Russian-Belarussian Wargames - "West 2009"

[Berkut]

So you are sticking to your claim that the UN was formed prior to 1945 then?

I refer you to, oh wikipedia on the United nations. Note the date it was formed. I haven't actually looked at the wiki article, but I am confident it won't claim that the UN was formed during or prior to WW2, as you are claiming.

Oh what the hell, I will take a look, lets see....

The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.

ZOMG! Someone call wiki and tell them they have made a terrible error!
<chalks up viking in class of people who don't know very basic dates in 20th century history>

[Viking]

So you are sticking to your claim that the UN was formed prior to 1945 then?

I refer you to, oh wikipedia on the United nations. Note the date it was formed. I haven't actually looked at the wiki article, but I am confident it won't claim that the UN was formed during or prior to WW2, as you are claiming.

Oh what the hell, I will take a look, lets see....

The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.

ZOMG! Someone call wiki and tell them they have made a terrible error!
<chalks up viking in class of people who don't know very basic dates in 20th century history>

The United Nations and The United Nations Organisation are not the same thing.

[ulmont]

So you are sticking to your claim that the UN was formed prior to 1945 then?

I refer you to, oh wikipedia on the United nations. Note the date it was formed. I haven't actually looked at the wiki article, but I am confident it won't claim that the UN was formed during or prior to WW2, as you are claiming.

The wiki supports both your point that the United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, and Viking's point that the term was in use during WWII to describe the Allies.

The earliest concrete plan for a new world organization was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department in 1939. Franklin D. Roosevelt first coined the term 'United Nations' as a term to describe the Allied countries. The term was first officially used on January 1, 1942 when 26 governments signed the Atlantic Charter, pledging to continue the war effort.[3] On 25 April 1945, the UN Conference on International Organization began in San Francisco, attended by 50 governments and a number of non-governmental organizations involved in drafting the Charter of the United Nations. The UN officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 upon ratification of the Charter by the five permanent members of the Security Council—France, the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States—and by a majority of the other 46 signatories.

Viking already made the "UN" != "UN Organization" point earlier in the thread, so this is a bit redundant.

[Valmy]

So you are sticking to your claim that the UN was formed prior to 1945 then?

The UN is based on the Atlantic charter and the first UN conference actually happened in April of 1945 while the war was still going on.  The charter was not ratified until October 1945 though.  I think this is really splitting hairs.

[Berkut]

So you are sticking to your claim that the UN was formed prior to 1945 then?

I refer you to, oh wikipedia on the United nations. Note the date it was formed. I haven't actually looked at the wiki article, but I am confident it won't claim that the UN was formed during or prior to WW2, as you are claiming.

Oh what the hell, I will take a look, lets see....

The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.

ZOMG! Someone call wiki and tell them they have made a terrible error!
<chalks up viking in class of people who don't know very basic dates in 20th century history>

The United Nations and The United Nations Organisation are not the same thing.

Whatever, you said the "UN" won WW2, while talking about the United Nations and all the wonderful things it has done. You were not talking about some random group of countries that referred to itself as united nations, you were talking specifically about the UN, and in fact you used that exact term interchangeably while citing things the UN actually had done.

Hence you clearly thought the UN was in fact formed prior to the end of WW2. Which is really ok - I bet lots of people think the UN was formed after WW1, or maybe in response to the Napoleonic Wars, or who really knows about all that complicated history stuff, amiright?

Don't let it get to you, just learn and grow from these little (gigantic) errors of basic historical knowledge that are instrinsic to the very subject matter you are debating. I mean, one can still be an amateur expert on the history of the UN, what it has accomplished, and it's capability without actually knowing when it was formed. Don't let it get to you.

[Berkut]

Viking already made the "UN" != "UN Organization" point earlier in the thread, so this is a bit redundant.

Only after it was pointed out that his claim that the "UN won WW2" in a list of things the United Nations has accomplished betrayed a rather basic lack of knowledge about the history of the UN.

[Berkut]

So you are sticking to your claim that the UN was formed prior to 1945 then?

The UN is based on the Atlantic charter and the first UN conference actually happened in April of 1945 while the war was still going on.  The charter was not ratified until October 1945 though.  I think this is really splitting hairs.

It is not "splitting hairs" to say that an organization that was formed at the end fo the war could not have possibly won the war, in a debate about what that organization is capable of accomplishing.

You don't get to hold up WW2 as an accomplishment of the UN - it wasn't. The countries that won WW2 did not do so via Security Council resolutions, votes of the General Assembly, or any of the others means by which the actual UN tries to get things done.

WW2 was won by a group of countries that did not in any way act in any kind of organizational structure similar to the UN. It was won by a group of countries that then went on to form the UN, but that doesn't mean the UN won WW2 - far from it.

This is NOT splitting hairs.

[Viking]

Viking already made the "UN" != "UN Organization" point earlier in the thread, so this is a bit redundant.

Only after it was pointed out that his claim that the "UN won WW2" in a list of things the United Nations has accomplished betrayed a rather basic lack of knowledge about the history of the UN.

Just to make this clear -

Do you believe that it is more likely that I think the United Nations Organisation fought and won WWII rather than that I think that the Allies of WWII referred to themselves as The United Nations and then founded the United Nations Organisation after the war?

[Berkut]

Viking already made the "UN" != "UN Organization" point earlier in the thread, so this is a bit redundant.

Only after it was pointed out that his claim that the "UN won WW2" in a list of things the United Nations has accomplished betrayed a rather basic lack of knowledge about the history of the UN.

Just to make this clear -

Do you believe that it is more likely that I think the United Nations Organisation fought and won WWII rather than that I think that the Allies of WWII referred to themselves as The United Nations and then founded the United Nations Organisation after the war?

No idea. What I do know is that in a list of accomplishments of the "UN" you listed "The UN won WW2".

That means 1 of 2 things:

1. You think the UN was formed prior to WW2, or
2. You intentionally obfuscated the term knowing that in fact the UN was NOT formed prior to WW2, the UN as being discussed had nothing do do with WW2, but decided to use very similar terms to deliberately mis-represent the "UN" in order to make a meaningless and cheap rhetorical point.

I chose what I thought was the less onerous interpretation, because you seem like a nice guy.

[Valmy]

No idea. What I do know is that in a list of accomplishments of the "UN" you listed "The UN won WW2".

That means 1 of 2 things:

1. You think the UN was formed prior to WW2, or
2. You intentionally obfuscated the term knowing that in fact the UN was NOT formed prior to WW2, the UN as being discussed had nothing do do with WW2, but decided to use very similar terms to deliberately mis-represent the "UN" in order to make a meaningless and cheap rhetorical point.

I chose what I thought was the less onerous interpretation, because you seem like a nice guy.

There is a third option where he took the reference to the United Nations in the Atlantic Charter to be the initial formation of the UN instead of the ratification of the UN Charter in 1945.

Not that I think this means the current structures of the UN should be credited with winning WWII mind you...

[Viking]

Whatever, you said the "UN" won WW2, while talking about the United Nations and all the wonderful things it has done. You were not talking about some random group of countries that referred to itself as united nations, you were talking specifically about the UN, and in fact you used that exact term interchangeably while citing things the UN actually had done.

I do believe I just showed you the German Instrument of Surrender where the OKW surrenders to the AEF and STAVKA on behalf of the United Nations.

Hence you clearly thought the UN was in fact formed prior to the end of WW2. Which is really ok - I bet lots of people think the UN was formed after WW1, or maybe in response to the Napoleonic Wars, or who really knows about all that complicated history stuff, amiright?

How about we debate the issue at hand rather than calling each other stupid? And "prior to the end /= prior to", if you are going to misrepresent my opinions please at least try not to misquote me when you do?

Don't let it get to you, just learn and grow from these little (gigantic) errors of basic historical knowledge that are instrinsic to the very subject matter you are debating. I mean, one can still be an amateur expert on the history of the UN, what it has accomplished, and it's capability without actually knowing when it was formed. Don't let it get to you.

I do believe I made it clear that I know the United Nations Organisation was formed after the end of WWII.

And now bringing this discussion back to where I joined it. The UNO is not the world policeman. It does not make it's own decisions and it does not do it's own deeds. It is a talking shop and a forum for cooperation, that is what it was intended to do and designed to do. It was also designed to allow the member states to act in concert when that was required. It is NOT the World Justice League.

It is unfair to blame the UNO for Rwanda, Year 0, Idi Amin, Apartheid, Israeli-Arab wars, Female Genetal Mutilation and the laughable membership of the Human Rights Commission. The members chose not to act and the members elected Lybia and Cuba.

[grumbler]

I did not claim that the UN was formed prior to WWII. If I were grumbler I'd be going on about strawmen and ad hominem attacks.

If you were Viking, though, you would still insist that the UN won  a war that ended two months before the UN came into existence, rather than admit that you made a mistake! 

[grumbler]

I'd like to refer to article 4 of the Instrument of Surrender

4. This act of military surrender is without prejudice to, and will be superseded by any general instrument of surrender imposed by, or on behalf of the United Nations and applicable to Germany and the German armed forces as a whole.[ 2 ]

Translation: We the Allied Expeditionary Force and the Soviet High Command accept your surrender on behalf of the United Nations.

No, this isn't what this means in English.  What it means in English (the only authoritative language for the text) is that the surrender signed here could be superseded by a more general surrender instrument that may later be imposed by a "United Nations."

There is absolutely nothing in this document whereby the Commander, Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force, or the Soviet High Command say anything at all, let alone your erroneous interpretation of what the Germans said.

I understand that English isn't your first tongue, so your confusion about technical documents written in it is understandable.

[Berkut]

The UN has fought 2 wars and authorized 1. The UN fought and won WWII. The UN fought the Korean War and signed a ceasefire. The UN explicitly authorized the first Gulf War.

Just to refresh everyone memory.

Viking lists several things the "UN" has done. One of those things is winning WW2.

Except the UN did not win WW2. It did those other things, however - at least I think it did - perhaps by "UN" in those other things he really doesn't mean "The United Nations" as in that organization formed in 1945, but some other "UN", like Unlikely Naturalists? Unsavory Natives? Universally Negatives?

[Valmy]

Well ok the UN did not fight WWII in a comparable way to how it fought Korea.  The two situations are completely different.