The Divided Nations

What if the UN had been a failure. Let's say some of the 51 countries who started the UN did not back it and it either fell apart in the 1950's or just exists as a facade with no power into the 1960's. What would be differant today. Please don't call this ASB because it's not lots of stuff could have happened to effect it.
 
What if the UN had been a failure. Let's say some of the 51 countries who started the UN did not back it and it either fell apart in the 1950's or just exists as a facade with no power into the 1960's. What would be differant today. Please don't call this ASB because it's not lots of stuff could have happened to effect it.

A facade...?....with no power....? It aint that much different from today, due to the setup of the security council, and the permanent members!

But of course it is the main council, and mean of communication in trying to stabilise potential conflicts....so the cold war might have been somewhat more "hot" without it I guess.
 
In terms of great power politics, the differences would probably not be too great. For smaller conflicts and less powerful nations, though, the difference would be huge. Without the UN as a tool for stabilisation and conflict-freezing, things could get much, much uglier.

Also, the UN is very practical for diplomacy because you can't avoid each other. If a US diplomat wants to meet a Cuban or Iranian, that can be accomplished there. There aren't many other places where it can. It's likely a broadly similar forum would be created, but probably excluding the smaller players.
 
Top