A Different U.N. Security Council

Doing some reading I came across some comments on how during later stages of WW2 when the early discussions for the creation of the United Nations were going on the US for a while argued for Brazil to be a permanent member of the Security Council but was blocked by the Soviet Union as they felt it would just be an American proxy. Which kind of makes sense considering that whilst they didn't send too many actual troops their contribution with regards to naval forces, basing rights and logistics were quite extensive. Also that it apparently required a fair bit of arguing on the part of the British and Americans to have the French and Chinese included as permanent members respectively. Which got me wondering on what might of happened if we had a slightly different set-up.

Scenario one is that due to the French doing something to manage to really annoy the British and Americans that they don't support them so don't become a permanent member, and possibly also don't get an occupation zone in Germany, whilst Brazil gets the seat they would of gotten in our timeline and with China in the middle of an even worse civil war they miss out as well. Scenarios two and three involve the idea of a two-tier permanent member system, the first group gets a permanent seat and a veto whilst the second group only has a permanent seat and no veto. So in scenario two the Soviets, British and Americans become permanent members with veto whilst the French and Chinese only get a permanent seat without veto as a sort of runners-up prize, whilst in scenario three it's the same but in this one Brazil is also added to China and France as permanent non-veto power members. So what might some of the knock-ons be from something like this?