Talk:Timeline of World War II (1945–1991)

8 May

"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)

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)

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?

parijat (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of World War II (1945) → Timeline of World War II and subsequent events (1945–1956) – Although most of the events in this article took place in 1945, there are also quite a few which took place in 1946 or later (some as late as 1956). Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 03:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

Fine by me. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 14:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Should this be Timeline of the Cold War???

Should this be Timeline of the Cold War??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famousday22 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The article documents the conclusion to WW-2, which legally was not until 1991. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)