# 'Second world' nations? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 10, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-world-nations/330442 "2005-11-10T18:01:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-world-nations/330442/1 "2005-11-10T18:01:46Z")
I know there are ‘first world’ nations and ‘third world’ nations. What are some ‘second world’ nations, and why don’t we hear the tern ‘second world’? ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-world-nations/330442/2 "2005-11-10T18:05:48Z")
> [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > I know there are ‘first world’ nations and ‘third world’ nations. What are some ‘second world’ nations, and why don’t we hear the tern ‘second world’? It’s obsolete. The ‘Second World’ was the Soviet Bloc. However it was never commonly used even when there was a Soviet Union. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Governor\_Quinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d26b3c/32.png) [@Governor\_Quinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Governor_Quinn)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-world-nations/330442/3 "2005-11-10T18:07:19Z")
The “second world” is that of Communist nations. Due to the limited number of Communist nations that currently exist, the term isn’t used that much anymore. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-world-nations/330442/4 "2005-11-10T18:07:49Z")
> [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > I know there are ‘first world’ nations and ‘third world’ nations. What are some ‘second world’ nations, and why don’t we hear the tern ‘second world’? It never really took off as a term. Back in the day it refered to the communist block of countries. ---
**Author:** ![Governor\_Quinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d26b3c/32.png) [@Governor\_Quinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Governor_Quinn)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-world-nations/330442/5 "2005-11-10T18:09:02Z")
> [@Governor Quinn](#): > > The “second world” is that of Communist nations. > > Due to the limited number of Communist nations that currently exist, the term isn’t used that much anymore. Beaten to it. ---
**Author:** ![Eurograff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Eurograff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eurograff)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-world-nations/330442/6 "2005-11-10T18:11:11Z")
And [Unca Cece also knows](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_271.html) the origin of these terms. ---
**Author:** ![RandomLetters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8edcca/32.png) [@RandomLetters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandomLetters)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-world-nations/330442/7 "2005-11-10T18:42:01Z")
Ah, it refers to Soviet block countries. ---
**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:** [November 10, 2005, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-world-nations/330442/8 "2005-11-10T18:58:28Z")
Was it ever formally stated in any venue that the NATO countries were “First” and the Warsaw Pact countries “Second”? Or was it merely that those two national blocs were the “top two” (and during the Cold War, no doubt each side thought of itself as “First”), making all the less-developed places “Third World”? ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-world-nations/330442/9 "2005-11-10T19:26:49Z")
> [@RandomLetters](#): > > Ah, it refers to Soviet block countries. Yeah, but only in 1960… ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-world-nations/330442/10 "2005-11-10T19:49:00Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Was it ever formally stated in any venue that the NATO countries were “First” and the Warsaw Pact countries “Second”? Or was it merely that those two national blocs were the “top two” (and during the Cold War, no doubt each side thought of itself as “First”), making all the less-developed places “Third World”? In the mind of the original author, since he was refering to the first and second estate (nobility and churchmen respectively) of the french “ancien regime” (and even more precisely to a famous pamphlet written by the abbot Sieyes just before the revolution), the “first world” didn’t need to be above the “second world”. There was one side the dominant first and second worlds, and one the other side the oppressed third world. ---
**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:** [November 10, 2005, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-world-nations/330442/11 "2005-11-10T21:20:14Z")
That may be so, but since “third” clearly implied being worse than the first two, I imagine members of the first two would have attached some mental importance to being first rather than second, even if the original author thought of them as co-equals in rank. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-world-nations/330442/12 "2005-11-11T04:31:36Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > That may be so, but since “third” clearly implied being worse than the first two, I imagine members of the first two would have attached some mental importance to being first rather than second, even if the original author thought of them as co-equals in rank. I don’t know that “Third” implied worse. Rather, people like Tito embraced the idea that his country (Yugoslavia) and others were seeking a third way, a system that was neither wholly capitalist nor wholly communist. Over time, “Third World” has come to mean impoverished nations of Asia, Africa and South America… but originally, I think it just meant any nation not directly allied with either the Americans or the Soviets. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-world-nations/330442/13 "2005-11-11T05:43:59Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Over time, “Third World” has come to mean impoverished nations of Asia, Africa and South America… but originally, I think it just meant any nation not directly allied with either the Americans or the Soviets. No. What you’re talking about isn’t the “third world” (a concept created in the west to refer to develloping countries) but the “non-aligned movement” which was an actual organization including countries that intended to create a counterweight to the influence and interventionnism of both western nations and the communist block. Tito’s Yugoslavia was indeed one of the main actor in this movement, along with for instance Egypt or Indonesia. I don’t even know if it still exists. If it does, it has been pretty silent since the fall of the Soviet Union. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-world-nations/330442/14 "2005-11-11T05:54:11Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > That may be so, but since “third” clearly implied being worse than the first two, I imagine members of the first two would have attached some mental importance to being first rather than second, even if the original author thought of them as co-equals in rank. But that would assume that “third world” (or first, or second) was a term actually used in communist countries as it was in the west. I wouldn’t know if it has ever been the case, but I’m not aware of any controversy about it. Anyway, I can’t see, say, the USSR ambassadors in western capitals protesting officially about being called “second world”. Especially since while “third world” came to be widely used, and “first world” occasionnally too, it never happened with “second world”, as proven for instance by the existence of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-world-nations/330442/15 "2005-11-11T06:06:25Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > No. What you’re talking about isn’t the “third world” (a concept created in the west to refer to develloping countries) but the “non-aligned movement” which was an actual organization including countries that intended to create a counterweight to the influence and interventionnism of both western nations and the communist block. > > Tito’s Yugoslavia was indeed one of the main actor in this movement, along with for instance Egypt or Indonesia. I don’t even know if it still exists. If it does, it has been pretty silent since the fall of the Soviet Union. Actually, there was a lot of overlap between the Non-Aligned Nations and the Third World. In the early days of the Non-Alignment Movement many of the NAN adopted the term to refer to the movement. The NAM _has_ been struggling to find a reason to exist since the fall of the Soviet Union. I’d say they more provided a fulcrum than a counterweight. And now that one side of the see-saw has been cut off, they’re more or less floundering as a movement in a search for relevance.