WI: Comintern as rival U.N.?

Kustodiev_-_Congress_of_Comintern.JPG


The PoD is that once the Korean War kicks off, the Soviet Union, who were boycotting the institution at the time of Security Council vote, uses the pretext to withdraw itself, along with its satellites, from the U.N.
The Moscow-based 3rd Communist International is then re-established as a makeshift rival.
(Think NATO/Warsaw Pact)

Plausibility aside, what sort of effects might we see on the international stage if such a thing were to take place?
If communist nations such as China, North Korea, Cuba, Angola, etc joined it instead of the U.N., could such factionialism disenfranchise the U.N. in short term?
 
Last edited:
To get the conversation going, I think we can at least determine it would lead to more cohesion between world communist movements as far as doctrine was concerned.
Butterflying the Sino-Soviet split, and all the ripple that it caused, is then a possibility.
 
I think it is very unlikely they would do this--this is different in kind, not degree, from a temporary boycott of the Security Council--but if they did, they would dissolve whatever alternative association they formed (as they in fact dissolved the Cominform) after Stalin's death and apply for readmission to the UN.

There is really no advantage at all the could get from withdrawing from the UN. Give up a center for contact with neutral nations, a forum for propaganda (not to mention espionage!) etc. really for nothing. The Soviet hold on eastern Europe was maintained by the military and police; China was an ally rather than a satellite, and no organization could make it conform to the Soviet line longer than it wished to. (After all, in OTL the Chinese in the 1960's boycotted Moscow-sponsored Conferences of Communist and Workers' Parties.)
 
Last edited:
I think it is very unlikely they would do this--this is different in kind, not degree, from a temporary boycott of the Security Council--but if they did, they would dissolve whatever alternative association they formed (as they in fact dissolved the Cominform) after Stalin's death and apply for readmission to the UN.

There is really no advantage at all the could get from withdeawing from the UN. Give up a center for contact with neutral nations, a forum for propaganda (not to mention espionage!) etc. really for nothing. The Soviet hold on eastern Europe was maintained by the military and police; China was an ally rather than a satellite, and no organization could make it conform to the Soviet line longer than it wished to. (After all, in OTL the Chinese in the 1960's boycotted Moscow-sponsored Conferences of Communist and Workers' Parties.)

I think that's a dubious notion. The U.N., if we're talking specifically about the time around the Korean War, was clearly being used as a mechanism for war against communism. The narrative is there for it to take place. As far as advantages, sure they may be nominal, but Comintern, even a short lived one, could help provide more avenues for cohesion among the different leftist movements post WW2.
 
Didn't Stalin already abolish the Comintern by that point?

Preventing the abolition seems like a first step; would help in not seeming totally cynical (like the OTL Stalinist abolition of the Comintern and lame succession of cheap bodies (COMECON, COMINFORM, etc) and maintain a continuity - however purged and neutered - back to the early days of Leninism.
 
I think that's a dubious notion. The U.N., if we're talking specifically about the time around the Korean War, was clearly being used as a mechanism for war against communism. The narrative is there for it to take place. As far as advantages, sure they may be nominal, but Comintern, even a short lived one, could help provide more avenues for cohesion among the different leftist movements post WW2.

There already *was* a Comintern-lite in the form of Coninform. Just how ineffective it was is shown by Yugoslavia's defection. Stalin's power over eastern Europe was the product of the Soviet army, not of any international organization.

An assembly of communist nations (as opposed to an organization of *parties*, including those of non-Communist nations, which is what Comintern and Cominform were) would not be any more effective. As for "why would the USSR stay in the UN when the UN was sponsoring a war against it?" remember that it was customary for Communists to remain in bourgeois parliaments (daring back to the Duma) that were passing anti-Communist measures. You use every means for agitation and propaganda available. (For example, the Soviets introduced a resolution incorporating the "Stockholm Peace Petition" in the General Assembly in September 1950. No, they did not expect it to pass--that was not the point.) There were after all non-Communist members of the UN who also had their differences with the US, and the establishment of a "Communist UN" would mean writing these countries off, at least to the extent that the UN was an instrument of diplomacy with them.

All these things are why, if Stalin decided to abandon the UN entirely (which I find unlikely) his successors would try to find their way back in. They would even have a ready excuse in the fact that the Korean War was now over, and that the UN was therefore no longer engaged in war against their allies...
 
Didn't Stalin already abolish the Comintern by that point?

It had been replaced by the Cominform, though. The Cominform was much more limited than the Comintern; "It was founded with nine members, the Communist parties of the U.S.S.R., Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, France, and Italy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cominform

One should note that the absence of any world Communist organization between the dissolution of the Comintern in 1943 and the creation of the Cominform in 1947 does not seem to have hindered Soviet domination of Communist parties--see, e.g., the way they managed to get Browder removed as head of the US Communist party in 1945. Conversely, the creation of Cominform did not prevent the split with Yugoslavia.
 
Top