To do this you need to seriously tone down if not end the Cold War before it begins. So have Stalin trip and break his neck somehow near the end of the war and someone more "moderate" come out on top of the USSR. Meanwhile, have Henry Wallace remain FDR's VP in '44 and become president after he dies. Without the acrimonious East/West relationship you'd have room for the UN to take a more active role in things like regulating international trade, developing its own independent military, and potentially even commanding a nuclear arsenal as some folks wanted it to in '45. There's limits to how much sovereignty nations will surrender to the UN, but if you can build a stable international consensus out of the postwar ashes and have it be successful you might be able to turn it into a sort of proto-EU.
AHC: Make UN as powerful as possible
- Thread starter Rizkyss
- Start date
While I suspect that it isn't what the OP had in mind, the UN taking a structure more analogous to the "Four Policemen" concept of FDR might be an alternative.
Other highlights include the division of the globe into four clearly defined spheres of influence for the "trustee power" to maintain peace and order in, with all other nations no longer permitted to posses weapons heavier than small arms. Yeah, a plan ripe for abuse, and it never could have been implemented. We've had threads on it in the past.
Wikipedia said:
Other highlights include the division of the globe into four clearly defined spheres of influence for the "trustee power" to maintain peace and order in, with all other nations no longer permitted to posses weapons heavier than small arms. Yeah, a plan ripe for abuse, and it never could have been implemented. We've had threads on it in the past.
Much less of a Cold War. A Not Stalin Soviet leader in power by the Summer of1944, Agrees to 'Finlandize' Poland. Plus no West Berlin.
Zukov and Eisenhower making Peace sounds like an interesting idea
Zukov and Eisenhower making Peace sounds like an interesting idea
Make it have a standing army and a much larger budget, enforced by treaties. The UN dictates actual laws, not suggestions, much like the decisions of the European Parliament. A proportional General Assembly; probably two assemblies actually, one for individual states, other by population; this would give nations the stimulus to campaign for UN votes and give them greater say on the organization's operation. Less power to the Security Council's individual members and more to the UN authorities themselves, so it becomes a permanent, powerful institution. More (sucessful) trusteeships and peacekeeping operations, supported by both the US/USSR. Eventually a global space program and maybe a global currency.
Perhaps the most unlikely would be the international disarment and/or control of nuclear arsenals, but it could happen in a radical disarment program, before other nations than the US/USSR develop nuclear weapons.
Alternative, make it a '''democracy''' only club, only admitting democratic nations. But that would become more of a NATO equivalent, and difficult to do at any point (during WWII it would be difficult to expel an ally like the USSR, and after the UN's establishment the USSR would find plenty of diplomatic ammunition towards the West if it's expelled). Also, it's pretty much guaranteed that the definition of 'democratic' will include 'US allies' regardless of how democratic are they.
Perhaps the most unlikely would be the international disarment and/or control of nuclear arsenals, but it could happen in a radical disarment program, before other nations than the US/USSR develop nuclear weapons.
Alternative, make it a '''democracy''' only club, only admitting democratic nations. But that would become more of a NATO equivalent, and difficult to do at any point (during WWII it would be difficult to expel an ally like the USSR, and after the UN's establishment the USSR would find plenty of diplomatic ammunition towards the West if it's expelled). Also, it's pretty much guaranteed that the definition of 'democratic' will include 'US allies' regardless of how democratic are they.
Last edited:
A soft power approach seems more feasible. If the International Clearing Union got off the ground at the Bretton Woods Conference, the UN could be the dominate clearing house and influence trade policy. The IMF and World Bank would not exist as US dominated institutions. The POD is easier because the Bretotn Woods Conference was really a personality dominated event. If Harry Dexter White got sidelined, things could have spiraled a completely different direction.
The previous posters on this page came up with what I was considering: you need to remove/neutralize Stalin and have a more moderate Soviet Union/no Cold War. Having the super and great powers agreeing "holy fuck, that sucked... we really need a strong system to make that not happen again" would be a good step in that direction.
Also building off @Dr. Hochmeister 's ideas - have the UN be more assertive and positive. Like, say, helping make decolonization less of an Africa and Asia screw. The UN having a reputation as a competent, dependable, and stronger force than something that'll sent you a strongly worded letter will get you along your goal.
The challenge is what's to stop nations from seceding from the UN if they don't like it's decisions? The more teeth the UN has, the more likely nations will consider that. Any of the OTL permanent security council members could feasibly do this on their own since they have a big enough sphere of nations who'd consider it reasonable to go along with them.
Besides changing the UN early on I think the best point to make the UN “stronger” would be the late 80s and 90s the Cold War was ending this giving the UN a bit of a break to do somethings without too much bickering between the P5. If the UN can pull off some major PR victories in its peacekeeping operations then I think the UNs public imagine could be repaired enough to allow reform. If you talk to anyone or look up why people dislike the UN one of the main reasons is how it failed so spectacularly in places like Yugoslavia and Rwanda. If they could’ve prevented these disasters and gotten good press then it would certainly boost the public’s opinion of the UN and maybe make people think it’s worth reforming.