Neither ber-sil nor pru-sil could succeed if they had equal supports. Your explanation is correct. In this case, what Prussia did actually didn't matter.

You need to move to a territory with more strength than anyone else to successfully move, because PRU-SIL attacked SIL with three and BER-SIL attacked SIL with one, BER-SIL does not succeed. The fact PRU-SIL did not succeed either is immaterial.

Also it doesn't look like BER-SIL had support? So it can't dislodge a one-power defense.

The army at Warsaw support move to Silesia from Berlin.
But as PW said, you need MORE support then anyone else, which that move didn't have.

Your final analysis is the only way it makes any sense. It is odd, because I believe I've seen situations when SEV attacked RUM with a strength of three, while RUM attacked SEV with strength of three, bouncing, and Austria snaked in and took RUM with a strength of only 2.

Looks like you just bounced your own two moves. It doesn't matter that one of them failed for a separate independent reason as well.

I actually thought that France's Sil-Pru move would block Pru-Sil from bouncing Ber-Sil.
To me, it seems a bit counterintuitive that a blocked move can still bounce another move.

Thanks for all the responses. Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised to still be learning rules to the game. You would think that five years is enough. I guess it's never too late.

Until you experience some of those weird scenarios, there is always more to learn.

Turkey
Rum-Sev
Arm S Rum-Sev
Bla S Rum-Sev

Russia
Sev-Rum
Ukr S Sev-Rum
Gal S Sev-Rum

Austria
Bud-Rum
Ser S Bud-Rum

The standoff between Rum and Sev also prevents Bud-Rum. Counter intuitive perhaps, but according to the rules.

You can have a situation where 3 beats 4, if you do something like:

A Mun - ber
A pru sup A mun - ber
A try - Mun
A bur sup A tyr - mun

Against
A ber - mun
A kiel sup A ber - mun
A ruhr sup A ber - mun

In this case your three are counted in berlin as beating the two from munich and counted a second time in munich as three versus the two coming into munich.

In your example, it has to have a single outcome without ambiguity. So there are two, one you work out that both you attacks are strenght 2, and cancel each other out (leaving neither moving) And thus France's Sil-Pru is now moving against and Prussia which isn't moving - so it should take Prussia.

Or your interpretaion that Prussia should have been cancelled out by Sil and berlin takes Sil. Those two outcomes depend on which order you decide to resolve first. And diplomacy is supposed to have the same outcome now matter which you resolve first. (It does, except in the case of paradoxes, which usually require a convoy, unless i'm mistaken)