Talk:Battle of Berlin/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

I just think it's sad

I'm just a reader, so forgive me for only giving my opinion of the situation rather than an interpretation of the rules, but I think this situation needs it. It is frankly just sad that on a site like Wikipedia, the flag raisings above Stalingrad and Iwo Jima are not being allowed. For a reader such as myself, no other images express so clearly the intensity of what happened. And really, isn't that what you should all be focused on, the reader? If it isn't going to get Wikipedia sued, isn't it ok to relieve yourself of this one stringent rule just a little bit?

I honestly can't make sense of it, but it seems like some people spend a little too much time thinking of written rules rather than the purpose and the mission of the actual site itself.

• The flag raising images over Berlin and Iwo Jima are being allowed, and are in use...in their appropriate places. Our mission isn't just education of the reader. The issue has nothing to do with Wikipedia being sued. In fact, we could be one HECK of a lot more liberal in our use of non-free content, and still not even begin to get close to the point of being sued. Fair use laws apply in spades. The mission you speak of is perhaps not the mission we actually have. See m:Mission, and special attention to the qualifiers on it regarding free content. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Break

For now let's finally source the estimates of soldiers involved. The rest can be done later.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. As above, for numbers we also have Osprey Men-at-Arms, The Polish Army, 1939-45 by Steven J. Zaloga p.27: "the Polish role was fairly substantial, amounting to about 200,000 troops, some ten per cent of the force taking part in Zhukov's and Koniev's drive on Berlin. ... In the last days of fighting, the 1st Kosciuszko Infantry Division was given the honour of sending its troops into the Berlin fighting, where they took part in the skirmishes around the Reichs Chancellery and the Reichstag".

It might be that the c. 150k figure is a calculation for the 1st and 2nd Polish Army groups while omitting Polish Army formations that were allotted to Soviet Army groups. For example, this rather weak source [1] suggests the Polish Army's 6th Independent pontoon engineers battalion was attached to the 2nd Tank Army of 1st Byelorussian Front in Berlin. We should check if this type of Polish Army formation has been omitted from calculations that result in the figure for the bottom end of the range.

In any case, we now have two verifiable English language reliable sources for the top end of the range but there's no proof that the figure has been rounded up from 155,900 or even 195,900 - nor that its been rounded down for that matter.

In the meantime I noticed Baluk is a British-trained Special Operations Executive veteran (as well as a military historian and former war correspondent). I guess that if guilty of anything at all, he has more of a motive to diminish the Soviet-backed Polish People's Army role at Berlin at the expense of the Polish Armed Forces in the West under British High Command. But its probably best for us not to speculate about his bias either way, in my view. Crucially, we've no evidence to suggest Baluk would talk up the numbers. NB he has 391,000 and 200,000 on the same page - it doesn't look like he would round one and not the other.

So to my mind we have two acceptable sources supporting the top end of the range, and that's what I'd reference in the infobox. In the meantime, I'd like us to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the bottom end of the range is not a known falsehood. Was their evidence based on Soviet or Polish sources, or both, or from something else? Is the bottom of the range defined as an inclusive figure for all Polish Army troops at Berlin, or just those in the 1st and 2nd army groups?

For further details on our topic of the Polish Army's role in the battle, a very good new source is Zhukov at the Oder: The Decisive Battle for Berlin (Stackpole Military History Series, 2009) by Tony Le Tissier. It has many entries noting Polish Army involvement, three excerpts follow for us to use or ditch...

p. 114 As the formations released from the East Pomeranian Operation arrived, a considerable amount of redeployment was necessary in and behind the bridgehead to accomodate them all. For instance, General Stanislaw Poplawski's 1st Polish Army had to redeploy between 8 and 13 April from Greifenburg in Pomerania, where it had been mopping up the coastal area... The 1st Polish Army's task in the forthcoming operation was seen as an opposed river crossing near the railway bridge between Alt Rudnitz and Zackerick; but General Poplawski found the river flooded to a width of nearly a kilometer... [So he asked] for room to deploy two of his divisions in the 47th Army's bridgehead, a request later increased to three...

p. 227 General Poplawski ordered his 3rd, 4th and 6th Polish Infantry Divisions, with the bulk of the 1st Polish Army's armor, to pass through Wriezen on 19 April, opening the way for the 2nd Division to cross the Alte Oder at Neu Gaul. [Then] the 1st Polish Army struck out due west, driving the retreating German forces before them. This drive also enabled the Poles to cross the Alte Oder near Alt Ranft

p. 238 The primary objective was set as the Reichstag building... all those surrounding the city, except the 47th Army, would be competing under front supervision. ... The weakness of Zhukov's original plan for the use of his tank armes was to be demonstrated later in the fighting for the city when the 2nd Guards Tank Army literally ran out of supporting infantry. Zhukov had no Soviet infantry reserves left and had to call in the 1st Polish Infantry Division to help out.

This source [2] also has: Meanwhile, the 1st Army was taking part in the Berlin operation. After breaking German defence on the river Oder it launched an offensive towards Berlin and then towards the river Elbe, which was reached in the area of Schoenefeld and Spandau, where an encounter with the troops of the American 9th Army took place. The following units took part in the attack on Berlin, which was happening simultaneously: the 1st Infantry Division, the 2nd Brigade of Howitzer Artillery and the 1st Independent Mortar Brigade. The troops of the 1st Infantry Division fought in the central sector of Berlin's defences, seizing the Technical University, the Tiergarten underground station and the Tiergarten park (the Zoo), entering the rear areas of the Reichstag and the Reich's Chancellery. It was the last offensive, and it ended with the capitulation of the German capital on 2 May.

Additionally, this [3] is indicative and may provide leads though in my initial appraisal it is an unreliable source for our purposes: Regrouped, the 1st and 2nd Polish Armies were to support the Soviet army in the final campaign for Berlin. The 1st Polish Army was sent to the bridgehead at Gozdowice on the River Odra and the 2nd Polish Army was sent to Zgorzelec on the River Nysa. On 14th - 15th Aprl 1945 the 2nd and 3rd Infantry Divisions were relocated and placed at the Soviet bridgehead at Karlsbuse. On 16th April the 1st Infantry Division crossed the Odra at Siekierki after artillery had heavily pounded the German defences in a 'softening up' operation. Also in action was the 6th Infantry Division operating on the right flank. In a flanking operation the Poles met up with Soviet forces in Wriezen forcing a mass German retreat. From 20th to 23rd April the 1st Polish Army pushed towards the Hohenzollern canal, which was defended by SS units who effectively held the line and made the canal crossing hazardous with counter-attacks and breaches in the Polish lines frequent. On 25th April under a heavy artillery barrage Polish units of the 2nd Infantry Division closed gaps in the line and by 27th April units moved further west towards Brandenburg. On 30th April German defences were broken on the Havelländischer Grosser Haupt Kanal and by the 3rd May the 6th Infantry Division had crossed the Havel River towards the Elbe River to link up with the US 9th American Army. Other units had been attached to the main Soviet thrust into Berlin were the 1st Infantry Division, 2nd Howitzer Brigade and the 6th Motorized Pontoon Bridge Battalion alongside the 1st Independent Mortar Brigade. However, on 30th April the 1st Tadeusz Kosciuszko Infantry Division were brought into the street fighting to clear tough pockets of resistance in the Tiergarten and Brandenburg Gate.

Thanks all. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The following piece of trivia extraordinarily interesting though it has limited use, if any, for our article: Yad Vashem notes a Polish Army Battle of Berlin testimony here, from a Jewish vet: [4] Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile [5] a scale model 1st Polish Army Soldier, Berlin 1945 has won the Modell Fan Magazine [6] "Modell des Jahres 2011" title at the Nuremberg Toy Fair in February 2011. Of course that's just popular culture notability, nothing to do with academia. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Finally this [7] is in lousy English but appears to be backed by several public institutions. It has a total for the 1st plus 2nd Polish armies of 180,000 although it doesn't specify if there were or were not also Polish Army troops outside these two formations at Berlin. One of the authors of this info is Andrzej Paczkowski. Here also appears to be a pile of archive pics of the Polish Army in Berlin in 1945. They're owned by the Polish state and apparently free use on condition of non-profit activity (does Wikipedia qualify?). -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Polish forces April 2011

See also Talk:Battle in Berlin#Polish troops

I think that these edits overemphasise the Polish contribution. Further I am not sure how accurate it is.

200,000 men by today's armies sounds like a lot but in comparison to the total number of men in the three Fronts of the Red Army was less than 10% and they did not exercise independent command. To which fronts were the First Polish Army and the Polish Second Army attached?

The article on the First Polish Army says that only 2 Brigades ( 2nd Brigade of Howitzer Artillery and the 1st Independent Mortar Brigade), fought in the Berlin around the Technical University and the south western side of the Tiergarten close to the Zoo.

If so they were not involved in the Battle for the Reichstag and while they may have advanced towards the Brandenburg Gate they could no have spearheaded the advance as there were Soviet forces to the East of their positions in the Tiergarten (Map).

As far as I know the Second Polish Army was not involved in the Battle in Berlin, and its advance on the southern front was towards Prague rather than Berlin.

The changed wording from "By the next day, 30 April, the Soviets had solved their bridging problems and with artillery support at 06:00 they launched an attack on the Reichstag" to "The next day, 30 April, the Soviets received reinforcements from the Polish 1st Tadeusz Kościuszko Infantry Division and Polish engineers prepared 3 crossings over the Spree suitable for Soviet armour. ..." implies that Polish units were involved bridging the Spree by the Reichstag and fought in the Battle for the Reichstag. Given their line of advance it is more likely they were involved in bridging the Landwehr Canal (Landwehrkanal)[8]. -- PBS (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comprehensive response to my edits. They were referenced with verifiable, reliable source, so I would appreciate the gesture if you could restore the in-line citations while we discuss it. Let's see what we can agree on and work toward consensus here. Just so we're on the same page, let's remember this article is about the Berlin Strategic Offensive Operation as well as the battle "in" Berlin. (i) I agree that the 200,000 Polish troops are a small fraction of the total number of troops involved under Soviet High Command, and we can show that. But (ii) to mention them is not to exaggerate them. By the same token we mention Canadian troops and Free French troops in the Normandy Campaign, and rightly so. (iii) If you find the reliable source Baluk's 200,000 figure implausible, please quote another source which appears to contradict that - 200k is what the source states so as you probably know per WP:RS we can't too easily disregard it. Note Russian-language Wikipedia has the number of troops at 1.9 million Soviets and 155,900 Poles while Wikipedia in English, German and Polish has a generic figure of 2.5 million Allies. (iv) Specifically on the battle for the Reichstag, the reliable source does not merely imply but very clearly states that Polish units were involved bridging the Spree by the Reichstag. The Brandenburg Gate is adjacent to the Reichstag and a Google search will show you the Polish flag being hoisted over the gate (I'm looking for a free use copy of the photo for you but I'm no expert on copyright). You say "it is more likely they were involved in bridging the Landwehr Canal" - but that's not what the reliable source says. We have to go with what the sources say, not what we think is more likely. (v) On your query about the two Polish armies, on p.127 Baluk states: "Both of the Polish armies [had] to secure the outer flanks of the Berlin encirclement..." he then states "the 1st Infantry Division carried out the heaviest fighting... in the environs of the Brandenburg Gate" and names 3 other Polish formations in the vicinity. Then finally: "Alongside the Soviet flag, the Polish white-and-red also flew over Berlin" (vi) In short I'd be more than happy for us to somehow indicate that the 200,000 Polish troops were only 8% of the total Allied commitment at Berlin (perhaps by adding the number to the infobox under 2.5 million?), but without evidence of other sources contradicting or balancing Baluk I'm not prepared to eliminate this verifiable source from our article. Thanks again, -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You made a bold edit I have reverted it. Lets see what we can agree on and then we can insert that text. BTW personally I think there is far too much emphasise on "me too" in a lot of Wikipedia WWII articles (so justifying one insertion on another that may not be justified is not necessarily the way to go) -- See for example the conversation at talk:Battle of Waterloo#Commander in Chief.

I think we can clear up a lot of points by starting at a high level and drilling down. So I suggest we start with a simple one. To which Soviet Front(s) were the two Polish armies attached? -- PBS (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In principle I'm with you on the "me too" issue, but in this case 200,000 non-Soviet front line troops (and several non-Soviet national flag raisings) aren't really a 'me too', even if they were only 8% of the total Allied troops at Berlin.

In fact the Soviets themselves went for a "you too" attitude that made the Polish contribution noteable, creating an annual Polish Army Day in the U.S.S.R. and inviting the Polish Army to the Moscow Victory Parade of 1945 as the only non-Soviet contingent welcome.

In any case one needs to be careful about the implications of the "me too" disqualification: for example, total US casualties in WW2 (at about 400,000) were less than 1.5% of Soviet casualties (at 27,000,000). We're not going to call the American WW2 fallen a "me too".

It is to do with command. The RAF had men fighting for it from all over the planet, and the German SS had men from all over Europe, but one does not usually put in all the nationalities who make up a force by their nations. In the case of the Western Allies it was an allied command structure, in the east it was a Soviet command structure. Mentioning the nationality of an individual constituent part of an army is relevant in context. For example the Gurkhas have have been fighting in Afghanistan, but that does not mean that that flag of Nepal should be flown in the battle box of War in Afghanistan. Just how independent the Soviet backed Polish government and its army was is debatable. --PBS (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

On armies and fronts, if you click through from this article to Russian Wikipedia and run a Google translate, you'll see it has an order of battle list (which we could also get round to here) that includes the First and Second Polish Armies under Soviet High Command.

My overriding concern here remains WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. As such, until Baluk is contradicted by another source, he can't be replaced by synthetic observations we come up with ourselves. N.B. Baluk states 200k Poles participated in the Battle of Berlin not the Battle in Berlin. Might this distinction help us achieve consensus?

Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There is/was a discussion on this issue of verifiability and truth on the talk page of verifiability, and in this case it does not apply as I presume that you do not want to put into this article a known falsehood. Which is the reason for this discussion, and why I am asking what Soviet Fronts (Army Groups in Western parlance) the units were attached to, that they were under Soviet High Command is not as pertinent as what we need to know is the direction they were attacking from and which Soviet units they may have been supporting. Roughly speaking

• Rokossovsky's 2nd Belorussian Front was in a race for Denmark with the British and did not take part in the Battle in Berlin,
• Zhukov's 1st Belorussian Front attacked from the east and the North and it was those troops that fought for the Reichstag.
• Konevs's 1st Ukrainian Front – which attacked from the south to the east of the 8th Guard Army.

It seems from the Russian article and their order of battle that the Polish 1st Army was part of Zhukov's 1st Belorussian Front, and the 2nd Polish Army was part of Konevs's 1st Ukrainian Front. So the next question to answer is is the article First Polish Army correct, because if it is then the units of the First Polish Army were south of the Spree not North of it. If south then they could not have been bridging the Spree and if they were on the western flank of 8th Guard's army (which is where the Technical University and the Zoo are) then they would not have to cross the Spree to get to the Reichstag, Brandenburg Gate or the Reich Chancellery as they were on that side of the river.

There are five possibilities: (1) The sources quoted previously are wrong and Polish 1st Army forces were not engaged around the Technical University and the Zoo. (2) Polish forces did attack the TU and the Zoo but they were from the 2nd Army not the 1st Army. (3) Polish 1st Army units were not involved in the bridging of the Spree. (4) Polish 1st Army forces were split into packets and reporting to other Army commands. (5) Polish 1st Army forces were split into packets but still reporting to their army command (for obvious military reasons this is the least likely). Any ideas? -- PBS (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally I can't see that there are any "known falsehoods" in the proposed additions. Moreover the proposed additions didn't specify whether the Polish formations in central Berlin were from the 2nd Army or the 1st Army; is this really relevant? If the intention is to cross-reference with other sources to ascertain Baluk's accuracy, then great. But I'm normally very wary of embarking on speculative original research such as.... which formation was at the time from which army group or who might have been seconded to which army or possibly reporting to which commander! Urban warfare is S.N.A.F.U., period, so I'm not sure it is for us to impose our interpretation of how organized it was. I say give Baluk the benefit of the doubt and stay vigilant for sources that may contradict him.

Urban warfare on the scale were are talking about (army level) is not that chaotic. That there were Polish troops in Berlin is not open to question. How notable their contribution is open to question. I also think that it is likely that there is some questions to be asked, to make sure that what the source says is being accurately portrayed. The talk pages are here to discuss the text. No one is suggesting putting anything into the article that is speculative original research, but equally the Polish efforts in the artile should not be over emphasised. Also it is highly likely that there were units from other nationalities involved in the general offensive (not just Soviets and Polish units). -- PBS (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it appears to be uncontroversial that there were two Polish armies involved in the Battle of Berlin, totalling up to 200,000 troops, and that several Polish units fought in central Berlin - from bridging (3 pontoons) to artillery support to close combat around the TU and the Brandenburg Gate where the Polish flag was raised (as well as elsewhere). The Polish 1st Infantry Division had a key tactical role and the importance of its contribution was recognised at the Moscow Victory Parade. That much is enough uncontroversial information for this article IMHO. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If the Polish troops were fighting around the TU then they could not have fought through to the Brandenburg Gate because they were on the left flank (to the west) of the 8th guards Army and the Brandenburg Gate was to the east of the 8th Guards Army. If they had advanced through the Tiergarten to the Brandenburg Gate to plant their flag on the Gate once captured, then they would not have crossed the Spree to get there. That some Polish units somewhere bridged the Spree is quite possible, but where they bridged the Spree is the question. This leads to other questions. Is the bridging team notable other than it being Polish? Were there lots of Soviet teams doing the same job? Is it clear that it was Polish bridging teams bridging the Spree in the vicinity of the Reichstage. To go through the edit point by point additions in italics:

• "the Soviets and Poles managed to encircle the city a" -- Implies some sort of equivalence and also it makes the assumption that Polish troops were involved in the investment not just the general advance.

• This was fixed in Molobo's version. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• "the Soviets and Poles were rapidly advancing through the city" again implies some sort of equivalence and that the Poles who advanced rapidly.

• I disagree. I see no implied equivalence, the use of and logical operator is simply there to indicate that there were different subtypes of forces. One might as well complain that in the WWII article (a GA), in the lead, there are sentences like "with the invasion of Poland by Germany and Slovakia" (does it imply equivalence?), for example. There is no reason to assume that one faction was advancing more or less rapidly. The allied (Soviet and Polish) forces were in the city and were advancing. If there is a problem with that sentence, it is that it has no reference that anybody is advancing rapidly, however, if one is removing an unreferenced fact, we would need to remove this entire sentence - or rather, this entire paragraph (this article is in a pretty bad shape, inline reference-wise). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• "If there is a problem with that sentence, it is that it has no reference that anybody is advancing rapidly" It is in the lead and it is a summary of several well cited paragraphs in the body of the article. -- PBS (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  Which doesn't change the fact that the sentence is unreferenced. If you can, please reference it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• "The Soviet-led advance on Berlin included..." not all the troops involved in the offensive went to Berlin most went to other parts of East Germany and Czechoslovakia. Also why detail Only the Polish armies and not all the other forces down to army level?

• Right. But first, the sentence does not imply that all of those troops went into Berlin, and it is relevant just as the preceding sentence that apparently you have no trouble with, that "On the three fronts, the Soviets commanded 2.5 million men...". Surely, not all three fronts and their 2.5 million troops went to Berlin. Anyway, this sentence is referenced. As a courtesy, we can ask the author to provide us with the original quote(s) used in it to verify, but per WP:V, this sentence should stay (unlike most other content in this article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• The words "advance on Berlin" does imply all the troops went to Berlin. "The three Soviet Fronts had altogether" is sourced "Ziemke p.71 But this information is available in many books including Beevor. -- PBS (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  The wording can be changed, but are you saying that your sources confirm that 2.5 million of Soviets went to Berlin? Please provide a direct quote here, because the link you give above doesn't work for me. Thanks you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  The text does not claim that 2.5M went to Berlin, it says there were 2.5 on all three fronts. It was the new recently introduced paragraph that said "The Soviet-led advance on Berlin included..." for the Polish forces and few of those went to Berlin. -- PBS (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Almost one million Red Army and Polish troops" implies some sort of equivalence and did Polish troops take part in the assault on the Seelow Heights? Or were they held in reserve for later on in the battle?

• This sentence is referenced, so it should stay. Again, "and" does not imply equivalence. I'd support expanding this to see a breakdown of one million into Soviet and Polish troops, and to answer your question about the Seelow Heights. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• "The next day, 30 April, the Soviets received reinforcements from the Polish 1st Tadeusz Kościuszko Infantry Division and Polish engineers prepared 3 crossings over the Spree suitable for Soviet armour." This paragraph is specifically talking about the attack on the Reichstag. Does the Stefan Baluk specifically talk about the Polish teams bridging the Spree next to the Moltke bridge? Does he specifically claim that the Soviet forces which were to assault the Reichstage were reinforced by Polish forces? Or were Polish units just engaged somewhere in Berlin (eg at the TU)? I think a translated quote here on the talk page from his book would help clear that up.

• While I support the expansion, I see no reason for removal of this well-referenced content. At best, we may split it into its own paragraph. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You say well referenced, does this mean you have read the book? If so can you answer my specific questions, because if you can not how can you be sure that Stefan Baluk comments are not being taken out of context. Which is why I asked for a translated quote here on the talk page from his book. BTW are you familiar with the geography of this part of Berlin, because if you were you would understand why I am asking the questions I am. --PBS (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

--PBS (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I support asking for a quote, but till then, per AGF, I believe the source is used properly. Just like per AGF I believe that the content of this article in general, mostly unreferenced, and thus much more problematic and subject to immediate removal per WP:V, is correct. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't base Wikipedia on personal theories. Do you have sources contradicting the involvement of Polish troops in the battle ? Remember that Wikipedia does not allow Original Research nor is it a discussion forum.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal theories and doubts, unless supported by sources directly contradicting verifiable sources and information should not be the reason for deletion of sourced information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

MyMolo, no consensus has been reached yet in this discussion and there is no reason to jump the gun on additions till then. I, like PBS have concerns with WP:UNDUE and the burden is on those who want to add; not the other way around. Chumchum7, you have put forth some good points and the matter should be concluded soon enough. Kierzek (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on what? We have reliable sources that show contribution of Polish troops. Wikipedia is based on sources, not personal hunches and theories of users. No sources have been presented that contradict the existence of Polish troops during the battle.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. This was a relatively small expansion, and most of it was well referenced. I see no reason why it was removed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There is lot of useful material in the old Talk:Battle_of_Berlin/Archive_2#Polish_participation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As hat-noted at the start of this section. -- PBS (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you linked a related discussion in a different article. A simple mistake, I am sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree the Polish assistance to the Soviet effort was overemphasized in the recent edits. If the Poles were allowed their own direction that would have been something quite different, but they were led by Soviets, and they conformed to the Soviet plan. If the Poles are picked out for special consideration, why not pick out Georgian, Kazakh, Moldovian, etc. units? Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Because Polish units were not part of the Soviet Army, it is as simple as that. They were a separate allied force, subordinate to the Soviet High Command. Mentioning Polish forces is as relevant here as mentioning them on the Western front, where we also tend to separate British, French, Canadian, Australian, American and so on forces. Nobody is suggesting that the article should portray some kind of equivalence, but information on which Polish troops fought were is relevant, even if only on a tactical scale, just like information which division/brigade/other unit of the Soviet Army fought which German unit, when and where, should be present. Of course, excessive detail may need to go to a subarticle or two. (Also, correct me if I am wrong, but Soviet Army had mixed units, not "Georgian", "Kazakh" or "Moldovan"; but of there was a "7th Georgian Guards Division" or such, it of course should be mentioned, if it took parts in the fight, in the relevant sentence(s)). What I am seeing here, however, is not any criticism that the level of information on Polish participation is too detailed (you cannot really claim that, considering just a few sentences were added), but some weird attempt to remove all references to Polish participation. PS. I've finally requested a copy of Poles in the Battle of Berlin by Stanislaw Komornicki and Piotr Borowy, something I promised I'd do years ago :) I should be able to expand the article based on it in a few days. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 1:57 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Poland wasn't part of the Soviet Union like Georgia or Kazakhstan republics were. It was a seperate Allied state, hence the distinction between Polish units belonging to seperate state and Soviet units that belonged to another Allied state.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Kierzek, Mymolo and Piotr for chiming in with helpful contributions. (i) I've since run a Google translate over the Polish version of this article and indeed it gives the impression that Polish formations were broken down into packets and were all over the place. Please all see for yourselves. It makes this original thought about possible contradictions we might be able to identify between Baluk and other sources even more questionable. I'm not sure why we're having to jump through these hoops in the first place, but I am trying to oblige. (ii) Its not true that a mention of one country's national armed forces alongside another implies the two are of equal import. That would be logically absurd. When we refer to the British and Americans invading Iraq in 2003, nobody presumes we're trying to claim they were two equal halves of an invading force. Everybody knows they were not, and the same would be true of the Soviets and Poles at the Battle of Berlin - especially if we have 200,000 Poles under 2.5 million Soviets in the infobox (in fact, this would be a case of an infobox doing what it can do best: indicating proportion). (iii) On notability, I'm certain that Soviet/Russian sources, and Soviet/Russian popular culture items, show the Polish Army contribution to the Battle of Berlin is notable. I've already pointed to e.g. the Moscow Victory Parade as well as Russian Wikipedia to this effect, and there Zhukov is shown using the notable Poish 1st Infantry Division for a flank attack. In terms of popular notability, take a look at this 1971 Soviet (Mosfilm) war movie about the Battle of Berlin (which had living Berlin vets as consultants), it repeatedly mentions the Polish Army and includes several scenes with Poles in Polish uniform (wood brown overcoats, square caps with white eagles) speaking Polish e.g. from 7:33 here [9] from 0:01 here [10] and 3:40 here [11] . These are not reliable sources for content purposes but are an indication of popular noteablity. As it happens in Britain memorabilia buffs collect medals awarded to Polish Army vets of the Battle of Berlin: [12] . (iv) Polish Army formations serving under Soviet High Command were Polish Army formations, not Soviet formations. Canadian Army formations taking orders from non-Canadian High Command in WW2 were Canadian formations. The Nepalese troops known as the Gurkhas are a formation of the British Army, not the Nepalese Army. Non-British pilots in the RAF were RAF airmen, until they left the RAF. The Polish Army troops at Berlin had Polish uniforms and Polish flags and were addressed by Soviet High Command as non-Soviet troops (which is why there is a Polish flag in its infobox, prompting content about the Polish contribution). The Polish Communist regime and its army was under heavy Soviet influence and only semi-independent from Moscow, but convention has it that these are distinct entities for the purposes of categorization. There were many Russian commanders of the Polish Peoples Army but if the next argument is that we really ought to be identifying it as a sham national force, then that is a much broader-reaching thesis that goes much further than the specifics of the Battle of Berlin. It would require the deletion of the Polish flag from the infobox and for us to redraw Wikipedia's maps that indicate Poland was a unitary state separate from the USSR. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Nearly all the action with the exception of the assault on the Reichstag is described at Army level on the Soviet side. The more recent modified version still included information about Polish contributions at sub army level. For example why the paragraph on the commanders of the Polish armies and the number of tanks and guns that they had, while we do not list the other armies in that detail? It still claims that the Polish army was in involved in the battle for the Seelow Heights. The questions about the Polish contribution to the Battle of the Reichstag have not been addressed. From where did "the Poles advanced on the Brandenburg Gate" and on what date did they do this? As I said a translated quote from the source would be helpful. -- PBS (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Chumchum7-there is also a monument to Polish soldiers who died during the battle in Berlin located in Volkspark Friedrichshain . I think it's worthy of inclusion.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

PBS, please note the Baluk quotes I have posted if you didn't see them already. I can transcribe more but not sure whether it is the right thing to do: would someone go and transcribe Beevor for me, just because I think his omissions are negligent? By the way Baluk is in English as referenced - and please note, I can't translate Polish as I don't know it beyond recognising it like Russian, French or German. Because of how this discussion is going I worry that when I do get round to transcribing more of Baluk, the result of my effort will be a new line of objection. In fact I've lost track of the objections because as far as I can comprehend they keep shifting or developing. Is it (i) not high enough percentage of Polish troops to merit inclusion (ii) not big enough number of Polish troops to merit inclusion (iii) not notable enough Polish troops to merit inclusion (iv) no strategic Polish command, therefore not worth mentioning Polish troops (v) not enough clarity about precisely where which Polish formation was at what time to merit inclusion of Polish troops (vi) not independent enough Polish troops to merit inclusion (vii) too likely to imply that the Polish involvement matched the Soviet involvement to merit inclusion (viii) all of the above? Really, the more we discuss it the more the objection seems to adapt. I can't see that this is the best way of working toward consensus - it feels a lot more like dealing with an entrenched position. Is the concern that you're quite happy with the article as it is and wouldn't want it to be spoiled? -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not know that the Book was in English. To date the wording that you have provided is:

Both of the Polish armies [had] to secure the outer flanks of the Berlin encirclement... the 1st Infantry Division carried out the heaviest fighting... in the environs of the Brandenburg Gate ... [names 3 other Polish formations in the vicinity] ... Alongside the Soviet flag, the Polish white-and-red also flew over Berlin

The piece of text I think we need quoted is that part that supports the wording that supports the following:

The initial assaults on buildings, including the Ministry of the Interior, were hampered by the lack of supporting artillery. It was not until the damaged bridges were repaired that artillery could be moved up in support. ...

The next day, 30 April, the Soviets received reinforcements from the Polish 1st Tadeusz Kościuszko Infantry Division and Polish engineers prepared 3 crossings over the Spree suitable for Soviet armour (Baluk, Stefan: "Poland at Arms 1939-1945", Polonia Publishers, Warsaw 1990 p. 127). With artillery support, at 06:00 the Soviets launched an attack on the Reichstag, while the Poles advanced on the Brandenburg Gate.

Because this is saying that the Polish forces reinforced specific units specifically those attacking the Reichstag.

There is also the question of the 8th Guards Army, If Polish units were engaged around the TU and no where else then they could not have advanced through the Tiergarten without advancing through the 8th Guard Army.

I did a Google search on [Polish Berlin Capture 1945] and it throws up a number of relevant sources. The first is Berlin 1945: end of the Thousand Year Reich by Peter Antill, Peter Dennis, page 79 which goes into some detail:

The 2nd Guards Tank Army, having been reinforced by the 1st Polish Infantry Division cleared the barricades on Kaiser-Friedrich-Strasse and took the church near Karl-August-Platz. It found it difficult to advance along the Landwehr Canal however, due to intense defensive fire, which, given the close-quarters nature of the terrain, made even JS-2 tanks vulnerable.

Here is a Google map of the points mentioned in that piece (in Charlottenburg west of the Tiergarten). This map (from page 93 of cited Ziemke book) shows the line of advance of the 2nd Guards Tank Army before they arrived in Charlottenburg. They were north of the Spree so it is quite possible that Polish engineers bridged the Spree but if so it was well to the west of the Tiergarten and about 6km west of the Reichstag.

Race for the Reichstag: the 1945 Battle for Berlin by Tony Le Tissier page 195

In their brief appearance within the city the 1st Polish Infantry Division and the accompanying 1st Polish Field Artillery Regiment lost 88 killed and 441 wounded

Another book Berlin 1945: The Final Reckoning by Karl Bahm on page 129 describes an notable event in the lead up to the Battle of Halbe in which the 2nd Polish army was involved. That book also has a number of other mentions to Polish action in the battle including a precise count the number of men in the Operation and the planned line of attack for the first Polish army and their destination (to the Elbe).

-- PBS (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is also the question of the 8th Guards Army, If Polish units were engaged around the TU and no where else then they could not have advanced through the Tiergarten without advancing through the 8th Guard Army. Source please. Or are you engaging in Original Research and Synthesis?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Chumchum7 you queried, "If you find the reliable source Baluk's 200,000 figure implausible, please quote another source which appears to contradict that..." Per Glantz (a recognized authority on the Eastfront) in his book: "When Titans Clashed" page 261; The Soviet forces numbered: 2.5 million men-2,062,100 Combat troops, including 155,900 Poles. So Baluk may be guilty of rounding up the Pole numbers which would then be less then 10% of the total Soviet forces for the April 1945 operations. However, Glantz number is higher then Ziemke's cited number for Poles of 78,556 on page 71 (Ziemke's book is an older source). Also, gentlemen, a reminder that English Wikipedia encourages and prefers English sources for verifiability reasons (if they have been translated that is okay). Kierzek (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Math correction: 1% of 2,000,000 is 20,000. 200,000 is 10% of 2,000,000, which is what Chumchum already said.

Statement correction: The source which is being given is in fact in English.

Policy correction: While En-wiki prefers English sources it absolutely does not require them. Non-English sources, provided they are reliable, are perfectly fine to use, whether or not they have been professionally translated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Note-No one said it was required. Kierzek (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well then, the correct solution is to show how sources vary ("Polish forces numbered x according to A and z according to B), not removal of their mention entirely. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Baluk is an English source, I referenced it with an English title. And yes, that's what we'd call a 'range', 155,900-200,000 Polish Army troops. On that note, Russian Wikipedia has 1.9 M Soviet troops, while there are 2.5 M here. Perhaps that's also a range? -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have provided another source below for 155,900, I think the 200,000 is a rounding number. The two Soviet numbers are explained in Glantz by about 2M combat troops and 2.5M including RMFs (rear echelon units), Karl Bahm gives the same soviet numbers. -- PBS (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both Kierzek and PBS for providing more sources. Additionally, we have p.238 of Tony Le Tissier's Zhukov at the Oder: The Decisive Battle for Berlin (Stackpole Military History Series)(August 1, 2009) showing Zhukov's mistake in getting his tanks stuck in central Berlin without infantry support, and having to call in the Polish 1st Infantry. I don't have time to transcribe that now but you should be able to see that on an Amazon preview. It appears you've both jumped to conclusions that Baluk is a non-English source, and also that I'm a Polish speaker capable of translating from Polish. This helps me to understand the range of objections to my addition of pretty minor content on Polish Army troops. If, as it seems, at least part of the objection to my additions was based on some kind of presumed national agenda on my part then I sympathise with you because I know Wikipedia is full of nationalist POV pushers and other fruitcakes. But on this occasion you've got the wrong guy. I happen to be interested in Polish history but I'm not Polish, and I use English sources. It is sometimes forgotten at Wikipedia that addition of 'secondary nation' content is not always by people from 'secondary nations' with some obscure, self-affirming objective.

Moving forward, I like the dictum 'no beginning is too small'. Pending further transcription, let's begin with what we actually agree on. To start, we have a range for Polish Army troops and I propose to put that in the infobox.-Chumchum7 (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Use the 155K and footnote the range. -- PBS (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you did cite the polish Wiki article and it was unclear above as to if your source was english or polish; that is why I put in the caveat; I don't care what nationality anyone is but only care about the history being presented it in an objective, accurate way without any undue weight and POV pushing. With that said, I would vote for the info. box with the range info. you and I have stated, Chumchum7. Kierzek (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The infobox should list, separately, Polish and Soviet strength, casualties, and list the Polish commander (possibly with a footnote stating he was of much lower rank, presumably, then the Soviet commanders). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No Polish commanders because they are too junior -- Keep it at Front level. -- PBS (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Polish commanders because they represent an additonal allied state involved in the Battle.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with PBS, they should not be added in the info. box but in the article (briefly & linked) where they are discussed. Kierzek (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Karl Bahm quotes the same number 155,900 Poles on page page 64 and 2.06 Soviet troops. -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

East view from the Victory Column down Charlottenburger Chaussee to the Brandenburg Gate

MyMoloboaccount, the only wording we have for the proximity to the quote "in the environs of the Brandenburg Gate" which does not explain where precisely they were and given the other sources that mention a specific line of advance, needs another source. The Tiergarten is roughly the size of Hyde Park in London or Central Park in NY, so it is on a typical day a half hour stroll from the Technical University to the Brandenburg Gate down the Strasse des 17 Juni passed the Victory Column. The Strasse des 17 Juni then known as Charlottenburger Chaussee was the demarcation line between the and the 2rd Shock Army (north) and the 8th Guards Army (south) (see Map). The reason for this demarcation line was to stop fratricide and is standard military practice. It is inconceivable that units of another friendly army would have been able to precede into that area before the cessation, of hostilities. Indeed the 3rd Guards Tank Army had to alter their line of attack for that very reason. Please see The road to Berlin:continuing the history of Stalin's war with Germany by John Erickson page 606 and Zhukov at the Oder: the decisive battle for Berlin by Tony Le Tissier page 253.

Two sources I have found state: "Polish soldiers rounded off their valant battle trail from Lenino to Berlin with the flying of their country's flags on the Brandenburg Gate and the Victory Column" (Polish perspectives Volume 22, Issues 7-12 Polski Instytut Spraw Międzynarodowych - 1979 page 14) and "The Poles were also the first to capture (on May 8, 1945) the Siegessaule, or the Victory Column" (The murderers of Katyń Vladimir Abarinov page 396) -- Note that the 8th of May is several days after the capitulation! and the former simply says flew their flag not that they captured the two monuments. This is backed up by Race for the Reichstag: the 1945 Battle for Berlin by Tony Le Tissier p. 194

The first Polish Division also pulled out Berlin at noon on the 2nd of May to rejoin their parent formation at Nauen, but not before Polish soldiers had the opportunity to hosit there national red and white national flags over the Siegessäule (Victory Column) and the Brandenburg Gate

This implies that they did not visit either monument until just after the German capitulation.-- PBS (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Kierzek, for the record, you'll see I was first referring to Russian Wikipedia; and on both Russian and Polish Wikipedias, I was running Google translate. Equally, I don't care what nationality anyone is but only care about the history being presented it in an objective, accurate way without any undue weight and POV pushing. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ranges in the infobox will probably stand the test of squabble-free consensus longer if we don't go selecting which end of the range to use. As such the range should be inclusive and without footnote. The 2.5 M figure for the Soviets appears to be the upper end of the range, with 2.06M and 1.9M also being quoted. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This implies that they did not visit either monument until just after the German capitulation. Maybe, maybe not. Unless you have sources, this is just your personal claim. We don't use personal doubts as source on wiki. Unless any serious objections backed by Wiki rules are presented, I am restoring sourced information about Polish patricipation in the battle. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Until agreement is reached it will be reverted, MyMobo. Kierzek (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm also a bit puzzled by this personal thought in the discussion. What an editor thinks something implies is by definition, personal thought. I'm repeating myself now, but it is only for verifiable sources and not for us to attempt to reconstruct how organized the battle was. Even that fundamental aspect of Wikipedia aside, see Laurence Rees World War II Behind Closed Doors (2009) p.360, stating that Berlin was a mess: "Within the chaos of the battle, the rivalry between Zhukov and Konev was intense... soldiers didn't know who was where... This was on the borders between the fronts, and a lot of people died only because of the rivalry between the two fronts." Rees presents witness testimony of a Soviet officer questioning front line troops about which front they were serving under - one answered the Ukrainian, the other answered the Belorussian. These soldiers were side by side. May I humbly request we please depart from this notion we're personally going to establish where all the pieces were on the board through process of our own deduction, and stick to what the sources say instead? -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Until agreement is reached it will be reverted, MyMobo. Agreement on what exactly? I see nothing really discussed besides personal theories that are of no importance to the article? And reverted based on what policies? What sources? Nothing besides original research and personal opinions has been provided. No sources have been contradicted or shown as false.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion. For one, Baluk's 200,000 figure is not correct as it is a rounding up. After the second source that has been found showing that, it should probably be a footnote. BUT, if consensus is hereafter otherwise, then so be it. Until agreement on what should be included and how it will be written is what I meant. Kierzek (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In few days (~next week) I should have Komornicki and Borowy book, hopefully it will provide more information on Polish participation. (I still don't understand why few sentences caused so much controversy, but I hope this book will allow to add many more - and hopefully, without any reverting). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record: Europe at war: 1939-1945 : no simple victory

Norman Davies - 2006 page 129 On the 30th, Field Marshal Keitel reported from beyond Berlin that no further rescue was possible. Soviet soldiers were climbing onto the Reichstag, and Polish soldiers had clambered onto the Brandenburg Gate.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I've read were three Polish flag raisings, including one at the Brandenburg Gate. Another, shown here [13] was on the Berlin Victory Column and we might be able to establish fair use for the photo of it. My Google translate is too rough for me to comprehend these Polish newspaper sources [14] and [15] but they might be put to good use by an editor who can read Polish. -Chumchum7 (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The story of flags over Berlin is very obscure. For instance, despite many efforts to figure out that I am still unable to tell who was a first person who raised the red banner over Reichstag: despite numerous publications, this question is still has not clear ansver. Different memoirs tell different stories, all of them look trustworthy, and all contradict to each other. The sources you refer to are de facto memoirs, and, even if we leave the question of validity of the facts presented there beyond the scope, the question is still open when the Polish flags had been raised there: during the battle of after that. These articles you refer to give no answer on this question.

BTW, to demonstrate how dangerous is to rely on memoirs let me reproduce one quote form this article:

"Rosjanie swoich też nie oszczędzali. Ludzi miało dosyć. Ich żołnierz krzyczał "za Stalina" i padał, a za nim szli następni. Do tyłu iść się nie dało. Na tyłach frontu zawsze był ktoś, kto w takich sytuacjach strzelał do swoich."

Obviously, this quote means barrier troops ("kto w takich sytuacjach strzelał do swoich"), however, it is well known, that these troops had not been used since late 1942 (see Catherine Merridale. Ivan's War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945. Page 158. Macmillan, 2006.), so, obviously, this source just reproduces some common myth.

By writing that I do not imply that Polish troop did not participate in capturing of some key points in Berlin, and that the Polish flags didn't deserve to stream over Berlin. I just mean that you should find better sources that tell more clearly about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The hanging of the flag is right now of secondary importance to me. In any case in situation where you have different accounts you probably should give different attributions. What worries me is deletion of sourced information regarding participation in combat of second Allied state forces in the battle without any reason but personal pet theories of an editors.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is quite necessary to tell about the Polish troops when this story is relevant. For instance, the role of Polish engineers in solving the bridge problem should be explained. However, we must remember that this battle was not the joint operation of Soviet and Polish troops, but the operation conducted by almost two million strong Red Army reinforced with ca 150-200,000 Polish troops, and such wording as "Starting on 16 January 1945, Red Army and Polish troops breached the German front", " Within the next days, the Soviets and Poles were rapidly advancing through the city and were reaching the city centre", "almost one million Red Army and Polish troops with more than 20,000 tanks and artillery pieces" should be avoided, because that would create a false impression of parity between the Poles and the Soviets. With regard to the rest, I fully agree.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, nobody here I hope wants to deny that this was a Soviet fight and victory. But at the same time, presence of second Allied state during the battle is notable, and authors on the battle do mention some specific contribution of Polish troops. For me right now the sourcing of numbers as well as listing the units involved is important. We can add places where they fought without disputed details. This would take three to four sentences at most. I agree that the text shouldn't make any claims that would make parity with the Soviet troops."The Soviets and Poles were rapidly advancing through the city" is definitely too much.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In my post in the next section I suggested to devote a separate section to the role of the Polish troops. Another option would be to create the Order of battle section, and to list Polish units there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I second Mymo's comment that there have been some authorial tendencies in this discussion, (i) too casually throwing out a verifiable source and (ii) assuming that we ourselves even have the right to deduce positioning on the battlefield or independently allege what is erroneously implied, inaccurate or a mistake by the verifiable sources (NB my Laurence Rees quote on Berlin's chaos, inserted above). At the same time, I truly sympathise with knee-jerk reactions to presumed POV pushing, but overreacting to the point of departure from the ethos of Wikipedia would be an unfortunate consequence. Perhaps we can all agree that pushing POV is bad, and that assuming the pushing of POV is bad, and try to get back together with a bit of progress on content.

My proposed first small step of adding the ca 150-200,000 Polish Army troops to the infobox is not only to achieve something we all agree on, but exactly to make it clear there is no numerical parity between Soviet and Polish troops. After that, references to both national forces in the body text will be safe, just as in the plethora of other military history articles we have that include multiple national forces fighting on the same side. Piotr compared the German/Slovak invasion of Poland, I compared the British/American invasion of Iraq. This article would be no different in that regard. I can agree with PBS that no Polish commanders are necessary in the infobox, but maintain that the full troop ranges must be prominent, without footnote.

Why must a range be prominent? Why put 150-200,000 when we have a more precise figure of 155,900 (and 155,900-200,000 just looks odd). It seems to me better to us the more precise figure used in two sources, and footnote the other less precise number. -- PBS (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Some other sources give 180.000. If we give range between 155-200 thousand it will be ok.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Which other sources? -- PBS (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Osprey Men-at-Arms, The Polish Army, 1939-45 by Steven J. Zaloga p.27: "the Polish role was fairly substantial, amounting to about 200,000 troops, some ten per cent of the force taking part in Zhukov's and Koniev's drive on Berlin". -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mymo that the flag raisings are a curiosity at most, not least because flag raisings are normally propaganda events. They are of illustrative or trivia value, but there's no need to get distracted by them.

Similarly, the 3 pontoon bridges the Polish Army established over the Spree near the Reichstag may well prove to be a sideshow, especially if we can establish there were say 50 other pontoons set up by Soviet troops.

It appears we've established that many sources note the strategic deployment of the Polish Army at the Battle of Berlin, and stress the tactical deployment of the Polish 1st Infantry in particular at the Battle in Berlin (that linked article needs to be improved accordingly). Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This article as it is an overview for at least 3 other battle articles (with more needed in this article on the battle outside the city by the armies not involved in the investment of the City of Berlin). The investment is described at Soviet Front level, so there is no need to describe individual Army movements and putting the Polish Armies support into that seems to me unnecessary.

Within the city the details about Soviet advances in this article are at army level with the exception of the fighting to capture the Reichstag. Not all the Soviet armies are mentioned because of limits on the size of the article with dozens of Armies involved this is inevitable). For example the 2nd Guards Tank Army to which the Polish division was attached in not mentioned in the article. It seems odd to me to mention the Polish contribution without a mention of the parent Army to which they were attached, and is the taking of Charlottenburg notable enough in the history of the storming of Berlin to need a mention in this overview article? If Charlotenburg why not other suburbs taken by other armies not involved in the assault on the centre?

As I requested above a longer quote from Baluk is needed if it is to be used as a source to say that the Polish forces were involved in supporting the attack on the Reichstag, as a number of other sources have been presented that Polish forces were involved in fighting in Charlottenburg west of the Tiergarten. The bridging of the Spree by the Poles for the tanks of the 2nd Guards Tank Army is far more likely (as we know that elements of the Polish division was attached to that Army) than the bridging of the Spree close to the Reichstag for the 3rd Shock Army. As you seemed to be unaware that the Polish contribution was predominately in support of the 2nd Guards Tank Army I think you may have jumped to the conclusion that the Poles were also supporting the 3rd Shock Army, and I would like to see a longer quote from Baluk to see if what he wrote clearly supports that interpretation. -- PBS (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, I have the impression from Rees and others that the battlefield was pretty chaotic and that the Polish Army was broken up into packets on both fronts. I think I said I was going to get round to more from Baluk p.127-9, and here goes:

the Polish Armed Forces... numbered 391 thousand officers and men: the first line forces being comprised of two armies, an armoured corps, an air force corps, an artillery division, three anti-aircraft artillery squadrons and a number of independent units subordinated to the Commander-in-Chief, all in all some 200 thousand soldiers, 3000 artillery pieces and mortars, 500 tanks and 320 aircraft. In this combat strength the Polish Army performed in the last battle against the Nazi army - the Soviet Berlin Operation. Both of the Polish armies, even though they operated within the different fronts, had similar tasks to fulfil: to secure the outer flanks of the Berlin encirclement. Operating in the first group of the 1st Belorussian front, the 1st Army was assigned the task of assault-crossing the Odra River in the Siekierki area, break through the enemy defences between the Odra and Nysa Rivers in the direction of Klosterfelde, Friesack, Arnenburg and to cut off together with the 61st Soviet Army on the right flank of the Front the Pomeranian-Baltic German group from Berlin and thus provide conditions for the push of the bulk of the Soviet forces striking directly at Berlin. On April 16th, the 1st Army forced the Odra near Gozdowica. After heavy fighting in the fortified terrain of the Delta, on April 18th the Poles reached the eastern bank of the Old Odra and following a flanking operation in the area of Wriezen they made it across the Old Odra. In the night of April 19th/20th, the 1st Army started the pursuit of the retreating enemy: on April 23rd the 1st Infantry Division forced the Hohenzollern Canal near Oranienburg, with the remainder of the forces getting hold of the area up to the Flatow Nauen line. Between April 25 and 27, heavy battles were waged against Gen. Steiner's group attempting to break through to relieve the besieged Berlin. The German group was completely smashed. ... Detailed Polish detachments in the company of the Soviet units took part in the direct storming of Berlin. They were: the 2nd Howitzer Brigade, the 6th Motorized Pontoon Brigade Battalion and a Mortar Brigade, as well as the 1st Kosciuszko Infantry Division brought over from the front line on April 30. Polish engineers prepared 3 crossings of the river Spree for the Soviet armoured troops. Regiments of the Mortar Brigade detailed to the Soviet Divisions fought for Spandau and Potsdam. From April 27 to 30 Polish howitzers supported the Soviet attack on the Tiergarten. The regiments of the 1st Infantry Division were detailed to the Soviet armoured groups charging in the direction of Tiergarten. Soldiers of the 1st Infantry Division carried out the heaviest fighting on the Technical University Campus and in the environs of the Brandenburg Gate. On May 2nd, Berlin surrendered. During the fighting in the city the 1st Infantry Division captured 56 blocks, 7 industrial complexes, 4 subway stations and the Technical University Compound, much weaponry, including 24 tanks and self-propelled guns, 28 pieces of artillery, hundreds of trucks, fuel and ammo depots tec. Captured were some 2500 German soldiers. Alongside the Soviet flag, the Polish white-and-red also flew over Berlin.

Then page 131 continues at length about the 2nd Polish Army of the 1st Ukrainian front and its advance from Mloty on the Nysa to the Weisser crossing, the Spree crossing then on to Bautzen, Dresden and Prague. Baluk concludes: In the Berlin Opration the two Polish armies accounted for 13% of all operational units of the 1st Byelorussian Front and the 1st Ukrainian Front, holding 17% of the total area of operations of both of these Soviet Fronts. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's get the info box done. We need to change the number of Poles in the last paragraph of the section: "Preparations", as well. It further reading, Hamilton makes special note of the Poles as of 30 April, 1 May and 2 May on pp: 312 and 313. At the end of April, the 1st Polish ID. advanced in the Schonhauser Alle U-Baun where the Russians were stalled. On 1 May, they helped clear the Kaiser Friedrichstraße and then took the Trinity Church. The 2nd Polish ID fought in the Landwehr Canal area and the Poles took the Technical High School with its own artillery support (after their Soviet tank support was withdrawn to another section). The 3rd Polish I. Reg. came to the aid of the 66th Guards Tank Brig. north of the Landwehr Canal. The Poles were tasked with securing the Charlottenburger bridge and taking the Tiergarten S-Baun which they did at daybreak the following morning of 2 May. This opened up the Tiergarten. The Poles advanced to the Siegessaule where they raised their national flag. Since much of what I just wrote is detailed street fighting, most should probably go in the "Battle in Berlin" article. I just wanted to note, in summary, what I had found. Kierzek (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this. It is a great help. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Chumchum7, if you don't mind, why not write a short summary of these overall points for consideration. I have no more time today as the day job calls, but can look at it tonight. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea though I'm not clear on how you mean it to look. Am sure you're the best person to see it through. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

An info. box, order of battle and a few lines including the Poles during the Battle of Berlin. Paul Siebert was on the right track, I thought. Kierzek (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A thought about myth and statistics

The Battle of the Bulge mentions the heroics the Luxembourgish resistance, including an operation conducted by a unit of 30 of its men, of whom 1 died on the battlefield. Microscopic national contributions do pass the threshold of inclusion and get a disproportionate mention, without any problems about percentage or numerical threshold of inclusion.

The main argument against serious attention for the 150,000-200,000 Polish Army troops at the Battle of Berlin has been the proportional comparison that these were 8%-10% of the Soviet contribution. To what extent is this really a disqualifier? I've already flagged that US casualties were less than 1.5% of Soviet casualties in WWII, but we agree that's no reason to disregard the American fallen. There are plenty more proportional comparisons that can be made.

For example, the bottom end of the range of the numerical contribution of the Polish Army at Berlin is more than double the numerical contribution of the US Army at D-Day.

In fact it is verifiable that there were about as many Polish Army troops at the Battle of Berlin as the entire Canadian, British and American deployment on the beaches at D-Day. A clown could thus make the facetious observation that if the Polish Army contribution at Berlin is statistically irrelevant, then so are the Normandy Landings.

That said, plenty of credible historians (even those with British or American POV) really have argued that the Western Allied effort was a relative sideshow and deliberately lacklustre in order to save British and American lives - at the expense of lives on the Eastern Front. This has gone some way to explaining why the Polish Army was invited to the Moscow Victory Parade, but the US Army was not. But either way, we cover the comparably small Western Front effort alongside the gigantic Eastern Front effort, and rightly so.

D-Day is of course especially notable because it is a record - it was the largest amphibious landing in history. But then again, so is the Polish Army contribution at Berlin especially notable because it is a record - it was the largest ever Polish Army battle deployment in history. We (the English-speaking world) tend to obsess over the Western Allied effort because we tend to know about it, especially thanks to our popular mythology. We still know far less about the Eastern Front, and should expect to get plenty more surprises along the way.

Perhaps, when rightly cautioning about myth and point of view, it is also worth remembering we've all seen Saving Private Ryan and will never forget it, but we probably haven't seen a Saving Private Kowalski. Let's be genuinely rigorous in rooting out myth and POV - wherever it may be.

That's my heartfelt opinion. Please forgive the indulgence. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The argument about Luxembourg is hardly relevant, because one Wikipedia article cannot serve as a standard for another one. Regarding the rest, we definitely have a dilemma: from one hand, the contribution of the Poles into the Allied war efforts was really considerable, and can be compared with that of France, however, from another hand, this contribution had been dwarfed by the role of the Red Army. Your analogy between privates Ryan and Kowalski is correct only partially, because it lives beyond the scope numerous privates Kuznetsov (a Russian equivalent of Kowalski), Kovalenko (a Ukrainian version), etc. What about them? Do they need to be mentioned proportionally, or they form just a nameless background to describe the actions of the Polish solders? I believe the PBS's argument, which has been left unaddressed by you, is quite valid: why do we need to discuss the actions of some Polish division when the actions of the Soviet Army this division was a part of is not covered in the article? Why do we stress a role of Kowalski by contrast to Kuznetsov? In my opinion, this is simply not modest.

In this situation, the solution would be to stick with the sources. When we write about the battle in general we must use the general sources that describe the course of the battle as whole. As a rule, these sources do not mention the role of the Polish troops explicitly, and that seems correct, because the Red Army's front supported by few Polish division is still the Soviet front, and the Polish contribution, whatever significant it was, had been definitely dwarfed by much more numerous and equally skilled Red Army.

In this situation, it would be incorrect to use specialised sources devoted to the Polish role, and to add the facts about the accomplishments of separate Polish units into the more general narrative would bean to overemphasize the role of Kowalski as compared with that of Kuznetsov.

In this situation, the solution would be to move the story about the Poles into the separate section, because, since the Battle of Berlin was the largest ever Polish Army battle deployment in history, and taking into account that the role of the Poles was significant in absolute (not relative) numbers, it definitely needs to be described in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

To say the Western Front was a "sideshow" is disingenuous. Further, you are trying to compare small apples to oranges. There would have been no D-Day without the US overall involvement; from production, materials, to air power, to ships. It is true that many don't know the Eastfront well but that is no reason to belittle the western front. Glantz opined that the Soviets would have needed at least 18 more months to defeat Germany alone. But back to this article. See above. Kierzek (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you understand what I'm saying. My "A clown could thus make the facetious observation..." was deliberately phrased. 8-10% of of 1.9-2.5 million remains a vast number of troops. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If some Soviet armies had been reinforced with Polish divisions, these divisions should be named (e.g., in the currently missing "Order of Battle" section), however, in the army-scale (or front-scale) narrative we can speak about the Red Army (not "Red Army and Polish troops") actions. However, if some concrete accomplishments of the Polish units deserve separate mention, they definitely have to be covered in the article.

In addition, since Polish copyright laws is much more liberal than the current Russian laws, I think it can be possible to find PD archive photos with Polish soldiers near Reichstag, Brandenburg gates, or similar iconic point. It would be useful to add them to the article. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

But Poland had armies too, you know: First Army (Poland), Second Army (Poland). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

However, you may be forgetting (for example), Zhukov's front was made up of 7 Soviet and one Polish combined armies at the timeframe of Seelow Heights; so the Polish forces were always part of and under the Soviets (Belorussian or Ukrainian). Kierzek (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So? I was just pointing out that in addition to Soviet armies being reinforced by Polish divisions, Soviet fronts were also reinforced by Polish armies. Nobody here is trying to deny that there were more Soviets than Poles, we are just trying to point out that Polish participation, while smaller than the Soviet ones (just like Poland is/was smaller than Soviet Union), was notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Piotrus is absolutely right here. By the same token, the Canadian Army troops had one of the six beaches at D-Day: they were part of the British Second Army, and under the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe - who was American. The Canadian contribution was a small fraction of the total, and we rightly detail their involvement. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You guys missed my point; I have never, ever stated the Poles did not make a contribution. The way Piotrus wrote his post, it was, well the Poles had Armies too. We know that; it is important to remember they were never independent but under Soviet command and control. That point seemed missing from his statement. Kierzek (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course they were not independent. They were even less independent then Canadian or Polish armies in the West. But they were armies. That's all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is suggesting Kierzek said Polish Army troops didn't make a contribution. I do think Piotr is pointing out that there were two whole Polish Army field army groups, which is major scale. We're also just saying that like the Canadians, the Poles are treated as a national armed force in WWII battle articles. For example, at the very good WP:FA 'featured article' on the Battle of Falaise the Poles under British High Command have just 1 division out of 17 Allied divisions on the battlefield and yet it gets mentioned something like 20 times. Similarly, Canadian Army troops within the British 2nd Army group at Juno Beach at D-Day were commanded and controlled by the British, and get mentioned about 30 times in the D-Day article, and that's perfectly reasonable. This article should provide similar coverage of Polish Army troops, provided there is a good indication of proportion. We could probably all now agree to that, I hope. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for citations April 2011

With regards to this edit "rv: if you can verify the citations then please add them to the relevant sentences; otherwise they are unreferenced". Piotrus how carefully did not look at my edit, because you had you removed a citation that you had been requested!

Piotrus, I removed some of the citations requested because the following citation also covers those sentences. We Wikipedians do not need to put a citation after every sentence, which is what you seem to be demanding in some sections. Instead it is assumed that a citation covers the information from the previous citation or start of paragraph which ever comes last. This is standard practice because otherwise every single sentence would need a citation and it is generally agreed that this is aesthetically ugly and unnecessary. The "requested citation" templates I removed are covered by the trailing citations. -- PBS (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

To give an example:

(Ziemke 1969, pp. 125–126.) Early in the morning of 2 May, the Soviets captured the Reich Chancellery. The military historian Antony Beevor points out that as most of the German combat troops had left the area in the breakouts the night before, the resistance must have been far less than it had been inside the Reichstag.(Beevor 2002, p. 388.)

You put a {{citation needed}} template at the end of the sentence "Early in the morning of 2 May, the Soviets captured the Reich Chancellery." Yet it should be clear that the citation at the end of the next sentence must also cover the sentence for which you asked for a citation. -- PBS (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My bad removing the ref. But citations after every sentence are needed, as somebody can insert something in the middle of your cited section, or split them, thus breaking the logic you point to. This is a collaborative project, and one cannot assume such referencing logic will be understood by everyone. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If a new fact is added, as has been been done in other areas of the article, the additional information should be cited and if necessary another copy of the older citation should be added before the new information to cover the earlier citations in the article. It does not alter the fact that not every sentence in a paragraph needs to have citations at the end of it. With the history of the article, if you are concerned about a particular sentence, it is quite easy (but time consuming) to go back and check when the citations were added and what they cover. Only if information was added without a citation should it be necessary to add a {{citation required}} template.-- PBS (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Majority of readers are not editors, and they don't know about history, or reference logic, and such. I really don't understand why some people fight tooth and nail against adding a few cites, something that would take less then a minute for an editor familiar with references used... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is editors who add citation needed (and who can check the history of the article),and the reason for not overloading an article with unnecessary citations is aesthetics. -- PBS (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And headed north

Battle for the Reichstag.

This article is meant to be an overview and when I created the more detailed description in "Battle in Berlin", I removed much of the detail from the street fighting from this article. After an IP added a lot of nonsense to the article it was replaced with more detail of the fighting in the Reichstag. I suggest that we remove it and go back to the simpler less detailed wording as it also removes the need to go into details over when the flag was raised.

However even if that is not done I have a couple of problems with the current wording the first is the time of the flag raising which this article states was at "0130 hours on May 1" . The traditional Soviet timing for the raising of the flag is described in the Battle in Berlin article "Moscow claimed that they hoisted the Red Flag on the top of the Reichstag at 22:50, however Beevor points out that this may have been an exaggeration as "Soviet propaganda was fixated with the idea of the Reichstag being captured by 1 May""

The second problem I have with the wording is "The fighting continued until the very late afternoon when German troops pulled out of the building and headed north.(Hamilton p.312) A look at the map shows that the troops would probably of gone east they might have gone south but they could not have gone north because that would have put them between the devil and the deep blue sea (Red Army and the Spree) -- see the map. -- PBS (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you are asking about a cited addition I made last year, I can tell you that I wouldn't object to the section being edited down and most of the detail moved to the "Battle in Berlin" article if need be but, I see it is mentioned (and cited) there. But what was there before, I believe was too broad. Hamilton's book is well rated and I cited what he said. He stated the time. The fact is the flag raising was premature as the Soviets did not control the building until the following day, 2 May. Hamilton states the German troops withdrew to the north. I will check it again after I get home, but that is a summary of the matter. Kierzek (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is what Hamilton states, "...the mission of raising Red Banner No. 5 was accomplished at around 0130 on 1 May. A large contingent of Germans remained in the basement launching forays up the steps against the Russians..." Page 311 - (BTW-the Poles are not mentioned therein);...fighting continued through the day. The Germans remaining in the Reichstag began to pull out of the building by the evening. Rhein and his men broke out, and then headed north. They initially crossed Friedrichstraße S-Baun Station and moved into the ruins hours before the main breakout across the Spree. They ominously saw Russians crawling all over the streets..." Page 312 - (BTW-no mention of the Poles until 1st Polish I.D. boosted the 1st Mechanized Corps and made progress and advanced in the Schonhauser Alle U-Baun where the Russians were stalled...."all advances in this area that occurred...were done by the Poles." Page 313). Kierzek (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Footnote: I tightened up the section, see what you think. Kierzek (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Right - not too much detail but more detail, including Le Tissier et al on the Polish infantry notably bailing out the tanks, notably participating in the Battle of the Reichstag and also notably raising their flag.

Alternatively, keep the mention of the Polish Army in this section even briefer and limited to a note of them participating in the Battle of the Reichstag, and move additional content to a dedicated section on the Polish Army's notable involvement in the Battle of Berlin comprising say 10% of this article at most. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We have no sources that say the Polish fought in the battle inside the Reichstag, or supported the 3rd Shock Army's regiments that did. The Polish contribution to the battle inside the Berlin defensive area was much less than 10% -- they contributed much less than a full division. A simple if brutal measure of contribution can be found in the KIA numbers "1st Polish Infantry Division and the accompanying 1st Polish Field Artillery Regiment lost 88 killed and 441 wounded" (Race for the Reichstag: the 1945 Battle for Berlin by Tony Le Tissier page 195) the Soviets 20,000 KIA in the Battle in Berlin.(From the Battle in Berlin article: Kiederling, Gerhard (1987). Berlin 1945-1986. Geschichte der Hauptstadt der DDR. Berlin. Dietz Verlag. pp 38-40, ISBN 978-3-320-00774-4.) -- PBS (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we please keep this section on the talk page to the content of the battle within the Reichstag? -- PBS (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be at least three editors on this page who want more content on Polish Army, including its involvement in the Battle for the Reichstag. Please outline how you are going to accommodate these editors in order to work toward consensus. Many thanks, Chumchum7 (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Chumchum7, the references to the number of the editors who want something contradicts to the policy. In actuality, we have two viewpoints, and the question is not in how many users support each of them, but is how many arguments have been put forward in support of each of them, and in how serious they are. In my opinion, the PBS' arguments sound quite reasonably. Analysis of his last revert [16] demonstrated that it was absolutely justified: the "Battle for the Reichstag" section discusses the action of the Soviet troops on the Army level only: the 3rd Shock Army, and the 8th Guards Army, for their role in storming the city centre. The only exception was made for the 756th Regiment for raising the flag over the Reichstag, and this is quite understandable. No Soviet division or brigade level units and no other Soviet military are mentioned in this section specifically In connection to that, what concrete outstanding achievements of Polish military do you suggest to discuss here that warrant explicit mention of the Poles? The fact that they also participated in the battle in the city centre, and even the fact that their role was instrumental, are, obviously, not sufficient.

I already proposed that, and I re-iterate this my proposal: write the section devoted to the role of the Poles in the battle. In this section we can safely discuss Polish participation without a danger to overemphasise the role of the Poles as compared with that of their Soviet allies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said Wikipedia is a democracy. In keeping with our ethos of collegiality, I put a query to PBS to ascertain how he would like to proceed with this issue, and I'll wait for his reply. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

While you are waiting for his reply, could you please address my point: what concrete outstanding achievements of Polish division or brigade level units warrant their mention in the story about the battle that is described on the army level? Similarly, what concrete achievements of the Poles make necessary to discuss Polish armies when we discuss the actions of fronts? The question is not rhetoric: if you know something really outstanding, please, share with us. However, the simple fact that the Poles were fighting in the battle along with the red Army troops is not sufficient for mentions pf the Poles every time when the information about them is available.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Poles in the Battle of Berlin

From Stanisław Komornicki, Poles in the battle of Berlin, Polish Ministry of National Defense, 1967:

• p. 14: mentions that on May 2, at 6:55 am, under the Brandenburgh Gate, with Polish and Soviet flags on it, representatives of the Polish and Soviet armies have signed a historic document, certifying the meeting of the two allied units; this is also described on p.244-245
• p.122: notes that the Second Army (Poland) took part in the Battle of Berlin, as part of the armies of the 1st Ukrainian Front under Marshal Koniev.
• p.122-123: On the night of April 10th it replaced the units of the 13th Soviet Army on Neisse, in the line of Młoty to Wysokie Farm. The Polish Army comprised the core of the 1st Ukrainian Front, and was to protect from the south the units directly assaulting Berlin. On 16th April elements of the Polish Army crossed the Neisse.
• p.126: On the 17th April Polish units broke through German defenses on the river Weisser Schops capturing Wehrikirch, Uhsmandsdorf, Horks, Niesky and Odernitz. On the 18th, they took Moholz, Sec, Jankendorf, Diehsa, and secured the entire Weisser Schops line. Advanced units reached Klein Saubernitz.
• p.127: Other Polish units reached the line Nieder-Presuke-Petershein and Reitschen
• p.128: Polish units broke through local German defense zone, threatened to surround German units in the Mauskauer Forst area, and pursued German units retreating to Dresen. From Aprul 18th to 29th the Second Army took part in the Battle of Budziszyn (Bautzen) [the fact that this battle is totally not mentioned in the current article seems quite an omission]
• p.130-134 and 121/138 describe the Battle of Budziszyn, noting that the Poles took heavy casualties but prevented German units from breaking to the rear of the Polish/Soviet forces and coming to Berlin's aid
• p.141-142 mentions that the Soviet 2nd Armored Guard Army, heavily involved in the Battle of Berlin, included Polish 1st Division and "other units"
• p.143 mentions that Polish 1st Mortar Brigade took part in the capture of Spandau (late April)
• p.146 mentions that the 6th Polish Motorised Pontoon Battalion supported the waterway crossings of the 2nd Armoured Guard Army (late April), notes the participation of the 2nd Polish Howitzer Brigade supporting the crossings
• p.151 mentions that the Soviet armored units were in need of infantry support, and that the Polish 1st Division was sent to fulfill that need
• p.160 notes that the division received its orders on the night of April 29th
• p.162 and 163 notes the arrival order and times of the regiments (including artillery support units); overall the Polish regiments arrived in Berlin on April 30th
• p.169 names the division commander, general Wojciech Bewziuk
• p.170 describes the division orders: one infantry regiments was to support the 1st Mechanized Corps, and two, the 12th Armored Corps; p.174 notes that contrary to the original plan, two regiments (1st and 2nd) ended up supporting the 1st Corps, and only one (3rd) the 12th Corps
• p.171-174 notes that the night of April 30th Polish units together with the 12th Armored Corps attacked in the direction of the Tiergarten Station
• p.175 notes the key role infantry played in taking the Tiergarten Station and the Polytechnic
• p.178 notes that the 19th and 35th Mechanized Brigades of the 1st Mechanized Corps sustained over 90% casualties, and thus the Polish 1st Infantry Regiment assigned to support them had, in effect, to take over their tasks
• p.181 notes that similar situation was found by Polish units in other places they were assigned; it also notes that the reorganization took part of the April 30th, and the offensive could be resumed on May 1st
• p.182-184 describes how the 1st Battalion of the 1st Regiment (assigned to the region of 35h Mechanized Brigade) took a barricade on Pestalozzistrasse, a "major obstacle" (which made previous tank attacks "suicidal") and advanced to reestablish contact with the 19th Mechanized Brigade supported by the 2nd and 3rd Battalion of the 1st Regiment, around church in Karl August-Platz
• p.190-197 describe taking of the church, a major fortified position, accomplished by the morning of May 1st
• p.200-209 describes how the 2nd Regiment took the Polytechnic (p.202 notes that the Soviet armor from the 1st Mechanized Corps was engaged "on the bank of the Landswehr Canal" and was unable to lend significant support to the regiment which operated alone)
• p.212-214 notes how the 3rd Infantry Regiment supported the 12th Armored Corps. It linked with the 66 Armored Brigade (which had only 15 tanks) and was halted at the Franklinstrasse, in an attemptto advance towards Tiergarten Station. The Polish attack took the Polish and Soviet units to the edge of the Tiergarten Park. P. 215-220 describe surrounding of that area. P.220-221 notes the effectiveness of the joint infantry-tank action, noting that out of 82 tanks lost by the 66 Brigade, only one was lost after it received (Polish) infantry support.
• p.224-229 describes the taking of the Tiergarten Station.
• p.232 notes that the taking of the Tiergarten Station allowed the Polish units to take possession of the Tiergarten Park, approach the Reichstag from the rear and link with the Soviet units approaching it from the other directions. Soon aftewards, the Germans asked for a cease-fire and surrendered
• p.234 notes that "soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Regiment" put the Polish flag on top of the Brandersburg Gate
• p.236-237 notes how several soldiers (from the 8th Battery of the 1st Light Artillery Regiment) put the flag on the Berlin Victory Column, and notes that the soldiers from the 7th Battery did it later in a "more celebratory manner"
• p.248 notes that around noon of May 2nd Polish units were ordered to leave Berlin and move to Nauen
• p.250-251 notes that "during its short spell of fighting in Berlin, the 1st Tadeusz Kosciuszko Infantry Division took 36 blocks, 7 factory sites, 4 underground railway stations, and the Polytechnic block. It had also captured 8 tanks, 15 antitank guns, 28 guns of different calibre, 82 heavy machineguns, more than 3 thousands rifles and automatic pistols, over 300 vehicles, 120 motorcycles, 50 carts, fuel and ammunition stores, and all manner of other equipment. The Kosciuszko division men had taken 2500 prisoners, including 14 high ranking officer. The enemy lost 1000 dead, 120 heavy machineguns, 17 different caliber guns and a great deal of other equipment. The 1st Division losses amounted to 529 men - 99 of them killed and 441 wounded. For their part in the Battle of Berlin regiments of the division were given the name of the Berlin Regiments. The 6th Mobile Pontoon Bridge Battalion also received the Soviet Red Star Medal, and all the Polish units were mentioned in the Polish and Soviet Supreme Command dispatches." The page also has a photo of the medal "For Participation in the Battle of Berlin."

The next few pages describe the operations of the 2nd Army over the next few days, ending with the meeting with the US forces on Elbe. There is a color map that shows actions of the Polish units that I will scan in the near future. commons:User:Lonio17 will likely make it into a proper, free wikimap. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

looking west from the Victory Column over the central area in Berlin that the Poles fought in as part of the Soviet the 2nd Tank Army

Chumchum7 I am reverting your edit it is based on this from your source:

They were: the 2nd Howitzer Brigade, the 6th Motorized Pontoon Brigade Battalion and a Mortar Brigade, as well as the 1st Kosciuszko Infantry Division brought over from the front line on April 30. Polish engineers prepared 3 crossings of the river Spree for the Soviet armoured troops.

But there is no evidence from that that it had anything to do with the Reichstag crossings. As I have explained in detail higher up this page, it is more likely to do with crossing the Spree by the Soviet 2nd Tank Army to which we know that Polish troops were assigned and under who's command they were involved heavy street fighting to the west and in the west of the Tiergarten) and your 3 bridges could linked be the reference above (difficult to tell from the snippet without the name of the water but the date is about right):

p.146 mentions that the 6th Polish Motorised Pontoon Battalion supported the waterway crossings of the 2nd Armoured Guard Army (late April), notes the participation of the 2nd Polish Howitzer Brigade supporting the crossings

-- PBS (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Confirming that p.146 mentions crossings over Spree. Specifically it mentions the date 27th April but also suggests the unit was active on other days. 2nd Howitzers supporting the crossings were positioned in the Volkspark playing fields and fired over the Spree's south bank, if it is of any relevance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see why PBS removed the pontoons, but why remove Le Tissier's ref of the Polish reinforcements? -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the paragraph is about the 3rd Shock Army's attack on the Reichstag. The army to which the Poles were attached it not mentioned in the text. Please see the comments above about armies and notability in what they did. -- PBS (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this reflect consensus? -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In the next section, in his answering of your repeated question about consensus, Paul Sieber has summed up my position. AFAICT there is nothing particularly notable about the Polish contribution to the battle in Berlin that warrants its mention in this overview article.

If you want to write a detailed description of the Soviet 2nd Tank Army's part in the battle (BTW did they take the surrender of the Zoo flack tower?) -- and along with that add in the Polish contribution to their efforts then it should be possible to add that into the Battle in Berlin article, the major reason that was not done before is that we did not have the reliable sources to do it and the part played by the 2nd Tank Army is no more notable than that of many other Soviet armies fighting in Berlin.

If you want to write a complete article on the Battle outside Berlin down to the dispositions at army level (so that there is a history of the Polish contribution to that part of the battle without giving them undue weight), then be my guest. At the moment the battle outside Berlin is at Front level and is the weakest part of this overview, but is probably detailed enough for an overview. -- PBS (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that a mention of Polish 1st Division fighting in the Berlin (one sentence?) and the battle of Bautzen (one or more?) should be added to this article. Majority of expansion from the above content should take place in the Battle in Berlin, that I agree with. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, Polish contribution deserves not one or two sentences, but a separate paragraph or section. We can explain that more Poles participated in the battle of Berlin that in any other battles (I am writing that based on what Chumchum7 says, and I believe he can provide the source to support this claim). We also can list Polish armies and divisions that participated in operation of the Soviet fronts, and the number of Poles fighting in different places also can be given here also. This paragraph or section would be very useful, because a reader would know from that that at later stages of the war the Red Army was not fighting alone, although the number of the Polish troops, being quite impressive in absolute numbers, was more than moderate as compared with the number of the Soviet troops participated in the operation. I would support addition of such paragraph. However, I will oppose to any mention of the Polish units in the main narrative if this mention is dictated by the national origin of the fighters, not by their contribution, which made this mention necessary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"more Poles participated in the battle of Berlin that in any other battles" - where did Chum say this? This doesn't sound right. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Piotrus, along with the infobox data, I added to the info to the lede, where you'll see the precise phrasing: "It was one of the bloodiest battles in history and the largest ever battle deployment of Polish Army troops, which fought under Soviet high command". I have read, also to my surprise, that it was the biggest Polish Army battle deployment in history, but I do not have the source to hand at present. I have been looking through other battles to see if this size and scope makes sense, and so far it does. I also support the addition of a dedicated section and would like to ensure everyone is happy with that before there is any progress on it. We already put in quite a lot of work getting hold of reference material and transcribing it here, so I wouldn't want to do more work, on a section, if it doesn't have pretty wide support. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This sentence in the lead is unsourced. Could you source it? It may be that BoB was the largest deployment of the Polish People's Army forces, although I note that Komornicki makes no such claim. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it was in an offline magazine article that I don't have to hand at present, but in any case I'll revert the line back to how it was, because I've since seen that Battle of Bzura would appear to contradict the statement. Thanks, Chumchum7 (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, reverted to: The Battle in Berlin lasted from 20 April 1945 until the morning of 2 May and was one of the bloodiest battles in history. On that note, I just noticed this 'one of the bloodiest' phrase must be about the Battle of Berlin with about 1 million casualties, because the Battle in Berlin had 64,000 casualties. The sentence is wrong. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"However, to the Soviets the event as represented by the photo became symbolic of their victory demonstrating that the Battle of Berlin, as well as the Eastern Front hostilities as whole, ended with the total Soviet victory."

In actuality, the source (Bellamy) says:

"The attack on the Reichstag was therefore a genuine military necessity. But it would also the demonstration to the Germans, to the Russians - military and civilian - and to the Russians' Allies and the rest of the world, that Russia had beaten Nazi Germany. In the current scientific jargon, it was an 'effect based operation'. The effect? Let the world know we've won."

Regarding the photo, the source says:

"These photographs are among the most famous of the entire war. In terms of communicating victory they are masterly."

In other words, the source (Bellamy) does not speak about the event (taking the Reichstag and raising the flag) in the narrow Eastern front context. Both capture of the building and the raising of the flag are placed by the author into the global context, and the article should say that more clearly. I also propose to add few words about the photo itself, because it was this photo that transmitted the message about the Soviet victory in Europe.

After that, I suggest to return to the question of re-adding this unnamed photo, which has been removed for not completely clear reasons, back into the article: the usage of this photo would be completely in accordance with the WP:NFCC criteria and the guidelines, including the NFCC #8 (contextual significance) and the NFCI#8 (this historical and iconic image is a subject of commentary).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have always thought that photo should be included herein. That is why I added the quote to the article: "As the 756th Regiment's commander Zinchenko had stated in his order to Battalion Commander Neustroev '...the Supreme High Command...and the entire Soviet People order you to erect the victory banner on the roof above Berlin'." Hamilton-page 311. Kierzek (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated that the picture should be here. Perhaps we should use the Soviet doctored picture (sans watches) as a compromise with those who object to the original. -- PBS (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

German Casualties

So why do you want to keep the Soviet 1945 right from the battlefield kill-claims, which are not supported by any credible source and have been proven wrong by reliable historians, in a prominent place in the infobox? Especially if there is indeed a reliable secondary source available which is based on archival research. There werde indeed dicussion before here, but in none the consensus was to add those numbers. Whether the other numbers are completly accurate is another topic, this is only about the Soviet numbers which are proven to be wrong. It would be improper to add them in the infobox, as this would give the reader the impression, that they have any truth or value in themselves, are somehow accepted among historians, or are equal (or even superior, given their prominent placement) to the archival research made by a credible historian. StoneProphet (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We have been through all this before. See: Edit to casualty figures January 2010, Archive 4: [17] Kierzek (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I already read that. There is isnt a single reason to insert numbers in the infobox which are proven to be wrong. The rest written there is pure OR, but as i said, this is anyway not about the other numbers, this is about the Soviet ones and their presentation. Its not that i want to remove them entirely (they were still in the article and i put them also in a footnote), but they simply dont belong into the infobox in an equal presentation to the other ones. StoneProphet (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah and btw (seeing your edit summary): Glantz is simply quoting the Soviet numbers as their "estimate", nothing more. With the acknowledging, that the Soviets overestimated the German strenght, he had even proved them to be impossible. StoneProphet (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

My point is, both are estimates; you want to keep in Müller's (who is not without criticism), but not the Soviet estimate. The exact complete numbers will never be known. For the Soviet estimate, a caveat can put in (although it already states it was the "Initial" one); written that it is based on Soviet kill claims; along the lines of what Glantz states. It acknowledging, that the Soviets overestimated the German strenght, as well. However, you have not obtained consensus to remove the Soviet estimate from the info. box. If you get it, so be it; you have my suggestion above. Kierzek (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well thats the problem, we cant treat both, the Soviet ones and Müllers, as equal. That would be the same to put Nazi kill claims and Krivosheev (who is also not without criticism) numbers together equally presented in an infobox about, lets say Stalingrad or whatever (but we dont do that for an obvious reason). Only because there was an IP/new user, who was writing against Müller, he is not suddenly unreliable or on a level with the Soviet claims. Lets face the facts: We have 2 sources for casualties. One is a simple claim by the Soviets and proven to be impossible. We also generally dont use kill claims by the Soviets on wikipedia (if other numbers exist), because they are always wrong (that may sound harsh, but its true for usual). The other one is made by a reliable historian. Its an estimate yes (and there is mb some criticism), but this estimate is based on archival research by an expert historian of actually (ofc scarce) existing data. But with adding both in the infoxbox, we give the impression that both are equal, which they are obviously not. Adding only a "initial" does nothing to make the mentioned clear. As i said, i dont want to remove the Soviet claim from the article (there are still in the aftermath section etc.), but i dont want to present them in the infobox as equal with some real research. Thats why i added a footnote in my edit and stated that exact casualties are unknown. I understand that you have gotten through casualties discussions multiple times (and are tired of it), but this is only about the presentation/position of the Soviet claim, not more. Thats why i want to change it. StoneProphet (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I never said the estimates were equal and I never said Müller was "unreliable", only that he is not without criticism, as well; this due to the data he used as a base, NOT because of anyone person's arguments in the past. The cited one there (for better or worse) was put there long ago and kept there BY CONSENSUS, so your statement that kill claims are not used on Wikipedia is therefore not correct. With that said, since you don't want to keep the stated "initial" Soviet estimate that is cited (I know its an overestimate), I have decided to agree to let it go to footnote. In thinking further about the general reader, maybe having "initial" in the listing is not enough. I do believe the Soviet numbers of Krivosheev's should be kept for the Sovites, to be clear. I assume you don't have a problem with his and we should keep that the same (is what I meant to convey). I just got back from a business trip and am tired; so enough said. Kierzek (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha no, ofc i dont have a problem with Krivosheev, i have used his numbers on wikipedia very often by myself. ;) I just wanted to give a comparison. Well so i would re-add the edit i made before (the one you reverted) if its ok, or do you have any objections about it? StoneProphet (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Its okay with me and no one else has written anything specific, although I do think Müller's numbers are on the lower end of the scale. Kierzek (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, studies made based on German military archives give rather small figures for deaths. However, currently it is accepted that despite their visible accuracy, German archival data are not complete. A scholar who specialises on German casualties is Rüdiger Overmans. He uses a complex approach to this issue, and draws conclusions based of different mutually complementary evidences. His views have been summarised by Jeffrey Herf as follows

"The German historian Rüdiger Overmans arrived at the following striking conclusions on the basis of exhaustive and detailed research on the dates and locations of German battlefield deaths in World War II. Of the 5,318,000 German soldiers who died in World War II, 51.6 percent (2,743,000) died on the Eastern Front, 6.4 percent (340,000) on the Western Front, and 23.1 percent (1,230,000) in the final battles in Germany, which included the Red Army's costly Battle of Berlin. " (Jeffrey Herf. The Nazi Extermination Camps and the Ally to the East. Could the Red Army and Air Force Have Stopped or Slowed the Final Solution? Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 4.4 (2003) 913-930)

In other words, according to Overmans, Wehrmacht lost 1,230,000 during the battles in Germany (which, to the best of my understanding, included Greater Germany: Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania, and Czhechoslovakia and Austria). To the best of my knowledge, there were no major battles in the West after the Allies crossed Rhine (I mean, the battles, where a large number of Germans were killed (not taken prisoners). Therefore, the battles where these 1230000 losses had been sustained were East Prussian offensive, Vistula-Oder offensive, Silesian and Pomeranian offensives, Budapest offensive, Prague offensive and the Battle of Berlin. It is hard to believe that 1130000 Germans were killed outside of the Berlin area and just 100000 were killed inside, taking into account that the BoB was one of the greatest battles of the whole war. We need to look at the Overmans data more carefully.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Its certainly possible that Müllers numbers are to low, but that seems to be our only (credible) source which give specific numbers for Berlin. From what i know, Overman also just made an estimate for the 1945 numbers, which is not free from criticism. Anyway i dont know how to work in such numbers without making some OR. I changed the infobox as discussed and tried to point out that those numbers are just an estimate. StoneProphet (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

By this edit[18] you removed the information that is supported by Glantz, who is one of the leading Eastern Front experts. I still do not see why do you think this source is unreliable. I respectfully request you to self-revert, go to WP:RSN, and, if the discussion there will come to a consensus that Glantz is not a reliable source for the German casualties, I will not object against your changes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it seems you understood me and my edits wrong. Ofc Glantz is a reliable expert, but as i said before, Glantz does not state that these are the German casualties, he is simply quoting the Soviet kill claims (from a 1950 Soviet book called "Berlimkaia operatsiia 1945 goda"). Those are simply the Soviet numbers (claims based on a too high estimate of the German strenght, which Glantz acknowledges himself in that book on p. 258-259) and the reasons why i dont wanted them in the infobox (they are still in the aftermath section and in the footnote) were pointed out by me in this discussion. I have used Glantz by myself often on wikipedia. StoneProphet (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

He reproduces the number of prisoners (480,000) in his lecture [19], without any criticism. Please, provide an evidence that the figures used by Glantz in his "When Titans Clashed" have been questioned by him as non-reliable, otherwise these figures should be added back as a higher estimate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Glantz does not comment on them. He transcluded a table with all kill claims of men, aircraft, tanks, guns/mortars and POWs of the 3 fronts without commenting on it from this 1950 Soviet book. The source is clearly this 1950 Soviet book, not Glanz. For example, are 4,995 destroyed German aircraft and 4,183 tanks/assault guns not a bit "unrealistic", with only 2,224 aircraft and 1,519 tanks/assault guns available? The only number Glantz took out from the Soviet source table are the prisoners (perhaps the only reliable number by the Soviets), on which he commented. StoneProphet (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In other words, for some reason he decided to quote these data without any comment. As a rule, this means the author does not question the validity of the numbers he quote. In addition, he speaks about a ca million troops defending the Berlin area. Since there could be no other fate of these military than to be killed, wounded or captured, the total amount of KIA, WIA, MIA and POW should be ~1000000. In any event, it would be better to continue this discussion after you self-reverted (at least temporarily).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

First: Glantz clearly state that the number of the German troops was 800,000 (p.259), not 1 million. 1 million was the Soviet estimate. Second: I would have no problems to add the prisoners into the infobox, the whole discussion was about the kill claims of the Soviets. Those claims are not backed up by a single source. Even in his 1995 book, those numbers are proven to be impossible. The reason why these numbers are there (only transcluded, nothing more) is very simple: in his 1995 book Glantz did consult extensively Soviet archives, but put little to no research into German numbers (quoting almost in every instance Soviet claims for strenght and kills in every battle of the eastern front, without even consulting German sources). Do you really think Glantz would back up those claims, when he even proved in his own book that they are impossible? Not to speak about the fantasy numbers for tanks, aircraft and guns. In fact he does not, he only quoted the Soviet claim (like he does in the whole book). Do you really want to suggest we should now start to clutter Soviet kill claims into all eastern front articles, just because in his 1995 book, in which Glantz solely concentrates on the Soviet side, quoted them? Maybe we should add the claims of destroyed aircraft, tanks and guns into the infobox too, ignoring the fact that they are twice as high as the German strenght. Even Glantz himself ackknowledges the partly one-sided view of the book, as it "emphasizes the Soviet side as much as previous histories exaggerated the German version of events" (introduction). Anyway, i strongly oppose (as per discussion above), to put in those Soviet fantasy numbers (regarding kill claims) in the infobox (they are still in the article in the aftermath section and in a footnote). StoneProphet (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I see your point, as that was my point above, as well. Certainly, Glantz is a premiere historian on the Ostfront, but with that said, I decided for the general reader the "initial" claim could be taken more as fact by them, instead of what it was, an "initial estimate". Based on other checking that number given is from "kill claims". I will go with consensus on this but wanted to state my thoughts. If Overmans breaks his numbers down any further, that would be a helpful counter estimate. Kierzek (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Polish Army infobox figure

There's been some time passed so I'm now going to add the range for Polish Army troops to the infobox. Further to my query above, I hereby request a second time that editors with access to sources for the low end of the range help me establish whether or not it is defined as an inclusive figure or might be a calculation for the sum of the 1st plus the 2nd Polish Army groups, while omitting additional Polish Army formations that were in Soviet Army groups and/or air force personnel etc. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Chumchum7-Per Glantz, the Polish figures' were for all earmarked for the offensive. So: 2.5 total Soviet troops; 2,062,100 combat (this is very close to your 2.06 number); including, 155,900 Polish forces; 6,250 tanks and SPW's; 41,600 guns and mortars; 7,500 combat aircraft. Page 261, "When Titans Clashed". Kierzek (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I've tweaked the lede to accommodate Polish Army troops under Soviet high command, which will be reminiscent of Polish Army troops under British high command on the Westfront. I've also added the bottom end of the range for total Soviet-led troops further to the 2.06 figure above. Would appreciate someone reffing that for me. I'll leave the bottom of the range for Polish troops a for a few days - if we can't rule out that it's inaccurate we can delete it in due course. Thanks all. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See above cited numbers. As for total number of all Soviet troops, I would go with 2.5. Kierzek (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

note-The 2.06 is Bahm's number for combat troops only; so I am dropping it from the total number for troops. I also believe that Glantz and Bahm's number for Polish troops should be kept in the info box. Kierzek (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Kierzek, thank you very much indeed for your input. Perhaps you can help me solve this one: if Glantz's Polish figures were for all earmarked for the offensive, then would he be talking about the number of Poles out of the 2.06 or the 1.5, or in addition to the 2.06 or the 1.5? Also, do you have any ideas as to why Russian WP version of this article uses a figure of 1.9 M Red Army and 155,900 Polish Army? Personally am stumped. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a question of how many Fronts were involved in the attack two or three? The numbers we have been using in this article is for three Fronts (For those who may not appreciate it the Red Army used the term Front for what was roughly the same thing as that was called an Army Group by the Germans and the Western Allies). That will affect the total numbers by hundreds of thousands of men. -- PBS (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As the Polish contribution to the Allied forces is now written out, should'n the Polish losses as a part of Allied losses also be written out? EriFr (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the idea for a small, dedicated section on the Polish Army contribution still needs to be acted on. And afaik the Polish contribution was never "written out" of this article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Causality numbers in footnote 8

"...Anthony Beevor excludes Polish casualties, leaving 78,291 KIA/MIA and 274,184 WIA for a total of 352,475 (p. 424). Similarly, Max Hastings uses the figure of total Soviet casualties excluding Polish forces (352,475), but increases the portion of killed to over 100,000 (p. 643)."

On page 424 (Beevor 2002) the sentence from Beevor is: "The casualties for the three Fronts involved in the Berlin operation were extremely high, with 78,291 killed and 274,184 wounded". How do we know that Beevor is excluding Polish casualties?

I do not have the Hastings book to hand but I do not remember him mentioning the distinction between national breakdown of numbers. -- PBS (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked my 2002 book on page 424 and what you quoted is correct BUT I don't see where he states the Poles are "excluded"; I checked the "Source notes" for page 424, as well. I don't know who added to the text herein that Beevor "excludes" the Poles. I agree with you, PBS, that is not correct. Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed as to Beevor in the footnote, per above. Kierzek (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hastings does not mention excluding Poles (I have detailed his breakdown of his total). Neither Beevor or Hastings footnote where their figures come from, hence the request that "A number of sources cited in this article derive their causality numbers from Krivosheev's archival work." carries a citation. -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Kierzek (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Battle of Berlin.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Battle of Berlin.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Lusatian Operation

Polish wiki has an article on the pl:Operacja łużycka, which can be translated as the Lusatian Operation or Offensive. This term is not used in the English sources. We even have a map on the pl wiki (File:Operacja luzycka.png), and the term is most certainly used in many Polish works on the battle of Berlin and related subjects. I wonder if there is a different English term for this operation? Or is it just one of the topics that have slipped by the English language scholars? Here is the operation stub entry: (...an operation carried out by the 1st Ukrainian Front as part of the Battle of Berlin, lasting from April 16 to May 4). Its goal was to destroy the German forces south of Berlin, in the Lusatia region, cut off Berlin from the southern Germany and reach the Western Allies troops near Elbe). Battle of Bautzen (1945) was a notable battle of this operation. I may stub it in the near future, but I'd like to make sure I am not forking something before I do so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of scale. I have just been looking to see how much detail we have on it. But in doing that I noticed that you added some details back on 12 May 2011:

Before your addition, like most of the envelopment section it focuses on Soviet Fronts and German armies the sentences were:

The command of the V Corps, trapped with the IX Army north of Forst, passed from IV Panzer Army to IX Army. The corps was still holding onto the Berlin-Cottbus highway front line. When the old southern flank of IV Panzer Army had some local successes counter-attacking north against 1st Ukrainian Front, Hitler gave orders which showed that his grasp of military reality was completely gone, and ordered IX Army to hold Cottbus and to set up a front facing west. Then they were to attack the Soviet columns advancing north. ...

You added in the detail:

Field Marshal Ferdinand Schörner Army Group Center launched a counter-offensive aiming at breaking through to Berlin from the south and making a successful initial incursion (the Battle of Bautzen) in the 1st Ukrainian Front region, engaging the 2nd Polish Army and elements of the Red Army's 52nd Army and 5th Guard Army.

There are couple of problems with it. The first is this statement "Field Marshal Ferdinand Schörner Army Group Center launched a counter-offensive aiming at breaking through to Berlin." No he wanted to plug the massive hole that Konev had punched right through his front line, he was not trying to go to Berlin. His IV Panzer Army was try to regain contact with his V Corps that was now north of the hole. Meanwhile Konev was poring armies through the gap which were then fanning out to take all of East Germany south of the capital, with a considerable force (a number of armies) direct up the Reichstrasse 96 and other roads that lead to Berlin. The details that you added magnify what was already in the article, and I think a link to the battle without mentioning the details of the Soviet forces involved in the battle is sufficient, because we do not have space to discuss the Front's actions army by army in this overview article and I think that the focus and level of the "encirclement section" is about right.

But the section on "Battle outside Berlin" needs attention. At the moment the only mention of the actions you are talking about in the subsection "South" it is described as:

The successes of the 1st Ukrainian Front during the first nine days of the battle meant that by 25 April, they were occupying large swathes of the area south and south west of Berlin. ...completing the investment of the city. ...made contact with the US ... near Torgau, on the Elbe River. These manoeuvres had broken the German forces south of Berlin into three parts. [9th 12th army and ] Schörner's Army Group Centre was forced to withdraw from the Battle of Berlin, along its lines of communications towards Czechoslovakia.

It was never my intention that what I knocked together in the sections "Battle outside Berlin" that they were sufficient to cover that part of the operation. What is needed is two more detailed descriptions to go with the sub articles about the fighting north and south of the city similar to Battle of the Oder-Neisse, (with its two sub articles Battle of Seelow Heights Battle of Bautzen (1945)). The Battle in Berlin which in turn may sub articles in the future and we have at the moment the Battle of Halbe which may become a sub article for an article about the battle south of Berlin.

I do not think it a good idea to use Soviet operation names for the attacks as next to no one in the English speaking world know them so it will be better to give them descriptive names. We tend to do this in the Western Front articles as well eg Allied advance from Paris to the Rhine Western Allied invasion of Germany because names for those advances tend to be country specific (while the American Army call the campaign one thing the British Army called it another). It has the added advantage that operations names make it more difficult to write unbiased articles because they tend to get written from the perspective of the side that names the operation. "Battle south of Berlin" or "Battle for Dresden" or something similar would seem to be an appropriate unless there is an already established English language name.

BTW see that article Battle of the Oder–Neisse as the obvious place to write a more detailed introduction for the article Battle of Bautzen (1945) and to use some of the information contained BB to improve the Oder-Neisse article.

--PBS (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Info box improvements

Earlier today I put in some info box improvements which were reverted. Here is an explanation of how the edits are an improvement. The unbulleted list template ({{ubl}} is viewed differently by people using a screen reader than when the list is interrupted by break tags. Break tags in effect create new paragraphs by inserting a line break, so a person with a screen reader is not presented with a list at all, but a series of tiny disjointed paragraphs. So it's an accessibility issue, and an improvement that can replace the break tag in info boxes and other such places all over the encyclopedia as a way to improve accessibility for people who are reading the material with a screen reader. I will re-introduce the improvement in a few days if no objections are raised. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. On a regular computer, it just appears that you've deleted several items on the infobox. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Chumchum. I think I have got it fixed now. If this dosn't work I will give up. --Dianna (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Info. Box: Dissolution of Third Reich?

I am not sure if the dissolution of Third Reich was a result of the battle. The last leader of Nazi Germany was Karl Dönitz and the last government was the Flensburg government. I would say the political result of the battle was death or capture of major Nazi leaders, not dissolution of the German Reich.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say the funeral had started, it was just a matter of the burial and end, so to speak. You are right that Berlin did not end the fighting. The battle in and around Prague and the destruction of Army Group Schoerner was yet to occur. Kierzek (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean the battle didn't end the fighting, my point was different. "Dissolution" is a political result, and that result was not achieved. Although Hitler died, he appointed Dönitz as his successor, so the Flensburg government was a legal successor of the Hitler's government, and, although the Allies did not recognise it, the instrument of surrender was signed by its representatives.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is true the battle didn't end the Nazi government, politically; just as it is correct that the fighting didn't immediately end, either. With that said, Paul, the "Battle of Berlin" was the death knell for the Third Reich. Kierzek (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• 1 September 1938 1939 was the death knell for the Third Reich. Perhaps we should update the Invasion of Poland infobox to reflect this. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sure you mean 1 Sept. 1939, but really if you want to mark the beginning of the end, I would say 22 July 1941-invasion of the USSR and 11 December 1941-declared war on the USA. Kierzek (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I meant 1939 of course. The point is, there were many turning points that could have been described as death knells of the Nazi regime. Death knell <> dissolution of government. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand your point; as for "death knell" when I first wrote it above, I was thinking more along the lines of the word defined: something that heralds death or destruction. Kierzek (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

By no means 1st of September, 1939 was the death knell for the Third Reich. Nazi Germany was not doomed to defeat, and the scenario when the USSR had been defeated in 1941-42 was quite realistic, which would mean that the land connection between Germany and Japan would been established, all vast Soviet resources would became available for the Axis, military plants would be moved to Ural (which would make them inaccessible for the Allied bombers). Such a scenario would be an end for the Euro-Athlantic civilisation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point, we've removed "dissolution of Third Reich". But, now we have "Allied victory in the European theatre of World War II". This isn't accurate either. It wasn't by any means the last battle. Only the city was surrendered, not the nation. It wasn't until a week later that the Soviet Union officially declared victory day. Hostilities in Europe didn't end for another week and a half past that. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Paul mentions the fact the BOB was "not the last battle" on 18 June and I agreed, but you bring up a good point as to the other used phrase and drive it home, Hammersoft. What other wording would you suggest? Kierzek (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Taking a cue from Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, maybe something like "Crucial result in the surrender of Nazi Germany". --Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

During our previous discussion about the Reichstag photo I quoted the opinion of Chris Bellamy, who believes that fall of Berlin and capture of the Reichstag was a final point in the European WWII campaign and a demonstration of the military defeat of Nazi Germany. So, whereas some hostilities still continued after fall of Berlin, and even the Flensburg government were trying to pretend to be a successor of the Third Reich government, we can speak about the military defeat of the Nazi Germany, after which an official surrender would become a matter of days.

in summary, I suggest to replace "Allied victory in the European theatre of World War II" with "Military defeat of the Third Reich". In addition to what the scholar tell on that account, my rationale is as follows. Before the BoB Wehrmacht still was capable to play some active role. For instance, had it been successful in the defence of Seelow heights, it would be theoretically possible to speak about the advance of the US/British troops towards Berlin, which could have a significant effect on the future political map of Europe. By contrast, after the battle the German role was totally passive: their actions could not change anything, it was a militarily defeated nation awaiting for official surrender. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• That smacks of WP:OR. Why is this even necessary? The city surrendered, Hitler killed himself, and the Flensburg government began. That's what happened. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, re-read what I've written. I referred to the opinion of Chris Bellamy whose book "Absolute war" is a reliable secondary source. What original research are you talking about?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• And the latter part after my first sentence? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Not just "the city surrendered", but the capital of the Third Reich had been captured. Not only Hitler killed himself, but most prominent Nazi leaders committed suicide, perished or fled (and, in any event, ceased to exist as the leaders of the state). The passage of the power to the Flensburg government was not just the ordinary transfer of power from one government to another, because this government would not be recognized by the Allies. The fall of Berlin marked a destruction of the Third Reich as whole, and Bellamy clearly writes about that on the page 668. That didn't mean its dissolution, because formally the Flensburg government could be considered as a successor, however, the BoB clearly meant the military victory on the Allies in the Europe, and the fact that some remnants of the Wehrmacht would have to be eliminated hardly changes anything.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I disagree. If it was the end, then why wait a week to proclaim victory? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with this source, please, provide another source that describes another event as the point after which we can speak about the military defeat of Germany. As far as I know, no other military engagements (except the Battle of Prague, when the remnants of the former Army Group South continued to resist) occurred after May 2 in Germany which allowed us to speak about any organised military resistance. BTW, since the hostilities in Prague continued even after May 8 (i.e. after official surrender of Germany), to Prague is hardly relevant to this discussion.

In addition, one has to discriminate between the military defeat and political surrender. For instance, whereas Japan had been militarily defeated by August 15, official political surrender ceremony took place on September 2.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You guys are at a stalemate on this query. We all agree the wording needs to be changed. I would suggest: Crucial result, the military defeat of the Third Reich. Kierzek (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Battle of Berlin was not just about the capture of the capital, it was also the Soviet union using force to occupy its post war zone Germany. Although the fighting in Berlin finished on or around 2 May, other German armies outside Berlin, in the areas designated as Soviet, continued to resist up until the end of the war. I basically agree with the last few comments that Paul had written. The end of the political Third Reich ended with the death of Hitler, because whatever the German "pretenders" said, they were not recognised as representatives of the civilian government of Germany by the victorious Allies. Hammersoft you ask "wait a week to proclaim victory" two reasons the first was the German high command were playing for time to get as many of their men to the west as possible, and also political games. Their strategy was to surrender piecemeal see for example the offers made to Monty and Ike which they rejected (see End of World War II in Europe). This was the last play open to them and the Western Allies insistence on complete unconditional surrender on all fronts was to stop the Germans driving a wedge between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. As for the wording of this article I don't think that "Suicide of Hitler and some other top Nazi leaders. Governmental authority passed to the Flensburg Government." is better than "dissolution of the Third Reich" as it is a minority POV to say that authority passed to the Flensburg Government. The battle ended with the unconditional surrender of German units the major surrenders taking place on the 2nd, 7th, 8th and 9th of May 1945. -- PBS (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I generally agree with that, the term "dissolution" seems more political and formal, whereas the results of the battle were more military and concrete. Germany had been defeated militarily, and its leadership ceased to exist physically. Nevertheless, physical elimination of top leaders of some state and its defeat does not automatically mean "dissolution" of the latter. Please, correct me if I am wrong, but the Third Reich had been dissolved when the Flensburg Government was arrested: by doing that, the Allied powers demonstrated that they do not recognise this government as a government of Nazi Germany, and, since this moment Nazi Germany ceased to exist. In addition, Jodl on May 7 (although I am not sure about Keitel on May 8) acted on behalf of both the German Army High Command and the Flensburg government (at least that is what Wikipedia says, I feel I need to check that with sources). Was it possible to conduct negotiations with the government of the state that had already been dissolved?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How about: Crucial result: the military defeat of the Third Reich, leading to the surrender of the Nazi German government. Kierzek (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The second part is redundant and inaccurate. I would say, "The military defeat of the Third Reich and death of the key Nazi leaders". --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not redundant, nor inaccurate if you look at it as two parts of a whole. The first speaks to the military end and the second, the political end that followed. Kierzek (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is imprecise: the surrender was not a direct and immediate result of the battle, and it was not a surrender of the government only (to avoid a resurrection of the "stab in the back" argument): Jodl and Keitel acted on behalf of both the army and the government.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"correct me if I am wrong, but the Third Reich had been dissolved when the Flensburg Government was arrested" This is quite a difficult political position. Up until the final peace treaty with Germany in 1990, it had been assumed by most authorities that the German state was destroyed before or at the same time as the German military unconditional surrender. This was the position because SHAEF FU-BARed the the wording of the surrender, and based their wording of the surrender document from the one used for German troops surrendering in Italy, rather than the formal surrender document worked out by the European Advisory Commission a joint organisation of the Western Allies and the Soviet Union (see German Instrument of Surrender -- where you and I discussed some of this on the talk page -- and Debellatio). The legal construction was needed so that they could try Nazi war-criminals and not treat them as POWs. If the Flensburg arrests coincided with the dissolution of Third Reich the Donitz for example could have escaped prosecution as a head of state (a legal protection that has only changed in the last few years). What has complicated this post war Allied view is that the German legal system has found it convent to work from the premise that there was no debellatio. So from the point of view of the Allies the German state ceased to exist with the death of Hitler or at one minute into the 9th of May DBST (take you pick). In other words in the view of the Allies, Donitz was representing the German high command not the German civilian government.-- PBS (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Decisive Soviet Victory

The recent change to "Decisive Allied victory" is disparaging to the Soviet/Red Army victory, looking at it in context for timeframe in question. Chumchum7, if you are concerned as to the Polish forces, they would be Allied forces, yes, but come under the envelope of inclusion of the Soviet/Red Army (under command and control). And the info. box does already state, in the "Result section", the general statement: Allied victory in the European theatre of World War II and shows the Soviet and Polish flags, thereafter. I am not trying to exclude the Poles; I believe they are inclusive, as stated above. However, if consensus is different on this point, okay. Kierzek (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Since for the English speaking audience "Allies" are associated with "Western Allies", "decisive Allied victory" may be somewhat misleading. Since during the BoB Polish and Soviet armies did not act more or less autonomously, and we can speak about the actions of the Red Army reinforced by Polish units, it would be more correct to speak about the Soviet victory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Soviet victory seems fair to me as well considering that the Western Allies did not practically take part in the battle, and as Paul said above, Polish troops were under Soviet command. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Eurocopter, what are your views on the outcome of the Battle of Kolberg (1945) and the Prague Offensive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.205.127.73 (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a consensus here. In a war of this scale there are often units from many nations taking part, but one has to look at the overall contributions. In this case the description in the battle is at Front level and army level. If the battle had been smaller then it would be army and division. Smaller still division and regiment ... In this case because there 3 Fronts were Soviet the least misleading result is to say Soviet because adding in Polish into such an information box implies a form of parity in numbers that just did not exist. Indeed in the capture of Berlin city the Polish contribution was not even a division, their actions are only notable because they were not Soviet. This can be ascertained by the casualty rates among Polish forces fighting in Berlin 99 dead (Stanisław Komornicki, Poles in the battle of Berlin, Polish Ministry of National Defense 1967) Soviet dead 22,000 (Kiederling Berlin 1945-1986. Geschichte der Hauptstadt der DDR. Berlin. Dietz Verlag. pp 38-40). Unless the ratios were significantly higher outside the city then I think including Polish in the box is misleading. -- PBS (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

East Germany

The way the info. box currently reads I believe there is a problem with the following: "...followed by the unconditional surrender of all German forces within East Germany on 8/9 May..." As you guys know, there was no state of East Germany at the time, so first, "East" should not be capitalized; second, it should be either changed to "eastern Germany", if kept, or to: "...the authorized total surrender of all German forces on 8/9 May..." This coinciding with the signing of the surrender agreement terms that: "...all forces under German control to cease active operations at 2301 hours Central European Time on 8 May 1945". Kierzek (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Changed to "eastern Germany". Although, more could be done. Kierzek (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There were no separate surrenders in the East and the West, so there is no need in this word at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought above, there was no need to distinguish, but had gotten no comments. I wanted to at least change where it had said, "East Germany", to start. Kierzek (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)