Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:45, 17 January 2014

	Battle of Berlin is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 27, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed September 22, 2008 WikiProject A-class review Approved October 11, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / German / Russian & Soviet / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  European military history task force German military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War II task force Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History / Military Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries: Prussia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 2, 2005, May 2, 2006, May 2, 2007, May 2, 2008, May 2, 2009, and May 2, 2010.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Outcome

I disagree with last two PBS' edits. My rationale is as follows. Battle of Berlin was not just one more battle, as the current version of the infobox says. Thus, Donald E. Shepardson (The Fall of Berlin and the Rise of a Myth. Journal of Military History, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 135-154) writes:

"On 30 April 1945 a Russian soldier raised his flag over the Reichstag building in Berlin to signal Stalin's defeat of Hitler after four years of war."

He continues:

"Hitler's death was more instrumental in ending the war than the fall of Berlin. All oaths to continue were invalid and all faith in victory gone."

In other words, in addition to the purely military importance, the BoB had both immense symbolic and political role: it signaled about complete defeat of Nazi Germany, and it liberated the Germans from their oath to Hitler, thereby making senseless further resistance. In addition, I do not understand why the reference to Flensburg was removed: the decision about transfer of authorities were made by Hitler during the battle, and this decision, along with Hitler's suicide, pawed a way for subsequent German surrender. In my opinion, the previous version is much more informative, correct, and it is supported by reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The "Suicide of Hitler and other high-ranking Nazi officials" is still there unaltered. The advance on Berlin was of far more symbolic importance to the Russians than it was to the Western Allies (or Churchill's pressure for the Western Allies to advance on Berlin would have been reciprocated by the American political establishment and carried out by Eisenhower).

I removed the "Allied victory in the European theatre of World War II" because it is misleading. The Battle of Berlin was a constituent of the end of the war in Europe, Its result was not the end of the war in Europe. The end of the war in Europe came with the formal general surrender and the resulting general end of hostilities (see End of World War II in Europe).

I removed "Governmental authority passed to the Flensburg Government" because the Flensburg government was not recognised by the Allies, as far a the Allies were concerned the German civilian government no longer existed, to present the Flensburg government as a government is a POV (see the articles debellation and End of World War II in Europe). -- PBS (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The idea that the Allies didn't take Berlin simply because they decided not to do so, is a myth, and Shepardson proves that quite convincingly. They didn't advance to Berlin because they (i) were afraid of massive friendly fire accidents with the Soviets, (ii) needed the Soviet help in Far East, so they tried to avoid any problems with the Soviets, (iii) were physically unable to do so (the maximal possible result would be that some American units would reach Berlin simultaneously with the Soviets). Therefore, the statement should be added about the symbolic meaning of this victory. I agree that the victory of the battle did not (formally) end the war, however, it marked a military defeat of Germany. Moreover, regarding Hitler's suicide, it should be clarified that that was not just a suicide, for each German, it was a termination of any obligations to continue a war. This action had a legal effect, not only symbolical.

Re Flensburg, that was a German internal affair. It does not matter if it was recognised or not by the Allies. Do you imply that any appointments, or elections in Germany, US etc come to a force only after they have been vetted by international community? The concept of debellatio was needed simply because the actions of the Allies were incompatible with international laws that regulate occupation, for example, Nuremberg trials would not be possible had Germany been considered under military occupation. However, that was important for the post-war events only. What was important for the war itself was the fact that Flensburg government appointed Jodl, and Jodl signed first surrender.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about bullet points in the battle box. They should be clear and concise. You are suggesting putting back complex issues that can not be summed up in one sentence and present with a balanced POV. These are issues for the Aftermath section if they belong anywhere in the article so that a balanced POV can be presented.

For example you says "The idea that the Allies didn't take Berlin simply because they decided not to do so, is a myth" opinion is divide on how feasible the taking of Berlin would have been (and will always be so) Beevor writing in The Second World War (2012) presents a different point of view from Shepardson. Besides you concede the point about the symbolism by listing practical reasons why the Western Allies did not advance on Berlin, if the symbolism had been as strong as it was for the Russians then those practical reasons would not have mattered (as they did not for the Stalin).

"I agree that the victory of the battle did not (formally) end the war, however, it marked a military defeat of Germany." Yes and the battle box makes that point by stating that the battle was a decisive military victory to the Soviet Union.

You write "What was important for the war itself was the fact that 'Flensburg government' appointed Jodl, and Jodl signed first surrender." not necessarily so, it can be convincingly argued that Jodl represented the German military not the German government. International recognition of a regime is fundemental to whether that regime is the recognised government of a state. Your argument would mean that for example the Taliban are still the legitimate government of Afghanistan--as they did not recognise their removal as legitimate (see the article Diplomatic recognition for Afghanistan mess and others). In this case you are suggesting putting in a line back into the battle box that has a POV that many did not, and do not agree with: that the Flensburg government was the successor to the Hitler's government.

-- PBS (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Lusatian operation?

Pl wiki has an article at pl:Operacja łużycka about which is described as part of the Battle of Berlin, carried out in the second half of April by the elements of the 1st Ukrainian Front south of Berlin, in Lusatia. The operations was carried by Soviet 5th Guard Army, 13 and 52 Army, and the Polish 2nd Army. Battle of Bautzen (1945) was a part of that. Here's a map: File:Operacja luzycka.png. I think I may work on that article, but first I want to double check it's not already covered on en wiki under another name? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The BoB involved the greater Berlin metropolitan area and its encirclement by the forces of the USSR - other areas may be considered part of a general Soviet operation/drive to the West, but not specifically part of the BoB.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is not just about the Battle in Berlin. The section Battle outside Berlin needs to be expanded, but any expansion needs to be based on reliable sources, preferable in English and it should not give undue weight to Polish army operations which only made up a small percentage of the Soviet's combined operation. At the moment the whole capture of what became the south of East Germany is covered by the sentence: "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." So a description of what Soviet forces went where, when they arrived and how much resistance they met needs to be added to this article. -- PBS (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC

Section about the Battle of Seelow Heights

I suggest that we remove the casualty figures for the Battle of the Seelow Heights from this article. The Soviet casualty figure is not entirely undisputed, but I think there is not room in this article for several perspectives and figures. There is a separate article for the Battle of the Seelow hights, I suggest that we use this article for the casualty figures.

(I find it interesting that we use Beevor as a source for the figure German casualties, but his figure for the Soviet casualties is not even mentioned.)

EriFr (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Goebbels's fevered prophecies

See WP:BRD.

From the history of the article

• 07:17, 16 January 2014‎ IIIraute(Undid revision 585381854 by YMB29
• 07:20, 16 January 2014‎ YMB29 (Undid revision 590935037 by IIIraute (talk) No reason given for revert.)
• 11:12, 16 January 2014‎ PBS . . (reverted the revert. It is a change in emphasis and needs discussion to see if there is a consensus for such a change. What is the evidence that it was a horde or that if it were a horde was that it was Asian and not European?)

As I see it there are several problems in the change made by YMB29.

• "During, and in the days immediately following the assault"

to

• "According to Antony Beevor, during, and in"

implies that this is only the opinion of an odd-ball not not a generally accepted fact. This is not so.

Change of

• "and despite Soviet efforts to supply food and rebuild the city, starvation remained a problem (White 2003, 126)."
• "Historian Atina Grossmann claims that for women 'Goebbels's fevered prophecies about the threat from the Asiatic hordes seemed to be fulfilled'" (Grossmann 2009, p. 51)

Removes a fact and inserts a Nazi propaganda term.

1. What is the evidence that this is was a generally held view among the women who were raped?
2. What is the evidence that it was a horde?
3. If it were a horde, what evidence is there that it was specifically an Asian horde and not European horde or a combined horde?

-- PBS (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with PBS, it should be excluded; as should the addition of: "According to historian Oleg Rzheshevsky, such portrayal of the Red Army is a return to views that were instilled by Nazi propaganda and Neo-Nazi historians." (This was part of the revert, above but not specifically mentioned) Both per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kierzek (talk • contribs) 13:53,16 January 2014‎

I second you last point. -- PBS (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

For those who's first language is not English there is an important difference between:

• wikt::Host: A multitude of people arrayed as an army; used also in religious senses, as: Heavenly host (of angels)
• wikt:Horde: A wandering troop or gang; especially, a clan or tribe of a nomadic people (originally Tatars) migrating from place to place for the sake of pasturage, plunder, etc.; a predatory multitude.

The Red Army was a host (A multitude of people arrayed as an army) not a horde (A wandering troop or gang). -- PBS (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the topic?

That quote about Asiatic hordes comes directly from Atina Grossmann.

Something may be a "generally accepted fact" to you, but here we have to attribute facts to sources (see WP:ASF).

Historian Rzheshevsky is just as valid of a source as Beevor. You have no right to remove what he said. -YMB29 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a right to challenge and do per, WP:undue and clearly there is a WP:NPOV problems with the statements you want to add. At this point the burden is on you; if you obtain consensus, then so be it. But you don't have it at this time. Kierzek (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The changes were there for over a month, so if there was an obvious violation of something, someone would have reverted them much sooner.

You have the right to challenge, but no right to remove sources because you don't like them (see WP:IJDLI). You have not even provided any real arguments.

Go to the NPOV or RS noticeboards and prove your case. Otherwise, stop reverting valid text that is properly sourced. -YMB29 (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

And when you challenge information from a source, you put tags like or , not revert everything. -YMB29 (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been on here a long time, I know how things work. The talk page is the first and foremost place to go. Your original addition was only mere opinions which were clearly bias and with no factual basis stated in support of them. Your edits were reverted, YOU are to discuss them before reverting them back because YOU don't like the result. Kierzek (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did it take you so long to revert them?

Strange that you are here for a long time and did not learn that reverting sourced text because you don't like what it says is not the way to go.

So the properly cited text is merely my opinion?

How is it "clearly biased and with no factual basis stated in support"? -YMB29 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I think you misunderstood some things.

The part about Soviet efforts to supply food and rebuild the city was not removed by me. I just moved it to the next paragraph.

Grossmann actually implies that Nazi propaganda was right about certain things. She used the Nazi propaganda term, not me. -YMB29 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Important also is that the user who reverted my edit (made on December 9th) without any explanation followed me here right after reverting me in another article.

That should tell you something... -YMB29 (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

About NPOV, it would be a violation of NPOV if the accusations of Western historians like Beevor are left unchallenged. -YMB29 (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BRD, The idea is that you make a bold edit, it is reverted you then discuses those edits before reverting again. Three editors have clearly decided that you revert is not acceptable, so revering back in the version you prefer is against consensus and it is disruptive. The current wording is a based on a long discussion involving quite a few editors (so I suggest that you start by reading the talk archives). I also suggest that you consider the points I have made above, and address them. To take the sentences one at a time

• "During, and in the days immediately following the assault"

to

• "According to Antony Beevor, during, and in"

the implies that this is only the opinion of an odd-ball not not a generally accepted fact. This is not so, as the sentence has citations from four different sources. -- PBS (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you check those citations? The statement is supported by Beevor and Grossmann. I did not touch the sources, but clarified what they say and attributed the statements to the authors.

Have you read WP:ASF?

I added other sources that criticize the statements, so what is wrong with that?

Three editors decided? Are you counting the user who followed me in here and made the original revert without any reason?

The other user above has no reasons besides "I don't like it", while you wrongly accuse me of representing a fact as opinion.

Also, where were you all last month when the changes were made? -YMB29 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"Are you counting the user who followed me in here and made the original revert without any reason" yes and I hope that user:IIIraute will confirm it. PBS (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Making blind reverts is disruptive... -YMB29 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Besides my points stated above, if it is just "propaganda" and "myth", then why is it that after the summer of 1945, Soviet soldiers caught raping civilians were usually punished to some degree, ranging from arrest to execution. Naimark, p. 92. The rapes continued until the winter of 1947–48, when Soviet occupation authorities finally confined Soviet troops to strictly guarded posts and camps completely separating them from the residential population in the Soviet zone of Germany. Naimark, p. 79.

O.A. Rzheshevsky admits he never READ Beevor’s book's source notes. He also flip-flops in his opinion which is not stated herein: Rzheshevsky states that acts such as robbery and sexual assault are inevitable parts of war (then they cannot be myth!).

Further, it is NOT just Beevor who has researched and written as to USSR Red Army rapes and war crimes. For example, Richard Overy, a historian, has criticized the viewpoint held by Russians, asserting that they refuse to acknowledge Soviet war crimes committed during the war, "Partly this is because they felt that much of it was justified vengeance against an enemy who committed much worse, and partly it was because they were writing the victors' history." Kierzek (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No one said that it was only Beevor. Many Western historians accuse the Soviet Army of mass rape and many Russian historians criticize Western historians for misrepresenting facts and creating myths.

This difference of opinions has to be reflected in the article text, see WP:NPOV.

Rzheshevsky and other Russian historians do not say that robbery and rapes did not happen, but they question the scale of these crimes that Beevor and others claim.

Also, Rzheshevsky only read pieces of the book at the time the interview was taken, not that he never looked at it more thoroughly later... -YMB29 (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"No one said that it was only Beevor" you may not have said it but the change in the article text from "During, and in the days immediately following the assault" to "According to Antony Beevor, during, and in" implies it is Beevor assertion alone although the sentence contains citations to four authors. To answer your question have I read "WP:ASF" yes I have (as someone with an account that is over 10 yeas old it would be surprising if I had not)! and I draw you attention to the first sentence of the last paragraph of that advise. The facts are that multiple rapes took place and no serious historian argues that they did not happen. The only points that are argued about are the scale (which is addressed in a footnote) and whether such rapes constituted more than a moral crime -- which is deliberately not addressed in the wording you altered. You recent change to the wording of the first sentence under discussion by attribution it to one historian is a breach of WP:UNDUE. -- PBS (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, that sentence said a lot of things with different citations stuck to different parts of it. It was confusing, so I broke it down and clarified things.

The part that said "engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder" was cited only to Beevor.

The Bellamy and Grossmann citations were stuck to the part that said "and in the days immediately following the assault" in the beginning of the sentence. -YMB29 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I clarified what Grossmann writes in the next sentence. The Bellamy citation was to page 670 of his book, which only says that the looting and rapes subsided. -YMB29 (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• A-Class military history articles
• A-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• A-Class German military history articles
• German military history task force articles
• A-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• A-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• Successful requests for military history A-Class review
• A-Class Germany articles
• High-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• B-Class Soviet Union articles
• Top-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• A-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance A-Class Russia articles
• A-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• A-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• Selected anniversaries (May 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2010)