# Did anything good come out of World War I? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 28, 2015, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056 "2015-05-28T17:47:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/41 "2015-05-29T16:11:26Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Military tactics and strategies caught up with military technology. Later wars have not displayed the stagnant, trench-bound butchery that was so famously a part of WWI. More advanced tactics and strategies weren’t possible with the technology; the technology caught up in the interwar years in large part in the form of the radio - its military value expressed best in the British word for it, the wireless. Wires couldn’t be strung across no-man’s land and not be cut by the shelling. Once the troops ‘went over the top’ they may as well have disappeared to the dark side of the moon; there was little higher command could do to receive information or send new orders in anything like a timely or safe manner. The opening weeks of WWI were in fact very fast moving and mobile and later wars have very much displayed the stagnant, trench-bound butchery that was so famously a part of WWI. It’s easy to remember the race across France in WWII, but after D-Day the Allied armies spend almost two months in a grinding slogging match making progress of a few hundred yards a day, and once the steam of the race across France ran out you wound up with bloody messes like [Hürtgen Forest](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_H%C3%BCrtgen_Forest). Fighting in Italy spent months with the front not moving a mile, see [Monte Cassino](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino) and [Anzio](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Anzio). > [@Scumpup](#): > > The stagnant warfare of WWI ruined vast swaths of France and Belgium to the point where they are still unsafe and unusable today. Cities wrecked in WWII were rebuilt relatively quickly. Further, modern warfare actually results, many times, in much faster wars with lower body counts. This assumes we are talking about a “real” war and not an occupation or police action. The body count in WWII was much steeper than in WWI, there was far, far greater wreckage to cities and the Marshall Plan was the only reason the cities were rebuilt so quickly. There are no “vast swaths” of France and Belgium that WWI rendered unsafe and unusable today. ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/42 "2015-05-29T17:49:41Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Such as? The lovely benefits of Imperialism in Africa and the ME are rather apparent for all to see. Its strengthened imperialism outside Europe rather than weakened it. Made colonies where there were none. The Levant, Iraq, for instance. India, Kenya, Algiers, and Vietnam all had independence movements that either started or became much more active during and after WWI. Those are just the ones I can think of off hand. I’m sure there were more With the Levant, I’ll grant that being an Ottoman possession was very different from being a European colony, but it was still more a matter of territory changing hands from one imperial power to another than previously independent states being colonized. ---
**Author:** ![minor7flat5](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/minor7flat5/32/258_2.png) [@minor7flat5](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minor7flat5)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/43 "2015-05-29T17:50:35Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Penicillin wasn’t the first antibiotic. The [sulfa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfanilamide) drugs were already available by the 1910’s. [tangent] Sulfanilamide had been prepared and patented in 1909, but the first inkling of antibiotic potency was when the new Bayer drug called [Prontosil](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prontosil) was found to be effective against certain bacteria in mice in 1932. In 1935, Dr. Ernest Forneau’s team at the Pasteur Institute discovered that Prontosil is metabolized into Sulfanilamide. That’s really the start of the sulfa drug heyday. Before the 1930s, sulfanilamide was just another industrial compound. [/tangent] ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/44 "2015-05-29T17:53:45Z")
Tang? Oh wait, that was the US Space Program… ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/45 "2015-05-29T18:10:49Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Such as? The lovely benefits of Imperialism in Africa and the ME are rather apparent for all to see. Its strengthened imperialism outside Europe rather than weakened it. Made colonies where there were none. The Levant, Iraq, for instance. > > Colonialism ended after WW2, and due to the support of the USSR, rather than because of WW1. One of the few positive legacies of the USSR. Huh? Colonialism in Africa predates WW1. The “scramble for Africa” was an artifact of an earlier generation - by WW1, colonialism was well in place. > **[Scramble for Africa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa)** > > The Scramble for Africa\[a\] was the conquest and colonisation of most of Africa by seven Western European powers driven by the Second Industrial Revolution during the era of "New Imperialism" (1833–1914): Belgium, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Portugal and Spain. > In 1870, 10% of the continent was formally under European control. By 1914, this figure had risen to almost 90%, with only Liberia and Ethiopia retaining sovereignty, along with Egba,\[b\] Senusiyya, Mbunda, and the Ovambo kin... In the ME, what one had with WW1 was a change of colonial masters - from Turks to Europeans. The issues of nationalism vs. colonialism pre-date that switch-over (the Arab Revolt was against _Turkish_ colonialism). Iraq was a Turkish imperial possession, pre-WW1. Arguably, what WW1 did was militarily and economically exhaust the imperial powers, winners and losers alike - leading to a weakening grip on their respective empires (a grip finally broken after the second trauma of WW2). > **[Arab Revolt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt)** > > The Arab Revolt (Arabic: الثورة العربية al-Thawra al-‘Arabiyya), also known as the Great Arab Revolt (الثورة العربية الكبرى al-Thawra al-‘Arabiyya al-Kubrā), was an armed uprising by the Hashemite-led Arabs of the Hejaz against the Ottoman Empire amidst the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. > On the basis of the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, exchanged between Henry McMahon of the United Kingdom and Hussein bin Ali of the Kingdom of Hejaz, the rebellion against the ruling Turks was officia... ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/46 "2015-05-29T18:28:33Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > The stagnant warfare of WWI ruined vast swaths of France and Belgium to the point where they are still unsafe and unusable today. Cities wrecked in WWII were rebuilt relatively quickly. Further, modern warfare actually results, many times, in much faster wars with lower body counts. This assumes we are talking about a “real” war and not an occupation or police action. As a slight hijack, I recently encountered this little tidbit of information: > [@](#): > > The zone rouge (English: red zone) is a chain of non-contiguous areas throughout northeastern France that the French government isolated after the First World War. The land, which originally covered more than 1,200 square kilometres (460 sq mi), was deemed to be too physically and environmentally damaged by the conflict for human habitation. Rather than attempt to clean up the former battlefields, the land was allowed to return to nature. Restrictions within the zone rouge still exist today although the control areas have been greatly reduced. > > Under French law, activities such as housing, farming or forestry, were temporarily or permanently forbidden in the zone rouge. This was because of the vast amounts of human and animal remains and millions of unexploded ordnance contaminating the land. Some towns and villages were never permitted to be rebuilt after the war. > **[Zone rouge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_rouge)** > > .mw-parser-output .geo-default,.mw-parser-output .geo-dms,.mw-parser-output .geo-dec{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .geo-nondefault,.mw-parser-output .geo-multi-punct,.mw-parser-output .geo-inline-hidden{display:none}.mw-parser-output .longitude,.mw-parser-output .latitude{white-space:nowrap}50°22′N 2°48′E / 50.36°N 2.80°E / 50.36; 2.80 > The zone rouge (English: red zone) is a chain of non-contiguous areas throughout northeastern France that the French government isolated after the First Wor... That’s pretty crazy and pretty telling in terms of what kind of impacts WWI had. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/47 "2015-05-29T18:43:45Z")
> [@filmstar-en](#): > > Usually the outside threats lead to internal repression, not reform. [That is how it turned out in the U.S.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare) ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/48 "2015-05-29T19:09:56Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Huh? Colonialism in Africa predates WW1. The “scramble for Africa” was an artifact of an earlier generation - by WW1, colonialism was well in place. > > [Scramble for Africa - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa) > > In the ME, what one had with WW1 was a change of colonial masters - from Turks to Europeans. The issues of nationalism vs. colonialism pre-date that switch-over (the Arab Revolt was against _Turkish_ colonialism). Iraq was a Turkish imperial possession, pre-WW1. > > Arguably, what WW1 did was militarily and economically exhaust the imperial powers, winners and losers alike - leading to a weakening grip on their respective empires (a grip finally broken after the second trauma of WW2). > > [Arab Revolt - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt) Do note I said Middle East and the Levent. The “Arab Revolt” is mostly a figment of Hollywood. And it existed for the most part only in Najd and Hejaz. The British kicked the Turks out of Sinai-Palestine and the Levant by using conventional troops. Nor could the Turks be called colonial masters in any sense of the term. WW1 led to some of the absolute worst repression in India, with the Defence of India Act and later after the war the Rowlett Act, culminating in the Amritsar massecre. In Iraq, the RAF and “Bomber” Harris routinely bombed villages for no reason or because the were late in paying Taxes. The creation of “mandates” (i.e colonies) also gave the Imperial powers greater control then they had ever enjoyed. The occasional rebellion aside, they were not seriously threatened until the WW2. Post war they held on to their colonies chiefly through US aid. It was not until the mid 1950’s with active Soviet support that the various struggles managed to bear fruit. India being the exception. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/49 "2015-05-29T19:13:03Z")
[Dakin’s solution.](http://www.kilmerhouse.com/2013/11/making-the-revolutionary-new-carrel-dakin-wound-treatment-available-to-save-soldiers-lives-during-world-war-i/) Not only did it save innumerable lives in the war itself, it’s still commonly used today in medicine- particularly in chronic wounds. [Blood banks are also an innovation that came about during the war.](http://centennial.rucares.org/index.php?page=Blood_Bank) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/50 "2015-05-29T19:35:24Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Do note I said Middle East and the Levent. Again, huh? From the post I quoted: > [@](#): > > The lovely benefits of Imperialism in Africa and the ME are rather apparent for all to see. [Emphasis added] In what way is this not a mention of colonialism in Africa? > [@](#): > > The “Arab Revolt” is mostly a figment of Hollywood. And it existed for the most part only in Najd and Hejaz. The British kicked the Turks out of Sinai-Palestine and the Levant by using conventional troops. Nor could the Turks be called colonial masters in any sense of the term. Really? The Ottomans were as much an “empire” as any other colonial power, only in this period, more decrepit than any save the Austo-Hungarian. In what significant way did they differ? Certainly, they acted just like any other “colonial masters”; locals were ruled by Turkish officials, incipient nationalists were violently suppressed, etc. In fact, Ottoman Turkish brutality towards the nationalities they colonized (if they were disobedient) was a by-word - fully the equal of the worst any European masters imposed. This lead to a lot of (no doubt quite hypocritical) finger-waving at the ‘terrible Turks’. I think you are succumbing to the notion that only European colonialism was ‘really bad’. Non-Europeans are fully as capable of being nasty colonialists as any European - just ask the Japanese … and the Turks. > [@](#): > > WW1 led to some of the absolute worst repression in India, with the Defence of India Act and later after the war the Rowlett Act, culminating in the Amritsar massecre. In Iraq, the RAF and “Bomber” Harris routinely bombed villages for no reason or because the were late in paying Taxes. > > The creation of “mandates” (i.e colonies) also gave the Imperial powers greater control then they had ever enjoyed. The occasional rebellion aside, they were not seriously threatened until the WW2. Post war they held on to their colonies chiefly through US aid. It was not until the mid 1950’s with active Soviet support that the various struggles managed to bear fruit. > > India being the exception. The World Wars led to the weakening of the colonialist’s grip, mostly through mutual exhaustion, and the simultaneous rise of ethno-nationalism everywhere. These two factors were far, far more significant in the eventual shaking off of colonial rule than Soviet aid. It is true that most anti-colonialist ethno-nationalist movements were simply too weak to take on the colonialists after WW1 - but it is rather too much to expect these things to happen instantly. Rather, WW1 was the _start_ of a process of grip-loosening that was _completed_ after WW2. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/51 "2015-05-29T19:50:06Z")
Alessan: > [@](#): > > With that caveat aside, I doubt Israel would have been founded as easily as it was if the Ottoman Empire hadn’t collapsed the way it did. While Zionist activity had already started under the Turks, it probably wouldn’t have been given the push it received without the British conquest and subsequent investment in the region. In my humble opinion, that’s a good thing. Yeah, but the British takeover of chunks of the Ottoman Empire also resulted in T. E. Lawrence’s Arab-bromances, which established the various Arab monarchies (and their non-royal successors) which have proven so troublesome to Israel’s security since. The biggie here being the handing of Transjordan to the Hashemites and leaving the Palestinians - who comprise most of the population of said territory - with no self-government, which has now become Israel’s perpetual security and PR problem. Might the Zionist movement have been able to eventually achieve their goals under the Ottomans without the British-esque mucking up of the Arab end of the Middle East in the process? I don’t know the answer - in alt-history, you never really can - but at the very least, I’d say that that part of the historical record makes WWI at best a wash. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/52 "2015-05-29T19:57:37Z")
It led to my getting a seemingly random day in November off. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/53 "2015-05-29T20:05:12Z")
ETA: It also led to a [revolution in modern art](http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/21/entertainment/la-et-cm-world-war-art-20120722). ---
**Author:** ![Randolph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Randolph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randolph)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/54 "2015-05-29T20:53:18Z")
It also led to me wearing [this t-shirt](http://www.tshirtvortex.net/wp-content/uploads/backtobackchamps.jpg), which I like a lot, so it was kinda sorta worth all the suffering and horror and stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Nema98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/d2c977/32.png) [@Nema98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nema98)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/55 "2015-05-29T22:46:42Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Good is a relative term - what some people consider good, others might consider somewhat less so. > > With that caveat aside, I doubt Israel would have been founded as easily as it was if the Ottoman Empire hadn’t collapsed the way it did. While Zionist activity had already started under the Turks, it probably wouldn’t have been given the push it received without the British conquest and subsequent investment in the region. In my humble opinion, that’s a good thing. Bad plan, there were people living there in that land already, if it were an empty land than that is one thing. But it was not. And now we see things have not been really peaceful, not surprising. I differ on your assessment. ---
**Author:** ![Nema98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/d2c977/32.png) [@Nema98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nema98)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/56 "2015-05-29T22:48:23Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Alessan: > > Yeah, but the British takeover of chunks of the Ottoman Empire also resulted in T. E. Lawrence’s Arab-bromances, which established the various Arab monarchies (and their non-royal successors) which have proven so troublesome to Israel’s security since. The biggie here being the handing of Transjordan to the Hashemites and leaving the Palestinians - who comprise most of the population of said territory - with no self-government, which has now become Israel’s perpetual security and PR problem. Might the Zionist movement have been able to eventually achieve their goals under the Ottomans without the British-esque mucking up of the Arab end of the Middle East in the process? I don’t know the answer - in alt-history, you never really can - but at the very least, I’d say that that part of the historical record makes WWI at best a wash. very well said. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/57 "2015-05-29T23:11:12Z")
> [@bump](#): > > [Blood banks are also an innovation that came about during the war.](http://centennial.rucares.org/index.php?page=Blood_Bank) Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![filmstar-en](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/50afbb/32.png) [@filmstar-en](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmstar-en)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/58 "2015-05-29T23:18:19Z")
Italy expanded its colonial interests in Africa considerably after WW1, consolidating control over Libya and Somalia. > **[Italian Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Empire)** > > Timeline > The Italian colonial empire (Italian: Impero coloniale italiano), whose East African territories were known as The Empire (L'Impero) between 1936 and 1941, was founded in Africa in the 19th century and it comprised the colonies, protectorates, concessions and dependencies of the Kingdom of Italy. In Africa, the colonial empire included the territories of present-day Libya, Eritrea, Somalia and Ethiopia (the last three being officially named "Africa Orientale Italiana", AOI); outside Afr... Japan got a few ex-German possessions after WW1 and then started wars of colonial expansion annexing large parts of China. > **[Aftermath of World War I | Italy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_I#Italy)** > > In 1882 Italy joined with the German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire to form the Triple Alliance. However, even if relations with Berlin became very friendly, the alliance with Vienna remained purely formal, as the Italians were keen to acquire Trentino and Trieste, parts of the Austro-Hungarian empire populated by Italians. > During World War I Italy aligned with the Allies, instead of joining Germany and Austria. This could happen since the alliance formally had merely defensive prerogati... Colonial empires were very much alive and after WW1, possessions were simply transferred from the losers to the victors such as Britain and France. I don’t see that WW1 had much affect on the victors colonial possession. If anything, it added to them. The Fascist Nationalist regimes that took hold after WW1 wanted empires of their own and set about acquiring them one way or another. The tide of Nationalism that swept across Europe after WW1 eventually took hold in the colonies and that really got going after WW2, when most of the colonial powers were bankrupt and weakened and (after a few wars) eventually changed to a policy of decolonisation. WW1 saw off the last of the absolute monarchies such as Czarist Russia and the Kaisers Germany and led to the breakup of the Austria-Hungarian Empire. Whether that was a good thing, judging by the disaster that befell Europe afterwards, I very much doubt. Really WW1 did not have a positive affect on international politics, you have to look elsewhere to perceive any positive developments. There were some improvements in internal politics. States became much more centralised and large parts of economy were retained under public ownership. There were a lot of advances in technology and medicine. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/59 "2015-05-29T23:35:49Z")
> [@Nema98](#): > > Bad plan, there were people living there in that land already, if it were an empty land than that is one thing. But it was not. > > And now we see things have not been really peaceful, not surprising. I differ on your assessment. Personally, I like it here. I’m glad my country was founded. For me, it was good thing. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056/60 "2015-05-29T23:54:10Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Personally, I like it here. I’m glad my country was founded. For me, it was good thing. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anything-good-come-out-of-world-war-i/721056.md?page=4)