Different UN HQ decided 1944-46- San Francisco ?

Again drawing on hypotheticals I recall while writing my uni thesis on the UN and humanitarian intervention: during the deliberations on the UN towards the end of WWII, there was initially some disagreement re where to situate the HQ of this new international organisation. Establishing the UN on US soil was IIRC unquestioned by most delegates, given that America was the 1 major power whose home soil was totally unscathed by the effects of war, and which had undamaged major economic resources, etc, but initially the exact site was argued over NY and San Francisco. IIRC, the Soviets wanted NY in order to frustrate the Chinese, since the latter would've been more advantaged having Frisco as a much closer location to their own geographical proximity and influence. However, WI there'd been other factors involved and say Frisco was actually decided as the site of UN HQ instead of OTL NY ? How would the course of international relations since 1945 have been affected by such a POD ?
 
Peace protesters would be more rampant outside of the UN. It might draw some business to SF but Im not sure it would slow Frisco's decline.
 
I think New York was inevitible, it would have taken some weird POD to make it San Francisco. New York was the largest and best known city in the US.
 
fortyseven said:
I thought it had something to do with Roosevelt's health, he couldn't take too many trips to SF.

That could be part of it but at that time New York was the most prestigious city in the US by far.
 
Top