This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
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 articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
"Ceasefire takes effect at one minute past midnight; V-E Day in Britain" is misleading as the Ceasefire was not universal there was one based on the surrender to Monty on
Lüneburg Heath on 4 May and came into effect on the 5 May
[1], but the general ceasefire cam into effect at 00:001
BDST (CET 11:01) on the 9th. --
PBS (
talk) 17:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)reply
October 1945
This section is unclear in that it describes the "Chinese going on a rampage." This says nothing about what actually happened or what significance it had to the War.
Landroo (
talk) 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Establishment of Pro-soviet Government in Poland
This timeline puts the date of Warsaw's liberation and establishment of pro-communist Government at Jan 17, 1945. However, the
1945 timeline states that Australia recognized the pro-Soviet government in Poland as early as Jan 5 1945. It would seem that at least one of the two is wrong. No supporting evidence on the exact date could be found elsewhere on wikipedia. Does anyone have an authoritative source for the same?
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have taken the liberty of changing the hyphen in your proposed title to an
en dash per
MOS:DASH. I assume this will be uncontroversial, but if not please revert and we can discuss it.
Jenks24 (
talk) 13:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose, first, because an article only the events of 1945 is needed as is the case with the other years in the
Timeline of World War II articles. Second, I oppose it for aesthetic reasons; the proposed title is unwieldy. This is a case (I can't believe I'm saying this) where the article should fit the title and not the other way around. If postwar events are absolutely necessary, create an "Epilogue" section or
split the postwar content into a new article along the lines of
Timeline of events preceding World War II. —
AjaxSmack 23:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
"Enter" vs "Occupy"
The article in question shows that Soviet forces entered Warsaw on that date with the aim to occupy the city (and, in hindsight, the country.) Thus, it would only be reasonable that the correct terminology to refer to the event of Soviets entering Warsaw is to correctly label their entrance into Warsaw as "occupy" rather than "enter", given the fact that their objective was achieved within the same day of their entrance.
The only argument that could possibly arise is to whether the Soviets actually 'occupied' Warsaw rather than 'liberated' it (which, I assume, "enter" would be used as a neutral compromise). However, the Soviet occupation falls correctly under the definition of the verb "occupy" in the Oxford English dictionary, and is supported in the article.
"enter and stay in [x] without authority and often forcibly" - Check
"take control of (a place, especially a country) by military conquest or settlement." - Check
It is thus inconceivable to argue that the so-called "entrance" into Warsaw wasn't a de facto (and later de jure) occupation. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
PantherBF3 (
talk •
contribs) 17:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
There are two ways of phrasing this. If you show references documenting the period of the occupation (I don't have any on-hand), you can say that "the occupation started on this date" (a momentary event). Saying "they occupied it on this date" is incorrect - an occupation is an extended period, from x to y. "Entering" is a momentary event, and is more characteristic of the events described on this page.
On another matter, please read
WP:BRD. When a change is made and reverted, it is discussed and consensus is achieved BEFORE your change is re-inserted. The change is challenged, it does not re-enter until it is agreed upon. By re-reverting, you are stating "anything I say must go until you prove me false", which is not the way Wikipedia works. Re-reverting your change until we come to a mutually agreed solution for this.
Tarl N. (
discuss) 21:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The move I made
The reason is because there are quite a few events listed which end in 1991. It makes more sense this way and is far better a title than the one proposed in 2011.
Arglebargle79 (
talk) 13:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply