Scot Dutchy wrote:

Hermit wrote:In my previous post I made it abundantly clear that the definition of First World and Second World started off as differentiating the Western from the Eastern Bloc. Read its last sentence. This changed with Sauvy's 1952 article.

I note your source does not contain a single date, and the solitary reference it cites is no more than a pointer to a journal rather than the actual article by Tomlinson it is based on.

What is your source? Your netherregions? I thought so. That was a primary interpretation and nothing to do with the final result.
Read the whole thing will you there are plenty of dates.

During the Cold War, unaligned countries of the Third World[6] were seen as potential allies by both the First and Second World. Therefore, the United States and the Soviet Union went to great lengths to establish connections in these countries by offering economic and military support to gain strategically located alliances (e.g. the United States in Vietnam or the Soviet Union in Cuba).[6] By the end of the Cold War, many Third World countries had adopted capitalist or communist economic models and continued to receive support from the side they had chosen. Throughout the Cold War and beyond, the countries of the Third World have been the priority recipients of Western foreign aid and the focus of economic development through mainstream theories such as modernization theory and dependency theory.[6]

By the end of the 1960s, the idea of the Third World came to represent countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that were considered underdeveloped by the West based on a variety of characteristics (low economic development, low life expectancy, high rates of poverty and disease, etc.).[3] These countries became the targets for aid and support from governments, NGOs and individuals from wealthier nations. One popular model, known as Rostow's stages of growth, argued that development took place in 5 stages (Traditional Society; Pre-conditions for Take-off; Take-off; Drive to Maturity; Age of High Mass Consumption).[9] W. W. Rostow argued that Take-off was the critical stage that the Third World was missing or struggling with. Thus, foreign aid was needed to help kick-start industrialization and economic growth in these countries.[9

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Hermit wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:It was political and only after the fall of the soviet union was it economical.

News trickle slowly into the nether regions.

To your arse?

Hermit wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Hermit wrote:In my previous post I made it abundantly clear that the definition of First World and Second World started off as differentiating the Western from the Eastern Bloc. Read its last sentence. This changed with Sauvy's 1952 article.

I note your source does not contain a single date, and the solitary reference it cites is no more than a pointer to a journal rather than the actual article by Tomlinson it is based on.

What is your source? Your netherregions? I thought so. That was a primary interpretation and nothing to do with the final result.
Read the whole thing will you there are plenty of dates.

During the Cold War, unaligned countries of the Third World[6] were seen as potential allies by both the First and Second World. Therefore, the United States and the Soviet Union went to great lengths to establish connections in these countries by offering economic and military support to gain strategically located alliances (e.g. the United States in Vietnam or the Soviet Union in Cuba).[6] By the end of the Cold War, many Third World countries had adopted capitalist or communist economic models and continued to receive support from the side they had chosen. Throughout the Cold War and beyond, the countries of the Third World have been the priority recipients of Western foreign aid and the focus of economic development through mainstream theories such as modernization theory and dependency theory.[6]

By the end of the 1960s, the idea of the Third World came to represent countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that were considered underdeveloped by the West based on a variety of characteristics (low economic development, low life expectancy, high rates of poverty and disease, etc.).[3] These countries became the targets for aid and support from governments, NGOs and individuals from wealthier nations. One popular model, known as Rostow's stages of growth, argued that development took place in 5 stages (Traditional Society; Pre-conditions for Take-off; Take-off; Drive to Maturity; Age of High Mass Consumption).[9] W. W. Rostow argued that Take-off was the critical stage that the Third World was missing or struggling with. Thus, foreign aid was needed to help kick-start industrialization and economic growth in these countries.[9

You keep misunderstanding what I say and what I do not say. I do not say the concept of a First and a Second World was not initially about the Eastern and the Western Bloc. I do say that the concept changed from what you called "pure political allegiance" to one more focused on per capita GDP beginning long before you think it did, namely with Sauvy's article published in 1952. You can read that article here, and the pamphlet his key sentence referred to here.