Talk:Aftermath of World War II

Merge to Effects of World War II

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

hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.86.51 (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aftermath (of the Aftermath..?)

Let's not repeat that mistake again, making a section with that title. MBHiii (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Renewal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Korea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concur on Yalta. Removing it makes it simpler.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truman Doctrine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening paragraph

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

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

new section

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

Merge of data ex-Effects article completed

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

Some incomplete refs

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

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

Dropshot

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

Propaganda war

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

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