WI UN Security Council was comprised of a different number of permanent members?

Is 5 the ideal number, or would a drop to 3 have helped streamlined some resolutions? Taking this in the other direction, what would it be like if the Security Council had been established with 7 permanent members? Presuming the POD is no earlier than 1940, what sort of nations would we see on a SC with a different number of permanent members, and what effect would this have on the international diplomacy of the post-WWII world?
 
Lowering the number of permanent members drastically increases the power and prestige of those that remain, while increasing the number makes for complicated procedures and diplomacy.
 
with things being different, I could see it being lowered to 3 (US, UK, USSR) with this number being the smallest for a "democratic" vote (assuming they didn't get veto power).
 
with things being different, I could see it being lowered to 3 (US, UK, USSR) with this number being the smallest for a "democratic" vote (assuming they didn't get veto power).

I could see it just being the USA and USSR if Stalin refused to join the UN unless there were an equal number of communist and capitalist states with the veto power.

(Basically Stalin telling Churchill and Roosevelt that only one of their countries can have that power.)
 
I could see it just being the USA and USSR if Stalin refused to join the UN unless there were an equal number of communist and capitalist states with the veto power.

(Basically Stalin telling Churchill and Roosevelt that only one of their countries can have that power.)

Err, then why in OTL Stalin agreed that three capitalist, but just two communist, states get veto power?

Anyway...the other candidates for 7 permanent members can be a Brazil that has far more active role in WWI and WWII, or an India that get their independence much earlier (before WWII, maybe).
 
I was wondering about Brazil too. Their commitment to WWII was certainly enough to merit being considered as one of the more influential Allied nations, and they'd help round out the international flavor of the Security Council's makeup.

Was there any chance that one of the British dominions (probably Canada/Australia, maybe SA) could've been made as permanent members? IIRC, the Russians and French wouldn't have any of it, as that would effectively give the British two votes.
 
Err, then why in OTL Stalin agreed that three capitalist, but just two communist, states get veto power?
You mean 4 capitalist and 1 communist.

If the Security Council or the UN setup could be delayed until 1949, could there be 4 permanent members with the US, UK, USSR, and PRC?
 
I was wondering about Brazil too. Their commitment to WWII was certainly enough to merit being considered as one of the more influential Allied nations, and they'd help round out the international flavor of the Security Council's makeup.
Unfortunately, at that time it was a country with a population by largely rural and illiterate, with an economy focused in the exportation of commodities, a traditionally isolationist foreign policy interspersed with sporadic automatic alignments against "disturbing elements of peace and international trade", without an infrastructure in industry, health, and educational systems that could serve as material and human support to the war effort that a World War required...
I mean, it took almost two years to gather a force of one Army Division with 25,000 men (replacements included), compared with an initial goal of a whole Army Corps of 100,000, to join the Allies in the Italian Campaign.

Brazil's participation in World War II was more extensive than its participation in World War I, indeed. During World War II, Brazil provided a meaningful tactical and strategic contribution. Still, the BEF (Brazillian Expeditionary Forces) was just one of the 20 Allied divisions in Italy. Furthermore, although the division played an important part in the sectors in which it operated, none of these sectors were the main one on the Italian Front, and the Italian Front became secondary for both sides after D-Day...

So I'm thinking about earlier POD, maybe a much closer relationship with USA and UK...

You mean 4 capitalist and 1 communist.
USA, Britain, France = capitalists
Soviet Union, PRC = communists
What are you talking about...?
 
Originally idea was to have four members: China, USSR, USA and Britain. Some people (including Churchill) didn't believe that China would be able to act as a "world police" so maybe if Churchill is somehow able to convince Roosevelt that three member without China is better. But I think its extremely unlikely taking account Roosevelt's opinions.
 
There was a scheme to give the U.S. and USSR each 3 votes on the Security Council - the Soviets, as I recall, wanted votes for Ukraine and Belarussian SSRs, and so the U.S. in return asked for votes for two U.S. states. At that point, I could see a British dominion getting a vote - maybe Canada or Australia, probably Canada becuase of their large contributions to the war in Europe. And now that we've got such a large group of nations involved, I could see Brazil getting a seat as well, or maybe even India.
 
There was a scheme to give the U.S. and USSR each 3 votes on the Security Council
I think this was for the General Assembly - and that's what happened in the General Assembly. I half-wish the US had held out for Puerto Rico and Hawaii getting votes. Still, it's worked out fine since the British dominions and Soviet republics are all independent now.
 
Top