Talk:Aftermath 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): Laurie Vazquez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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): Nicholekeanu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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): Azamat.sadikov16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge to Effects of World War II

Effects of World War II is more comprehensive and covers the same issues, often verbatim. Too much duplicity for 2 articles.Civil Engineer III 12:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

you should it is very related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.158.21.44 (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is not, this should remain the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookworm415 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

1. The Aftermath of WWII is about the state of the world at the end. 2. The Effects of WWII cover the long lasting effects of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.223.38 (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I think you sould go into more detail about the after math about WWII** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.240.156 (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Effects and Aftermath are exactly the same thing. Having two separate articles is nothing but confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.9.32 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

15 million Germans were expelled from eastern countries, the greatest ethnic cleansing in European history, after 800 years of German culture and history in those areas.--92.230.232.212 (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I think that we should clean up this article, and then merge with Effects of World War II. _{User:Tatantyler}^{Need to talk to me?}_{I'll be there.} 01:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting opposite: AFD the Effects article (see AFD discussion) which duplicates a lot of what is already in this Aftermath article. Effects article is largely unsourced, neglected, and in a state of generally unmitigated shambles, same as older sections of this Aftermath article. I can salvage SOURCED parts of Effects article and some graphics, of which there are only a few, and merge/move those bits to this existing Aftermath article, the extensive revision and improvement of which has been undertaken by me and in still work in progress. (See newly created "renewal" discussion at bottom section below, and maybe try not to refactor/confuse discussion by postings to this old and previously dormant thread. Thanks) Communicat (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Renewal

This discussion page has become dormant, but here goes, anyway. Aftermath section of WW2 overview article has been / is being revamped extensively following longrunning discussion with many valid and some invalid points raised and debated. I suggest the valid points be taken into consideration in renewing this main aftermath article.

Without going into detail at this time, I'll just say that merging with "Effects of WW2" is IMO not a practical idea. But this badly neglected article is definitly in need of a good cleanup and re-edit from top to bottom. I hope to do that, as and when time and collegiality (if any) permits. Rules of WP:CONS will hopefully apply.

For a start, I propose improving and extending the lead, which is presently very unsatisfactory and arbitrary. I also suggest the title be changed from "Aftermath of WWII" to "WWII aftermath", so that it becomes more search-friendly. I propose also that the article be chronologically organised. At the moment it's disorganised and disjointed. To that end, it should start with Berlin occupation zones and post-war division of Germany, then Europe in general, Far East, decolonisation, etc, etc. Communicat (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not being familiar with search engine optimization, I don't know why "WWII Aftermath" would be more search-friendly than "Aftermath of WWII", but if it is decided to change it, we should also change Aftermath of World War I to "WWI Aftermath". So, it may be prudent to bring that up on that talk page as well. --Habap (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Edward321, while conspicuously absenting himself from any discussion here, or from any previous contribution to this long-neglected article, has now disrupted and interferred with my attempt to improve and rework the lead / untitled section previously passing as a lead. My intention was to reincorporate the sourced data from the former disjointed and unsatisfactory "lead" into various other sections that have no sources whatsoever. While reverting my new lead, the party concerned has of course failed to provide a new lead himself, and he has disrupted and complicated my edits and intended edits to such an extent that it's become more or less impossible to sort out the chaotic mess he has created. Nice work Ed. Communicat (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested in discussing this in a polite and friendly manner, I propose moving "Soviet expansion" map from section "Border revisions: Germany, Poland, and the Soviet Union" to replace two B&W fotos opposite Contents panel. This will help clarify understanding of text containing blur of country names in lead. Communicat (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Techno-problem getting refs to appear in reflist, between existing refs 22 and 23, and post-29. (Stavrianos, Kodansha, Truman). Maybe someone can fix? Communicat (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, <ref> not >ref< (Hohum ^@) 17:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with placing the map in places of the photos. I'm not certain that the photos belong in this article. --Habap (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

With regard to tag suggestion that this article be merged with Effects of WW2 article: I've nominated that article for Afd, with reasons stated on Afd talk. I've also salvaged some apparently reliably sourced bits and pieces of scattered text, and tentatively included them in text of this Aftermath article, NB which is still very much a work in progress. Some of the pics/graphics ex-Effects might also be salvageable. But the rest of article is an unsourced and unmitigated shambles, comparable only with the shambles of this present and very long neglected article, which still requires a lot of ongoing work. If the principle reverter/undoer recommences undoing and reverting willy-nilly, it'll only confuse and complicate matters beyond redemption, and it will add fuel to my ongoing arbcom request, as still under consideration by arbcom. I'm moving pics maps etc from Effects article to my sandbox or wherever, for possible reincorporation in this Aftermath article and subject to discussion consensus, suggestions, whatever. Meanwhile, if that's ok with anyone interested, I'm removing the current tag that suggests merging the two articles. Communicat (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Korea

Since we're seeing the same changes here in regards to Korea as were discussed over on the World War II page, I will repeat my objections to some of the wording used.

In regards to the comment that the Allies were abrogating the Yalta agreement, let's look at Wainstock (Dennis Wainstock, Truman, McArthur and the Korean War, publisher Greenwood, 1999), who, after mentioning the four-power trusteeship agreed to at Yalta, states on page 3:

After Roosevelt's death on April 12, 1945, President Harry S. Truman met with Stalin and Churchill at Potsdam, Germany, in July 1945. Following the surrender of Japan, they agreed to establish a joint American-Soviet occupation of Korea. Although no boundary was agreed upon, the Soviets would occupy the northern half and the Americans the southern half.

In fact, Wainstock goes on to detail that the Soviet-American Joint Commission, met in December 1945 to work out the 4-power, 5-year trusteeship (page 5), so putting everything on Yalta is not telling the whole story. Additionally, while the US did select the dividing line, the quote indicates that the Soviets agreed, at Potsdam, that there would be a boundary for the occupation. --Habap (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. You're quite right. Placing the blame on Yalta is simplistic. Having read just about everything I could find on Korea (excepting Korean and Russian language texts), even with all the contradictions and omissions that exist between the various sources, it's clear that the trusteeship question was very complicated, and it bedevilled both the Americans and the Soviets. Neither the indigenous people of the north nor those of the south wanted or were even prepared to consider accepting multinational trusteeship with a promise of full independence at some future, indeterminate, pie-in-the-sky date. Korean communists, nationalists, and populists, all were united in that one demand. They were sick of foreign rule, and wanted complete independence and self-determination right there and then, regardless of whatever was proposed in their absence at Yalta or at Potsdam, or later by the post-war Russian and American occupation forces. So, I'm just going to delete mention of Yalta.

Re 38th parallel: yes of course there had been agreement at Potsdam on the need for a military line. That's not at issue. The fact remains that the line was drawn unlaterally by the US, placing the administrative capital of Seoul within the American zone. Seoul had earlier been identified by McArthur as the most 2nd most important city for American occupation after Tokyo. There was no talk of any separate zones of occupation in Seoul under an Allied Control Commission, along the lines of the Berlin model. The Russians accepted line in silence. This was of course very shortly after the Americans had demonstrated to the Russians their possession of atomic weapons technology and their willingness to use it. As Truman had secretly exclaimed to Churchill and others behind the scenes at Potsdam, on receiving news of the secret, successful testing of America's first atomic bomb: "Now I'll have a hammer on those boys", (meaning the Russians). He was referring to the drawing up of post-war boundaries, then under discussion at Potsdam. Unsurprisingly, the Russians later accepted the 38th parallel in silence. But never mind all that. For purposes of the present article, I suggest text regarding the military line remains as is, and as reliably sourced.

The real question IMO is: how, after failure of the joint commission, did the Russians manage civil administration of N.Korea for three years when all the administrative resources and bureacratic were located in Seoul south of the line? None of the sources I've come across seeks to address that perplexing question. I thought some collegial folk at WW2 discussion page might be able to enlighten me. An ANI allegation of "tendentious editing" was brought against me instead. Communicat (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur on Yalta. Removing it makes it simpler.

In reference to the 38th parallel, do we have a reliable source stating that when the US informed the Soviets that the line would be the 38th parallel, they accepted in silence? If we do, it's great that we've got it in there. If we don't have someone's notes about the meeting or memoirs afterwards stating that the Soviets accepted that in silence, including that phrase is speculation. Since nothing is included in the article about the Russians accepting because of the bomb, we don't have to discuss that issue here.

Actually, for me, the question would be, if the Russians wouldn't allow anyone north of the 38th parallel, how could the US have been conducting civil adminstration without access to the civilians north of the line? Did you the see quote from Molotov about all the brilliant changes made in the north? He indicates that they have made significant strides. I wrote on the Talk: World War II page:

For example, on page 94, Green quotes Molotov writing to Marshall in April of 1947 about the significant achievements toward democratization in the northern area, lamenting that "such wide democratic reforms have been carried out only in northern Korea" by the Soviets. On page 117, Green notes that the Soviets planned to finish withdrawing by the end of December 1948 (not immediately in November 1947, when the UN recommended that all troops be withdrawn within 90 days after the May 1948 elections). Or back on page 58, when he's explaining the reach of the American Military Government in Korea and states, "A Provincial Military Governor headed each of the eight provinces of the area occupied by the Americans."

If you read page 94 of Green, he provides a whole laundry list of accomplishments that Molotov is trumpeting. So, they were obviously conducting civil administration in the north. Additionally, why would the Soviets need to interact with the Seoul bureaucrats instead of simply directing the local officials to do their bidding? I mean, those local officials would have Soviet advisors standing right in front of them. Why would they refuse to do the bidding of men with guns in front of them without authorization from Seoul?

In regards to the ANI, don't forget that your RfA was filed 24 hours before the ANI, so the wiki-lawyering was started by you, not by others. We needn't discuss that here. --Habap (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added Wainstock pp.3,5, and minor rework text for clarity re same, as per your note on Potsdam agreement: joint occupation/division.

"Accepted in silence", yes it's a verbatim quote ex Halliday/Cumings, though I didn't use quotation marks in order to avoid making it seem both sources used exactly the same words. The 2nd (corroborating) source, while not using the exact same words, says virtually the same thing.

A lot of this stuff should properly have been dealt with long ago by the Korean War project. I posted a note on KW talk page weeks ago with particular regard jurisdiction issue, hoping someone there might clarify. Nothing doing. One of the unquoted sources (I think it was Green), says the Japanese administrators recruited by AMGIK did not venture north of line to perform admin duties in the north because "the Russians were there", i.e. administrators were scared (probably with good cause). This suggests that their civil admin jurisdication extended to the north. Respected journalist/historian IF Stone, who was in Korea at the time and was more or less banned from saying anthing during the McCarthy era, says outright in his book Hidden History of Korea that AMGIK had civil (not military) jurisdiction throughout Korea. Problem is, I loaned my Stone book to someone who disappeared with it, so I can't cite the page number; and its now a rare collectors' item, unavailable ex-booksgoogle or anywhere else, far as I know. But let's not get too hung up on jurisdiction issue; it's not included in text.

Also not included in text, for reasons of manageability among others, is reference to Truman's "hammer". I mentioned it to you because I think it's important for any researcher to be familiar with the ethos and primary background to events, even if the primary sources are not quoted. Especially within the confines of wiki's rules on primary sources and/or original research, which makes life quite difficult in complex and controversy-ridden articles of this nature based on allowed sources that are themselves riddled with contradictions and omissions and often relying on officially approved and sanitised official docs if they are to be published at all. (The hammer thing, incidentally, is in Churchill's History of WW2, which Nick-d considers to be a memoir and thus not allowed).

Re your: why would the Soviets need to interact with the Seoul bureaucrats instead of simply directing the local officials to do their bidding? I think I've mentioned all this before. But to reiterate: The local "officials" were, for the most part, indigenous "peoples' committees", village heads etc essentially underdeveloped peasants without the necessary literacy and numeracy skills to perform specialist administrative duties such as managing/administering the primary mining and lumber industries, located in the north. Not to mention collection of customs and excise duties (main deep sea port was located in the north), collection of tax revenues, administration of justice (law courts) etc etc etc. All these civil administrative functions had previously been performed by a host of literate and numerate Japanese bureacratic administrators over a long period of history, while the indigenous population remained undeveloped/underdeveloped, illiterate, enumerate, uneducated and otherwise developmentally ignored and neglected by the Japanese during many years of Japanese colonialism, annexation, and military occupation. The aforementioned functions would also have necessitated access to all the infrastructural bureaucratic machinery (files, records, etc) that had been built up over a long period of time and located in Seoul, under US control. See what I mean? Communicat (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, re your Molotov writing to Marshall in April of 1947 about the significant achievements toward democratization in the northern area, lamenting that "such wide democratic reforms have been carried out only in northern Korea" by the Soviets. "Democratisation" and civil administration are two entirely separate concepts and entities. I am unable to account for why you see them as the same thing. Communicat (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Green? He starts page 94 with "It was impossible to determine what the Russians had done in the area of Korea occupied by them because they had made that area impenetrable." I fail to understand why you believe the Americans were conducting civil administration in the area when they couldn't enter it. The Russians were boasting of their progress in land reform and other areas of "national economy and welfare". I know you've quoted from Green, but it is not clear you've read the book, as he often contradicts you. --Habap (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I've not read the book in its entirety. It didn't seem to have much academic weight. I Have never said the Americans were "conducting civil administration", north of the military line. What I said was that according to two or three apparently reliable sources the Americans, at one time or another, had civil jurisdiction in the north.

Please consider this jurisdiction story to be a dead-horse. The topic is not included in the text, it never was included (so far as I can recall), and it doesn't merit inclusion at this time. I regret having mentioned it at all. It's deadhorse now, so let's move on if you don't mind. Communicat (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Habap: suggest you provide brief concrete detail text and refs re Green on land reform and development of national economy and welfare, for inclusion in text if significant and appropriate. Thanks. Communicat (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Truman Doctrine

Propose new section on Truman Doctrine. Any ideas, opposition, suggestions, challenges etc? Communicat (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Change of plan: suggest new section be titled "Clandestine Operations" (which was largely underpinned by Truman doctrine). To be incorporated into this proposed section will also be doctrine of Low Intensity Operations. Have suggested also at Operation Jungle talk page that operation be merged into this proposed new Aftermath section title Clandestine Ops. Lots of other stuff on Baltic can be incorporated.

Then there remains the big cleanup required of other sections of this article as previously neglected, and into which I've proposed moving salvageable SOURCED bits from Effects article. Have already copied and moved same into this Aftermath article, pending outcome of AFD request re Effects article. (see recent and unfortunately ambiguated discussion thread at top of this talk page) Communicat (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Labelling it "Clandestine Operations" leaves out any ability to discuss any actions that are NOT clandestine. --Habap (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Have since tentatively titled the topic Covert Operations, which is subject to change. If we don't like it as a stand alone section, then it can easily be untitled and added at bottom of Post-war tensions section, which might possibly start making the post-war tensions section a bit long.

Can't think of any regular or overt operations in Europe that took place in immediate aftermath period. Please enlighten me if there any of note maybe suggest title relevant section title under which to accommodate them. Communicat (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Overt operations Brit forces in Greece civil war, has already been sourced and placed higher up in Post-War section. The Covert Ops material that I've initiated should properly be a sub-section of Post-War tensions.

Separately, I propose adding new section re aftermath of war re Third World and emergence of Non-Alliged Movement. Communicat (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

To return to Covert Operations sub-section: it could just as aptly be titled: Post-war strategy and tactics. Title not etched in stone, but the content has significance and notability relative to a military history article, which this is. I await your sourced contribution re overt operations Europe, which you fear might be excluded. Thanks.

Re top pics: seems we agree they're not entirely appropriate. I propose using instead the Warsaw devastation pic ex-Effect article, with appropriate reworked caption. Communicat (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As there is no mention of the Truman Doctrine in that section, current title makes far more sense.

I find your statement "I await your sourced contribution re overt operations Europe, which you fear might be excluded." to be rather 'non-collegial'. You write as though you do not assume good faith.

I objected to the name change for the section from "Truman Doctrine" to "Covert Operations", as you implied that they were identical. As the Truman Doctrine article shows, they were not. --Habap (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree; Truman doctrine not the same thing as NSC directive cited, nor did I intentionally imply that it was. If I am to imply anything, it would be to the effect of inviting you to contribute something in the form of concrete text and refs. Am tentatively changing sub-section title from Covert ops to 'Post-war military strategy and tactics, and all still open to friendly discussion pending finality if any.

Am boldly moving top pic Allied commanders to sub-section newly titled Post-war military strategy and tactics, and replacing with devastation pic, if that's okay with you. Communicat (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You equated the two when you stated that you were renaming the new section that you'd initially named "Truman Doctrine" to "Clandestine Operations", rather than saying you were adding a new section named "Clandestine Operations" INSTEAD of adding a section named "Truman Doctrine".

Let me point out again that you are writing in a way you may not realize is non-collegial when you say, "If I am to imply anything, it would be to the effect of inviting you to contribute something in the form of concrete text and refs." While certainly more pleasantly written than "Shut up and contribute something useful", the meaning is the same. Your comment is 'snarky' and represents that pattern that has caused so much trouble for you here. --Habap (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The title of the article appeared nowhere in the lede. It is supposed to be the subject of the first sentence per the Manual of Style, as in Wikipedia:Lead_section#Introductory_text. European and Japanese cities is not the subject, so shouldn't be in bold. I've changed the first sentence to suit the style. It may be prudent for you to review WP:MOS, so that you can write in the proper style. --Habap (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how to fix caption of top pic so that it doesn't affect 1st line of paragraph text in para below?Communicat (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

new section

Propose starting new section "Censorship and propaganda", covering censorship Korean War, Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe, McCarthyism, etc Communicat (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge of data ex-Effects article completed

All salvageable (i.e. reliably sourced) material from Effects afticle have now been merged into this article, as per consensus Afd discussion. Communicat (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Some incomplete refs

I was going to look up Cave Brown, but don't see the original citation. Similarly, some of the first few citations for the article (the ones on the SSRs) no longer show complete cites in the refs, as the prior cites are no longer in the article. --Habap (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be one of the results of Edward321's disruption at the outset, when he shifted things around to such an extent that I'm still trying to repair. The refs were in the early version, before his interference. I shall try to sort it out later, along with a few other things in this start class article. Communicat (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I see from edit history that some now dead-linked individual has been fooling around recently. Don't have time check exactly he/she was up to and/or if vandalism took place, which might also account for disappearance of refs you've mentioned. Communicat (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dropshot

Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan, just like the US plans for the invasion of Canada in the 1930s. Military officers write up hundreds of contingency plans both for training purposes and in case they might have to be used. The way that it was written in the article is as though it was going to be executed and it was only called off because the Soviets had nukes. The Ambrose book only states that the US and it's allies could never have destroyed the Soviets after the 1950s without unacceptable risks. The way it was written is as though the plan was only cancelled because of those risks, when it was only a contingency plan, not the actual preparations. --Habap (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Please provide some text and refs to convey that perspective, with which I don't necessarily disagree. Communicat (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to include information on a contingency plan that was never executed in this article. --Habap (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The contingency plan reflects the ethos in which it was conceived. That's why it's in the text under "Political tensions". Communicat (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've revised those sentences to avoid WP:UNDUE. Including all the details the way that you have leads the reader to believe that it would actually have been carried out, when there is no indication that it was anything other than a contingency plan. --Habap (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not leading you, the reader or anyone else to "believe" that it would actually have been carried out. The "indication" that it was a "plan" is in the title of the source cited, and a date was put on the plan. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the author of Dropshot: The US plan for war on the Soviet Union in 1957. Your personal opinion is quite irrelevant here as to whether or not it would actually have been carried out.

Let's move on if you don't mind. There's lots of other work waiting to be done on this article in all the unsourced/orignal research sections that were merged from Effects article. I'm assuming in good faith that you're really interested in improving this article which was in a crappy, badly neglected and totally dormant state for years before I became involved. Your interest and assistance is most welcome, so let's get on with it now, rather than passing the time in nitpicking and pissing-contests. Thank you. Communicat (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in hearing what others think of the inclusion of the details, so I've posted a notice at Wikipedia:NPOVN requesting observations. --Habap (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Habap has some very legitimate concerns. I hope his posting on that noticeboard will have some results. Edward321 (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda war

Nothing about Soviet propaganda? I'm no expert, but I assume they also conducted similar efforts. Right now, the whole article reads as rather pro-Soviet POV. --Habap (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Found some info in the Soviet propaganda article. --Habap (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Please feel free to add text and refs on Soviet propaganda. Communicat (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have scanned the item you referred me to. It says nothing about WW2. You might also care to note that the section Propaganda War is about subversive propaganda, as distinct from everyday run-of-the-mill political propaganda. Communicat (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

While that article is actually rather disappointing, we aren't talking about WWII, we're talking about the aftermath of WWII. For example, the World Peace Council was established with funding from the Soviets in 1949, with fits in with the aftermath of WWII, I believe.

If we're only talking about 'subversive' propaganda, perhaps the section should be renamed to reflect that. However, I am curious how the efforts described in the articles on Soviet activities are somehow different from what the Western countries are doing as described in this section. Could you explain how what is alleged in the Soviet propaganda article is different from what is alleged in the paragraph on the CIA in China. Please compare:

Soviet-run movements pretended to have little or no ties with the USSR, often seen as noncommunist (or allied to such groups), but in fact were controlled by USSR. Most members and supporters, called "useful idiots" did not realize the fact that they were unwilling instruments of Soviet propaganda. The organizations aimed at convincing well-meaning but naive Westerners to support Soviet overt or covert goals. A witness in a US congressional hearing on Soviet cover activity described the goals of such organizations as the: "spread Soviet propaganda themes and create false impression of public support for the foreign policies of Soviet Union."

To:

The CIA also established a secret broadcasting station on Taiwan, which posed as a clandestine broadcasting station within mainland communist China. To achieve credibility in its subversive propaganda beamed to the mainland, the bogus radio station combined disinformation with accurate information gleaned from genuine domestic Chinese broadcasts, while pretending the broadcasts were under internal dissident control. So convincing were the bogus transmissions that in the late 1940s and early 1950s some of the CIA's own media analysts and many Western academic researchers were deceived into believing the broadcasts were genuine.

Let me know what makes the Soviet effort not 'subversive' while the American CIA's effort is subversive. --Habap (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

West subversive prop aimed at stoking up civil unrest and armed insurrection, as a precusor to fullscale military intervention to "restore order", viz., military intelligence operation, as distinct from straight-forward political/ideological/smear propaganda of a kind that would have been highly unlikely to result in an armed insurrection in the US. That's the difference. Communicat (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss the little bit in Marxist ideology about the World revolution? The goal of Soviet propaganda was the defeat of capitalism and the rise of working class in a proleterian revolution. You're not really claiming that the Soviets didn't really mean it, are you? That it failed doesn't mean that they weren't hoping it would succeed. --Habap (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your knowledge of classical marxism and of this subject generally seems shaky at best. Read Lenin's "Left wing infantalism", which denounces violent revolution. The overthrow of capitalism was/is meant to be through organised labour, non-violent proletarian labour movements, strike action, etc. Communicat (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would contend that the opposite is true - that you are rather unfamiliar with Marxism. Go back and read the original materials. Once the proleteriat achieveed praxis, it would engage in the violent overthrow of the capitalist system. The capitalist system supposedly contains the seeds of it's own destruction, just as the feudal system gave way to capitalism by with its creation of the bourgeosie. The love conquers all theory of the rise of socialism is more a product of the 1960s than of the folks who ruthlessly executed their enemies to sieze power in Russia in 1917. --Habap (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from persistently arguing on the basis of your personal opinion, or on the basis of your personal interpretation of the literature. Please provide concrete text and refs, as I do. In nine months I have not seen one contribution by you of any concrete text or ref. Please provide concrete text and refs. Communicat (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You've not seen ANY contribution of concrete text? You missed the changes I made on Dropshot?[1] You missed the discussion we had about the actual contents of Wigfall Green's book? (which I took the trouble to read, while you only quoted from it while dismissing at as not sufficiently academic) You really need to pay more attention before you throw out such assertions. --Habap (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Not strategy and tactics" ??

Refer to text: British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin hoped in particular "to detach Albania ... by promoting civil discontent, internal confusion and possible strife"[37], while Churchill considered the Balkans as a whole to be strategically important to Britain's post-war imperial interests. He saw the Balkans as a flank from which to thwart or threaten Russia.[38] And The Russian intelligence service KGB believed that the Third World rather than Europe was the arena in which it could win the Cold War.[48] Moscow would in later years fuel an arms buildup in Africa and other Third World regions, notably in North Korea. Seen from Moscow, the Cold War was largely about the non-European world. The Soviet leadership envisioned a revolutionary front in Latin America. "For a quarter of a century," one expert writes, "the KGB, unlike the CIA, believed that the Third World was the arena in which it could win the Cold War." [49] I also intend to add more on nuclear strategy, when the rationale of the heading should become clear. As for your heading: "Espionage and Covert ops": there is virtually nothing there about espionage, except very brief text reference to Balts establishing a spy network. That needs some clarification and expansion which I also intend to attend to, time permitting.

I'm a bit surprised that you should now want to use the words "Covert Operations", which you earlier objected to.

In the meantime, I'm going to remove the word "Espionage", because that's not the subject of the section. The subject of the section is meant to be strategy and tactics. Covert ops comprise the latter, strategy of subversion comprise the former, and grand strategy is as stated in italics above. Pending consensus, let's just stick with Covert ops for the moment, without the Espionage part. That is a separate article entirely. Communicat (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My objection was when you proposed a section on the "Truman Doctrine" and then stated you were renaming it "Cover Operations", implying that that they were the same thing. What you've written about in that section is covert operations, not Military tactics nor Military strategy.

I think you will find that when they attempted to "establish a pro-British spy network inside the Soviet Union"; that Jungle, being an operation "for the clandestine infiltration of intelligence and resistance agents"; or when we talk about Kim Philby; we're talking about Espionage. I am restoring that to the section title, as it is what is discussed in the section. --Habap (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a great deal of espionage on all sides, none of which is dealt with in the section, except for just one mention of the word, which I'm changing to read "intelligence", and reverting your edit accordingly. If you want to write an article about Philby and call it "Espionage", that's fine with me. Communicat (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Better still, if you're really hooked on the word "espionage", then supply some text and refs about the role of Fuchs in providing the Sovs with intel on to make their own A-bomb. It's relevant to aftermath. I'll leave it to you. That way we might at last see some concrete text and refs from your direction. In fact, I'd welcome a role reversal here for a change, viz., you providing text and me "supervising". What do you think? Communicat (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"pro-Soviet POV"

re Your: Right now, the whole article reads as rather pro-Soviet POV. -

It's regretable and unacceptable that anything not overtly pro-American should immediately be construed to be "pro-Soviet". Or, to use Bush's phrase: "If you're not with us, you're against us."

You people at milhist project invariably raise the evocation of "pro-Soviet POV" every time historical fact presents you with something you may find distasteful. But if you're really concerned about POV, then how about fixing the Soviet Propaganda article that you refered me to recently? That item, you may recall, breaks just about every rule in the wiki book. But it's evidently tolerated, encouraged even, because of its clearly anti-Soviet bias. And there are many similar wiki examples I can point to, if you're honestly committed to editorial objectivity and the eradication of POV bias, as I am. Communicat (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing references.

The references for Roberts, Wettig, Granville, Crampton and Cook have all been broken in the recent edits. Please restore them properly and take more care when editing. (Hohum ^@) 01:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Kindly provide diff indicating broken refs, so that they can be fixed. Or better still, how about fixing them yourself, since you've identified the problem and you know already where the broken refs are? A number of people have of late been fiddling recklessly with and/or disrupting progress on this long-neglected article while themselves not making any discernable contribution towards improving it. Communicat (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

This [2] is when most of them were broken. Looks like Edward321 had been contributing concrete text and refs, which you reverted because he had not first requested your approval. (See WP:OWN) --Habap (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've managed to retrieve previously deleted references for Roberts, Wettig, Granville and Cook, but can't find Crampton. (Hohum ^@) 22:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've repaired Roberts, Wettig, and Grenville in the text. --Habap (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

While there is much that is good in this version of the article, it has unilaterally incorporated statements that were contested at Talk: World War II. It also suffers from omissions and undue weight.

The subject of wartime rape is a clear example. A paragraph is spent on the western Allies. Russia gets a single sentence. Japan's actions such as the Comfort girls are not mentioned at all. For that matter, while this is a clearly notable topic, I am not at all sure this is the correct article to address the topic.

The section on Operation Dropshot still fails to mention it was an intended response if the USSR instituted another war. This omission could lead the uninformed reader to the false conclusion that Dropshot was a plan for an unprovoked attack on the USSR. I had previously clarified that,[3] but Communicat blind reverted the edit. Like Habap, I question whether this is the appropriate article to discuss the subject.

In the previous version, Operation Paperclip was discussed equally with Operation Osoaviakhim In the current version, western recruitment of Nazi scientists is expanded to several paragraphs, while Soviet recruitment of Nazi scientists has been completely excised from the article.

Operation Jungle a minor attempted anti-Soviet action the western Allies is linked to while the successful Soviet theft of the atomic secrets is not mentioned and Soviet penetration of British intelligence is given the briefest of passing mentions.

Post-war nationalist revolts against western powers are mentioned. Post-war nationalist revolts against Soviet control, such as the Hungarian Uprising are not.

Problems I previously noted on the use of Cave Brown as a source have been improved, but not gone away. Stalin may have stated in Pravda that Churchill had called for a war on the USSR, but Cave Brown, the cited source, does not mention Pravda at all.[4] Edward321 (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

So, why don't you and others just fix all these things yourselves by providing concrete text and reliable refs in a collegial manner? Also, if you're so interested in and concerned about the section topics and general subject matter of this article, why have you not been active here before? This article, together with the Effects of WW2 article were in a very bad shape for a very long time, and nobody, especially yourself and others commenting here, did anything at all about it. Please provide concrete text and refs to help improve this article. Communicat (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, this current thread appears to be an ambiguation of the thread two sections above headed "pro-Soviet bias" of 12 Nov 2010. For the sake of cohesiveness, here below is a slightly edited version of that thread which I'm incorporating here as follows:

You people at milhist project invariably raise the evocation of "pro-Soviet POV" every time historical fact presents you with something you may find distasteful. But if you're really concerned about POV, then how about fixing the Soviet propaganda article that Habap refered me to recently? That item, (and many others like it) breaks just about every rule in the wiki book. But it's evidently tolerated, encouraged even, because of its clearly anti-Soviet bias. And there are many similar wiki examples I can point to, if you're honestly committed to editorial objectivity and the eradication of POV bias, as I am. Communicat (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about POV issues which have been added as part of the redevelopment of this article (which I've had on my watchlist for some years). To add to the others raised above:

• The big issue is that the article has been turned into a rather odd political and military history history of the start of the Cold War with a strong emphasis on espionage and plans developed by the western powers. Topics which are focused on in most histories covering the aftermath of the war (the slow initial reconstruction of Europe and Asia, massive population movements, demobilisation of the armed forces (which took years), birth of Israel, war crimes trials, nationalist movements gaining the upper hand in many colonies - most notably India, Indochina and Indonesia, the Chinese civil war, etc) hardly get a look in.
• "the British and French forces were preparing respectively to engage in policing actions and counter-insurgency operations against their former communist allies in the colonial territories of the Far East" is POV: I don't believe that the French were ever 'Allied' with the Vietnamese communists, and the British weren't preparing to attack the communists in Malaya - they were reasserting their rule against everyone
• "On May 16, 1945, immediately after Germany's defeat, Stalin warned his advisers that Churchill had preserved former German enemy forces in the British Zone of Occupation in Berlin "in full combat readiness and (was) co-operating with them.” - this isn't supported by the citation provided (pages 658-60 of Marlis G Steinert, "The Allied Decision to Arrest the Donitz Government", Historical Journal, Vol 31 No 3, 1988). The article's only mention of Stalin is when it discusses a draft of a telegram which was provided to Churchill to send to Stalin, Truman and DeGualle (page 654). Pages 658-60 are part of the article's coverage of the diplomatic discussions which preceded the arrest of the Donitz Government (these pages describe in part, but aren't focused on, British and American anxieties over how the delays in the arrests would appear to the Soviets and the western Allies consulting with the Soviets' over the timing of the arrests) and the claim doesn't appear anywhere else in the journal article that I could see.
• "Churchill envisioned a future role for the former German soldiers in augmenting Montgomery's Anglo-American 21st Army Group in the event of hostilities with the Soviet Union." is highly dubious and referenced to a mysterious 'Steinert, op cit, p. 272.' - this isn't the same journal article (Marlis G Steinert, "The Allied Decision to Arrest the Donitz Government", Historical Journal, Vol 31 No 3, 1988) by Steinert referenced earlier as the JSTOR version of this article runs from page 651 to page 663. A claim such as this requires a very strong citation.
• The statement that "On May 19, 1945, American Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew declared that future war between the USSR and the US was inevitable" is cited to a Soviet-era book published in Moscow by Progress Publishers. Given the censorship in place at the time in the USSR, this seems unlikely to be a reliable source and a better source needs to be provided. I'd be interested to know about the background of this publishing firm.
• I haven't checked the other journal articles, but have some concerns given the above problems and the very broad page ranges given (or the complete absence of page numbers in several instances). Nick-D (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No it is not intended to be "a rather odd political and military history history of the start of the Cold War with a strong emphasis on espionage and plans developed by the western powers", as you put it. It is an article on the aftermath of WW2, a main military history aspect of which was/is the radically altered international correlation of forces, as stated in the 1st paragraph of the lead. There is no emphasis on "espionage". There is an emphasis on the radically altered correlation of forces. The strategy and tactics of the Western powers in the immediate aftermath of WW2 are briefly dealt with accordingly. The strategic focus of the Soviet Union on its prospects in the Third World are also dealt with briefly. You evidently fail to grasp the relevance and significance of those topics vis-a-vis the new correlation of forces. If there is a more comprehensible way of conveying the new correlation of forces, then please do let me know.

I agree entirely that there are other topics, which you identify, that "hardly get a look in." This is because, as you know perfectly well, this is a start-class article, which means that it is a work in progress, and the topics which "hardly get a look in" were absent from the article when I became active recently in trying to improve it. Your own admission that the article had been on your watch-list "for years" speaks for itself. You and other members of the milhist project have had more than enough time and opportunity to improve the article by including all the topics that still "hardly get a look in". Indeed, most of the topics you refer to are the very same ones I raised while revision was in progress of the Aftermath section of the main WW2 overview article. Are you suggesting that I must do everything myself, all the while acting on orders "from above" (i.e. yourself, Habap, and Edward321), for this crappy and long-neglected article to reach your high standards overnight? Forget it. (Not to mention the endless disruptions caused by the three of you filing ANIs, COIs, and RFCs against me, even if I wanted to do all the necessary improvement work all by myself, which I'm not prepared to do).

Re your "I don't believe that the French were ever 'Allied' with the Vietnamese communists": the Free French were allied with everyone opposed to the Axis, including the Vietnamese communists.

Re your :"..the British weren't preparing to attack the communists in Malaya". Really? They were happy to just sit back and let the communists assert their demands in retaliation for the broken promises of the Atlantic Charter?

As for Steinert: I am unable to account for why the JSTOR online version appears to differ substantially (if what you say is indeed correct) from the dog-eared hardcopy version that I have right here beside me.

Regarding Progress Publishers, Moscow: I see no reason why they should be regarded with greater caution and circumspection than many of the supposedly reliable orthodox sources (including "sanitised" US sources from the McCarthy era) that are cited unquestioningly throughout the milhist project. Why should a Russian professor of history be excluded as a source simply because he's Russian and published by a Russian publisher? Please do tell in plain and explicit terms. I'm really keen to know. I'm also keen to know how this relates to the rules of NPOV with particular reference to parity of sourcing. Communicat (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Your own admission that the article had been on your watch-list "for years" speaks for itself. You and other members of the milhist project have had more than enough time and opportunity to improve the article". Indeed, Nick-D is just bone idle. He had plenty of time to improve this article while he was starting 340+ others from scratch, over a dozen to FA & A, and many more to GA & B. Over 17,000 edits to article space further proves his lack of commitment. Shame on him. He should grow some extra hands. (Hohum ^@) 21:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying there's a critical shortage of milhist editors other than the esteemed Nick-D? How about you? What have you been up to all this time? (If you don't mind me asking). Communicat (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

He seems pretty busy if you look here. personally, I had basically taken a few years off. --Habap (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC)That's a strange interpretation. No, I'm suggesting that you're way off base with your continued accusations. I've made a paltry ~9,000 article edits while keeping an eye out for vandalism, bad references, and a variety of other issues on ~1,800 watchlisted pages. There are many very prodigiously active milhist editors. Some churn out high quality articles every month. Only a very few people spend the bulk of their edits arguing and moaning on talk pages. You can see this information for anyone using this tool.

Anyway, back to discussion about how to improve this article... (Hohum ^@) 22:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, for a start, you might want to consider getting rid of the peculiar notion that "there are plenty of references" in this article and that it doesn't require any more. (Apropos of your recent removal of the refimprove tag). You will see from the lower sections of the article that they consist largely of unsourced orginal research and had been that way for a long long time. Please help supply references and expand lower sections text to improve the article. I'm sure Habap will volunteer to help you in that endeavour, seeing as he's recently become so deeply concerned about the quality of this article. Communicat (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost every paragraph has a citation. That is usually enough for a B class rating, so tagging the entire article as requiring referencing no longer makes sense. It doesn't mean that the article has all the references required. If there are particular sections or paragraphs that need citations, they need to be specifically identified so that they can be focussed on. (Hohum ^@) 23:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have restored some of the sourced material from the previous version of the article, removed some of the statements not supported by the sources, and reduced the POV problems. There's still a lot of work to do to correct all of these issues. Edward321 (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Another example

There are some interesting differences between the way the Times is quoted in Rape during the occupation of Germany and the way it is quoted by Communicat in this article. I have marked the changes with italics. Communicat also removed a reference and verification tags.

At Rape during the occupation of Germany, the quote is: An army sergeant wrote "Our own Army and the British Army ... have done their share of looting and raping ... This offensive attitude among our troops is not at all general, but the percentage is large enough to have given our Army a pretty black name, and we too are considered an army of rapists."[5]

Communicat's version is: Time magazine reported in September 1945: "Our own army and the British army along with ours have done their share of looting and raping ... we too are considered an army of rapists."[6]

While not technically false, Communicat's version is clearly misleading. His version implies that the quote is Time's conclusion, not the opinion of a single soldier. It completely excises that man's point that looting and raping were not general behaviors of US and UH troops, implying that they were. Edward321 (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that the Rape during the occupation of Germany article is marked as having NPOV problems, I'm not sure that it was such a good idea moving text directly from it as was done in this edit unless the text was checked against its sources. Not all of the sources seem very good - for instance this article about Anthony Beevor visiting Sydney is used to reference a claim that 1.4 million women were raped by the Red Army - why not reference the book directly? (particularly as the author of the newspaper article, Paul Sheehan, is primarily employed by the Sydney Morning Herald as a conservative political commentator and is not a historian) as and several claims are referenced to 30 or 40 page ranges in journal articles, which isn't particularly helpful (though the claims themselves seem accurate). Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. Some statements I copied from Operation Osoaviakhim did not appear to be supported by the source, so I removed or amended them to match the source. I have not had a chance to confirm the accuracy of the sources listed by other editors at , but will do so. As they say, "Trust, but verify.") The figures for Berlin seem correct, [7], I'll confirm the rest of the claims or delete them.Edward321 (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Biddicombe seems a useful source, but also does not seem to support claims. I'm pulling everything until I can check and improve it. Edward321 (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the material should also be trimmed and focused on post-war events. Nick-D (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that there's a dedicated article on rape during the occupation of Germany, I think that the level of detail on the topic added to this article in this edit is excessive. It's a significant topic which should definitely be in the article, but given the article's very broad scope 24kb of text is rather a lot and it should be trimmed fairly significantly. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Trim away. It's not like my post was graven on stone tablets and brought down from the mountain. I am planning on porting it into the dedicated article, where this level of detail is more appropriate. Edward321 (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Gauzeandchess (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)== Major re-org ==

I've rearranged the sections a great deal. I didn't change much text, so that people can comment on the reorganization rather than dive back into the text too much. If folks could look over the re-org that would be helpful. --Habap (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an improvement. We still need to get things re-added from the old version and things ported from the Effects article. Edward321 (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Habap, in extensively swapping the sections around (without any noticeable rationale), has succeeded in presenting a visually uninspiring and, quite frankly, somewhat amateurish layout. Some sections have too many pictures, another section has a picture where detail is too small to recognise as such (e.g. Hamburg), one lopsidedly solid block of text has no visuals at all, some pictures have ended up being stacked, and so on. No great improvement here. Communicat (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, this is meant to be a military history article, and as such it should adhere to generally accepted principles of historical method. But the way things have now been shuffled around without any clear rationale, serves IMO only to blur the essential aspects of military history with particular regard to the aftermath of WW2. These essential aspects, if the original and carefully considered revision schemata had been adhered to, would have been:

• the new and radically changed post-war correlation of forces
• newly evolved military-political doctrines of all forces involved
• the logistics, leadership, technology, strategy, and tactics flowing from the above,
• and how these evolved in the transition from wartime to immediate post-war period
• together with sourced analysis of the causes, nature of conduct, and effects of

immediate post-war strategies and tactics.

In short: military history, roughly in the above order of importance and occurence. But never mind, this is only a start-class article, and it's still open to considerable revision and improvement. Communicat (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the layout is not visually appealing and we should all work on that. As I stated above, the text was not changed in order to leave the focus on the organizational structure. The pictures were not modified or replaced for the same reason. Stor Stark replaced one of the pictures of the ruins of Warsaw with the one of Hamburg [8]. I would think that dropping one of the two ruins photos would be appropriate, as they are stacked.

It's a shame you don't understand the rationale for organizing things in this way. I will attempt to explain. In the old structure, there was no organization, really. Here is what it used to look like:

1 Post-war tensions

1.1 Covert Operations

1.2 Subversive propaganda

2 Soviet Union after the war

3 Germany after the war

4 Europe in ruins

5 Expulsions of Germans

6 Recruitment of former enemy scientists

7 Social effects

8 Founding of the United Nations

The new structure attempts to limit the number of section headers (4 now) and to limit the number of sub-sections under each (no more than 5). They are grouped by time and/or topic: Immediate Effects, Post-war tensions, Founding of the UN and Economic Aftermath. Immediate effects are dealt with before events of the late 1940s or 1950s, and these first two sections are broken down by region or topic.

1 Immediate effects

1.1 Soviet Union

1.2 Germany

1.3 Japan

1.4 Population displacement

1.5 Rape during occupation

1.5.1 In Germany

1.5.2 In Japan

2 Post-war tensions

2.1 Europe

2.2 Asia

2.2.1 Korea

2.2.2 China

2.2.3 Malaya

2.2.4 Vietnam

2.3 Covert Operations and Espionage

2.4 Propaganda

2.5 Recruitment of former enemy scientists

3 Founding of the United Nations

4 Economic aftermath

If you'd like to reorganize it, I'd like to suggest that you propose the change before making it, but if you'd prefer, you are welcome to re-arrange and explain the reasoning afterward.

I would disagree that this is only a military history article and that if it were that only the military effects of the war should be discussed. --Habap (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The previous organization was essentially random. The new one, while not perfect, is an improvement. This is very unlikely to be the final version, since wikipedia articles don't have final versions. (Hohum ^@) 18:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead (1st) paragraph requires rewriting to reflect the article's current shift of focus and emphasis from military history to general history.

I disagree that this article is/was not meant to be "only" a military history article. It is an article within the military history project, and so it stands to reason that the article should be seen to be essentially a military history article, not a general history article. Communicat (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This article was never intended to cover only the military aftermath of WWII. If there is a consensus to do that, then most of the article topics would need to dropped or trimmed heavily. For example, since it is not wartime, almost all of the propaganda section would neeed to be axed. Edward321 (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Communicat seems confused about what WP projects tags are for. While the article is about the aftermath of WWII, it's subject matter is probably going to be significantly non military in nature. It has enough relevance for the WPMILHIST tag (along with 100,000 other articles), because it's all directly linked to the events of WWII - but the tag doesn't limit the subject matter to the focus of that project. (Hohum ^@) 04:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hohum, I]m not at all confused about what are generally agreed among qualified military historians to be the essential ingredients of military history, which general agreement deviates substantially from your own personal opinion.

Edward321, you appear not to have read the propaganda section properly. Should you do so, you will notice that, contrary to your misreading, all that section relates directly and exclusively to the WW2 aftermath period. Communicat (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I said you were confused about what project tagging meant. Please read what I wrote, not what you think I said. (Hohum ^@) 18:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please refer me to the wikipedia policy/rule that defines what project tagging means, with specific regard to military history project, or are you defining policy on your own?

As for context regarding the Grew statement which you are seekingin a separate, related section: I can provide comprehensively referenced context, and was in fact going to do so before total disruption set in. Nor am I going to do so now, at this stage, because I am not going to waste my time participating further in this particular article or in the milhist project generally until certain other policy matters are finally resolved. Communicat (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Article tagging --Habap (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything in the guide to article tagging that supports Hohum's or anyone else's contention that "the tag doesn't limit the subject matter to the focus of that project". Given the article's noticeable drift away from military history, it would seem that inter-project tags might be appropriate. Communicat (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nor is there anything that says "the tag limits the subject matter to the focus of that project". --Habap (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

After more than two weeks since my posted questions, "(Q) When an editor expresses concern, does this mean that the editor wants to pose some alternate idea? The information cited in the rape section attributed to Moeller is a credible source. Please specify what contention you had in November 2010. (Q) Is there a length requirement on sections of an article? Why would you want to reduce information that pertains to the topic at hand? (Q) Are the Effects of WW II synonymous with the Aftermath of WW II?", I propose a section heading changes. This is my suggested change for section headings, which is also what I would subjectively judge to be a significant alteration to the section headings. I propose the following changes based upon regions that could then be subdivided into smaller regions that could then include specifics of societal perturbations, such as genocide, dislocations, rape, economics, and the general collapsing transition of the British Empire. I suggest the time boundary for the "Effects of WW II" begin at the German's invasion of Poland (1939) and endure until the Collapse of the Soviet Union (1991). I suggest the time boundary for the "Aftermath of WW II" begin at the Battle of Berlin (1945) and endure until the independence of some significant former British Colony or until the beginning of the Korean War (1950). I propose that the beginning of the Korean War should mark the termination transition time boundary signifying a difference between the "Aftermath of WW II" and the "Effects of WW II", and that the "Aftermath of WW II" focus more upon the immediate detrimental consequences of war, such as mass rape, dislocation, exodus, malnutrition, occupational policies and practices, economic instability, the general collapse of the British Empire, whose former colonies transitioned to independence, and the transition of other post-colonial countries, such as Indonesia.

1 Immediate aftermath (16 April 1945-25 June 1950) (This is intended to be based on a time, from the Battle of Berlin-Korean War.) 1.1 Europe (This is intended to be based upon a continent.) 1.1.1 Soviet Union 1.1.2 Germany 1.1.3 England 1.1.4 France 1.1.5 Italy 1.1.6 Greece 1.1.7 Other European Countries 1.2 Asia (This is intended to be based upon regions of a continent.) 1.2.1 North-East Asia (This section could lead into the Surrender/Occupation of Japan and Chinese Communist revolution.) 1.2.1.1 Soviet Union 1.2.1.2 Japan 1.2.1.3 China 1.2.1.3.1 Taiwan (Taiwan could be covered with regard to Wikipedia rules, which are POV to ignore history/truth.) 1.2.1.4 Korea (This could be the demarcation bringing an end to the "Aftermath" timeline.) 1.2.1.5 Mongolia 1.2.2 South-East Asia 1.2.2.1 Thailand 1.2.2.2 French Indochina 1.2.2.2.1 Proto-Vietnam 1.2.2.2.2 Proto-Laos 1.2.2.2.3 Proto-Cambodia 1.2.2.3 Proto-Indonesia (Formally Dutch Colony/East Indies) 1.2.2.4 Proto-Malaysia (British Colony) 1.2.2.5 Proto-Singapore (British Colony) 1.2.2.6 Proto-Burma (Formally a British colony integrated with India) 1.2.3 South-Central Asia (India, Pakistan, & Bangladesh) 1.2.3.1 India 1.2.3.2 Proto-Pakistan & Pakistan 1.2.3.3 Proto-Bangladesh 1.2.4 South-West Asia (Middle East) 1.2.4.1 Iran 1.2.4.2 Saudi Arabia 1.2.4.3 Proto-Iraq & Iraq 1.2.4.4 Proto-Syria & Syria 1.2.4.5 Proto-Jordan & Jordan 1.2.4.6 Lebanon 1.2.4.7 Proto-Israel & Israel 1.2.4.8 Turkey 1.2.4.9 Other Middle Eastern Countries 1.3 Africa (This is intended to be based upon a continent.) 1.3.1 Egypt 1.3.2 Proto-South Africa & South Africa 1.3.3 Proto-Algeria 1.3.4 Other African Countries 1.4 North America (This is intended to be based upon a continent.) 1.4.1 United States 1.4.2 Canada 1.4.3 Other North American Countries 1.5 South America (This is intended to be based upon a continent.) 1.5.1 Argentina 1.5.2 Other South American Countries 1.6 Australia (This is intended to be based upon a continent.) I'm not sure if this talk venue is proper for suggesting an article section heading overhaul. Please offer a better suggestion. Gauzeandchess (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Progress Publishers / Russian sources

To date, Nick-D has failed to explain why a Russian professor of history (see ref 121 of article) should be considered "dubious" and/or excluded as a source simply because he's Russian and published by a Russian publisher. See discussion point raised above by Nickd, namely:

The statement that "On May 19, 1945, American Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew declared that future war between the USSR and the US was inevitable" is cited to a Soviet-era book published in Moscow by Progress Publishers. Given the censorship in place at the time in the USSR, this seems unlikely to be a reliable source and a better source needs to be provided. I'd be interested to know about the background of this publishing firm.

And my earlier response was:

Regarding Progress Publishers, Moscow: I see no reason why they should be regarded with greater caution and circumspection than many of the supposedly reliable orthodox sources (including "sanitised" US sources from the McCarthy era) that are cited unquestioningly throughout the milhist project. Why should a Russian professor of history be excluded as a source simply because he's Russian and published by a Russian publisher? Please do tell in plain and explicit terms. I'm really keen to know. I'm also keen to know how this relates to the rules of NPOV with particular reference to parity of sourcing. Communicat (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Since Nickd has failed to justify convincingly or at all why the author or publisher should be considered "dubious", I am removing the "dubious" tag. (Incidentally, Nick-d, there's a further source reference to Progress in the article, which seems to have escaped your attention).

Nick-d, Please elaborate specifically and explicitly why, in your opinion, this source and/or other similarly Russian-based sources should be excluded from this and/or any other articles. This is an important policy issue, and I think it needs to be clarified in the interests of avoiding any future possible disputes in a similar regard.

The background of this publishing firm, which you inquired about, can be established by following the Progress link as already provided in the original discussion text above. Communicat (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a second source which attributes the quote in question to Grew? I have already searched for some corroboration and found nothing. (Hohum ^@) 15:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah.. found something. The Cold war and after: prospects for peace By Sean M. Lynn-Jones, Steven E. Miller, page 5, footnote 6. Which in turn references Grews own book Turbulent Era Vol2 p. 1446. "A future war with the Soviet Union,... is as certain as anything else in this world" (Hohum ^@) 16:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

However... I would *really* like to see the full context of the quote, as only the snippet view is available in google from Grews own book, and the surrounding phrases may be a further explanation of what he meant. snippet. Does anyone here have access to the book? library search or jstor? (Hohum ^@) 16:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe Nick-D has access to jstor. I'm dubious of the section because when Communicat first added it, he appeared to be using Cave Brown as a source.[9] Cave Brown does not mention Grew at all. The line definitely needs some context - if Grew said it, we need to know why and under what circumstances. 00:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the line in Communicat's source.[10] Again, some context would be helpful. Edward321 (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is a particular source you guys want me to look up, feel free to ping me on my talk page. For now, here is a source:

Joseph Grew himself had no illusions. Not two weeks after the end of the war in Europe, he confided his darkest suspicions to a private memorandum: that all the war would accomplish would be to free the United States from the danger of Japanese and German militarism. World War II could never be a "war to end wars" since its effect had merely been to transfer the cen- ter of totalitarian power from the Axis to Russia-a nation which would be an even graver menace in the future. The UN, where the veto power blocked action against Russia, would be powerless to avert war. The spread of Russian control throughout Europe and Asia was inevitable, and "a future war with Soviet Russia is as certain as anything in this world can be certain" (though in 1950 Mr. Grew softened this last blow with the comment that if his memorandum had been a public and not a private document he would have appended the phrase, "unless we recognize the danger and take steps to meet it in time"). The United States, Mr. Grew concluded, must place no trust in Russian promises, retain its fighting power, maintain strategic bases, and strengthen its relations with the free world.²⁴ Had more Americans in May of 1945 shared these sober thoughts and expected so little of military victory, it seems unlikely that the disillusion and bitterness of recent years would have been so deep or so prevalent.

— Challener, R. D.; Grew, J. C.; Johnson, W.; Hooker, N. H. (1953). "Career Diplomat: the Record of Joseph C. Grew". World Politics. 5 (2): 263–279. doi:10.2307/2008984. JSTOR 2008984.

Citation number 24 refers to pages 1445-46 of Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era: A Diplomatic Record of Forty Years, 1904-1945, edited by Walter Johnson, assisted by Nancy Harvison Hooker, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 2 vols., 1952, pp. xxvi, 1560. NW (Talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on the information provided by NuclearWarfare and the feedback given at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Talk:Aftermath of World War II, this seems to be a reliable source, portrayed accurately. As such, I will remove the "dubious" tag. Edward321 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to Nuclearwarfare for clearing that up. However, how is "A number of allied leaders felt that war between the United States and the Soviet Union was likely;" supported by the source provided? (Hohum ^@) 20:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Progress Publishers was a Soviet propaganda institution, not exactly "Russian". It's totally unimportant what the book says, dubious is an understatement, POV. Soviet policy before the WWII was described by Bogdan Musial in Kampfplatz Deutschland, Stalins Kriegspläne gegen den Westen. The WWII didn't change much.Xx236 (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rape section

The rape section seems to be too long in proportion to the rest of the article, and rather unbalanced - it seems to focus entirely on Germany and Europe, Japan is mentioned in the title, but not in the main text at all. (Hohum ^@) 16:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It needs a lot of work. I had found that there was a Japan article, so added it to the title so that we could work on incorporating it. --Habap (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Like the Germany section, I'll try to pull info from the Japan article and then vet the sources. Some of the sourcing from the Germany article was weak (as Nick-D pointed out) and one source didn't seem to exist. Since I have a life, I'm not promising to do this right away and would be fine if someone beat me to it. The Germany section also needs more info on the French and British. Edward321 (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Lets pare down the existing section before unleashing another import from another article? (Hohum ^@) 04:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been involved with the Japan article, and in my view it's got major NPOV problems (and has been tagged as such - possibly by me - for about a year). The standard work on the occupation of Japan, John Dower's Embracing Defeat says that the level of post-war rapes were "relatively low" given the size of the occupation force, yet the article is essentially a compilation of the more horrible incidents which did and are alleged to have taken place. Text shouldn't be lifted from it without it being checked against the sources. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've also been involved in the Japan article, in fact I'm the one who first started it, and I have to say I disagree with the evaluation made above. From experience from the history of that article I would also caution against placing too much value on sweeping generalizations that point to a single source before you have verified the source yourself, especially to see if the source contains additional relevant information that for whatever reason has been omitted from mention in the article. I have not read Dower myself, but regarding the text that is attributed to him there are for example indications[11] that there is an important caveat missing, i.e. that the numbers attributed to him only refer to those post-surrender rapes that the victim has "reported" to the police or other authorities, while usually during military occupations (e.g. in the occupation in Europe) the number of rapes that get reported is just a small part of all rapes. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 13:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I came upon this article because I had just made my login name and this article was listed first. I made two changes to the section on rape. (1) I reviewed the cited source, Moeller. I removed incorrectly paraphrased or cited information attributed to him from page 35 and replaced that material with a quote from him where he was citing Barbara Johr. This quote involved the figure "1.9 million" women raped. The source indicated that 110,000 women were raped and many were repeatedly raped, which explains how the figure approaches 1.9 million. (2) I added a comma after French in compliance with the serial comma rule. I'm not sure what the original writer's serial comma rule writing style was, and in keeping with Wikipedia's writing style, this edit could be easily changed if the original editor makes it clear what style he or she prefers. There are numerous instances of both types of the serial comma rule applied throughout the article. (Q) When an editor expresses concern, does this mean that the editor wants to pose some alternate idea? The information cited in the rape section attributed to Moeller is a credible source. Please specify what contention you had in November 2010. (Q) Is there a length requirement on sections of an article? Why would you want to reduce information that pertains to the topic at hand? (Q) Are the Effects of WW II synonymous with the Aftermath of WW II? It seems that the 'Effects' would lead to a historical continuum of cause/effect relationships beginning at the inception of WW II, including the duration of time fighting during WW II, and continue to the present whereas use of 'Aftermath' would mean something different, such as a specific period of time following the event, such as a period of time extending from the end of the last big battle or the battle/invasion of Berlin continuing until the inception of the Cold War. "Aftermath" could mean the immediate effects of WW II that led into numerous other topics, such as the Cold War, the Korean War, War Crimes, Holocaust publicity resulting in sympathy for Jews and the Creation of Israel, Jet Engines, Rockets, Atomic Bomb, Nuclear Age, and more. If it is true that there is a difference between the common meaning of 'Effects' and "Aftermath', then there should be an article for both. In addition, if one point of view describes the fact that two plus two is four, is it useful to pose an alternate view that two plus two is not four? If this article cites facts, and if the citation is credible, then the burden rests with some skeptic to find a credible source that refutes the other credible source, not to simply throw out an unspecified disclaimer that the article is unbalanced. Which part of the article's section on rape do you dispute or claim is "unbalanced", specifically, and why? Gauzeandchess (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Norway - "today that factor is not present in Norway"?Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed that as both of the sources indicate that the children of German soldiers are still abused, even though they are in their 60s. --Habap (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Poland:

• Soviet troops raped Polish women but also Soviet women, eg. liberated KZ prisoners or forced workers.
• Germans organized bordels, forced Slavic and Jewish women to "work" there. German officials sexually used Jewish women during the Holocaust, promising help.Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no mention,at all, of the rape by German troops, especially in the Soviet Union. 135.196.94.75 (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The Japan section currently makes an unqualified (and illogically-worded) claim that "Mainland Japan did not experience rape or mass rape from the Allies or from American forces because the mainland was not invaded or occupied by significant enemy forces prior to Japanese surrender, which was signed on the USS Missouri." This both directly contradicts the main article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan) and doesn't really make sense. This article is about the aftermath of the war, so the fact that Japan was not occupied until after surrender is both a tautology and irrelevant. Information here should match information in the main article, particularly since it includes no citations of its own. At present it seems like it reflects unsourced wishful thinking at best, or a pro-allied historical revisionist bias at worse. I've been bold and updated it with highlights from the main article. Please advise/discuss if anyone has issues with my edits. Techgeist (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This section focusing on one particular (post)war crime leaped out at me as incongruous, like having a section on amputations. I don't like when I can guess the ideological background of the contributors. Can it be rolled into a section on crime/civilian hardship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.37.151 (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Scientists in re-org

Looking at the new structure, I am wondering if the recruitment of German scientists ought to be into the immediate effects section, as the recruitment began immediately. --Habap (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, it was actually part of the source of post-war tensions, so, despite the timing, should probably go in the tensions section. --Habap (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I changed the section name from "A world in ruins" which was too colourful and essay-like, to "Immediate effects", I'm not entirely happy with it, since I'm not sure it captures the contents of the section. (Hohum ^@) 19:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Notice

Accepted by ArbCom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II. If you have evidence regarding the alleged anti-Soviet bias by the military history project, or of behavioral problems here or at World War II, you may wish to submit them at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence. --Habap (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Troops to fight alongside the Germans - Albania???

"All these countries, with the exception only of Poland, had provided troops to fight alongside the Germans during the war" - Czechs hadn't, only Slovaks.Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

At the time, Czechoslovakia was a country for both groups. So, while Czechs may not have fought, their country may have supplied troops, so the statement is true. Note that other ethnicities in those countries may not have provided troops (for example, Hungarian Jews wouldn't have fought for the Germans), but the statement does not go to that level of detail. --Habap (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia was divided into two countries, so the Czechs worked for the Nazis but they didn't provide troops. Some Czechs fought for the Allies, so Benes returned to Czechoslovakia as a victor, not a Nazi.Xx236 (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

So Slovakia was a separate country at the time? I didn't realize that. I see it right here. Not sure how we modify that sentence in this article to explain it. --Habap (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations all over the place

Ugh. Through the Arbitration process, User:67.117.130.143 found that Communicat had mis-cited an article based on getting the source information from the previously dismissed source Between the Lies by Stan Winer. In checking what Communicat had written at WP:RSN to see exactly how he'd gotten the source wrong, I found that Communicat had actually copied text directly from Winer, changing just a few words and some sentence order. I was shocked. Today, I started to wonder if any text posted to the articles Communicat had edited were drawn from Winer and I found verbatim matches in the section on Covert Operations and in the section on Korea. I'm looking at his contributions and there seem to be many, many direct quotes from Winer without attribution. It is utterly shocking how prevalent it is. --Habap (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, boy. I found another. From Winer, October 2004 edition, pp75-76:

In mid-June 1948 the Soviet Union was finally goaded into massive retaliation when the West substituted the Reichsmark with a brand new currency printed in America, the Deutsche Mark, as the official currency in West Germany. The Soviet Union immediately stopped all passenger traffic between the Western zones and Berlin by road and rail. On the autobahn at the Helmstedt checkpoint, Russian guards turned back all eastbound traffic. At the border station of Marienborn trains carrying German passengers and military goods were also turned back. Patrols of Russian and East German frontier guards were greatly increased in strength along the entire length of the Soviet zonal border. The Russians also imposed major electricity cuts. More than two million inhabitants of the British, French and American zones of Berlin were cut off from contact with the West. The blockade of Berlin had begun.

In our version

In mid-June 1948 the Soviet Union retaliated when the West substituted the Reichsmark as the official currency in West Germany with a new currency, the Deutsche Mark, printed in America.

In mid-1948, the Soviet Union blocked all passenger road and rail traffic between the Western zones and Berlin. Patrols of Russian and East German frontier guards were greatly increased in strength along the entire length of the Soviet zonal border. More than two million inhabitants of the British, French and American zones of Berlin were cut off from contact with the West.

I italicized the text that was copied. --Habap (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The copyvio notice seems to be covering the entire last third or so of the article, not just the sections that actually have problems. Is there some way to restore the sections that are not known to have copyright issues? 24.78.202.24 (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna remove the notice because it obscures too much, but basically, anything in the article is suspect right now, because Communicat was simply cutting-and-pasting. Much needs to be re-written. --Habap (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Section Checks

In here, I will note the search for material plagiarized from Stan Winer's Between the Lies, by section of this article.

Immediate Effects, Soviet Union - Clear

Immediate Effects, Germany - Problems, Partition All but last 3 sentences plagiarized from pp75-76, Reparations Clear, Aid Clear

Immediate Effects, Japan - Clear

Population Displacement - Clear

Rape During Occupation - Clear

Post-war Tensions, Europe - paragraph 2 plagiarized from page 100, paragraph 3 contains the "possibility of fighting" sentence from page 95 and the Gehlen sentence still bears resemblance to page 94, paragraph 6's opening sentence on Greece is plagiarized from page 104

Post-war Tensions, Asia, Korea - Clear

Post-war Tensions, Asia, China - first two sentences plagiarized from page 110

Post-war Tensions, Asia, Malaya - Clear

Post-war Tensions, Asia, Vietnam - Clear

Covert Operations and Espionage - 2 sentences clear, then 5 sentences from pages 128-129 in different order than in Winer, then clear after that for the first paragraph, second paragraph plagiarizes page 104 and 105 with sentences again re-arranged, but not significantly modified, and the first half of next paragraph comes from those pages as well.

Went through and removed all of the plagiarism identified. If I have accidentally removed something that should not have been removed or left in anything that should have been removed, please correct me. Edward321 (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda, paragraph 1 (one sentence) clear (written by Habap), paragraph 2 plagiarized from pages 127-128, paragraph 3 plagiarized from page 129, paragraph 4 plagiarized from pages 125-126, paragraph 5 plagiarized from pages 115.

Recruitment of former enemy scientists - clear, not found in Winer

Founding of the UN - clear

Economic aftermath - clear

I went and removed all of the plagiarized material in the Propaganda section. --Habap (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Canada

Can someone tell me why the Canadians didn't share control of Germany with France, US and UK (and SU)? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

My assumption is because it was still part of the Commonwealth and therefore was not considered a separate party at the table. Or maybe they begged off so that they wouldn't have to have a large standing army outside its borders during peace time. Ckruschke (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)CKruschke

There was an Canadian army of occupation initially http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/rep-rap/cmhqrd-drqgmc-eng.asp?txtType=2&RfId=174. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Treatment of collaborators

There's nothing about the post-war period of repression after the war in Western Europe. Mistreatment, rape, summary executions, military tribunals, death sentences, internation camps, public humiliation (putting them on display in cages in the zoo for example), destruction and theft of property... DS Belgium (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 February 2012

I have foud information about ww2 after math that is the real events and i need to put it in here that way she cold have value to some ones research

Taytoo (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I don't know what you want changing. Your request must be of the form "please change X to Y". If you would like to edit the page yourself, please continue editing other pages, and come back once you're autoconfirmed. Thanks. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oversight: Africa

I'm not surprised that attention to the after-effects in Africa are not included: it is something of a footnote or appendix to the events in Europe & Asia -- although things did happen, specifically to Ethiopia & the Italian colonial possessions. On one hand, there was an awful lot of wheeling-dealing for what would happen to Libya, Somalia, Eritrea & Ethiopia, specifically, would they remain in Italian control, be transferred to the administration of another power (such as the UK), or granted independence. Further, following its liberation in 1941 Haile Sellasie lacked a strong governmental structure to replace the defeated Italian administration with, & was forced to rely on British assistance -- which was, at best, a mixed blessing. (The most angry section of his autobiography is the section concerning this period of his reign.) British actions in Ethiopia & Eritrea were dominated by the efforts to deindustrialize Italian East Africa, which had racist motivations, & is one of the darkest chapters of British post-War history. Italian factories, utilities & port facilities were systematically dismantled & sold for scrap. (Sylvia Pankhurst unsuccessfully lobbied against this injustice at the time.) Haile Selassie resorted to diplomatic overtures to the US to eliminate his dependence on Britain, only to find the US indifferent to Ethiopian needs -- which later led to his interest in Soviet support.

As for other parts of Africa -- for example, I wonder how South Africa fared, having contributed so much to the war against the Axis -- I leave for someone else. But my point is the Allies didn't simply pack up & leave once the Italians were defeated in the Horn & the Germans in Tunisia. There were repercussions. -- llywrch (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold and edit in a change that you consider would be beneficial to the page. Ckruschke (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Suggestion for the section on rape, Expansion of the "Economic Aftermath"

As another user seems to have mentioned, would it be feasible to revise the rape section to include all of the ways that people in occupied zones were mistreated, with just a summary about rape?

The Economic Aftermath section at the end of the article really seems to be lacking. I know that all of the countries were devastated, and the economic impact of the war changed Europe for the rest of the 20th century. Case-in-point: the UK's social welfare programs were a direct result of the war and it was not until the 1980s or 1990s that some countries finally began to recover. 97.73.64.143 (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Is something wrong or am I missing something?

The "immediate effects/Soviet Union" section says that the Soviet population lost about 40 million: 19 million non-combat deaths and 8.7 million military deaths. Doesn't that add up to 26.7 million...not 40 million, or anything close? or am I just missing something important here? ***The WikiHunter*** (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aftermath of World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011123702/http://search.japantimes.co.jp:80/cgi-bin/ed20070815a2.html to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20070815a2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aftermath of World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20070815a2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221112633/http://hnn.us/comments/7983.html to http://hnn.us/comments/7983.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218221016/http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm to http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

So if...

Japanese holdouts persisted on various islands in the Pacific Theatre until at least 1974. Although all hostilities are now resolved, a peace treaty has never been signed between Japan and Russia due to the Kuril Islands dispute." ... So if this is true doesn't that mean WWII is technically not over? -aman0226 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman0226 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Missing topics in this article

I was not able to find any section on specific aspects of post-war history on Wikipedia. I don't feel qualified to add those sections, but I believe they are worth mentioning:

• The Nuremberg process is not mentioned in this article
• The repatriation of prisoners of war from both sides after the war
• The use of German prisoners of war as labour in Allied countries after the war
• Mine clearing (for instance, on the coast of Denmark) and unexploded ordnance
• The journey of concentration camp inmates after the surrender
• The various groups who continued to fight (part of the Home Army, the nearly non-existent Werwolf)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:98C0:6050:919B:ADCE:26F8:4B4 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Effects on military (strategic, tactical, operational)?

Article has very little about the effects on militaries themselves. For example, nothing about the new importance of air superiority or the end of calvary as a military force. Rockets, ICBMs, space race? Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Communist propaganda

“ Universities also grew, and this led to a more progressive and left-leaning institutional setting; a larger number of people going to higher education led to a larger amount of the population being aware of and willing to challenge inequalities in society and were preoccupied with social justice and improving the infrastructure and government bureaucracy so it would serve all instead of a select privileged few.”

Is this a blog about communist and leftist interpretations about social justice or economics? Why such a biased and personal OPINION should be in a encyclopedia that meant to be neutral and impartial?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:D55:E:23FF:CD70:EDB7:21DB:1758 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC) 

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Digital Media

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 September 2024 and 11 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SIMONRILEY2004, SIMONRILEY200418 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by SIMONRILEY200418 (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)