Copenhagen,Stockholm,Berlin
 

Can you do 3 days in each city and what order would you recommend, we will be coming from the USA?

I'd probably do only two days in Copenhagen (which is beautiful and rather compact) and add another one in Berlin.
I guess the order is pretty mzuch a toss up if you have open-jaw flights. What will be your means of transport between the cities? As Stockholm is quite some way up North you might consider flying. I believe there are budget flights by easyjet and/or Germanwings between Berlin and Stockholm and vice versa, so you might want to have some connection between the two.

You could if you wanted to but I spent 5 nights in Berlin earlier this year & didn't find it long enough.

Well - I would dump Berlin and just concentrate on Scandinavia - otherwise you're spending too much time (train) or money (plane) traveling between cities.

Copenhagen and surrounds is easily worth 4 days and Stockholm a week.

Berlin certainly has a lot to see and do - but was so thoroughly destroyed in WWII that there is very little left that is authentic - and much of it reminds me of route 22 in New Jersey.

Actually, I don't think that itinerary would be too time or money consuming. You could fly into Stockholm, take the train to C'hagen, and from Copenhagen I'm sure there are cheap one way flights to Berlin on Maersk or Air Berlin. It's quite dooable and reasonable.

nytaveler: if that's the impression you got of Berlin, I can only think you went to the wrong bits. We saw much which was historic, and the area of Mitte where we stayed comprised almost entirely pre-WWII buildings, and we mainly ate in mediaeval inns. The only area we thought ugly was around Potsdamer Platz, which strangely people on this board often seem to suggest as a good area to stay.

Have been to Berlin several times and visited most of the "bits". There are some great museums - and esp in the eastern section there are a lot of places that have been reconstructed to their pre-WWII condition. But a lot of the western section looks like the worst of a tacky mall run wild.

Just think this is not enough time to really see much of 3 major cities - and prefer the other two as being much more authentically themselves - rather than mallized or reconstructed.

But Berlin has a vibrancy, an energy and a creative pulse that neither Copenhagen nor Stockholm can com close to capturing. I loved it! If you're a younger traveler, Berlin will end up being one of your favorite cities.

As others have said, you could spend all your time in Berlin and the surrounding area and not run out of things to do.

While I have no idea what Route 22 in NJ is like, it sounds like an odd comparison to Berlin. In my opinion, Berlin is one of the underrated gems of Europe. It's probably the most vibrant city in Europe at the moment - Copenhagen and Stockholm just don't have the same atmosphere and energy that abounds in Berlin.

What time of the year are you going?

I am right there with nytraveler. I have also been to Berlin and don't find it all that appealing which only proves that travel is very individualistic. I think for example Berlin cannot compare in "vibrancy" to the Nyhavn area of Copenhagen on a warm summer evening, nor the Stroget on a cold snowy afternoon.

Having said that, you'd have a great time spending 3 days in each and you'd probably find when you get home you will wish you'd spent more time in one of them and nobody on this forum can tell you in advance which one it will be.

Have fun.

I agree with dropping one of the three. I would probably leave out Stockholm, both from a logistical and cultural point of view (I don't mean that if you've seen one Scandanavial city you've seen them all, but the contrast with Copenhagen isn't all that stark).

In future, please put spaces after the commas in your thread title. Long spaceless titles mess up the left-hand panel.