WI- France isn't picked as a Security Council member

What if, perhaps because Churchill hates deGaulle, or whatever PoD you choose, that France is told by Stalin, Churchill/Atlee, and Roosevelt/Truman that "hey, in this new United Nations coalition we're building... you kinda suck, you surrendered to the Nazis and we had to go occupy your colonies for you, you're not much of a world power" and so when the UN becomes an international organization after the war- France isn't made a Security Council permanent member with a veto, and to keep it at an odd number- neither is China, for the reason- it's not a world power, it's not even an effective regional power, it's not much of a partner in WWII other than in the front that is actually in China, and so Chiang Kai-shek is told to suck it as well.

Can the United Nations be as "effective" (relative term) or goes the way of the League of Nations if France and China aren't in the Security Council. Does France not join NATO? Does France and China not stay in the United Nations? Do French Community/former French colonies join or does the French Community become an anti-United Nations?

Opinions?
 
If you don't want it to be as complete a rejection they could always offer China and France the somewhat lesser position of being a permanent member but without veto power, reflects their size and empire respectively but also their then current reduced situations. That aside what would your scenario mean in terms of occupation zones in Germany? I know they weren't directly linked but if they're not seen as having the stature required for permanent membership, or at least without a veto, it's a question if France would receive a zone to administer. IIRC the Soviets were kind of neutral about them getting a zone of their own but insisted that if so it had to come out of the British and French zones, if France doesn't get one then that could have a large impact on future Franco-German relations and the development of the European Coal and Steel Community and follow-on European Economic Community.
 
What if, perhaps because Churchill hates deGaulle, or whatever PoD you choose, that France is told by Stalin, Churchill/Atlee, and Roosevelt/Truman that "hey, in this new United Nations coalition we're building... you kinda suck, you surrendered to the Nazis and we had to go occupy your colonies for you, you're not much of a world power" and so when the UN becomes an international organization after the war- France isn't made a Security Council permanent member with a veto, and to keep it at an odd number- neither is China, for the reason- it's not a world power, it's not even an effective regional power, it's not much of a partner in WWII other than in the front that is actually in China, and so Chiang Kai-shek is told to suck it as well.

Can the United Nations be as "effective" (relative term) or goes the way of the League of Nations if France and China aren't in the Security Council. Does France not join NATO? Does France and China not stay in the United Nations? Do French Community/former French colonies join or does the French Community become an anti-United Nations?

Opinions?
As you yourself have pointed out, there is a very real danger, if the French feel sufficiently 'slighted' (and remember, de Gaulle is very likely a powerful and influential figure in France, and very capable of 'taking offence') of them going away and either setting up or joining a rival organization which (since the French will lend great prestige and credibility to it, by their membership - they were still a major power, at this time, despite the years of Nazi occupation) will weaken the power and credibility of the United Nations.
 
As you yourself have pointed out, there is a very real danger, if the French feel sufficiently 'slighted' (and remember, de Gaulle is very likely a powerful and influential figure in France, and very capable of 'taking offence') of them going away and either setting up or joining a rival organization which (since the French will lend great prestige and credibility to it, by their membership - they were still a major power, at this time, despite the years of Nazi occupation) will weaken the power and credibility of the United Nations.

In your opinion do you think it likely in that situation that we have a three-way Cold War? The Soviet Union, perhaps during the Berlin Blockade or Korean War, decide to leave the United Nations, set up an expanded Comintern perhaps; the French have their French Community, and the US/UK have a United Nations. Most likely if British Commonwealth nations join the UN, French colonies as they become independent join the French Community, and any socialist third world nations join the Comintern, this sets up where the real "fight" for members comes down to Latin America, Indonesia, Middle East, there's a good chance that India doesn't join the UN because Pakistan does and at least becomes an observer at Comintern or maybe joins the French Commonwealth as it becomes the go-to for nations stradling the fence between the two SuperPowers, if you want good relations and trade with the USSR and the USA then France is where you go... until France pisses one or both off. I just don't know if France can have a coalition, bloc, or organization strong enough to give them status on the same par as the USSR and USA, if the world is set up to have more than two SuperPowers at any given moment, or if it just becomes the place to join if you don't want to be in the middle of the Cold War but there's even less structure or organization than you have with OTL United Nations.
 
That's a pretty anti-French attitude, Napoelonrules. I suppose it's possible. The Soviet Union and the United States (unfairly) disliked the French for surrendering. Britain was the one pushing for a French seat on the council. If China and France are left out, I suspect Britain would lose it's seat at some point and the UN Security Council would boil down to the superpowers.
 
Possibly not three-way

In your opinion do you think it likely in that situation that we have a three-way Cold War? The Soviet Union, perhaps during the Berlin Blockade or Korean War, decide to leave the United Nations, set up an expanded Comintern perhaps; the French have their French Community, and the US/UK have a United Nations. Most likely if British Commonwealth nations join the UN, French colonies as they become independent join the French Community, and any socialist third world nations join the Comintern, this sets up where the real "fight" for members comes down to Latin America, Indonesia, Middle East, there's a good chance that India doesn't join the UN because Pakistan does and at least becomes an observer at Comintern or maybe joins the French Commonwealth as it becomes the go-to for nations stradling the fence between the two SuperPowers, if you want good relations and trade with the USSR and the USA then France is where you go... until France pisses one or both off. I just don't know if France can have a coalition, bloc, or organization strong enough to give them status on the same par as the USSR and USA, if the world is set up to have more than two SuperPowers at any given moment, or if it just becomes the place to join if you don't want to be in the middle of the Cold War but there's even less structure or organization than you have with OTL United Nations.
I think whether it ends up as a 'three-way' Cold War would depend on how much any 'French side' got involved in the coups, gun-running, and 'guerrilla patronage' activities of the Soviet and USA blocs... If they sit out of those activities, it's really only a two-way Cold War to my mind.
And if a 'French side' isn't headed by someone with the industrial and military capacities of the USSR or USA... well that's a good reason to sit out of the whole trying-to-replace-governments business.
 
In your opinion do you think it likely in that situation that we have a three-way Cold War?
Well there was the non-aligned movement in our timeline, if they feel jilted by the two main power blocs then I could easily see them latching on to that as well as maintaining their heavy influence over their former colonies and protectorates. France would bring a certain heft to it as well as a nuclear umbrella from 1960. Of course the French are going to use it as a chance to push their own agenda and economic policies which could cause some tension over time. There's also the problem of the founding of the organisation and the tail end of the Algerian War clashing.


If China and France are left out, I suspect Britain would lose it's seat at some point and the UN Security Council would boil down to the superpowers.
Depends on what you mean by 'at some point', if the rules are the same a our timeline then as long as Britain gets a permanent seat with veto power it's practically much impossible to take it away from them later on.
 
The only nation that had really objected to the inclusion of France was the USSR, and it dropped its objections at Dumbarton Oaks. https://books.google.com/books?id=BFHJMfMtiKsC&pg=PA122 Probably Stalin came to realize that if the USSR had persisted in its objections, this would simply have hurt the French Communist party, without helping the USSR (since it is unlikely France would veto Soviet-supported proposals that were approved by the UK, US, and China).

The only reservations the US had was about *when* France would take its permanent seat; FDR wanted to wait until France had a "permanent" government. https://books.google.com/books?id=BFHJMfMtiKsC&pg=PA123
 

CaptainRex

Banned
FDR actually sided with Churchill on this issue. He wanted America, Russia, Britain, and China to be the "4 Policemen" of the world

France would be included later as the leader of a united Europe

Have FDR die sooner before the 1944 election. Wallace becomes president and wins in 1944. The allies win and the UN is set up, but Wallace blindly listens to Stalin on almost everything.

Don't believe me? Wallace went on a tour to the Soviet Union and was given a tour of fake towns and vacation resorts.

He came back praising the Soviet Union. Why do you think they got rid of him off the ticket in 1944?
 
This will not really solve the key issue facing the united nations as an organization with teeth, the existence of a key geo-political split between America and the Soviet Union, which makes any kind of organization of just capitalist nations obviously biased against the Soviets and thus not really a legitimate international power broker, but including the Soviets makes the actual smooth functioning of the organization impossible.
 
Top