Deleted member 94680
Coincidentally, the 5 Permanent Members of the UNSC also just happen to be Nuclear Weapon States as well.
No. Just no.
The original meaning of the United Nations was the nations that fought united against the Axis. Pointedly, the countries that are a suitable OTL comparison to this ATL Italy, i.e. Spain and Portugal, joined in 1955.
And the five countries that, to date, have a permanent seat in the Security Council and therefore a veto power are the top five powers that defeated the Axis. Even minor allies of those powers, say Belgium or Greece, have no such power. Even the parts of the British Commowealth that were there, provided the British with invaluable help, and are now independent, say Canada or Australia, have no permanent seat.
Coincidentally, the 5 Permanent Members of the UNSC also just happen to be Nuclear Weapon States as well.
Yes, but I don't see a link. There are nuclear states that are not permanent members, and the five were in their seats even when not all of them were nuclear powers.
No. Just no.
The original meaning of the United Nations was the nations that fought united against the Axis. Pointedly, the countries that are a suitable OTL comparison to this ATL Italy, i.e. Spain and Portugal, joined in 1955.
And the five countries that, to date, have a permanent seat in the Security Council and therefore a veto power are the top five powers that defeated the Axis. Even minor allies of those powers, say Belgium or Greece, have no such power. Even the parts of the British Commowealth that were there, provided the British with invaluable help, and are now independent, say Canada or Australia, have no permanent seat.
Why would Italy have veto power? I don't think Italy would be powerful enough to have an UN Security Council seat. And, I don't see why any other country would want it to have an UN Security Council seat. The Soviets, obviously, would be against it and the USA would have no interest in it because they already have a seat and France and the UK also do.
Discovery of oil in Libya will possibly be followed by unrest (Egypt supported anti-French movements after all), and then by some sort of renewed genocide.
Yeah. Minor. Creating a global association and snubbing one of the major Powers in the world (even if unquestionably the lesser in that category) is the best way to show it as a tool for imperialism.
A minor ally weighs more than a major non-combatant.
Germany and Japan were major powers in the world, much more so than Italy. They were of course no founding members of the association of the countries that defeated the Axis. They are now major powers still, and they never received a permanent seat.
The few countries that in 1945 were still neutrals and had not even made a pro-forma declaration of war on the Axis (Argentina declared war at the end of March 1945!) for the specific purpose of reaping the postwar benefits of being on the side of the winners and therefore in the UN, did not join until a decade later. Say Portugal, Spain, Turkey or Ireland.
Frankly it seems obvious that Italy gets not entry at founding, and it seems beyond the shadow of any doubt that it doesn't get the same powers as those five winners of the war.
I think you are overestimating the legitimacy of early UN. Coming hot on the heels of the League of Nations disaster, not many saw it as anything but an American tool - and that is with comparatively weaker UK, France. USSR. But at least, all the surviving Major Powers were on it (even if the Suez Crisis and the Korea War show how little they really cared about the UN).
With less imbalance towards the USA and a neutral Power, they'll at least be forced to extend an invitation.
Even the parts of the British Commowealth that were there, provided the British with invaluable help, and are now independent, say Canada or Australia, have no permanent seat.
And perhaps most relevantly, the one that would certainly get a veto if the UNSC was being set up today - India - does not have one. There is no way Fascist Italy gets a UNSC seat ahead of India.
It would barely be considered more important than Spain - which was allowed to join the UN only a decade later, and which did not join the NATO/OTAN until several decades later.
Then why pre-War attitudes were different?
Well that would make the suez crisis very interesting. If Italy isn't happy with Egypt, this would be a fine chance to stock it to them. Would take more US pressure to get them, the UK, France and Israel to back down.Going on Italian policy pre war and planed action, by the time oil is found Libya is majority Italian so any Egyptian sponsored unrest , ( very unlikely that Italy would not quickly find out who was behind it) would just get the Arab population expelled ( you like em , you have em scenario ). If Italy is seen as a bulwark against communism then American criticism will be as muted as that about mistreatment of Kurds by the Turks in the same period.
Because then Italy could have joined the war, making a difference in it.
If the war is over and Italy has remained neutral throughout, and on top of that, if future wars will be won by those having nukes, and if actual industrial output figures are looked at instead of at figures of bayonets, Italy is just above Spain and Turkey, nothing more.
And yet, India was not added. Your criterion are not respected OTL, let alone in an ATL.
Added to what? What criteria?
India was one of the founding members of the UN. India also had been part of the "United Nations" in the wartime meaning, of course, fighting against the Axis. In any case, India has no relevance whatsoever.
On the contrary, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Turkey did not join the UN as founding members. Those are the examples you'd have to look at.
But even the most important, Turkey, was a Middle Power; and in those years only idealists saw the UN as having any bite so nobody really cared about a late invitation to an organization that had no practical use for them.
That Italy wouldn't have nuclear weapons is irrelevant because 4/5 of the founders didn't have them either - one of them, China, wouldn't for the next twenty years, in fact, and needed almost 40 to start becoming really worthy of the seat awarded.
So yeah, you can restrict it to solely wartime Allies - something that was decided upon very late,
and obviously can be easily circumvented by an opportunistic DOW that fits with the main question
- or you can expect a different estabilishment, that still gives rise to a similar UN (because it was felt as needed by most) while being different in a few crucial ways.