus to change the guidelines then you can alter the articles to fit the new guidelines, but until you have done that please do not alter articles that comply with the guidelines to your own personal preference. See WP:CONSENSUS and also WP:LAYOUT, WP:CITE, and WP:FOOTNOTES --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
There are no complaints from anyone else, with the exception of you Philip. If they are used by other admins on the BoB page, they can be used here. I don't see any specific information that forbids it. So I ask again, where does it say this. It sounds like Wikilawyering to me. Dapi89 (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
What does BoB stand for? You do not have a consensus to impose these changes here see WP:CITATION#Citation templates and tools "editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus". Further the layout you are suggesting is not supported by WP:LAYOUT. Which orders things:
Notes
References
Further reading
As I said get a consensus on the guideline pages, before you implement changes which alter pages so that they no longer comply with the current guidelines. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The Battle of Britain, Philip, it is on the thread already. It now seems like you have changed tac. Are you now saying it all I need is consensus, as oppossed to rejecting it on the grounds of violating any "wiki law"? Dapi89 (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
No I have not changed tack, You asked for a specific prohibition I have show you one "editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus". but also see WP:CONSENSUS "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policy and process pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected than on other pages." You have no consensus for changing a page that reflects the current guidelines and to revert to your version which does not follow the guidelines, when there is not a consensus to do so is disruptive. --22:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes you have. "WP:LAYOUT, WP:CITE, and WP:FOOTNOTES" - none of these forbid its inclusion. "WP:CONSENSUS", was one of your latest additions, realising that there is in fact no technical problem with it. I had a similar problem with you on the Battle of Berlin (air) article, but you seem to have seen sense there. Dapi89 (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
See WP:REFGROUP solves the problem of breaking notes out from citations with little change and easy to move ref tags between them. Seems like a reasonable compromise (and one I like). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thats fine with me. But what I still don't understand is why you have decided to compromise with this format, which is basically the same as the initial one. Perhaps you could enlighten me? Dapi89 (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Does not use a depreciated note format (as in WP:Footnote3). Text remains unaltered (other than the edition of a "group=nb". WP:Layout is not compromised. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
See the note I have left on the cite sources page. I don't appreciate you implying I am entering into a wrongful "edit war", when I am not in the wrong, and have support for it. Dapi89 (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Constant reversals
Philip, I will revert again as soon as I can. The United States did not undertake deliberate attacks on civilian targets, let alone in this battle. Dapi89 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Battle of Budapest
This entire block of text
In the south the Battle of Budapest raged. Three German attempts to relieve the encircled Hungarian capital city failed and Budapest fell to the Soviets on 13 February.[14] The Germans counter-attacked again, Adolf Hitler insisting on the impossible task of regaining the Danube River.[15] By 16 March, the Germans' Lake Balaton Offensive had failed and within twenty-four hours, the Red Army's counter-attack took back everything the Germans had gained in ten days.[16] On 30 March, the Soviets entered Austria and, during the Vienna Offensive, they finally captured Vienna on 13 April.[17]
is strategically irrelevant to the article content--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Battle of the Oder-Neisse
This section has a link to the main article, but there is no mention to it in the section that talks about the Seelow Heights, so some context needs to be added--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The Seelow Heights are mentioned in this section few times. Well, if I missed something, go ahead and add context where necessary (don't forget to post your sources). --Eurocopter (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The 2003 edition. --Eurocopter (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Which publisher which city which ISBN? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I am asking because the version I used was "Beevor, Antony (2002). Berlin: The Downfall 1945. Penguin Books. ISBN0670886955." and it looks like the page numbers of your addition is not the same as the version I used. In which case we need to sort cite by edition. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but then I used a Romanian edition of the book. It's this one now. --Eurocopter (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The link to the copyright page. I'll check mine and make sure it is the same edition. What raised my query is that you seem to have changed some of the page numbers previously used in some or the citations. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I have lent my volume to someone and they are currently in hospital, so until I next speak to them and confirm that, I can not lay my hands on it. As you have changed some of the page numbers of the citations for Beevor (one or two could easily have been my mistake but you have changed quite a few --for example see the paragraphs that starts "As the perimeter shrank and the surviving..." and the next one "During the early hours of 1 May,...") so it is likely that you are using a different edition from me, so I have been through the text and put in (2002) and (2003) so we can identify the differences. I'll get my volume back as soon as I can and check the accuracy of the citations I added. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I have a copy of the book, if I can help you with anything. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Please check a couple of the changes that have been made to just the page numbers in this diff if your book corresponds to the older page numbers, then you have volume with the same layout as mine, if the same as the replacement then Eurocopter's and if different from both then a totally different volume. If the page numbers are the same as mine please put in the volume details into the References section. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I have my edition back from its wandering, it is 2002 Viking/Penguin hardback. The ISBN is 0-670-88695-5 and it says "First published 2002 [on the nextline] 14 [on the next line] Copyright..." It was printed in GB by Clays Ltd, St Ives Plc. --PBS (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I have used this URL to extract ISBN numbers and update the page. Eurocopter did you use a hardback or a paperback as your reference? --PBS (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that's the book I used when changed those page numbers. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Atina Grossman
The edit Revision as of 16:31, 19 August 2007 by IP 68.160.55.123 introduced the Atina Grossman. "A Question of Silence: The Rape of German Women by Occupation Soldiers." October, Vol. 72 (Spring, 1995), pp. 42-63. source to the article. As user:Jappalang says that the source does not cover the statement, we may as well remove the footnote unless someone else has access to the source and can fix it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Let me clarify that the problem is the last sentence in that footnote (the first two sentences are valid). The sentence insinuated that due to the absence of reports in which a German was the rapist, the rape claims for abortions were likely for convenience. That is false; such a notion was never in Grossman's article. In Grossman's article, the statement on the lack of reports regarding German rapists is far removed from the section on the consequences of rape (abortion). Furthermore, the consequences of rape section stated that economic and social concerns were more likely the deciding factors than moral ones in influencing the requests for abortions by women who claimed to have been raped. It did not question the validity of the rape claims (which the footnote in this Wikipedia article is doing). Jappalang (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The last two sentences are "According to Grossman, there were no abortion claims resulting from of rape by Germans. This would suggest that to some extent the claim of rape was an easy way to get an abortion approved by the medical commission." Does Grossman explicitly mention that there were no claims of rape by Germans, or is that a statement by the anon contributor of an omission in the Grossman article? ie should we alter the end of the footnote by striking out the last sentence and rewrite the second to last sentence to "Grossman does not mention if there were any claims resulting from rape by Germans." or just strike out the last sentence? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It is only the last sentence ("This would suggest that [...].") that could not be sourced to Grossman's contents. On re-reading the the second last sentence, I think that should be changed to some form similar to what you have suggested. Grossman states "There were also abortions granted to women who reported being raped by American and French military, or foreign workers; I found no reports of rape by a German." Jappalang (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
As no one else has chimed in, as you have access to the source please make the edit. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
KIA
From my talk page:
Hello, it seems to me that you are familiar with this article. I am very doubtful about the number of german KIA. Do these losses stemp from a large operation than the operation that the soviet losses relate to or are they made by a mistake?
Most sources I find in books estimates the number of soviet KIA to the same number as in the article about the Battle of Berlin and writes, in the close following, that "initial estimates" puts the number of german KIA to roughly 23 000 (a number that most likely concerns only the Battle in Berlin, since the KIA during the Battle of Halbe alone reaches almost 30,000 (according to the article)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.186.123 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you but you must source you figures, so I am reverting your edit as you have not provided a source. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Possible geographical error
In "Encirclement of Berlin" it claims "the 2nd Belorussian Front had established a bridgehead on the east bank of the Oder" (my emphasis). Surely as they were attacking from the east, and held the entire east bank already, this should be west (or left) bank? --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Photo Date?
I believe the Photo of Hitler under the encirclement of Berlin section is incorrectly labeled, and should be the 20th of March. I think that it was widely recognized as being in April, yet I think it's now acknowledged to be in March... I'm currently in Berlin, and recently visited his bunker, in which this was stated.
This site: [[4]] has a video about this massive battle.Agre22 (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)agre22
Casualties?
I notice the Germans have far more (deadly) casualties than the Soviets. I tried looking up casualties for the battle in the Penguin History of WW2, and R. Overy's Why the Allies Won, but couldnt find any. Since I don't have any other reliable books, I'll just ask here: How come an attacking force has significantly lower casualties than a defending force so stubborn to surrender? Is the 400,000 killed figure supposed to be killed & wounded, does it include civilian casualties, ...? Considering the nature of the fighting in Berlin (a significant advantage for the defenders in urban fighting, plus the defending skills of the German Army), I couldn't help but raise an eyebrow on the casualties figure given. Can anyone find other numbers, because numbers now seem wrong, especially because it is the initial Soviet estimate. Wiki1609 23:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I have looked at the kill claims for tanks, artillery, and airplanes for the Berlin operation, and since we can assume 100% kill/capture rate, the overclaim ratio comes out to be somewhere in the 2-2.5:1 range. If we apply that to claimed personnel losses (highly unscientific but the best we have), you come out to about 200,000 killed. Adding in captured, that comes out to about a total of 650-700,000 men, which accounts for the majority of the defenders. That seems reasonable to me.
Furthermore, the nature of operational warfare places defenders at a disadvantage, since the attacker possesses initiative and maneuver. The attacker can envelop and cut off retreats. Wounded have to be left behind to either die or be captured. Almost all the Soviet defensive operations netted more irrevocables. The casualty ratio only started to even out as the USSR went on the offensive, before shifting to their favor in the final stages of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.230.188 (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It is more than implausible that German KIA alone were over 458.000 - this number refers apparently back to Soviet communist era and the Red army in WW II always used to boast with huge numbers of enemys killed (and captured, too), mainly in order to justify own high casulaties. And just imagine: Normally, the ratio KIA:WIA is about 1:3 in WW II. So we should have over 1.3 million German WIA alone - the double number of German soldiers available at the beginning! (even if we assume --in theory-- that all POWs were WIA we have 800.000 WIA unaccounted for). Now, modern serious research says that about 100.000 German soldiers (or slightly more) were killed inside Berlin, at the Seelow Heights and - most of them - in the Halbe pocket (Müller, R.-D. (Hg.): Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Band 10/1, 2008, S.673). -- Concerning Soviet casualties, it should be noted that Krivosheev only evaluates the official reports from the units - and these were often lower than the actual figures. So, perhaps there were more than 81,116 KIA/MIA. Akribes (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Soviet have 41,600 artillery pieces . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.127.76 (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
These have been reverted. I assumed that edit (1) was a mistake (and not a purposeful source fabrication) and informed him of it on his Talk page.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Victor V now claims on his talk page (perhaps after a google search) that this site backs up claim #1. It does not. Moreover, even if it did, it is by RAS member IGOR MAKSIMYCHEV with such humorous claims as "Recently in Germany there extends another option of dismantling the credibility of the Soviet Union as the liberator of mankind from the «brown plague». Some German historians of the entire 20th century served as a continuous war of democracy against totalitarianism, first of all against communism."Mosedschurte (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Soviet Losses
As the larger operation The Battle of Berlin covers not only the Battle in Berlin (1), but also other key-battles such as those at Seelow Hights (2) and Halbe (3), it seems incredible that the Soviet KIA that stem from the operation excluding the battles at Seelow Heights (2) and Halbe (3) (but including the Battle of Oder-Niesse (4), for which no separate figure is available) reaches "only" about 31 000 men. See calculation:
Soviet KIA for the whole operation (appr. 81 000) - KIA Battle at Seelow Heights (2) (appr. 30 000) - KIA Battle at Halbe (3) (appr. 20 000) = 31 000
As a comparision: German KIA for the whole operation (appr. 458 000) - KIA Battle at Seelow Heights (2) (appr. 11 000) - KIA Battle at Halbe (3) (appr. 30 000) = 427 000)
The idea that the Red Army lost only appr. 31 000 men in total during the battle of Oder-Niesse (4) and the Battle in Berlin (1) is rather incredible. I believe that there is a mistake somewhere. As I have noticed today, the Soviet KIA that stem from the Battle of the Seelow Heights have also been revised to 70 000 killed (the number could include losses from the Battle of Oder-Niesse), a total KIA for the larger operation of 81 000 is therefore not realistic.
For the whole Berlin offensive strategic operation (16 April-8 May 1945, that included the battle of Seelow heights, Halbe and Berlin proper) Krivosheev gives the following numbers: Soviet irrecoverable losses were 78291, total losses 274184. Polish irrecoverable losses 2825 (8892 totally). 78291+2825=81116. This number is currently in the info box, so I don't understand what is the problem.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem was that the Soviet losses from the whole strategic operation seemed to be "unreasonably low" (see my calculation above, but keep in mind that the article about the Battle of the Seelow Heights has been corrected), especially in comparision with the German irrecovable losses for the whole stategic operation that in previous versions of the article where put to 458,080 men. But, I have not made any efforts to further study the issue, so without sources there will of course not be any changes in the articleEriFr (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as I have understood, Krivosheev studies are well credited, but maybe something should be written about the reasearch method used by him?EriFr (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
AFAIK, Krivosheev's book is a result of the work of the large group of Russian archival researchers. This book is based on archival (partially classified during Soviet time) data, so I see no reason not to trust these numbers. By contrast, I couldn't understand from your post where your numbers were taken from. Explain, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The article refers to other battles as parts of the whole strategic operation, and my numbers are taken from the articles at Wikipedia related to these battles. The main reason why I questioned the numbers was that for a short time a go, the article put the German KIA for the whole Soviet strategic operation, the Battle of Berlin, at 458,080 men, and it seemed to me that the Soviet irrecovable losses did not "correspond" to the scale of the battle given by this number. Germany had appr. 11,000 KIA at Seelow Heights (see Beevor, A.) and another 30,000 KIA at Halbe (see Beevor, A.), so if this number (458,080 KIA) are to be trusted, it means that more than 420,000 men were killed in Berlin and during the rest of the operaton, in particular the preceding parts of the operation, the Vistula-Oder Offensive. However, it has come to my knowledge that the 458,080 men include wounded, and that Germany lost 22,000 men KIA inside the Berlin Defense Area (see Sennerteg, N). This, corresponds more reasonably to the 31,000 Soviet irrecovable losses calculated by me above.
I hope you can follow my thoughts! And I would like to add that I do not consider my personal speculations to be scientific, but I can not see why I should not be able to question the reasonableness of data. EriFr (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:RS "Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles." If you have a reliable source that questions the Krivosheev's numbers, please provide it. With regards to your speculations, I don't think they are correct. The data on Soviet losses physically couldn't come from anywhere else but Soviet archives, because the Germans had no physical opportunity to do any records during that time. The Krivisheev's book is the most detailed and comprehensive studied made using the sole existing primary source, the Soviet de-classified archives. Therefore I see no possible way to obtain more trustworthy data. Note, I don't claim these numbers are the ultimate truth, my point is that no more reliable sources can physically be available. With regards to the German losses, I would treat them with great caution, because, by contrast to the beginning or the middle of WWII, there were no possibility to document all the losses, so many KIA remained unaccounted. That is why a large discrepancy exists between Muller-Hillebrandt and Overmans. Note, the situation was reverse as compared with 1941. I see no reason to question "unreasonable low" Soviet losses because due to the overwhelming numerical, technical and tactical superiority the Soviet Army could afford a luxury to avoid frontal infantry attacks of well fortified positions. German positions were extensively bombarded by artillery before any attack, breakthrough IS-2 tanks were used equally extensivelly, etc. In connection to that, do you agree that American losses during the last battle of Baghdad weren't unreasonably low?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers! I now agree with you, and the research I have made during the last days shows that recent writings confirm Krivosheev figures, and there are no or little questionning around them. No, Wikipedia is not a reliabale source, and I have never really intended to use it as such, I only tried to made a quick calculation to show that 31,000 KIA for the Battle in the city itself and other parts of the operation (excluding the battles mentioned earlier) was not "reasonable", but I retake this idea to the fullest, and I would like to add that according to Sennerteg, it is suggested that Soviet forces lost 20,000 men killed inside Berlin (p. 346, and his source is "Kiederling, p. 38-40"), and this too contradicts the unreasonableness I tried to point out earlier. I do now know the casualty figures for the battle of Baghdad, but I think I have a clue and I get your point! And furhter, there are absolutely no laws of the nature that prevents Soviet casualty figures to be lower than the ones of their Axis counterparts, on the countrary, during the end of 1945, as Hastings writes, the Red Army was a quite formidable fighting machine. 90.230.75.50 (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Seelowe German Errors
I have a book with a hisorical record of the order of battle. I will cite when I get home but the germans did not have more then 500 guns/tanks combined. I will edit this further with citations from the book tonight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.65.154 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Citation details
A problem found on many Wiki pages is the lack on infomation from the citations. In this case it is simply the authors name, page number and in some cases a date. This makes it very hard to track down which peice of work that the evidence is taken from, as many of these authors have several written works on various subjects. An example is 'Hastings, pp.243'... this could refer to any one of the mans works.
Proper citation needs to be encouaged to ensure that the infomation is not only correct, but can be backed up when required, and the original work can be quickly identified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetoto (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
See WP:CITE#Shortened footnotes for an explanation of how this article is footnoted. You will find the full citation in the References section. Putting the full citation in each time increases the size of the page, and makes editing text in paragraphs which carry citations (most of them) more difficult with full citations which tend to break up the visible narrative. --PBS (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The reference titled "They raped every German female from eight to 80" published in the Guardian (used in the Aftermath section) is inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry and thus should be either removed or replaced by more factual-based source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.101.151 (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Who are these people? I found them when looking for films made during the Battle. If you know who they are, you may rename it accordingly.-- OsirisV (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The one in the center looks to be Zhukov. I don't know who's on the right. DMorpheus (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Appointment date of General Weidling
General der Artillerie Helmuth Weidling as we all know was appointed by Hitler as commander of the Berlin Defence (or Defense for us Americans) Area. The problem is the date he was appointed. This article has a conflict as to the date. It States: for April 23th: "On this same day, Hitler appointed General Helmuth Weidling as the commander of the Berlin Defence Area replacing Lieutenant General Reymann."[53]Citing Beevor (2002), p. 286. I checked my copy and it states this. The article later states: "On 26 April German General der Artillerie Helmuth Weidling was appointed commander of the Berlin Defence Area."[62] Dollinger, p. 228. I checked my copy of that book and that cite is correct. Ofcourse, the book is an older source, 1967.
Several other well regarded books state he was appointed on the morning of April 24th. For example: Anton Joachimsthaler's book: "The Last Days of Hitler" states on page 113 that Hitler put him "...in charge of the defence of the eastern and south-eastern sectors..." on the 23th. And the next morning, the 24th, Weidling was made commander of all of Berlin. "Soldiers of the Leibstandarte: SS-Brigadefuhrer Wilhelm Mohnke and 62 Soldiers of Hitler's Elite Division" by Thomas Fischer (2008) states it was April 24th on page 43. "Bloody Streets: The Soviet Assault on Berlin, April 1945" by A. Stephan Hamilton (2008) also states it was April 24th on page 160. A consensus is needed herein.Kierzek (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The wrong Beevor page number is cited (I'll change it). Page 265 Bevoor talks about the events of the day of 21st and continues for several pages, on page 267 he states "Weidling ... moved his headquarters to Doeberitz, just north of Potsdam. This lead to a black comedy two days later, when Hitler first wanted to execute Weidling ... but then appointed him commander of the defence of Berlin." on page 286 "morning 23 April .. rang the Fuehrer bunker [informed] condemned to death ... turned up at the Fuehrer bunker that afternoon. Hitler clearly impressed ... . It was, as Colonel Refior observed, a 'tragi-comedy' typical of the regime".
It could be that the meeting took place on the afternoon of the 23rd but the orders confirming the decision were cut early on the 24th. But that is speculation on my behalf. We can always footnote the discrepancy. I personally would go with Beevor, as his description is so detailed, but if the others are just as detailed then I'm not fussed. But what ever date we choose should note the discrepancy in the sources in a footnote. --PBS (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the page cite fix of my typo. In re-reading the other books that talk about the appointment, they state the morning of the 24th as I said above; however, it fits with your theory, Philip.
Author Hamilton (on page 160) goes into more detail then the other two stating, "At 1100 he received a phone call from Krebs asking him to see him immediately at the Fuhrerbunker. When Weidling arrived, Krebs announced that he made a favorable impression on Hitler the day before and that he was now officially appointed commander of Berlin. Weidling replied, 'I would have preferred your order to shoot me. Then fate would have spared me.'"
We should go with Beevor on the 23rd and I agree, note the discrepancy, as you state. It needs to be done on the Battle in Berlin page and Fuhrerbunker page, as well. Let me know if you want me to do it.Kierzek (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes please. --PBS (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. For: Battle of Berlin, Battle in Berlin and Führerbunker, the cites note: Beevor (p. 286) states the appoinment was 23rd April; Hamilton (p.160) states "officially" it was the next morning of the 24th; Dollinger (p.228) states 26th April for the appointment.Kierzek (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Huh?
"The Red Army made a major effort to feed the residents of the city.[89] In many areas of the city, Soviet troops (often rear echelon units[107]) looted, raped an estimated 100,000 women and murdered civilians for several weeks (see Soviet war crimes).[108] " - Um, does this sound a little weird to anyone? I'm not talking about accuracy (I know both claims are true) but the juxtaposition of these two points is like night and day. This is almost like saying "John liked to work at the homeless shelter. John is a murderer." There's no real flow. How do I explain it? Ugh, I hope someone understands what I'm trying to say... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.146.160.51 (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Civilian casualty range
"The number of civilian casualties is unknown[8], but 125,000 are estimated to have perished during the entire operation.[105]" - This doesn't make any damn sense. Are there other sources that will allow us to cite a probable range? Due to the lack of any reliable records, and since any statistical extrapolation on the editors' part would be counted as original research, it may be useful to list the extreme high end as well as the extreme low end, just as is done with the German military casualties. UPDATE: The 125k figure is from Overmans. Edited the quotation to reflect this and for readability. 96.238.16.143 (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
People's Republic of Poland as belligerent
Apparently somebody hasn't aproved my change made yesterday, when I added Zygmunt Berling as a commander. This person removed Polish Flag from the list of belligerents, as well. I brought it back. Everybody interested, feel free to check the sources for involvement of 1st Polish Army in the Eastern Front. Thank you. User:Zapasiewicz
It is not that the 1st Polish Army was fighting, it is a question of scale. We are not listing individual armies but whole army groups. The 1st Polish army was not an independent command, which could defer decisions to a politically independent government, so to list it separately gives it a weight out of all proportion to its importance. -- PBS (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
There were no other "individual armies" in this campaign of a different origin than Polish. There was no, let's say, Czech or Belarussian Army. Of course it was under Soviet command. I propose adding People's Republic of Poland as part of the "coalition" (under the Soviet flag, after a hyphon) and the same with 1st Polish Army and Zygmunt Berling.
Not having this in the infobox is a misunderstanding. There WAS a Polish army, it DID attack Berlin, and it DID win along with the Red Army. Suppose we have a guy who'd never learned history - he looks at the infobox, and he's convinced that it was only the Red Army that fought. I'm changing it again, this time more accurately. User:Zapasiewicz—Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC).
P.S. I took the liberty of examining all the languages of Wikipedia on this article. According to the statistics:
28 versions out of 36 (78%) feature Soviet Union and Poland as the belligerents, including the Russian, Polish, German versions as well as Simple English and many others
3 versions out of 36 (8,3%) feature only Soviet Union. It's English version before my changes, Hebrew version (which is surprising, I thought Israeli are good at this part of history) and Netherlandy version
4 versions out of 35 (11,1%) don't have an infobox in this article
1 version feature Soviet Union, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria as belligerents on the Soviet side
If you don't believe neither me nor the sources, believe the popular vote. Greetings, User:Zapasiewicz
Refering to "popular vote" as a factor deciding how history should be presented can not be considered serious. As it is today, the commanders of armygroups are those listed under "Commanders". That is the organizing principle, and as the Polish 1st Army does not constitue an army group Stanisław Popławsk should not be listed. If you want commanders of individual armies to be listed, you should also make this change for the entire Soviet army group under Rokossokvsky, as well as the two other Soviet fronts (in total appr. 30 armies) and for the Axis army groups, in order to preserve consistency. That will bring the accuracy you are talking about.
What concerns the Peoples Republic of Poland as billegerent, I agree that it should be listed. Best regards /Erik EriFr (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I see no need to further underline the Polish participation (if you think there is, please explain). The Polish contribution to the attacking forces is mentioned with precise numbers (and accuracy) in the section "Preparations" and there is also a link to an article about the Polish 1st Army under the section "See also". That is enough. /Erik EriFr (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
![[3]](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:Yevgeny_Khaldei.jpg){kind=link}
