AHC: "World Capital" after WW2

Tsochar · Aug 28, 2014

I've recently been struck with an idea, that the various world powers could come together in the aftermath of World War II in order to build an "international city." It would be purpose-built for housing the UN, and each UN country would ideally have its own district.

There are a few obvious problems with the idea, not the least of which being where to put the damn thing, and how to get enough countries to play ball for the thing to get built. In the immediate aftermath of world war II, the countries involved are too busy rebuilding to make the investments needed for a project like this. However, any later and there wouldn't be enough goodwill between the two power blocs to make it feasible. Additionally, in order to make an international space, one country would need to cede sovereignty over quite a bit of land.

Any ideas?

AussieHawker · Aug 28, 2014

East Prussia maybe.

Admiral Halsey · Aug 28, 2014

Switzerland perhaps?

Tsochar · Aug 28, 2014

AussieHawker said:
East Prussia maybe.

Possibly, although being that close to the USSR and firmly within the borders of the forming Soviet bloc would cause development to stall once detente between the USSR and the West ends.

Admiral Halsey said:
Switzerland perhaps?

I personally think a coastal location would be better suited for making a city, for mainly logistical reasons.

Delta Force · Aug 28, 2014

What about Tangier or Jerusalem?

Admiral Halsey · Aug 28, 2014

Tsochar said:
I personally think a coastal location would be better suited for making a city, for mainly logistical reasons.

True but I was factoring how neutral a nation was as well and Switzerland has been neutral for centuries. Plus it's easily defensible as well.

Tsochar · Aug 28, 2014

I was leaning towards Yalta, since it's on the Black Sea and further away from the Soviet heartland, it has a history of international cooperation associated with it, and it has a comfortable climate. Of course, having land borders only to the USSR, this gives the same problems as Koeningsburg.

I think a location in eastern Cuba (Guantanamo, possibly) might also be a good spot, although prior to 1960 it was probably too closely aligned to the USA for the Soviets to agree to it.

Kaiser K · Aug 28, 2014

Tsochar said:
I was leaning towards Yalta, since it's on the Black Sea and further away from the Soviet heartland, it has a history of international cooperation associated with it, and it has a comfortable climate. Of course, having land borders only to the USSR, this gives the same problems as Koeningsburg.

I think a location in eastern Cuba (Guantanamo, possibly) might also be a good spot, although prior to 1960 it was probably too closely aligned to the USA for the Soviets to agree to it.

Yalta is never happening period. The Soviets aren't going to give up one of their own cities for the UN or anyone.

Maybe Berlin?

Kevin C. Smith · Aug 28, 2014

Kaiser K said:
Yalta is never happening period. The Soviets aren't going to give up one of their own cities for the UN or anyone.

Maybe Berlin?

There would be a certain poetic justice in Berlin, along with the irony of Hitler's postwar plans for the city.

Tsochar · Aug 28, 2014

Delta Force said:
What about Tangier or Jerusalem?

Tangier I like. It's on the Mediterranean, but also on the Atlantic, and not too far west. The problem is, Morocco didn't join the UN until 1956, which is rather inconveniently late.
Jerusalem, on the other hand, was already exploding into violence. Also, the USSR might take offense to a city with religious significance being an international city.

Admiral Halsey said:
True but I was factoring how neutral a nation was as well and Switzerland has been neutral for centuries. Plus it's easily defensible as well.

That is true. I think some founding nations like China and Haiti might find it difficult to build their districts, but then again it's not like it's the first or last time they've been shafted by other countries.

Kaiser K said:
Yalta is never happening period. The Soviets aren't going to give up one of their own cities for the UN or anyone.

Maybe Berlin?

I was afraid of that. Yet another obstacle in finding a location is getting a country that will willingly give up some of its territory.

Berlin... Hmm.... One part of me says it can't be an international city if it's also the capital of a country. Another part of me says its fate is already being decided by foreign powers anyway. It would also help the Soviets in their quest to prevent German rearmament.

Overall, though, I think there would be too much protest by the German people against Berlin being any kind of permanent international zone.

New Deal Democrat · Aug 28, 2014

Rome?

Athens?

Vienna?

Vienna's not costal but it's located between the two major alliances, has a history of diplomacy, and needs to be rebuilt anyways...

Lalli · Aug 28, 2014

How would be Sweden? Neutral nation and close Western and Eastern blocs.

Lalli · Aug 28, 2014

Nckdictator said:
Rome?

Athens?

Vienna?

Vienna's not costal but it's located between the two major alliances, has a history of diplomacy, and needs to be rebuilt anyways...

Rome could be possible. Athens not way when in Greece was civil war after WW2 and probably too unstable anyway. Vienna not impossible but seems bit implausible.

Tsochar · Aug 28, 2014

Nckdictator said:
Rome?

Athens?

Vienna?

Vienna's not costal but it's located between the two major alliances, has a history of diplomacy, and needs to be rebuilt anyways...

These run into the same problems as Berlin. Unlike the UN's current location in New York, this is intended to be a planned city with people all over the world presumably meeting and mingling. Any existing city that is core to a single country's national identity is going to run into problems.

What about somewhere on Crete? The island has history behind it, being the center of ancient Minoan civilization, but there are relatively few people living on it, and the island itself is large enough that Greece can simply cede a small portion of it.

Lalli said:
How would be Sweden? Neutral nation and close Western and Eastern blocs.

Gotland did come up as a potential candidate when I was brainstorming earlier. If Sweden were willing to give it up, it could possibly be ideal. Also, Gotland's Valknut symbol could later become a symbol for international cooperation, with the three triangles representing the first, second, and third worlds. I'm really liking this idea, but Sweden's opinion is the real potential dealbreaker here.

Sharunaku · Aug 28, 2014

Tsochar said:
What about somewhere on Crete? The island has history behind it, being the center of ancient Minoan civilization, but there are relatively few people living on it, and the island itself is large enough that Greece can simply cede a small portion of it.

What about Cyprus? A multi-cultural island is a good symbolism for global unity and with serious international interests it's unlikely to got couped, invaded and collapsed like IOTL.

Cook · Aug 28, 2014

Tsochar said:
Tangier I like. It's on the Mediterranean, but also on the Atlantic, and not too far west. The problem is, Morocco didn't join the UN until 1956, which is rather inconveniently late.

That isn't a problem; Tangier was an International City, administered under the League of Nations by a joint commission representing the interests of Spain, France and Britain. It wasn't handed over to Morocco until the latter gained full independence in 1956. And of course, it had its own flag:

Tsochar · Aug 28, 2014

Sharunaku said:
What about Cyprus? A multi-cultural island is a good symbolism for global unity and with serious international interests it's unlikely to got couped, invaded and collapsed like IOTL.

Also another one I considered, although I'm not quite sure how it's going to work when the Cypriots start wanting independence. Also the fact that Britain has bases that it's rather fond of. Not a terrible choice, though, all things considered.

Cook said:
That isn't a problem; Tangier was an International City, administered under the League of Nations by a joint commission representing the interests of Spain, France and Britain. It wasn't handed over to Morocco until the latter gained full independence in 1956. And of course, it had its own flag:

Very nice. The Moroccans won't be pleased, but then that's nothing new (see Ceuta and Melilla). By that metric, we also have Trieste, which has the advantage of being directly between a capitalist and a communist state.

NCW8 · Aug 28, 2014

Admiral Halsey said:
True but I was factoring how neutral a nation was as well and Switzerland has been neutral for centuries. Plus it's easily defensible as well.

One problem with Switzerland is that it didn't join the UN until 2002. Admittedly the UN do have offices in Geneva, in the Palais de Nations (the old League of Nations building), but it's unlikely that the UN would put its headquarters in a non-member country.

Cheers,
Nigel.

Cook · Aug 28, 2014

Tsochar said:
Berlin... Hmm.... One part of me says it can't be an international city if it's also the capital of a country.

In 1945 it wasn't the capital of anything; it was a pile of rubble divided into four foreign administered zones nominally under the oversight of the Allied Control Council. East German administration of East Berlin didn't even start until 1949. It would have been peculiar having the city housing the headquarters of an international organisation located in a country that wasn't a member of that organisation though.

Admiral Halsey · Aug 28, 2014

I still say Switzerland is the best option. Oldest officially neutral country in the world, easily defensible AND great hot chocolate!