Effects of World War II was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 06 November 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Aftermath of World War II. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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): Emmy611.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
To: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."
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)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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Norway - "today that factor is not present in Norway"? Xx236 ( talk) 08:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Poland:
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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 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.
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)
In here, I will note the search for material plagiarized from Stan Winer's Between the Lies, by section of this article.
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:98C0:6050:919B:ADCE:26F8:4B4 ( talk) 21:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
“ 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)
Effects of World War II was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 06 November 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Aftermath of World War II. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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): Emmy611.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
To: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."
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)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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Norway - "today that factor is not present in Norway"? Xx236 ( talk) 08:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Poland:
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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 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.
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)
In here, I will note the search for material plagiarized from Stan Winer's Between the Lies, by section of this article.
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:98C0:6050:919B:ADCE:26F8:4B4 ( talk) 21:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
“ 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)