A different UN

or u could have gotten the chinese pissed off and a good reason to attack, AGIAN

You are presuming that what I meant by victory was the unification of Vietnam under the Republic of Vietnam government. I'd call the preservation of South Vietnam a victory, even if the North remained communist.
In any case, China was in the midst of its tumultuous Cultural Revolution, and they would have been unable to send an army south.
 
or u could have gotten the chinese pissed off and a good reason to attack, AGIAN

You are presuming that what I meant by victory was the unification of Vietnam under the Republic of Vietnam government. I'd call the preservation of South Vietnam a victory, even if the North remained communist.
In any case, China was in the midst of its tumultuous Cultural Revolution, and they would have been unable to send an army south.

no i ment that by bombing hanoi the chinese would have a excuse to move in and defend/annex their asian brothers to the south.
 
What if the UN decided not to let non-democratic countries in and later expelled tyrannic countries? Is this possible? What would this UN be like today?
Well, it can't be worse. Right now the UN is basically funded entirely by a few democratic countries so that it can be the world's premier dictator club. :(
 
The United Nations was created mainly to prevent WWIII among the superpowers. That was its fundamental mission and still is. It was never meant to be an ideological league. It was never supposed to be an efficient system for getting like minded countries to push through common agendas. Rather it was designed for opposing countries to find common ground.

The current disapproval with the UN comes mostly from the United States mostly because as the sole superpower it finds the UN an inconvenient obstacle to unilateralism. This is basic international political relations. In a unipolar world, the minor powers will form a coalition to counterbalance the superpower. The UN provided a forum for this coalition, which occasionally include democratic countries, to leverage their influence.

But again this is by design. Had the Soviet Union won the Cold War, the US would be very glad to have the UN around to leverage the Soviet hegemon. Currently the European democracies are quite comfortable with the UN because they are themselves a mid-level player.

You can have a "league of Democracies" post WWII and call it the UN. The trouble with that is its concept that only makes sense in a multi-polar world, not a bi-polar one as during the Cold War. In the divisive Cold War environment resolutions from the democratic league would not have legitimacy in a world in which democratic principles were not universally embraced. It would be seen as a strategic extension of the US or NATO and thus redundant.

A UN type organization by another name was still going to be necessary to prevent a nuclear holocaust, and it will still have greater clout. The reason we are talking about purging the UN of dictatorships is because the world is changing. Democratic values, or at least populism is now seen as the source of legitimacy to even dictatorial nations. The world is moving away from unipolar to multi-polarity. Whether this will result in a different UN is anyone's guess. But this is the underlying cause for the change in attitude. We cannot project the reality and expectations of the 21st century to the mid-20th century.
 
Last edited:
Top