No Cold War. Stronger UN?

kernals12

Banned
Let us imagine somehow Russia does not go communist and instead becomes a democracy, either under a constitutional monarch, a scenario I'm working on myself, or as a Republic. With no communism, there is no Cold War. Now IOTL in the period between the end of world war 2 and the beginning of the Korean war, there was much hope that the new UN would become a world government. This was not some fringe fantasy by some utopians, it was taken very seriously. In 1948, Harry Truman said that "When Kansas and Colorado fall out over the waters in the Arkansas River, they don't go to war over it; they go to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the matter is settled in a just and honorable way. There is not a difficulty in the whole world that cannot be settled in exactly the same way in a world court". But of course, the Soviet Union's agression dashed all hopes for this. So if there is no cold war, would the UN become more powerful?
 
It could evolve that way. I hate to go negative, but I'm imagining that if the security council is structured the same and all countries on the council are willing to work together, global outlooks will trend in a direction favorable to those nations. While that could turn off non-permanent council members and fracture the UN, what remains would arguably be a stronger, more successful entity than what we have today. An alliance of all the most powerful countries on earth (probably including Republican China if Russia's not supporting Mao) all working towards a common goal would make for a stronger single-pole world order than what we had post-Cold War IOTL.

Or it could further democratize and be more egalitarian and also end up stronger than OTL, if TTL is one of the luckier ones.
 
Personally, I would LOVE to see such a senario!! The problem with the UN is in @
least in part is that's it's an organization of
national, SOVERIGN states simply unwilling
to give up their right to do as they please.
I'm afraid if there had never been, IOTL, a
Cold War other problems would have come
along to create international tensions that
would have had the same effect on the UN
as the Cold War. Look @ the present day IOTL; no Cold War & yet the UN's power is
most decidedly limited. This is especially so
if the UN charter in this ATL, as IOTL, gave the veto in the Security Council to the "Big
5" superpowers(& IOTL they may not have
even joined the UN if they lacked this power-
which of course has often hamstrung the UN). The history of The League of Nations
tells this same sad story. So I have to say
no Cold War would have made little differ-
ence re the UN- & I wish that weren't so.
 
Last edited:
One of the few ways to achieve a much stronger UN is if the US wins the Korean War of which aligns the UN in favor of Western interests and turning off the USSR (and possibly the PRC) from being in the UN; the result is that the UN becomes more of a Western bloc only club of which enforces its will upon the equivalent of the third world (including colonized areas that may or may not get decolonized ITTL). It might not sound right for some people but at least TTL's UN has more teeth considering the arsenals of the Western bloc; that's what my TL aims for, albeit with a WWIII started by a desperate USSR and becoming a "world" government shortly after winning it...somehow (it's a long story).
 
One of the few ways to achieve a much stronger UN is if the US wins the Korean War of which aligns the UN in favor of Western interests and turning off the USSR (and possibly the PRC) from being in the UN; the result is that the UN becomes more of a Western bloc only club of which enforces its will upon the equivalent of the third world (including colonized areas that may or may not get decolonized ITTL). It might not sound right for some people but at least TTL's UN has more teeth considering the arsenals of the Western bloc; that's what my TL aims for, albeit with a WWIII started by a desperate USSR and becoming a "world" government shortly after winning it...somehow (it's a long story).


I don't know- the UN in this ATL seems not so much to be stronger than it is IOTL but simply an arm of the U.S. Still, your TL sounds interesting, & I look forward to seeing it.
 
Last edited:

kernals12

Banned
Personally, I would LOVE to see such a senario!! The problem with the UN is in @
least in part is that's it's an organization of
national, SOVERIGN states simply unwilling
to give up their right to do as they please.
I'm afraid if there had never been, IOTL, a
Cold War other problems would have come
along to create international tensions that
would have had the same effect on the UN
as the Cold War. Look @ the present day IOTL; no Cold War & yet the UN's power is
most decidedly limited. This is especially so
if the UN charter in this ATL, as IOTL, gave the veto in the Security Council to the "Big
5" superpowers(& IOTL they may not have
even joined the UN if they lacked this power-
which of course has often hamstrung the UN). The history of The League of Nations
tells this same sad story. So I have to say
no Cold War would have made little differ-
emcee re the UN- & I wish that weren't so.
I guess we do have some precedent for a more powerful UN with the European Union.
 
I don't know- the UN in this ATL seems not so much to be stronger than it is IOTL but simply an arm of the U.S. Still, your TL sounds interesting, & I look forward to seeing it.
It's the best one to make a UN stronger, albeit biased towards the Western bloc, with a POD after 1950 that I can come up with.
 
Without a Soviet Union, you don't have a recognizable World War II and any resulting United Nations from a hypothetical second war would be very different.
 
How about this with a 1945 POD?

The POD is FDR avoiding the fatal condition that killed him IOTL and instead Stalin dies around the time WWII in Europe is over; the Asia/Pacific theatre still proceeds like OTL only with the Chinese communists being more backed by the US due to FDR wanting to keep a united front in China. Stalin's successor, Beria, despite being a massive sexually deviant creep, implements de-Stalinization and some forms of liberalization to please the Western allies and gets the USSR in firmly with the UN thing, and butterflying away a cold war thanks to increased cooperation between the two superpowers, especially with the Chinese Civil War ending in a compromise and the UK regaining its steam along with France. Over the decades, the UN becomes a more powerful international organization that lives up to the promise of preventing war and keeping the peace, more so than OTL, and is gradually becoming a "world government" by the year 2000.
 
You spelled rapist wrong.
Being a rapist IS part of a creep in my experience; though it kind of sounds strange that this Beria dude's like the Gorbechev of his day despite having a pretty dark resume. My good guess for why that's so is because he wants to compensate for something to cover up his Cosby-ite antics; talk about trying to pull a karma Houdini.
 
How about this with a 1945 POD?

The POD is FDR avoiding the fatal condition that killed him IOTL and instead Stalin dies around the time WWII in Europe is over; the Asia/Pacific theatre still proceeds like OTL only with the Chinese communists being more backed by the US due to FDR wanting to keep a united front in China. Stalin's successor, Beria, despite being a massive sexually deviant creep, implements de-Stalinization and some forms of liberalization to please the Western allies and gets the USSR in firmly with the UN thing, and butterflying away a cold war thanks to increased cooperation between the two superpowers, especially with the Chinese Civil War ending in a compromise and the UK regaining its steam along with France. Over the decades, the UN becomes a more powerful international organization that lives up to the promise of preventing war and keeping the peace, more so than OTL, and is gradually becoming a "world government" by the year 2000.

But would Beria significantly alter Soviet
foreign policy from what is was under Stalin
IOTL(especially NOT grabbing Eastern Europe?) And wouldn't de-stalinzation(which
I personally am all for, believe me)run the
risk of @ least loosening the Communist
Party's grip on sole power in Russia? (After
all, look what happened IOTL under Gorb-
achev)
 
But would Beria significantly alter Soviet
foreign policy from what is was under Stalin
IOTL(especially NOT grabbing Eastern Europe?) And wouldn't de-stalinzation(which
I personally am all for, believe me)run the
risk of @ least loosening the Communist
Party's grip on sole power in Russia? (After
all, look what happened IOTL under Gorb-
achev)
My good guess is that he would have the whole country demilitarized and as a "neutral" country of sorts, same with almost all the countries from the Rhine to the Vistula and to the Mediterranean.
Source for Beria's ideas for Germany: https://books.google.com/books?id=2...age&q=Beria and Soviet foreign policy&f=false
 
But of course, the Soviet Union's agression dashed all hopes for this.

Even without Soviet aggression, you still have American "aggression". Though most of the people driving this "aggression" were thinking in terms of exporting America's superior rules and using American military and economic power to cement the peace so to avoid the mistake of withdrawing and leaving the idiot Europeans to stew in their hatreds as they'd done after WW1. However, given American economic and military power, making the world safe for democracy basically meant "no empires allowed but us" and "no powers allowed to equal us".

Even with a PoD in 1917, America will still have the messianic belief in the superiority of their own institutions, and if they've been involved in an alt WW2, just like OTL, this alt America won't want to leave things so another big war happens 20 years down the line.

So the key question in your scenario here is whether everyone would come around to the view Britain and France took in OTL, that resisting the smothering embrace of America was on balance more of a boon than a hurt. It could well happen, even OTL's Soviets seem to have come awfully close to acceding to be smothered in the American embrace. But it is worth thinking about what each power in your alternate history sees as "good" and whether being overwhelmed by a UN that must naturally be dominated by the US is compatible with their values and goals.

fasquardon
 
Top