Talk:Battle of Berlin

}}

German numbers

From my talk page with my replies on Shipslong45 talk page. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

What are you doing in the battle of Berlin article

From your edits it looks like that 45,000 soldiers and 40,000 were ALONE fighting 2,5 million Soldiers and these 85,000 men were able to inflict some 280,000 casualties

If you look at all other languages they all say that the Axis had 1,000,000 men

So why do you say that the Axis only had 85,000? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shipslong45 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If the number of Germans is known and sourced then please add a citation to a Verifiable, Reliable Source, that states how many Germans were involved.

The sentence I restored says: "In Berlin about 45,000 soldiers, supplemented by the ..." (my emphasis), also please read the footnote to the sentence that explains that "A large number of the 45,000 were troops of the LVI Panzer Corps that were at the start of the battle part of the German IX Army on the Seelow Heights". --Philip Baird Shearer 10:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This internet LEARNING home page also says 1 million

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_for_berlin.htm

So I will add the 1 million again ok? Shipslong45 10:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

HUH?

Just go here and look

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_for_berlin.htm

The source provided is not good enough because there is no information about how the figures are arrived at and it does not cite its sources, and it is not published in a peer review journal or by a person who is an acknowledged expert historian of this period. For example do the figures include the German Twelfth and Twenty-First Armies which were initially facing the Western Allies, or is it only counting the figures for the formations on the Oder-Neisse front, Does it include all of the German Army Group Centre even those that did not take part in the Battle? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is very Verifiable and Reliable since it is an official site sanctioned by the United Kingdom to educate its citizens, it does not get more reliable then that Shipslong45 10:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As to your last edit you still have not cited your source. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The 1 million was the figure initially given in Soviet estimates. In other words, 1 million defenders is what the USSR prepared for in their plans. However, due to the depleted nature of the divisions facing them, the actual strength was probably somewhat less. My gut feeling says ~700,000, which would account for the difficulties encountered in the campaign, as well as the high body count and the numbers of prisoners taken. The German strength total couldn't have been much less than 600,000, in my estimation. Combining the five field armies, plus Op Group Steiner, plus Volkssturm, plus police units you have something at least on the order of 50-60 divisions. Given that German divisions tended to be on the large side, if you treated those 50-60 divisions as full strength you would very well end up with a figure close to 1 million. Allowing for some depletion but retaining combat effectiveness, a more realistic total would be somewhat less, but not significantly less. There's no way to go here except by estimating, since Germany didn't have an accounting system in 1945, and what they did have was already breaking down in 44.

Unfortunately, the only figures that hint at an accurate total either this immediate postwar Soviet estimate of casualties I found (~937,000 killed/captured out of the expected 1,000,000), which is more of historigraphic rather than historical interest, or slanted pro-German accounts that seek to minimize any and all German engagement in this campaign out of some perverse sense of national honor (and I'm not bashing Ziemke, just idiots like Albert Seaton). It's true that the total Berlin garrison numbered 80,000-100,000, but if one wants to confine the operational area to the city itself, Soviet troop strengths would have to be revised to 350,000 for the seven armies that participated in the assault itself.

That said, there has to be some way of putting up reasonable estimates, but all the sources I have read either use the 1,000,000 figure (probably more accurate but not good enough for reasons stated above) or play the transparently disingenuous lowballing game that assumes the reader has no grasp of basic arithmetic. When/IF I find a sourced statistic that seems reasonable, I'll try to put it up. Until then, would it be all right to qualify the 1,000,000 figure as an initial estimate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.55.123 (talk) 15:07:42, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

---

I sent an email to History Learning Site > World War Two > The Battle for Berlin (the source used by Shipslong45) and the author was kind enough to send back a reply that said his sources were "History of World War Two" magazines published by Purnell

It seems to me that the problem with German figures is that in the last few weeks of the war there was a big difference between the Order of Battle and the number of men actually available. A further problem is that as Beevor (p.287) points out when the battle was over the Soviets took into captivity as POWs any man in a uniform including many none combatants such as firemen and railwaymen. So it is probably impossible to know. However if the Soviets estimates were 1 million Germans and it is noted in a footnote with a source, I think we should included it. If for no other reason than it will stop it being put into the article every so often without an adequate source or footnoted comment that the primary source is a Soviet planning estimate. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, I think I have found a solution to this conundrum. I just spent some time footnote digging in my books, and I think David Glantz has a definitive answer to this. He talks about the 1 million figure that is commonly repeated in Soviet sources, and he indicates that it includes all of Army Group Vistula, XII Army, and probably more of AG Center than engaged in the operation. In a classified postwar study titled Berlinskaya operatsiia 1945 goda prepared by the Soviet Army General Staff, German strength in and forward of Berlin was determined to be 766,750 men, 1,519 AFVs, and 9,303 guns. Considering that this document was kept classified while the more propagandistic figure of 1 million was allowed to float around and, well, propagate, I would suppose that this figure is likely to be realistic and definitive. The question is whether we should delete the unit list that is currently in the battlebox and replace it with a straight number or simply append this information to it. 68.160.55.123 18:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I say delete and replace the units the with a straight number, but leave the numbers for in Berlin. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I also took the liberty of putting a sourced note about the 1 million figure, in case anyone tries to put it back.68.160.55.123 19:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Berlin Defense Area Figures

Even though the claim of 1,500,000 men committed to the Berlin Defense Area is supposedly backed up by Beevor, I would have to question it. You can take a look at the map yourself for the total forces committed in the storming of the city. http://www.geocities.com/sonzabird/berlin.jpg Counting the units, we have 1st Guards Tank Army, 2nd Guards Tank Army, 3rd Guards Tank Army, 3rd Shock Army, 5th Shock Army, 8th Guards Army, and 28th Army. That's a total of seven Soviet field armies, each of which number anywhere between 30,000-60,000 men (fewer in the tank armies and more in the shock armies). There is no way that those 7 armies could ever total more than half a million men, and the likely figure is more in the 300,000-400,000 range. I would delete the claim or seriously qualify it. There's too much history done by people who don't take the time to add the basic numbers in their head.68.160.55.123 19:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

From Christopher Duffy's Red Storm on the Reich, these are the typical unit strengths of Soviet formations.

Tank Army

35-50,000 men

900 (three corps) tanks

850 artillery pieces

Combined Arms Army

40,000 men

400 tanks

1,100 artillery pieces

Guards and shock armies are largely similar, except that they have additional reinforcements and shock armies are proportionately heavier in artillery. In any case, there's no way that seven of these could total half a million, let alone 1.5 million. 68.160.55.123 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A couple of quibbles with the numbers: you have not included the tactical air armies also engaged in the battle, and there were several other Armies engaged not on the map ... for example First Polish and the Soviet Forty-seventh Army. I have not been through all the armies engaged in storming the city, but lets assume that you are correct I agree it comes to less than 1.5 million. In defence of Beevor, I would guess that he came to that number by taking those available in the two Fronts (army groups) that were initially engaged in the race for Berlin and were available for the assault. I guess he includes in his numbers those that were involved in the investment as well as those in the assault because it is I who have put in the words assault on BDA not he. His words are "Weidling found he was supposed to defend Berlin from 1.5 million Soviet troops with ..."

I am more than willing to accept other figures, but they must be sourced, but for the moment I'll add investment to the wording. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I just went through John Erickson's The Road to Berlin, and I am largely right. On the encirclement of Berlin (April 25th), Erickson writes, "Soviet command could now count on an encirclement line manned by at least nine armies--47th, 3rd and 5th Shock, 8th Guards, elements of the 28th, and four tank armies (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Guards)" (p. 590). Now, flipping back to the operational map on page 587, one can clearly see that 47th Army and 4th Gds Tank were holding their encirclement cordon about 20 miles west of Berlin near Ketzin, which means that only the seven armies I stated earlier were in assault positions on the outskirts of the city. And according to Erickson, the 28th Army was also maintaining an encirclement cordon around IX Army and IV Panzer, so it was only half there.

As for 1st Polish, they did commit one division (probably ~10,000 men total) to the Berlin assault, but the map shows that the army largely bypassed the city pushing west to the Elbe alongside 61st Army. The operational map shows a total of 22 Soviet army-level formations, they are all shown to be engaged in front-line combat so it's apparent that rear area logistical formations are probably not included (reserves and logistics are however, included in the 2.5 million figure). So essentially, the immediate Berlin encirclement in assault positions consisted of 6.5 field armies along with some additional air support. Out of a total of 22 army formations, that's about 30% of total combat forces. It's highly unlikely that there were 1.5 million troops directed at the Berlin Defense Area, considering that 1.5 million would mean commitment from every single combat unit from all three fronts.

Also, I am going to add the numbers from the Second Polish Army in the article where it mentions Polish involvement, since they were advancing on the extreme southern flank on AG Center. *Actually, I reverted the edit, because it isn't clear whether they were technically part of the operation or not. According to a document published by the Polish Embassy, the 2nd wasn't a part of the Berlin Operation. They were a part of the 1st Ukrainian, though.68.160.55.123 23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The troubles you are running into now is that if you are only counting ground armies actively involved in fighting in and Berlin, then we would need to do the same for the whole operation and you seem to be saying above that the 2.5m include the rear echelon troops. If not then the numbers we give will not be measuring the same thing. I think you are straying into original research, because if we change the 2.5 to be a number that reflects only combat armies then we will contradict most historians. I think for the number involved in the attack on Berlin city we have to go with a number published by a respected historian like Beevor, not one we calculate ourselves, even if our own figure would be a better reflection of the numbers involved.

That's funny because that's exactly what Krivosheev does. According to his book on combat casualties, he lists the strength total for the Berlin Offensive as 2,062,100. That said, I do agree that sourced statements are preferable and unless we have a better figure we should go with Beevor.68.160.55.123 15:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The 47th was involved in fighting in Spandau (a suburb of Berlin). The second Polish took part in the Prague Offensive, the Poles who contributed to this talk page did not mention any divisions from that army taking part in the fighting in Berlin. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up.68.160.55.123 15:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Grammar edits

I've tried fixing some small grammatical errors in the article three times over the last two weeks and they continue to be reverted. Here's a suggestion. Next time, please consider reverting only the objectionable content and try to avoid putting incorrect grammar into the article. Thanks. DMorpheus 14:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Red Army Units

I have put several Red Army unit designations into the article and it has been reverted back out three times. I see German units below Divisional level are included in the article. I therefore think it is reasonable that Soviet units be named at similar levels. If there is some really solid reason why we name the German units but not the Soviet ones, please discuss here before reverting again. Or if we're going to avoid naming any Soviet unit below the Front or Army level, let's do likewise with the German units - nothing below Army or Corps. That would be nonsense but at least it would be consistent. Thank you very much. DMorpheus 14:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The sections where I reverted you additions was the Battle in Berlin. There is a detailed article on that phase of the battle there is much more detail about soviet units down to the man where necessary. But as there were almost as many Soviet armies in Berlin as the Germans had divisions, it seem reasonble to keep it at Soviet army German division level in this article.--Philip Baird Shearer 19:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I strongly disagree. First, the separate Battle of Berlin article is not very good. Second, even if it were superb, that's not a good reason to leave out valid information here. Third, naming German units at the division level and even below, while naming Red Army units only at the Army level, may be taken as a sign of bias. Fourth, there is a long record in western historiography of treating the Red Army as an anonymous mass rather than looking at each unit. Since we know the units involved let's name them. It is the typical practice in other articles. DMorpheus 19:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In the section Battle in Berlin which German unit below division is mentioned? --Philip Baird Shearer 19:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Zoo flak tower garrison, some 300 men. The Hermann Von Salza heavy tank battalion. The "Youth Divisions" (obviously 'divisions' in name only - there was no such thing as a formal TO&E for youth divisions in the Whermacht or W-SS) Clausewitz, Scharnhorst, and Theodor Korner. The foreign Waffen-SS battalions. To be perfectly clear: I don't disagree with this level of detail at all. I am simply saying it should be roughly equal for the two opposing forces. The seizure of the Reichstag is, in Soviet eyes, as iconic as the flag-raising on Iwo Jima is for US citizens. I can't think of a good reason not to name the men and regiment that did it. DMorpheus 20:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with mentioning the regiment that placed the flag the Reichstag, but in general I do not think that in an article that is already over 32K we should put in too much detail on Soviet forces as there is a more detailed article for that information. Just as in general in the section Battle in Berlin there does not need to be much mention of German forces below divisional level.

As to the units mentioned in the article:

• The Zoo flak tower was a building of some importance in the fight and without mentioning it it is difficult to explain why it took the Soviets so long to enter the Reichstag. No mention is made of the German units that made up the garrison.
• There is no mention of foreign Waffen-SS battalions other than on the 24th to say: "all the German forces ordered to reinforce the inner defences of city by Hitler, only a small contingent of French SS volunteers" which emphasises the desertion of Hitler and Berlin by generals like Steiner and it does not name any of the units from which they came or went.
• The tank battalion is mentioned only because it is not clear in the sources I used if it was all the German Tiger tanks left in the centre or if there were more attached to other units, and I don't know how many were placed there. So unless the wording is changed to "some German Tiger tanks" (but it might "all remaining German Tiger tanks"), or another source is used that contains the exact number of tanks using a description that names the unit is IMHO the best way to convey that informaion.
• All the other units you mention are in sections not covered by the "Battle in Berlin".

--Philip Baird Shearer 09:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Again we are beating a very small horse to death. There is no harm in including the Soviet unit designations and in my opinion it is biased to not do so. The length issue is a trivial issue. DMorpheus 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And I think that the level of unit designation for bothe is fine for the section Battle in Berlin and as it stands is not biase. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Red flag of the Reichstag

From the history of the article:

19:27, 11 September 2007 DMorpheus "Battle for the Reichstag - removing weasel words for perhaps the fourth time."

The change: "The Soviets forces fought their way to the top of the building claimed that they hoisted the red flag on the top of the Reichstag at 22:50," to "The Soviets forces fought their way to the top of the building and hoisted the red flag of the Reichstag at 22:50,"

That it is a "claim" is sourced, as is the explanation as to why it may only be a claim, do you have an independent source that verifys the Soviet claim? If not then the words "claimed that they" are not "weasel words" but a statment of fact (as the claim can not be verified by an independent source, and the Soviet actors in the drama had a vested intrest in not dispeasing Stalin by delivering the flag raising after the 1st.) --Philip Baird Shearer 19:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

From the first reference already listed in the article: "Sergeants M. A. Yegorov and M. V. Kantaria managed to find their way around to the rear of the building where there was a stairway up to the roof. Finding a mounted statue, they wedged the staff of their banner into a convenient crevice and thus the Red Flag, at 22.50 on 30 April 1945, finally flew over the Reichstag " DMorpheus 20:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

From Tony Le Tessier, "Berlin Then and Now" page 240, "....the flag was triumphantly wedged into position....just seventy minutes before the deadline of midnight."

From Max Hastings, "Amageddon" , p. 474, also places the flag raising just before midnight of the 30th and gives the same names and units. DMorpheus 21:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What are the independent primary sources, other than official Soviet ones, that these secondary sources rely on for the timing of the event? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What primary source could possibly exist other than the Red Army itself? I cited three sources, two of which were already listed as sources for the article. While I am sure I could find others as well, three is plenty. There is no need to flog this point to death. DMorpheus 13:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is no other independent primary source then it is a claim by the Soviets. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect, that is a patently ridiculous argument, hardly worthy of response. There are no other independent primary sources for the US flag raising on Iwo Jima - are you going to label that a "claim" now? The same argument could be advanced for thousands of accepted historical events. DMorpheus 17:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There are the were US journalists there and the US was not a totalitarian regime where the consequences of displeasing the US President by contradicting the official line carried the same consequences as displeasing Stalin. For example see the AP bulletin issued by Howard Cowan after the SHAEF press conference about the Bombing of Dresden in 1945. There was no fourth estate worth the name in the USSR.

The time of raising of the Red Flag over the Reichstag is a claim because Stalin wanted it raised before midnight and it would have been a very stupid soviet citizen who questioned the official Soviet line on this subject while Stain was alive. For most events during the battle the timings were not of political significance for the Soviets so there is no reason for someone to suggest political interference, but in this case Beevor does suggest it is possible. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Readd objectives

Added back objectives with an unsourced tag. The material is rather uncontroversial, and sources for German objectives is a summary of material on articles on Wenck and Heinrici.

I'm pretty sure that the the material can be found in Cornelius Ryan's "The Last Battle" but I don't have that book handy, and any of the other fifty books that are on the subject.

I added citations. These are from various articles that are linked to this one. The paragraph seems to me to be uncontroversial, and absolutely essential to example why the generals did what they did.

Roadrunner 08:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove the additions because:

• The second paragraph is already in the text.
• The third paragraph is in my opinion misleading. At the start of the battle, Theodor Busse objective was to defend Berlin by holding the Seelow Heights. His objective of creating a corridor to the west only because an objective once the battle was lost. Likewise at the start of the Battle Walther Wenck objectives was to continue to hold the line against the Americans. It was not until after he was ordered to turn around face East and failed to relieve Berlin that his objectives became those described in the section.

--Philip Baird Shearer 11:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Good point. Let me see if the statements can be put into the article elsewhere Roadrunner 18:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. The one who I think sums this point better than the others is SS-Obergruppenführer Felix Steiner. Who I read took temporary nominal command of the XXI Army[1] when Tippelskirch took temporary nominal command of Army Group Vistula and made dam sure to surrender to the Americans rather than join the gotterdammerung in Berlin. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wo tan or Wotan

Wotan seems to have been a popular German name there was a Wotan line during WWI and a Panther-Wotan line in 1943. So it is quite possible that the line near Berlin was the Wotan position but the source I used for the original paragraph was:

The armies added depth to the front line by constructing the Wot an position ten to fifteen miles to the rear of the Oder line (Ziemke, Earl F. Battle For Berlin: End Of The Third Reich, NY: Ballantine Books, London: Macdomald & Co, 1969. page 79).

Now that may be a typo in the original source, but unless there is another source (and I could not find one on the net) I think it should be left as Wo tan.

What do others think?--Philip Baird Shearer 20:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)