There must have also been positive effects of World War 2, I wonder what the knowledgable minds of Sciforums can come up with...

To start it off: Because of WW2, Germany no longer had huge debts, otherwise Germany would now have been a poor country instead of a wealthy one... What could be the effects of this on the rest of Europe?

50 million dead , 2 continents devastaed , atomic weaponery followed by a Cold war which squandered a nations National wealth . The only positive thing to come out of WWII was that the wealthy corpoarations got richer , well positive for those greedy institutions .

Space travel and viable commercial air travel.

Hitler Died

A lot of improvements actually worldwide, creation of United Nations and other big world organization to ensure peace and also many alliances.

In the United States and also probably in most of the first world, racial prejudice was no long socially acceptable. The holocaust showed what could happen if leaders think it is all right to discriminate on the basis of religion or race.

Well, another positive effect of WW II is that it killed millions of people! Just think, if none of those people had been killed, how many people would we have on Earth right now? And where would they live?

Wars are sorta' like ranching ....one must continue to cull the herd or it'll become too large to deal with. Wars cull the human herds.

Baron Max

Well, another positive effect of WW II is that it killed millions of people! Just think, if none of those people had been killed, how many people would we have on Earth right now? And where would they live?

Wars are sorta' like ranching ....one must continue to cull the herd or it'll become too large to deal with. Wars cull the human herds.

Baron Max


Consider the fact that the Allied victory enabled many groups to flourish that were persecuted by the Axis. So, therefore the fact that millions died is irrelevant. Millions died so millions more could in effect prosper.

The EEC came about due to WWII -- Economic Stalemate in Europe. Not necessarily a good point.

Greetings everybody, by the by. :)

A lot of improvements actually worldwide, creation of United Nations and other big world organization to ensure peace and also many alliances.
Did that fail miserably.

Yeah, but notice how it continues to fail, yet we keep it around and pay millions for the privilege of watching it fail ...year after year after year!

When are we going to see the light and dump the UN?

Baron Max

But if we dump the UN we wont have anymore reason to complain about what the US does wrong. :(

After ww2 the UN was the only thing holding together international relations, without it at that period there would be chaos and lawlessness.

Maybe the reason America dos'nt like the UN is because the UN dislikes what America does.

But if we dump the UN we wont have anymore reason to complain about what the US does wrong.

I don't think there'll be a shortage of people to complain about the great nation of the United States of America ....do you?


Maybe the reason America dos'nt like the UN is because the UN dislikes what America does.

Oh, I have no problem with them hating America .....but what the hell have they actually accomplished for all of the billions that they've spent?

I seriously know of no place in the world, no conflicts, no diseases, no poverty, or anything else where the UN has actually accomplished something. If you know of some, please tell me! Mostly I just see a bunch of white helmeted troops standing around while the country they're supposed to be controlling is in armed rebellion and chaos .....and they just stand there and watch it ....like its an enjoyable movie or something!

As to your comment about after WW II, I don't know that that is true. Before I believe it, I'm going to have to study that some. At that time, the UN have virtually no power and no troops ...other than the US troops! But I need to do some research.

Baron Max

`
Face it... There was only ONE positive effect of the war...
http://www.my-car-picture.com/image-files/volkswagen-beetle.jpg http://www.avonhill.com/thumbnails/classic/1957_VW_Beetle.jpeg
;)

`
Face it... There was only ONE positive effect of the war...
http://www.my-car-picture.com/image-files/volkswagen-beetle.jpg http://www.avonhill.com/thumbnails/classic/1957_VW_Beetle.jpeg
;)

HAHA.

At that time, the UN have virtually no power and no troops ...other than the US troops! But I need to do some research.

Baron Max
You have a point there. From what history tells us the U.N seems like a giant club house where many nations come and talk and eat.

...and drink!

Baron Max

Yugoslavia was created out of world war 2. That was a positive (for me at least).

It didn't last very long as a nation, that was a negative. Especially the bloody breakup.

Oh, I have no problem with them hating America .....but what the hell have they actually accomplished for all of the billions that they've spent?
From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Successes_of_the_UN):


* Raising consciousness of the concept of human rights through its covenants and of its attention to specific abuses through its resolutions or rulings. (eg. abolishing Apartheid in South Africa)
* Health successes such as the World Health Organization's elimination of small pox.
* The UN's World Food Programme helps feed more than 100 million people a year in 80 countries.
* The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is the largest multilateral source of grant technical assistance in the world.
* The UN has helped run elections in countries with little democratic history including recently in Afghanistan and East Timor.
* The UN Population Fund is a major provider of reproductive services especially in poor countries. It has helped reduce infant and maternal mortality in 100 countries.
* Organizations like the WHO, UNAIDS and Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria are leading institutions in the battle against AIDS around the world especially in poor countries.
* The UN has set up war-crimes tribunals to try war criminals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

I hope The Baron doesn't back out after seeing some of the good things that the UN has done!

Of course, we could argue that the UN is saving a bunch of people that should die, thus aleviating an overpopulation problem.

Citing UN propoganda is not what I call proof of anything. And for every "good" thing that's attributed to the UN, we could cite instances of abuse of power ...like the UN soldiers in Africa raping and killing people!

The problem is we, the people, only see what we want to see ....if we want to see "good", we just pick ONLY the good items. I could do the same for all of the UN's horrid waste of time, effort and money ....but I won't, 'cause I don't give a fuck!

Baron Max

Baron, you're a silly man.

It's pretty evident that small pox would not have been eliminated without the UN. In fact, without the WHO, small pox would still be a problem. There is one good thing the UN has done– saved hundreds of millions of lives. You said the UN hasn't done anything helpful, when in fact, the UN has.

Of course there is bad in the UN, just like anything, there will be good and bad. But the UN isn't all bad. You're just refusing to see the good the UN has done.

And for every "good" thing that's attributed to the UN, we could cite instances of abuse of power ...like the UN soldiers in Africa raping and killing people!
Silly, silly Baron, we could do this for just about every government in the world! These rapes weren't sanctioned by the UN, just as LAPD doesn't santion polics officers selling confiscated crank. But people will be people, and bad stuff like this happens. Perhaps if the UN used robots....

The UN doesn't work because there are some very powerful people and organizations that don't want it to work. And for just reason, too. When the UN really starts to work, national governments will be in decline. It will be an era of a world government. I think there are very few people who want that to happen.

Whether or not the UN works, we in the modern era need it. It's a sign that, despite the colossal waste humanitarianism seems to be, we're willing to help our fellow man.

There is one good thing the UN has done– saved hundreds of millions of lives.

Smallpox was eradicated in the US in the late 1800's! The UN didn't even exist then. As to the rest of the world, the US gave tons of smallpox vaccines to many nations of the world. So ...I'm not so sure that the UN actually did anything about smallpox?

I'd also like to mention the problems in Africa, all over Africa: Millions are starving to death right now, as we debate ...what is the UN doing about it?

There are major civil wars and tribal conflicts, causing the deaths of millions, in Africa as well as other areas of the world ...what is the UN doing about them?


Whether or not the UN works, we in the modern era need it. It's a sign that, despite the colossal waste humanitarianism seems to be, we're willing to help our fellow man.

So we just keep throwing our money away ....as a fuckin' sign that we care????? How fuckin' silly is that??!!

I'd direct you to the tsunami disaster ...it was the US that supplied her military to the region and provide tons of food and water using military helicopters and personnel .....long, long before the UN did anything! And even now, $$$$$$$ by the gazillions is NOT being distributed by the UN as promised. Where is that money?

UN? No, we don't need the UN, we need an organization that WORKS!! An organization that DOES SOMETHING!! The UN sits around drinking fine wine and eating $$ horses ovaries while millions suffer and die.

The UN is a ideal that, like most ideals, sucks in the final analysis and in reality. Yes, the UN sucks! ....it sucks giant donkey dicks!

Baron Max

Let's think. Good things for the USA. Great depression was completely overcome using state socialist policies of a war state. Plight of workers was significantly improved (cause of labor shortage). USA was essentially untouched by war. Every other industrial nation of any importance was in ruins (literal and/or economical ones). Thus, USA was the only country with powerful, intact industrial base = lots of foreign orders, lots of jobs, good wages. Every ally belligerent was owing $ to the USA. To pay debt, buy industrial, agricultural products other countries shipped almost all their gold to the USA = USA substituted old Europe as a financial center. This prepared ground for the American dollar to become de facto world currency. Thus, current prosperity of the USA economy is largerly due to allied victory in WWII. Unlike other countries, USA still lives on results of that victory.

After WWII, American capital forced colonial Europian powers to give up bulk of their traditional colonies in order to open them for American corporations. The age of neocolonialism began. One may argue that neo colonialism is somewhat better than traditional one.

Europian guilt + American Jewish lobby + fundies + Stalin's desire to create socialist Jewish state resulted in a creation of Israel shortly after WWII. It was definitely a good thing for Jewish people.

German militarism was broken, and it still remains broken. I think Japanese just faking their luck of militarism though.

Lots of small and not so small ethnic groups were saved of German and Japanese
genocide.

As cruel as it sounds, after WWII ethnic cleansings and border deals created solid foundation for Europian (ethnic) peace in the affected countries under watchful eye of USSR and USA.

That are few good things which comes to my mind. However, good thing for one side is frequently a bad thing for the other.

Smallpox was eradicated in the US in the late 1800's!
No, the last case in the US was recorded in 1977.


The UN didn't even exist then.
Indeed. It took two world wars before the post WW-II nations realised that there should be a global effort to make sure that diplomacy is always an option.


As to the rest of the world, the US gave tons of smallpox vaccines to many nations of the world.
So ...I'm not so sure that the UN actually did anything about smallpox?
Global efforts to combat diseases are coordinated from the World Health Organisation, an UN institution.


I'd also like to mention the problems in Africa, all over Africa: Millions are starving to death right now, as we debate ...what is the UN doing about it?
United Nations Development Programme. United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF). What did you expect though, that the UN, after being around for only 60 years, would have solved the world's most daunting problems? Of course, not! But at least, an effort is made.


There are major civil wars and tribal conflicts, causing the deaths of millions, in Africa as well as other areas of the world ...what is the UN doing about them?
The United Nations was intended for solving conflicts between nations, not between tribes or civil factions. That makes the UN diplomacy infrastructure a bit incompatible. Nevertheless, the UN does try to keep the peace where it can. In Africa, and all over the globe: list of UN peacekeeping operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_all_UN_peacekeeping_missions). Moreover, when the dust settles, the UN often helps to organise decent fair elections.


I'd direct you to the tsunami disaster ...it was the US that supplied her military to the region and provide tons of food and water using military helicopters and personnel .....long, long before the UN did anything!

And even now, $$$$$$$ by the gazillions is NOT being distributed by the UN as promised. Where is that money?

First of all, not only the US provided aid: Who's giving what? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4145259.stm).

Secondly, the UN is involved. Read up on it here (http://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/selectstory.asp?Cr=Tsunami), where the latests news on their efforts is published.




UN? No, we don't need the UN, we need an organization that WORKS!! An organization that DOES SOMETHING!! The UN sits around drinking fine wine and eating $$ horses ovaries while millions suffer and die.
This is just silly bigotry.


The UN is a ideal that, like most ideals, sucks in the final analysis and in reality. Yes, the UN sucks! ....it sucks giant donkey dicks!
The UN is an ideal, true. It will probably never be a guarantee for peace or the final solution to all of the world's diseases and suffering. Yet, it does provide us with a place where nations can make efforts to resolve their differences peacefully. That, in itself, makes the UN a necessity.

50 million dead , 2 continents devastaed , atomic weaponery followed by a Cold war which squandered a nations National wealth . The only positive thing to come out of WWII was that the wealthy corpoarations got richer , well positive for those greedy institutions .

What does that say about the winners?

:m:

The United nations is the mouth piece of the rich and powerful. The US gets what it wants, basically. To say that disease has been abated, much less eradicated by virtue of the existence of the UN needs supporting proof. The U.N went tow ar against North Korea, remember? How about Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, then and now continuing the war on terror, the war on drugs, the rape and pillage in Africa, the Facist dictatorships in South America?
Did someone say the UN is a positive factor in any of this?

Geistkiesel :cool:

The US gets what it wants, basically.
No, it doesn't. Don't you remember how the US didn't get the resolution they wanted prior to the invasion of Iraq, with the courtesy of France?


To say that disease has been abated, much less eradicated by virtue of the existence of the UN needs supporting proof.
See here (http://people.howstuffworks.com/who2.htm). For an article explaining where and how the WHO learned from its mistakes in the (nonetheless succesfull) fight against small pox, see here (http://choo.fis.utoronto.ca/fis/courses/lis2102/KO.WHO.case.html).


The U.N went tow ar against North Korea, remember?
Well, it was North Korea launching an attack on South Korea. After this deed of agression by the North, the UN paved the way for a coalition of countries to help defend South Korea.


How about Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, then and now continuing the war on terror, the war on drugs, the rape and pillage in Africa, the Facist dictatorships in South America?
You blame the UN for the fact that the world is not an utopia? It's the UN's charter to promote human rights, it can not enforce them. If you want that to happen, the solution is not to abolish the UN, but to transcend its influence to a point where it can eclipse the authority of nation states. Basically, it would need its own significant army. Do you honestly want that?

The break up of British Empire was a direct consequence of WW 2. A sad event for us but a positive one notheless.

Maybe the reason America dos'nt like the UN is because the UN dislikes what America does.

I think that sums it up quite nicely.

The break up of British Empire was a direct consequence of WW 2. A sad event for us but a positive one notheless.

Why was it positive? Look at Zimbabwe now, for example. The British Empire was a great thing for a lot of places....we (opinion) took care of the places we controlled. Built schools and institutions and railways and that kind of stuff.

I'd direct you to the tsunami disaster ...it was the US that supplied her military to the region and provide tons of food and water using military helicopters and personnel .....long, long before the UN did anything! And even now, $$$$$$$ by the gazillions is NOT being distributed by the UN as promised. Where is that money?


The US was initially outcontributed by almost everyone including Japan and the UK. Only afterwards did it increase its contribution TO SAVE FACE.

there are a lot of things that are the direct result of ww2
1. radar
2. jet aircraft
3. rockets
4. radio controlled tanks
5. forward swept wing aircraft
6. synthetic oil

We would have discovered those in due time, war just accelerates research.

Looking at it as a bunch of new discoveries is quite depressing that it had to come at the deaths of millions.

Looking at it as a bunch of new discoveries is quite depressing that it had to come at the deaths of millions.
it's a real shame that people must die in order for others to live
but it's a fact of life, there's no way around it

You must be confused, you're referring to the animal kingdom. The difference between humans and animals is that we have the ability to use logic before instinct.

we are born, we grow, we die. whats so confusing about that?
our society as we know it could not exist if it was any other way

And where would they live?


Preferebly on land? Perhaps, if they get lucky, they could even live in cities, they could become city folk?