IOTL,the UN formed United Nations Peacekeeping in 1948,but it isn't as big as an army.What if the the five permanent members ers of the United Nations security council formed the UN army,with all member states contributing units to it?
It would be controlled by the DPKO.I can see no non-ASB scenario where the US and the Soviet Union would form a joint army.
Unfortunately, quite true...USSR kicked itself for years for the tactical mistake it made walking out and allowing the UN to defend So. Korea, a joint military activity (on an equal partner basis) with anyone is not in the books!I can see no non-ASB scenario where the US and the Soviet Union would form a joint army.
I can see a UN victory in the Korean War, provided if it's an early one, that can allow something like this.Have the communist nations leave the UN while everyone joins NATO, thus making the UN and world's most powerful military alliance the same thing.
I can see no non-ASB scenario where the US and the Soviet Union would form a joint army.
OTL the United Nations was formed during WW2 by WALLIES. The modern, all inclusive UN was formed post-war. The current UN Security Council has 5 permanent members: USA, UK, China, USSR and I forget the fifth, all of whom were on the winning side during WW2.
The above poster was correct in stating that corruption is rampant within the UN. Whenever a third-world nation supplies troops for UN missions, soldiers arrive poorly-equipped and scramble for food while their generals grow fat.
Not necessarily, there was great enthusiasm for a powerful UN between WW2 and Korea. Harry Truman said this in 1948: "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."Neither can I- & in fairness I can't see a
senario where ANY great power, whether
capitalist or communist, would allow the
UN to form an effective army. The last thing
any great power wants is a rival.
In such a situation, why would the U.S. bother sponsoring an international army when it just do whatever it wanted on its own, i.e., exactly what happened after 1989?Korea aside, the only way I can think of to make the UN powerful and have something like a UN army would be if the Cold War gets butterflied away, like say Stalin ends up dead by the time WWII ends and someone more "softer" takes over and liberalizes the USSR. That way, the tensions between the Western and Eastern bloc dissipates just as it was starting to and the cooperation between them instead lays the foundation for a UN with plenty of teeth like a shark.
My good guess is provide the UN Army with materials and weaponry, thought that might make the UN more of a tool for US interests than anything else; any president that has interests opposite to the UN aren't going to cut it ITTL.In such a situation, why would the U.S. bother sponsoring an international army when it just do whatever it wanted on its own, i.e., exactly what happened after 1989?