AHC: "World Capital" after WW2

[Tsochar]

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

I think it goes against the spirit of the United Nations to set up shop somewhere where it isn't even properly represented.

Plus, like 70% of the world is lactose intolerant. Touting hot chocolate as a draw would probably alienate a lot of people.

It seems we have several choices:

Tangier
Trieste
Crete
Cyprus
Gotland
Berlin

Any more?

 

[Ephraim Ben Raphael]

Legally Berlin was not only not the capital of any country, it wasn't event technically the national territory of any country until 1990 when the Germanies reunited. I think it's the best bet.

 

[Sharunaku]

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.

If I'm not very wrong, the political climate back then was mostly about joining Turkey/Greece, instead of a solid country on its own? I would like to hand them Greek/Turkish/Lebanese citizenships and grant them special status on the island (e.g. free movement between each nation's zones)

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

I don't see the Swiss be happy about leasing more than a few buildings, nevermind a city's size of territory.

 

[Tsochar]

Of course, location is only part of the question. The bigger concern is, would such a city be able to maintain its position and purpose through the turmoil of the cold war? Would it remain a collection of fairly isolated districts, or would it develop into a truly international city?

Then of course there must be laws and regulations for the city. I think a big thing should be that there must be no military presence and no weapons except for security personnel.

Regarding movement and residency, I think each country would have its own rules regarding who is allowed to reside and work there and who isn't. Some countries would be more lax, others more strict. I imagine you would need a passport to travel there in the first place, but some countries might allow you to go there without one as long as you stay within that country's district. The rules for access and freedom of movement would end up being intricate and byzantine.

 

[NHBL]

De-colonized location

A location that was a colony during World War II is, in many ways, easier politically for the country that's giving up the land. Since it's going away anyway, why not use it for something useful rather than (GASP!!) giving it to the natives? It might not be an ideal location, but at least it's not alienating a good chunk of land from a nation that plans to keep it, anyway. (And the needs of the locals weren't considered important to the Great Powers at the time.)

As for building it, I suspect that the USA ends up--again--footing most of the bills...

 

[Driftless]

Istanbul/Constantinople/Byzantium?

It's the crossroads of East & West. It has multiple religious & ethnic connections going back hundreds of years.

Alexandria could be "Plan B". Same reasons as Istanbul, basically.

Two other wild cards: Hong Kong or Singapore

 

[Ryan]

Bermuda. filler

 

[Scotty]

The Azores

 

[Lalli]

Istanbul/Constantinople/Byzantium?

It's the crossroads of East & West. It has multiple religious & ethnic connections going back hundreds of years.

Alexandria could be "Plan B". Same reasons as Istanbul, basically.

Two other wild cards: Hong Kong or Singapore

And how locating "world capital" to Istanbul could happen? Turkey surely not be very willingful give any city away without fighting.

 

[oberdada]

What about:

-Suez or Panama (close to important canals) maybe even in Schleswig-Holstein

-Hiroshima (Had to be rebuild anyhow)

-Helgoland (Plans for artificially enlargimg that tiny island where already there)

-Trieste (was a free city after WWII for decade or so...)

-Vienna (better choice than my hometown, and it already had an international sector)

 

[oberdada]

Plus, like 70% of the world is lactose intolerant. Touting hot chocolate as a draw would probably alienate a lot of people.

Legally Berlin was not only not the capital of any country, it wasn't event technically the national territory of any country until 1990 when the Germanies reunited. I think it's the best bet.

I guess you have never seen any of those "Berlin Hauptstadt der DDR" [Berlin Capital of the GDR] signs... They used to have a lot of them!

 

[Simon]

The problem is that I think the whole concept is flawed. A town or city that has a large majority of internal bodies' headquarters such as the UN, IMF, World Bank, OECD etc. which grows and essentially becomes a political city such as Washington DC in the US is readily achievable. The idea of a sovereign city-state with individual districts acting as oversized embassies just doesn't seem likely to work. Considering how badly the UN has operated at times over the years the idea of them trying to run a whole city-state themselves is not exactly reassuring, just trying to organise and run utilities and associated services through the various districts would be fraught with complications.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Bermuda. filler

Yep - That'll do it

 

[Driftless]

And how locating "world capital" to Istanbul could happen? Turkey surely not be very willingful give any city away without fighting.

I don't see this as practically happening.

IF this idea had come to fruition, it would likely have been on the model of Brasilia, built out in the rural highlands of Brazil.

I would think most countries immediately following WW2 would happily bulldoze an area 25 miles on a side of underdeveloped/marginal land, just to make way for the biggest diplomatic and financial coup of history. How fair the process would be to the displaced is a different matter.....

 

[Driftless]

Bermuda. filler

Bermuda would work.

Same vein, how about Tenerife in the Canaries, or the Azores as suggested earlier?

 

[Spare Change]

This would be an American idea proposed at the height of American influence. Also having a model city would be a feather in the cap and a source of a lot of jobs.

Under these circumstances the international city would be built in North America. The reasons I think are obvious.

1) North America is the richest area after the war. The US could build a city from scratch without working up a sweat. At the time we had a first rate infeastructure to quickily connect this model city to the wider world.
2) At the time the UN was imagined as a place where Anglo-American influence (and friends) would predominate. Europe or at least the North Atlantic is still considered the center of the world.
3) The US espcially in the 1940s is lightly populated. We have the space to donate 20+ square miles of decent land and not miss it.
4) Since it would likely be built with a large share (or perhaps entirely) with American money, this would be the easiest political sell to Congress.

The city could really be anywhere is the US or Canada. An international city in Canada might hide the US direct influence.

Based on the ease of travel from Europe and Washington/New York I would imagine Maine or the Canadian Maritime Provinces would be the most likely place.

If it were in Maine it would simply extend the Bos-Wash metropolis a few hundred miles northward.

 

[Dieu Le Roi]

For the idea to work, we'd need at least Britain, the USSR and the USA to all agree on the location, as they're the greatest power immediately following the end of WW2. I image Britain would be very unwilling to accept a location outside of Europe or North America, whilst the USSR would be against anywhere too far from their own borders (they'd want to have influence). The USA would probably be the most flexible of the three, but would no doubt lobby for somewehere they had influence (maybe Louth America? Liberia?). Honestly, I think people wouldn't want it to be in Germany, they'd see it as having just fought a ridiculously bloody war, just to declare the enemy capital now also capital of the world, even if it was technically taking land away from them. The idea probably wouldn't go down too well...

Basically, you need to find a location where Britain, the USSR and the USA all have a fairly equal degree of influence that isn't Germany. Otherwise, the other powers simply wont accept it. I imagine lots of small and mid level powers will be unhappy at first, but they'll probably come around. Or the world capital will just slowly end up being left to rot. I think somewhere in the Nordic countries or maybe Southern Europe (Northern Italy?) is probably the best bet.

EDIT:

The problem with putting the city in the USA is that the USSR won't accept it and probably end up building their own version back in Russia. Same problem with Canada, most likely.

 

[abc123]

Gotland idea seems as maybe most plausible to me, but for one city ( it doesnt have to be too large to host UN after all ) you don't need whole Gotland ( that would be hard for Sweden to accept ). But maybe smaller island of Faro ( just north of Gothland ) could be more acceptable? It's about 113 km2, so enough IMO. Population is less than 600, so no problems about that... For comparison, Manhattan Island is 59 km2 in size...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fårö

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

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.

Some difficulties that are going to attend any possibilities are that 1) Any place that people have found worth building a city in the first place already has one, 2) Anyplace that anyone wants to live has already been taken by Europeans so there aren't many places left that UN members (especially the Security Council) will want to go, and 3) pretty much everything between the Urals and the Rhine is a brownfield that has a claim on everybody's construction capital, materials and labor for the immediate future.

I think the best way for this to come about would be keeping the UN in an ad hoc collection of scattered "temporary" quarters in various inconvenient locations around the globe. Once the immediate postwar reconstruction is over and the Cold War is in swing, couple that with the move toward decolonization and find the right moment that some newly independent country offers a piece of their territory for the location, which neither the Soviet or Western blocs feel they can politically afford to refuse (and/or which they feel will be a way to showcase their advantages to other emerging nations). Agreeing to a new "UN City" might best be possible post-Korea (1955-ish) but pre Vietnam (1970-ish).

 

[Gryphon]

There was a an in OTL to build a World Peace Capital at Navy Island, near Niagara Falls.