Talk:Aftermath of World War II

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Effects of World War II]] 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Renewal 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  new section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge of data ex-Effects article completed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Some incomplete refs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "pro-Soviet POV" 

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Progress Publishers / Russian sources 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Rape section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Scientists in re-org

message: 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)
thread_title: Arbitration Notice

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Troops to fight alongside the Germans  - Albania???

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Treatment of collaborators 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit request on 8 February 2012 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Oversight: Africa 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion for the section on rape, Expansion of the "Economic Aftermath" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is something wrong or am I missing something? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  So if... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing topics in this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Effects on military (strategic, tactical, operational)? 

message: “ 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)
thread_title:  Communist propaganda