You know? I didn’t even really consider that, due to the fact that the original definitions pretty much lost their meanings with the fall of the USSR. However, since Putin’s basically working to recreate it now, it seems like those definitions are relevant once again, so yeah - you’re absolutely right.
Yeah, so was second world because of Russia or because of communism? We need to redraw some stuff. Maybe use something other than number ranking for our definitions. I think we’re ultimately too attached to calling countries with brown people third, but this is a fight I can get behind.
Yeah, so was second world because of Russia or because of communism?
Err… yes. It was essentially a capitalist vs communist thing, but really it was more “US-aligned” versus “USSR-aligned”, since the US and USSR were the two big superpowers with guns and nukes pointed at each other. First world meant “the US, and people who like the US”, second world meant “The USSR and the people who like the USSR”, and third world was everybody who wasn’t aligned politically with either major player. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the phrase “second world” pretty much fell entirely out of use. I’m not sure why “first world” and “third world” ended up sticking around in the lexicon, but their meanings morphed to “rich countries” and “poor / developing countries”, respectively.
My guess (and this is pure speculation) is that the terms stuck around because they were related to foreign policy. Because the foreign policy wonks were primed to think of the world in terms of blocs of allies or as spheres of influence from decades of the cold war, it’s probable that they had gotten used to referring to their allies as “other first world nations”, and to the countries they sought to influence as “third world nations”. The Vietnam war, for example, was a proxy war fought against the USSR, where half of Vietnam was second-world-aligned, and the other half was first-world-aligned. Prior to those lines being drawn in the sand, it was a third world country. The same could also be said about Korea. Also, pretty much the entire continent of Africa was an ideological battleground between the US and the USSR, as both vied to woo, coerce, and force individual countries into their respective spheres of influence. Because the terms “first world” and “third world” were so frequently used as a matter of policy, it’s easy to see how the use of those terms could persist even after the original definitions became obsolete.
As for why a numbering scheme was initially employed… it’s unimportant; simply an easy way of distinguishing between teams. If the USSR had originated the concept, chances are they’d have put themselves as first world, with the US & affiliated nations as second world. Or they might have used letter designations instead of numbers. Or color coding. It doesn’t really matter in the end.
Uh, Sweden and Finland are NATO members (2024 & 2023 respectively) and Ireland has had relations with NATO since the 90s.
They were considered 3rd world by the original definition at the time it was defined.
You know? I didn’t even really consider that, due to the fact that the original definitions pretty much lost their meanings with the fall of the USSR. However, since Putin’s basically working to recreate it now, it seems like those definitions are relevant once again, so yeah - you’re absolutely right.
Yeah, so was second world because of Russia or because of communism? We need to redraw some stuff. Maybe use something other than number ranking for our definitions. I think we’re ultimately too attached to calling countries with brown people third, but this is a fight I can get behind.
Err… yes. It was essentially a capitalist vs communist thing, but really it was more “US-aligned” versus “USSR-aligned”, since the US and USSR were the two big superpowers with guns and nukes pointed at each other. First world meant “the US, and people who like the US”, second world meant “The USSR and the people who like the USSR”, and third world was everybody who wasn’t aligned politically with either major player. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the phrase “second world” pretty much fell entirely out of use. I’m not sure why “first world” and “third world” ended up sticking around in the lexicon, but their meanings morphed to “rich countries” and “poor / developing countries”, respectively.
My guess (and this is pure speculation) is that the terms stuck around because they were related to foreign policy. Because the foreign policy wonks were primed to think of the world in terms of blocs of allies or as spheres of influence from decades of the cold war, it’s probable that they had gotten used to referring to their allies as “other first world nations”, and to the countries they sought to influence as “third world nations”. The Vietnam war, for example, was a proxy war fought against the USSR, where half of Vietnam was second-world-aligned, and the other half was first-world-aligned. Prior to those lines being drawn in the sand, it was a third world country. The same could also be said about Korea. Also, pretty much the entire continent of Africa was an ideological battleground between the US and the USSR, as both vied to woo, coerce, and force individual countries into their respective spheres of influence. Because the terms “first world” and “third world” were so frequently used as a matter of policy, it’s easy to see how the use of those terms could persist even after the original definitions became obsolete.
As for why a numbering scheme was initially employed… it’s unimportant; simply an easy way of distinguishing between teams. If the USSR had originated the concept, chances are they’d have put themselves as first world, with the US & affiliated nations as second world. Or they might have used letter designations instead of numbers. Or color coding. It doesn’t really matter in the end.