Talk:List of timelines of World War II

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mic0084.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

rationing
There should be more in this article on rationing in australia. 58.107.30.145 11:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Untitled
Very good work to everyone who worked on this page in the last few days. When I last looked at it it looked pretty sparse. DJ Clayworth 15:27, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think articles should only need to be linked once - so once Operation Overlord has been referenced and linked, further mentions of it don't need to be linked. It simply makes the article look tidier. I'll remove the extraneous links but if anyone really feels they're needed then I'll defer to their wishes. And good work to everyone who's helped. -- Chrism 10:12, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with this, but I don't here because the article is extraordinarily long. Some entities are mentioned throughout the length of the article, and if I'm at the end I don't want to scroll all the way to the beginning to find the first reference to it. President Roosevelt is an example. I created a link on his death date, because if I was there and wanted to link I'd have to actually know quite a bit about WW2 to guess where he first occurs. My suggestion is that things are linked the first time they appear in a given month (with some exceptions where we link less frequently - no need to link Stalingrad twice because it occurs in the last line of a month and the first of the next).

Another suggestion I have with regard to links is that we always link to the battle rather than the place, if there is one. i.e.


 * US troops invade Okinawa

rather than


 * US troops invade Okinawa

We could link to both:


 * US troops invade Okinawa

but I think it would be too confusing to have two links next o each other.

DJ Clayworth jfsdnjskdfsghntvirweghwtnreuw(UTC)

Hi. I started this page, because I thought it was a glaring ommision that it was missing, but I'm not entirely happy with the format. In particular I don't like the way multiple events that happened on the same day are listed. I'm not sure how to fix this other than to do the whole thing in a table. But I'm not particularly in favour of that idea. Also I think we should be listing events preceeding, but pertaining to the war too, perhaps under a heading called "Storm Clouds" or something. Mintguy 09:40, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that we try to keep the length of entries down. This article is mainly to give an overview, so we should really keep entries down to one line, two in exceptional circumstances. In most cases there should be an article that we can link to for more information. DJ Clayworth 14:26, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Page moved to Timeline of World War II to make name consistant with naming of major World War II pages. Joshbaumgartner 07:01, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC) As for format, I agree that some work should be done, and will do some shortly to help integrate more of the articles and use the page as a better picture of the order of events. Joshbaumgartner 07:01, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

I think this article is too long! Maybe there could be a part for main dates such as Germany invades Denmark, Battle of Britian, Japan surrenders, etc. A part for the basic dates then all of the other events after that if a person wants to go into greater detail.24.121.117.191 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point, but this WW2 day by day article is extremely interesting. Maybe there is also room for another timeline (WW2 major days).JarTa 17:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JarTa (talk • contribs)

Cleanup
I have begun creating Timelines for the major campaigns of the war to allow entries tobe made with a level of detail that if done on this main page would create an impossibly long article. As a matter of format, I have created an entry for the campaign with a link both to the article on the campaign as well as to its specific timeline. For this page, I only retain the most major milestones. For most campaigns this will be the start and possibly conclusion of the campaign, although for some very long campaigns intermediate events such as the capture of a capital or turning point in the campaign may warrant a brief entry. Otherwise, details should be placed on the specific campaign timeline. I have completed the Timeline of the Polish September Campaign as a start. Joshbaumgartner 07:35, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)


 * Moving that information out of this article has not been a success, the pages Timeline_of_politics_and_diplomacy_during_World_War_II, Timeline of the Second Battle of the Atlantic have hardly been touched since the extraction of this information in February and Timeline of Allied air operations in Europe and Timeline of the United Kingdom home front during World War II have not been touched AT ALL since February. I suggest moving this information back into this article. Jooler 12:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Discrepancy regarding date of surrender of France in June 1940
Please see Talk:Armistice with France (Second Compiègne). --Mathew5000 19:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg
I think this image needs to go for copyright reasons: please consult the image information page and the talk page Image talk:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg for more detailed information. No fair use rationale has been specified for the image's use on this article and AP specifically denies that fair use is available for this image. Hence, we need to be very, very careful when making fair use claims for it. As per Wikipedia copyright policy, "by permission" usage of an unfree image (even one only unfree for commercial purposes) is unacceptable unless it is merely in addition to a good fair use claim. TheGrappler 06:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Declarations of War
I'm surprised that nations such as Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvadar, etc. don't have the dates listed for their declarations of war against Germany and Japan. Multiple South American nations, as well as some Carribean nations (ie. Cuba, Haiti) immediately declared war after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. If nations who made minimal contributions and declared war after D-Day (ie. Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela) have dates listed, I think it's only fair that the nations who declared war earlier be listed as well. Feedback/suggestions? Anyone agree or disagree? Ninja kid21 18:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Only those who gave noteable military support should be mentioned. This is because there are hundreds of countries and the list of just all the declarations would be pointless. Most of south america and south africa was not involved in the war, but politically they were to allow USA to use there ports etc. Others did actually have fighting units that faught over seas. I suggest only listing countries if they are mentioned else where in the timeline for being involved in battles or other significant events. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.144.251.120 (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Mistake?
The same event is repeated in two places (December 28 1941 & may 27 1942 Assassination of Heydrich), even if it isn't a mistake, it confuses the reader. ''"Starts the Operation Anthropoid (the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich)" "Operation Anthropoid - assassination of Reinhard Heydrich in Prague"'' Someone please fix it. --212.24.224.18 18:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam
Someone very enthusiastically has added a paragraph for every slight event that happened in Vietnam. Can someone with more knowledge trim this down? It reads like the western front was somewhere in the middle of the country. --Travisbasevi 01:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Conscription in Britain?
1940 December: 2: British conscription is increased to cover men from 19 to 41.

May 1940: 9: Conscription in Britain extended to age 36.

How can they 'extend' when before it was age 41. and then it ended up 36. that is a decrease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.236.71 (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there are several instances of incorrect stuff to do with Conscription on this page It needs a check. Jooler 00:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

date refs
Please don't cross-reference to dates using a format like '8/9'. This is ambiguous. To a Briton this is 8th September, to an American this is August 9. Jooler 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Leningrad / Stalingrad
Hello. I notice that the article uses the names "Leningrad" and "Stalingrad" interchangeably. Thinking all the way back to high school history, I think the name Stalingrad was in use during the war, and indeed is so indicated in the Volgograd article. Can anyone please confirm whether the use of "Leningrad" should be changed to "Stalingrad", or whether it even matters? Thanks! - Teeg82 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They are two different cities. Stalingrad on the Volga in the south and Leningrad (now renamed back to the pre-Soviet name of Saint Petersburg) on the Baltic coast. Jooler (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StPaulsCathedral.jpg
Image:StPaulsCathedral.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

— Save_Us _ 229  22:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Admiral Graf Spee Scuttled.jpg
Image:Admiral Graf Spee Scuttled.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition gasdggswg to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

globalize tag
I've added a globalize tag, as this article completely ignores the China-Japan conflict. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't completely ignore it, far from it! See:
 * 6 October 1939.
 * 24 November 1939.
 * 30 March 1940
 * 20 September 1940
 * 1 October 1940
 * 15 January 1941
 * 11 March 1941
 * 11 August 1941
 * 9 December 1941
 * 2 February 1942
 * 10 March 1943
 * 2 August 1943
 * 15 September 1943
 * 18 October 1943
 * 19 October 1943
 * 28 December 1943
 * 17 April 1944
 * 12 May 1944
 * 3 August 1944
 * 25 November 1944
 * 30 November 1944
 * 12 January 1945
 * 8 May 1945
 * 16 June 1945
 * 9 August 1945
 * 19 August 1945
 * 2 September 1945
 * 1 October 1945
 * If you are referring to events that preceded the Invasion of Poland in September 1939 please take note the note at the top of the article - "For events preceding September 1, 1939, see the timeline of events preceding World War II." - If you think more detail should be added about this aspect of the conflict then by all means add it. Jooler (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Article size
Moving information out of this article has not been a success. Timeline is also not a real article( it is the WW2). In my opinion the problem here is not the length but the size. I suggest splitting the timeline simply by the years. So that the timeline page will be the 1939 page and at the end of the page will be links to the other war years. Winston2 09:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to split this very long article into seven short ones, each representing every year of war. Alexius08 (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * it´s a good idea.Petrescu3 (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support splitting per year. Keep here the major events only. Andries (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with a split as well --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I also support a split. Personally, I think two separate splits, one by year and another by theatre (Asia-Pacific, European-Atlantic, Soviet-German) would be in order. Oberiko (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Split. Someone needs to reference all that... Renata (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Clean up
I do not have the time to do this but while looking at this article thought that it could be drastically improved with a little work. I am defintely in favor of splitting the article up in to individual years but I would also like to see that the timeline be seperated into two columns, one for the Pacific Theater, and one for the European theater as I believe this would lend to a better flow. I also have noticed that in this timeline, not all of the events are linked to the appropriate wikipedia article which is very frustrating. As I said before, I don't have the time to give the attention this deserves but would defintely thank anyone that undertook it. Seantpainter (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

June 5, 1944
I was under the impression while the men of the 3 Airborne Divisions took off on June 5 that the first men did not land in occupied France until after midnight ... i.e. on June 6th.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Full Blown MILHIST Template
I just put in the full blown MILHIST Template, which links this article to all the pertinent projects. That should bring more work. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Summary required
This article needs to be extended to include just the main events as an overview. Not everybody is an expert, or needs all the gory details. (The detailed articles are fine, but an overview is what is required.)

I would suggest the main events are Tuntable (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Invasion of Manchuria
 * Invasion of Poland
 * Battle of France
 * Battle of Britain
 * North Africa, start and end
 * Barbarossa start
 * Stalingrad
 * Pearl Harbor
 * Singapore
 * Midway
 * Saipan
 * D-Day
 * VE
 * VJ


 * I agree. I think the easiest way would be for each year to include its own summary. So I've tagged the yearly timelines with improve lead. fgnievinski (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Britain
I am somewhat astonished that the Battle of Britain does not have its own chronology. There are only two mentions of it in the UK home front chronology - start and end. This was the first successful resistance of the Nazi war machine. It was a turning point for the European war, which unarguably secured the staging post of the future D-Day invasion. Its success was therefore as significant as France's fall. There were key events which should surely be recorded and the battle warrants its own section, I would suggest.

Paul Wenman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.58.190 (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)