Talk:Battle of Berlin/Archive 1

message: This bit seems POV - "Away from the map room in the Berlin Fuhrerbunker with its imaginary attacks of phantom divisions, the Soviets were getting on with winning the war". The paragraph before this mentions no such 'phantom' divisions, but rather Jodl's suggestion of moving the XII army into Berlin, as the Americans werent intending to move past the Elbe. user:ratzinger81
:See Army Detachment Steiner --Philip Baird Shearer 13:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Comment 

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

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

message: http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/berlin.htm
A copyright violation?! Szopen
:Certainly looks like it. Oberiko 16:52, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation? 

message: At the moment this article seems to confuse two diffrent actions. The first is the attack on the area which would become East Germany from the River Oder. Which involved 2.5 million men and 3 Fronts. The 2nd BELORUSSIAN Front (2BF) commanded by Rokossovsky which was to the North, The 1st BELORUSSIAN Front (1BF) commanded by Zhukov in the middle and the 1st Ukranian Front (1UF) commanded by Konev. But for the encirclement and attack on Berlin only units from the 1BF and 1UF were involved in the Battle for Berlin with Stalin letting Zhukov and Konev compete for the honour. 
Using Ziemke's "battle for Berlin"  the Russian main ground units involved in the Battle for Berlin came from "only" two Soviet Fronts, (not the three mentioned in the article) and were 2nd Guards (GDS) tank Army, 3rd Shock Army, 5th Shock Army, 8th GDS army, 1st GDS tank army, 28th Army and 3rd GDS tank Army. With more armies between the Berlin and German Armies like the IX which had become encircled. Is this list correct? If it is, this is a force of much less than the 2.5 million on the Oder who invaded East Germany and with much less kit than is mentioned in the battle box.
Is this article about the 1945 Soviet campaign for East Germany (former GDR) or the Battle for Berlin? If it is the 1945 Soviet campaign for East Germany then there are several phases and battles which need mentioning. The Battle of the Seelow Heights by 1BF, the hard fought advance over the river Nisser by 1UF, The Battle of Berlin by 1BF and 1UF, and the Battle of Halbe in which the German IX Army and IV Panser Armies tried to fight their way through the Soviet 1UF to the German XII Army and then on to American Lines.
If it is just about the Battle of Berlin for Berlin once the encirclement has been completed then all the extra stuff needs moving into another article.
Either which way the article needs a lot of work because at the moment the total amount on the fighting in Berlin is this: Berlin's fate was sealed, but the resistance continued. Fighting was heavy, with house-to-house and hand-to-hand combat and As the Soviet forces fought their way into the centre of Berlin Philip Baird Shearer 16:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition for the Battle of Berlin

message: At the moment the article says:
:The main German defenders were the 12th Army, withdrawn from the Western Front by Hitler specifically to defend the city.
and
:On April 20, Hitler ordered the Twelfth Army facing the Americans and the Ninth Army to break into Berlin and relieve the siege. Neither unit was able to get through.
They both can't be true.
Using Ziemke's "battle for Berlin"  the main regular German army and SS units in Berlin were XX Motorised Division, IX Airborne Division, Muncheberg Panzer Division, Nordland Panzer Grenadiers Division and XVIII Panzer Division. Is this list correct?
: No, I'm almost certain that there was no 18th Panzer Division at that time. It had been destroyed way back in 1943, and the HQ reused to form the 18th Artillery Division, which in turn was disbanded in July 1944. I commented out the entire OB list until someone can find a reliable source for it. I do know that Nordland was there, but haven't got time to track everything else down right now. (Alas, the WWW is becoming so saturated with copies of Wikipedia that you can hardly find any independent sources of information on this kind of stuff anymore.) — B.Bryant 07:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: German Units in Berlin 

message: I take strong issue with the description of Hitler being "killed in action" as indicated in the Battle Box. He committed suicide, of course, without ever coming in direct armed combat at any point in the battle -- therefore the description is seemingly innacurate. Not to mention that on an emotional level it seems to give his role in the battle (and war) a dignity that he does not to my mind warrant or deserve. Pat Payne 20:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler's disposition in the Battle Box

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

message: We all know the basic defense strategy on the Eastern Front was street fighting. Soldiers fight from city to city, taking street by street and through house by house. Stalingrad was a great example of this. My question is how come the Soviets, using street fighting, defended Stalingrad for 4-5 months yet the Germans barely defended their key cities like Berlin, Prague, and Budapest for a couple of weeks? Is the Soviet style of street fighting somehow "better" than the German style of street fighting? It would've made sense if Berlin was tiny but it was and is HUGE, at least 2x that of Stalingrad. 02:36, 30 Jan 2005 SecretAgentMan00
:It is customary to sign you postings to talk pages and to place new topics at the bottom). A three year old demands attention, (I shall return) Philip Baird Shearer 13:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning the length of the battle 

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

message: During and after the Battle the Soviets raped many women and murdered some civilians.
I have several times had to restor these references: 
*A Woman in Berlin: Six Weeks in the Conquered City Translated by Anthes Bell 
*"They raped every German female from eight to 80" by Antony Beevor]
I am not sure why they are being deleted because they are an historical fact and are relevent to this article. Philip Baird Shearer 02:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Beevor's book is not a journalistic work. The bibliography is six pages long (466 to 475) and the source notes are pages 435-465, 30 pages of double column text. He  sources much more than one rape. His is not the only source for examlple have you read "A Woman in Berlin: Six Weeks in the Conquered City"? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *The current state of the article in this regard looks good. It makes note of the rapes without dwelling on them. --Kizor 22:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *The article is called battle of berlin. Why is it so difficult to understand that in encyclopedia an article must stick to its topic? Or you are saying that each time Soviets took over a building diring the battle the first thing they did was to rape everyone there? Once again, feel free to write a special article on the subject of Red Army rapes in the longest possible way, and no one will say ou a word. mikka (t) 04:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not sure whether these comments add anything to earlier comments, or respond substantively to my comments. Obey 07:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *As someone of German descent I say with no compunction whatsoever that it is a well known fact that the Soviet Army committed one of the worst acts of mass rape in human history. To hide this fact while talking about the last weeks of WW2 in the Battle of Berlin is more than shameful. If we as a people of the human race are to more forward we must confront all our demons rather than ignoring the inconvenient facts. --Delos 23:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rape

message: Such term as Eastern Allies was never used, and Germany was the only Axis power that took part in the battle.
::You have no mandate to unilaterally impose your preference, like in all other articles you go around and deleting things. You have vandalized this page many times by altering numbers changeing and removeing key paragraphs. This is just one of your many acts of vandalism to this page and to the whole of wiki(Deng 19:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axis and "Eastern Allies" 

message: I must thank you for those kind words. How creative...
"This is just one of your many acts of vandalism to this page and to the whole of wiki"
I expect that you have a reliable source that can name the other Axis countries that took part in the battle. And where does the term "Eastern Allies" come from.
::It is simple the eastern allies are not the western allies And you have vandlised this page many times when you tried to change the numbers have you forgoten that you changed the numbers and then said those numbers were the original (Deng 17:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: Don't try go change the subject.
"eastern allies"
Where does this term come from? Can you give me a source which states that such term was used. And where do you get more than one Axis country in Berlin?
Kurt.
I am not changeing shit let us look at your altering of numbers one can see it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Berlin&diff=41225715&oldid=41015442
Then you say that those altered numbers "have been here for a long time" this proves that you are a vandal 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Berlin&diff=47625819&oldid=47451264
It is clear you are a vandal and you have vandlized this page before (Deng 17:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All mighty 

message: As a matter of fact it does not, and you still haven't answered my question.
:Really you didnt change numbers and you didnt say "These figures were here for long time" Who are you trying to fool you vandalized this page as I have just shown with 2 links then you say that the vandalized numbers "These figures were here for long time" (Deng 17:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, well.. 

message: I do not have to continue this "discussion" since you refuse to answer me.
Kurt.
Yes when I show you your acts of vandalism then you refuse to answer because you can not say anything about it because it is pure vandalism (Deng 17:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord... 

message: I refuse to continue this. You haven't still answered my question and for my part this is over.
Kurt.
Ofcurse it is over You can not reply to the fact that you tried to change numbers so now you say it is over (Deng 17:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatever you say... 

message: There is a brief mention of foreign SS units fighting in the battle.  Can anyone contribute which units took part?  I know the remnants of División Azul did.
::: Waffen-SS Division "Nordland" was there, and I have heard mention of the French SS also. DMorpheus 17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last defenders of the Führer bunker and Reichtag building  included both French, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish SS men. The most fanatic remnants of the Nazi war machine, men who knew they had nothing to gain by surrendering to the Russians. Amongst the last groups trying to break out of Berlin, on May 2, was a relatively large group of Norwegian SS from 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland. They tried to force their way out from Friedrichstrasse in the centre of Berlin, but were ambushed by the Red Army by the Widendammer Brücke. Their mission was to bring Martin Bormann out of the besieged city, but they failed and were buried in umarked graves in Kreuzberg, Berlin. There is currently a debate in Norway on wheter or not the Norwegian government should give financial support to bring the fallen Norwegian SS-men home from their burial grounds all over eastern and central Europe. See the book "Norwegian Waffen SS Volunteers on the Eastern Front"  for more details on the Norwegian SS. 
Manxruler 01:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign SS Units 

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

message: I'd just like to note that it says that Panzerfausts were effective shoulder fired weapons, but in actuality Panzerfausts weren't shoulder fired like bazookas, they were held like rifles.70.48.210.224 02:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two things: First, it depends on which version of the faust you are writing about. There were different sights on various versions, some designed for firing with the tube held on top of the shoulder (bazooka style) and, more commonly, with the tube held under the armpit. No Panzerfaust was held *at* the shoulder like a rifle; doing so would have led to a burned shoulder. The tube was hollow to allow escape of hot gases at the back end. Second, the term "shoulder-fired" doesn't literally mean the weapon must be fired exactly at the shoulder. Your own example demonstrates that; rifles and assault rifles are virtually always considered to be shoulder-fired weapons; pistols aren't. Machineguns generally aren't, except light ones that *can* be shoulder-fired. Perhaps a better term would be "man-portable" since that is the more critical characteristic anyway. DMorpheus 14:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panzerfausts 

message: I don't think Poland should be listed in the battle box. There was a bit of a discussion a year ago, but I'd like to re-open the floor on it. If you look at the wikipedia page on the 1st polish army it makes it clear that it was a russian controlled and dominated military formation. Why not also list "Russia" with the white flag and blue diagonal cross as a combatant in the Battle of Normandy, as some members of the Russian Liberation Army did fight in and around Normandy. I just feel that listing poland as a combatant is misleading to the casual viewer looking for information about the battle, though of course the "Polish" 1st army should remain mentioned in the article as it is. Any comments on this are appreciated, as I'd like to see Poland removed from the battle box but don't want to do so without any discussion.
--Detruncate 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you are wrong :-) It was, as you mentioned earlier, discussed, with Halibutt providing even the text of the oath taken by Polish soldiers. Nominally it was independent army of the independent country, even if in reality it was different. Szopen 08:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There Was no "Russia" there was only the Soviet Union. And those traitors who fought with the Germans were not "Russian" but mostley from the Ukraine and the Baltic countries. Weedro 22:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, Polish People's Army was under soviet control, no doubt about it. But still, nominally it was an army of independent Polish state, fighting in polish uniforms and uder polish flag. That's why I think Poland should be mentioned in battle box, just as german puppet states are mentioned in Battle of Stalingrad article battle box.84.10.253.80 18:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland in the battle box....Again. 

message: Is that a joke? Luftwaffe didn't exist since the end of 1944. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.139.13.231 (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually large amount of german aircraft still existed after the war, and many aircraft were surrendered mainly in Norway and Denmark. Enlil Ninlil 07:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How many of those 3,300 were used in the Berlin area? How many of those aircraft could not be operated due to lack of fuel and pilots? Andries 07:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually 3,300 for either side is fancyfull. Enlil Ninlil 09:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article needs much more inine references from reputable sources. The way it stands now is partially a piece of misinformation. Andries 10:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The German article mentions >100 airplanes which sounds far more realistic. Andries 11:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 100 aircraft, I dont think so. Ok we should get a good sorce for this information. Enlil Ninlil 05:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3300 is for the entire OPERATIONAL AREA, which includes Berlin and a substantial portion around it, which encompasses the 1 million men still fielded by the Wehrmacht, which faced the frontages of three entire Soviet fronts.  3300 is entirely plausible, though how many of those could get in the air due to fuel constraints is up to question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.59.148 (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3,300 German aircraft? 

message: Why all the Soviet pictures, and from the German side? Enlil Ninlil 07:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I just thought the same thing. Some other point of views could be brought to the battle if pictures from actually both sides would be added. Now it only has Soviet and Polish. But look at some other Eastern front articles, they mostly have bolshevist propaganda also. --Pudeo (Talk) 10:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: There's 1 million German combatants in strenght, but only 0.5 million dead, wounded AND captured in losses (curiously enough, more wounded than captured). And there was no breakout. So, what happened to the OTHER 500,000 AND 70,000 wounded Germans? "3,300 aircraft"  (there would be hardly any Luftwaffe left at this momemnt) and supposedly no German artillery (especially given large numbers of AA guns in what I think was a special AA division) is strange too. --HanzoHattori 14:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the number of aircraft is extremely unlikely. Andries 21:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The numbers don't add 

message: From History of the page:
* 17:32, 11 February 2007 Kurt Leyman  m (Germany did NOT surrender following the end of the battle by date, nor was the battle decisive.)
* 17:57, 11 February 2007 Philip Baird Shearer (The Battle of Belin includes the meeting of the Western Allies and Soviet armies, the battle was decisive, because it led directly to the surrender on the 7-9th of May)
* 18:32, 11 February 2007 HanzoHattori 
* 12:33, 12 February 2007 Kurt Leyman  (Nonsense. Germany still had millions of soldiers in total across Europe. Even Prague offensive hit Germany more than Berlin.)
* 13:38, 12 February 2007 DMorpheus  m (Revert. of course it was decisive. Take it to the talk page, Kurt, and please explain why it wcould have been otherwise.)
Kert please explain how the "Prague Offensive hit Germany more than Berlin", given most decisive fighting in that battle happened after the general capitulation? Surly Germany did not consider total surrender before the Battle of Berlin and after the battle (which included the capture of most of what was to become East Germany) they did because they had no other practical choice. To say it was not decisive and that the "Prague offensive hit Germany more than Berlin" is like saying that the Battle of Waterloo was not decisive but Wavre was. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decisive 

message: From the article:
:Berlin was heavily bombed by the Allies in 1945. On 1 February, there was a heavy air raid on Berlin. On 3 February, there was a concentrated daylight raid by USAAF bombers on Berlin. On 5 February, there was another daylight raid on Berlin. From 18 February, Berlin was raided from the air daily (day and night). Often the raids were twice daily. On 22 February, some 6,000 Allied aircraft raid 158 railyards inside the Berlin-Leipzig, Kassel, Hamburg, and Ludwigslust pentagon. On 26 February, Berlin is subjected to a severe daylight raid. On 18 March, the Allies launch the most concentrated raid of the war on Berlin. On 21 March Berlin was bombed for the 30th night in succession.
I don't think "Berlin was raided from the air daily (day and night)" is the best description. the USAAF did not bomb Berlin by night, and the RAF did send Mosquitos every night but, 30-70 Wooden Wonders (dropping just over 1 ton each) were not 700-1000 Lancasters dropping 5+ tons each. (See RAF Campaign Diary February 1945 March April and May)
By RAF Bomber Command standards they did not do much on the 22 Feb. (see below it was a tactical strike) on 17/18 March 1945 38 Mosquitos to Berlin, 18/19 March 1945 30 Mosquitos to Berlin. So the RAF Bomber command did not bomb Berlin to any great extent on that day
Also from the Diary:
:14/15 April 1945 500 Lancasters and 12 Mosquitos of Nos 1, 3 and 8 Groups attacked Potsdam. This was the first time that Bomber Command 4-engined aircraft had entered the Berlin defence zone since March 1944 but the approach, across parts of Germany recently captured by Allied troops, and the Cuxhaven diversion led to only 1 Lancaster being lost; it was shot down by a night fighter.
and
:20/21 April 1945 76 Mosquitos made 6 separate attacks on Berlin. This was the last RAF raid of the war on Berlin; the Russians were about to enter the city. Mosquito XVI ML929, of No 109 Squadron, claimed the last bombs - 4 500-pounders - at 02.14 British Time. The crew were Flying Officer AC Austin, pilot, and Flying Officer P Moorhead, navigator. All aircraft returned safely.
From another online souce:
*The next day, 3 February, the Eighth struck Berlin with more than 1,000 B-17s. Of these, 932,... (page 498)
*22 February: Allied strategic and tactical air forces—execute Operation Clarion—the bombing of dozens of small marshaling yards and rail junctions in small, untouched German towns to demonstrate the reach and destructiveness of Allied airpower to all Germans (page 487). The plan purposely selected targets near small towns heretofore untouched by the war and there- fore not likely to have strong antiaircraft defenses.... (page 508).
*26 February ... the Eighth sent all three of its air divisions over the capital of the Reich (Berlin), where 1,089 effective sorties employed H2X to drop 2,778 tons of bombs, 44 percent of them incendiaries, through 10/10 clouds.... Each division attempted to hit a separate rail station. The Schle-sischer, Alexanderplatz, and Berlin-North stations were all lo-cated within two miles of the center of Berlin. The bombing started large fires and killed many civilians. RAF Mosquito night-intruder bombers attacking 12 hours later reported fires still burning. After the 26 February mission, with its 500,000 fire bomblets, the typical Berliner, with reason, would have been hard put to distinguish between RAF area bombing and [US]AAF pre-cision bombing (551-552).
*15 March: Eighth Air Force—raids German atomic energy research facility at Oranienburg, a suburb of Berlin, to keep it  from falling into Soviet hands (page 518). On 15 March, a day when the Eighth’s meteorologists predicted clear weather over what remained of Nazi Germany, the Eighth’s planning officers began to lay out an assault on their highest priority target system—oil. Instead, Spaatz’s headquarters intervened directly, an unusual action. USSTAF selected the force (a maximum effort of 1,300 bombers), targets, bomb using, and axis of attacks for two targets in the Berlin area: the marshaling yards at Oranienburg, to the northwest of the capital city, and the general headquarters of the German army at Zossen to the southeast of the city (page 524).
*18 March: there is no specific entry but it does say on page 304 that the Eight attacked Munich,Freidrichshafen, and Oberpfaffenhofen (18 March). on page 522: During the month the Eighth conducted four major area bombings, dropping 1,014 tons visually on the city of Plauen (19 March) and employing H2X to release 1,039 tons on the Berlin suburb of Spandau (28 March); 1,166 tons on Hannover (28 March); and 730 tons on Brandenburg (31 March). Other large raids on rail targets in city areas carried large percentages of incendiaries: Ulm (1 March), 30 percent; Frankfurt (9 March), 30 percent; Berlin (18 March), 50 percent; and Brunswick (31 March), 22 percent. It is possible that the raid that is being refered to in both souces is the raid on the 15th which does seem to bave been large.
*24 March 15th best-known raid of the month, when a force of 148 bombers escorted by its own P-51s made the long trip north to Berlin to hit a Diamler-Benz tank factory on the city’s outskirts. The raid demonstrated the Fifteenth’s capability to strike almost anywhere. The loss of 12 bombers (8 percent) discouraged any further such demonstrations (pp 525,526).
So should we leave the new bombing paragraph in the article as is, or modify it, or remove it?   --Philip Baird Shearer 00:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that the U.S and British kept bombing after the russians entered the city. Is this correct? Enlil Ninlil 06:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The RAF did not. 20/21 April was the last RAF raid of the war on Berlin; (see higher in this paragraph).--Philip Baird Shearer 08:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerial Bombardment. 

message: I'd like to get it it simple, so you understand:
*1) an article about the whole operation (whatever you name it, I don't care that much, < this is now, and you want it still named "Batle of Berlin", and which I first named "Berlin Offensive" because I noticed there was a redirect, but I heard "Berlin Operation" a lot, in the Communist histography).
*2) an articles about each of the battles (including the article about the fighting in Berlin, maybe "Battle for Berlin" or really whatever title)
All of them with the different text (not a mindless doubling copy/paste, a "skeleton" or whatever you call it - copypasta is a copypasta), different boxes (operational for the operation), and of course a different photos (truly illustrating the article, not posted at random like now).
As of mentioned Prague Offensive, the actual battle for the city sure have its own article. Look.
::I mentioned the Talk:Prague Offensive because it goes into detail about what the Soviets called their offensive operations and how we would translate those into English titles if no other common name was available. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We should avoid original research. The french campaign of 1940 is almost universally called the "Battle of France" in english. Sure it is misleading - but it is the most common name for the campaign. Likewise, the most common name for the set of Soviet offensives around Berlin in April and May of 1945 is the "Battle of Berlin", even though much of it was fought outside the city. The "battle of Stalingrad" was decided, in part, outside the city too. But the names are what they are. DMorpheus 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: See also Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945), the Battle of Berlin (air), Battle of the Ruhr 1939-1945 --Philip Baird Shearer 21:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It was because they were not land campaigns that I picked them. You might like to have everything in "Theatre" "Campaign" and "Battle", but that is not what happens in common usage. The British Army did not give a campaign medal for the Battle of France they gave one for the "North-West Europe Campaign" which is how they described the Western Front. But because On June 18 1940 Churchill addressed Parliament an said "What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. The Battle of Britain is about to begin" this is the name that the actions are known as. Because Stalin repeatedly asked for a "Western Front" that is the name that tends to be used for what was in reality a theatre. There are other examples like this where the common name is not the official name. Also "battle" and "siege" are more neutral than "operation", because an operation tends to create articles from the side who launches the operation. Because this is an English language encyclopaedia and it is generally agreed that national versions of English will be used for articles where there is a specific national interest, sometimes articles have names from that Point of View. For example the British called the Eastern part of the North African Campaign the Western Desert Campaign because it was west of Egypt. The American military called it Egypt-Libya Campaign a more logical name but not the one used in Wikipedia because it is not the common name. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geez, no

message: Beevor mentions on page 247 that no records were kept of the roadside executions carried out by the Feldfendarnerie and SS groups but "Soviet sources claimed that 25,000 German soldiers and officers were summarily executed for cowardice in 1945. This figure is almost certainly too heigh, but it was unlikely to have been lower than 10,000". I would have put these numbers into the Infobox but until the other numbers are sourced it might be taken that this source was for all the information in the German casualties window. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To use Beevor is the same as to use Goebbels, it is nothing but propaganda. Beevor is the number 1 pro Nazi propaganda machine livening today. Do not use him or his books since everything he writes is from a very Nazi perspective how the glorious Nazis bravely fought the half drunk Bolshevik Asiatic inhuman hordes using medieval equipment. And do not add more info to the already cramped window add it at the bottom of the page. Toad bricks 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German road side executions 

message: Are these about ACTUAL Berlin battle only? If so, why there are more German wounded than prisoners? --HanzoHattori 09:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by the "ACTUAL Berlin battle" --Philip Baird Shearer 10:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What do you think were the start and end dates? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: I removed the recently introduced sentence "The total force for the Berlin Operation was more the Hitler had used at the start of Operation Barbarossa in 1941." for two reasons the first was it did not have a page source in the Beevor citation given, and I am not sure how relevent it is. The Soviets had more troops involved than the Allies did in Italy, so what? Only if you know a lot about Operation Barbarossa  is the comparison pertinent, we can not assume that level of knowledge for the reader. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barbarossa

message: Would a veteran Wikipedia user create a trivia section? There are alot of interesting facts about the battle of Berlin. One that I found to be rather amusing is as follows:
"When the city was captured, a Polish Infantryman got up on the Reichstag, and hoisted the Polish flag above it. The Russians were infuriated; they burned the flag, and were thinking about shooting the Polish soldier. Subsequently, they hoisted their own Soviet flag over the Reichtag, and took the famous picture at the top of the page. " 
:Please place new sections at the bottom of a talk page. Please sign you missives with ~~~~ which will be expanded automagicaly into name and time stamp
Source? (don't feed the a troll) --Philip Baird Shearer 07:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia Section?