Help Winner develop his alternate history mini-project

Nationalist China presumably survived?
 
What do you want to know about Sweden? And to some extent Finland (I'll have a crack at it)?
:)

Well, what I meant is that I'd like others to come up with their ideas of AH post-war development in various European countries ;)

The way I see your scenario, nothing in it really changes things for these two countries. If anything a more successful western Alliance down in Europe sets things up so that Sweden has even less reason to go for the NATO option, while Finland if anything is in a better position to fight off any Soviet attempt at taking them over, as they historically did through the victory at Tali-Ihantala in 1944. For Finland the end result would probably still be the kind of separate peace they got with the Soviet Union anyway.

Unless of course there's a specific provision that the Soviets are to be more successful against Finland than they historically were?;)

The justification for that is that when the Soviets were stopped along the main axis of their offensive against Germany (Manstein defeated them at the Vistula: the so-called 2nd Miracle at the Vistula ;) ), they focused on the flanks: the Balkans and Finland. In OTL, the Soviets didn't consider these theatres very important, but in this timeline, they did. This is why Finland was eventually defeated and sovietized and why Yugoslavia is firmly under Soviet control and not semi-independent as it was in OTL.

Since that seems to be the case here (not sure why), with a Soviet puppet Finland next door, Sweden is likely to head for NATO membership, as long ad Denmark and Norway as they historically did rejects the idea of a Nordic defensive alliance.

It would be interesting to describe the Sweden's decision to join NATO in more detail. I want more "flavour" for this AH scenario :)

The justification would probably the same as in real life: A strong Germany is needed against the soviet threat. As the cold war started earlier in your timeline, the French and British might be convinced of that. I would think the Americans would remind the French of the Versaille treaty disaster and force them to accept a large Germany. I would think the integration of European heavy industry via ECSC would happen even sooner. I also think, the foundation of the German state would be a bit later.

Yes, that would indeed be interesting. Perhaps the European integration would be quicker in this timeline and less French-dominated in the early stages?

This Germany would be much more dominated by the north than the real one. I would think the Allies would try hard to break up Prussia and try to put emphasis on the regional differences in the north. Bavaria would be the loser in this timeline. They would have no refugee influx and the politics would be dominated by the non-catholic north. They would stay even more rural than they are now and wouldn't have the political influence they have now.

I was thinking about an independent Bavaria, but I decided against it as I could find a solid justification for that.

If they're pretty similar to real life, Spain would still be ruled by Franco, and would probably not be in NATO by 1970. They joined the real NATO in 1982, so I don't see why they should do this earlier here, especially as NATO is stronger here. There is the possibility of the NATO intervening in Spain and forcing Franco to resign earlier, but you'd have to explain that in your timeline.

My rationale is that since the Soviet threat in the Mediterranean is much more acute in this timeline, Spain was more threatened and more important for NATO, so they joined earlier, together with Portugal.

Speaking of which, Winner, you still didn't answer this:

The Norther Corridor was Majority Polish in most rural areas, It was mostly Germans living in the city areas. You made the Tri-City (Gdansk, Gdynia, Sopot) Polish. I would imaging the Germans will migrate out of the Tri City to other parts of Germany or the Americas.

Thus we will end up with a Polish Dominated, German owned Northern Corridor.

Some Germans would emigrate, some would stay. In the end, there would still be many Germans living in Western Poland.

If you want, you can come up with a plausible summary of post-war events in Western and Eastern Poland. I am getting ready to do that with the Czech Federal Rep. and Slovakia ;)
 
Nationalist China presumably survived?

I don't think so. Soviets provided massive assistance to CCP during and after the WW2. I presume the commies decisevly crushed the Nationalists and prevented their escape to Taiwan. I think it makes more sense to have China united and communist in this timeline.
 
I don't think so. Soviets provided massive assistance to CCP during and after the WW2. I presume the commies decisevly crushed the Nationalists and prevented their escape to Taiwan. I think it makes more sense to have China united and communist in this timeline.

Actually, seeing the Soviets dominate China could be interesting, especially if they are loosing ground in Europe. If there was no Sino-Soviet split, the Soviets could end up stronger than in our timeline, despite their losses in Europe.
 
If there was no Sino-Soviet split and if the Soviet Union became more active Indonesia would have gone Communist.
 
Why did not Finland become part of the Soviet union like the baltic states?
You mean historically?

Short answer: Because the Finns fought like buggery from the word go.

Longer answer: Because defeating Germany was the main Soviet focus anyway. The Soviets still put together a major offensive in the summer of 1944 to take Finland out, but to the surprise of most at the time, the Finns rallied and defeated it at the battle of Tali-Ihantala. Seeing how the Finns apparently had more fight in them than anticipated, the Soviets decided their main beef wasn't with Finland anyway, and properly defeating it wouldn't be worth the bother under the circumstances, so they offered Finland terms for a separate peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tali-Ihantala

The wikipedia article seems OK. Check the "Related Operations" summary and it starts to look reasonable why the Soviet Union decided Finland might require some special attention that they didn't think worth expending under the circumstances.

The Finns made a pretty decent movie about it in 2007 too, "Tali-Ihantala". It's on youtube, with English subtitles too.
 
My knowledge of that area is restricted to stories my dad told, and he didn't tell alot of stories about before he was born. :p So i don't know for certein how things would play out. I'm just assuming stuff from what i know (ala poles living in the northern corridor) Let Squonk answer it.

I find the prospect of a large German minority in Poland to be somewhat scary. :p
 
Yes, that would indeed be interesting. Perhaps the European integration would be quicker in this timeline and less French-dominated in the early stages?

Quicker, yes, but I don't think it would be less French-dominated. France initiated European integration to get Germany under control. With an even bigger Germany, I rather think they would have wanted to dominate it even more in the early stages. An interesting variant would be to have the UK participating in the early stages as a partner of France to prevent German domination of the European integration. However this would have slowed the process down.

I was thinking about an independent Bavaria, but I decided against it as I could find a solid justification for that.

Hmm. They did reject the German constitution, but chose to honor it if all the other states approved it. In your timeline I could see them rejecting the constitution alltogether, because they feared the domination of "the Prussians" in the new federal republic. I'd say they would have renegotiated and got substantial special autonomy rights. I don't think they really would have wanted to become fully independent. Another interesting variant would be them joining Austria instead.


My rationale is that since the Soviet threat in the Mediterranean is much more acute in this timeline, Spain was more threatened and more important for NATO, so they joined earlier, together with Portugal.

But the fascists are still in power? I am not sure the NATO would accept a fascist regime in their ranks.
 
No, I mean in Winners timeline.

As I already mentioned, the Soviet offensive into Poland failed because Stalin rushed it and because Manstein was able to inflict devastating defeat on the Soviet spearheads. As a result, the Soviets were no longer able to advance into Poland in 1944. Instead, they chose to attack on the flanks where their strength was still undamaged - the Balkans and Finland (for irony's sake let's say that after Stalin fired Zhukov, he sent him to lead the Soviet effort in the North to 'redeem' himself).

Since the Soviets now put much higher priority to the Finnish front, Finland didn't really stood a chance and was defeated and occupied. The resistance from partisan groups convinced Stalin, however, that it would be more profitable to have Finland as a puppet and let Finns fight Finns rather than to annex the whole country to the Soviet Union.
 
When the war ended Russia occupied parts of Norway, why didn't Stalin annex these parts when the western alllies refused to give him a zone in Germany?
 
When the war ended Russia occupied parts of Norway, why didn't Stalin annex these parts when the western alllies refused to give him a zone in Germany?

Maybe they didn't occupy these part in this timeline. In OTL, Finland surrendered and joined the USSR, which didn't happen here. They fought to the bitter end, which means the Soviets probably didn't make it to Norway.

Then the Germans surrendered and the Western Allies landed their forces in Norway to accept the capitulation of the German garrison - before the Soviets could seize the opportunity.
 
Here's the summary of post-war events in Czechoslovakia (the Czech F. Rep.):

Post-war Czechoslovakia

The rapid Allied victory in Europe caught the Czechoslovak government by surprise. By 1944, the Czechoslovak government-in-exile had already been trying to forge a new and stronger relationship with the Soviet Union as it was largely expected that it would be the Red Army who would liberate the Czechoslovak territory. When Bohemia and Moravia were liberated by the US army instead, the exiled leadership moved from London to Prague in late autumn 1944 and established an interim government based on a wide political coalition called the National Council. For the Communists who had been organizing in Moscow the victory of Western Allies was a blow to their post-war plans. The party was subsequently split and the members of Slovak origin moved to Soviet-occupied Slovakia, whereas the Czech members returned to western Czechoslovakia during the winter 1944/45.

Two biggest issues in the early post-war period were the fate of the Sudeten Germans and the reunification with Slovakia.

The government-in-exile’s preferred solution was to expel the whole Sudeten German population and this stance put it at odds with Sudeten German exile in Britain (mostly social democratic oriented Germans forced into exile by the Nazis). However this plan turned out to be undoable in the reality of post-war Czechoslovakia. The factual loss of Slovakia meant that the population of the state dropped by roughly 3 million and the Sudeten Germans thus made up nearly 1/3 of the country’s population. Their removal would practically ruin the already struggling economy and severely weaken the country. Moreover, the Western Allies voiced strong opposition to any large scale forced transfer of German population which could have destabilized their relatively smooth occupation of Germany. Therefore a lighter variant of the plan was chosen. In a series of trials the notorious Sudeten German Nazi collaborators were sentenced either to death (a minority of cases) or loss of citizenship and deportation in which they were usually joined by their families. After these trials, roughly 300,000 Czechoslovak citizens of German nationality were deported to Germany and Austria. The problem was hardly solved as the remaining Germans were only barely tolerated and there was a real threat of widespread civil unrest in the future.

The issue of reunification with Slovakia was an equally complicated one. When the Soviets were denied their own occupation zone in Germany proper, they began sealing the borders drawn along the demarcation line and setting up puppet Communist regimes in the countries ‘liberated’ by the Red Army. This had proven to be very difficult in Slovakia, where Communism had almost negligible support among the traditionally rural and Catholic population. Slovakia was thus ruled by an interim government formed from former members of the Czechoslovak Communist Party for a period of 3 years following the end of WW2 in Europe. This government was seen by most Slovaks as an illegitimate one and the Soviet occupation forces soon began to clash with anti-communist partisans in the mountainous regions of central Slovakia.

In this situation, the Soviets laid out a plan for reunification which asked for withdrawal of both Western and Soviet armies from all of Czechoslovakia (except the sub-Carpathian Ruthenia which had already been annexed by the USSR) and federalization of the country based on tolerance of the pro-Soviet Communist government in Slovakia. As it was clearly unworkable, the Czechs refused this plan and demanded free elections to be held in whole Czechoslovakia, which in turn was not acceptable to the Soviets who feared than instead of using Slovakia as a Trojan horse to introduce Communism in Czechoslovakia, Slovakia would be de-communized and thus lost for the Soviets. When the negotiations finally broke up in 1945, the Soviet Union formally recognized the existence of the Slovak state (soon renamed to Slovak Socialist Republic) and guaranteed it’s ‘independence’. Following this outright violation of the territorial sovereignty of Czechoslovakia which had now become merely a virtual country, the Czech government in Prague renounced the Czechoslovak-Soviet treaty of 1943 and suspended diplomatic relations with Moscow.

1946 elections

As the long-planned elections approached, the newly re-constituted political parties in (western) Czechoslovakia began their election campaigns. Major parties were:
- the Agrarian Party representing the rural Czech population led by Josef Černý;
- the National Democratic Coalition, an alliance of pre-war center-right parties oriented mostly towards liberal urban middle-class, led by Petr Zenkl;
- the Czechoslovak People’s Party, a strongly Catholic conservative party led by Jan Šrámek;
- the Czech Social Democratic Party, a party split between pro-communist and non-communist wings, led by Zdeněk Fierlinger;
- the Czech Communist Party, a pro-Soviet Bolshevik party led by Klement Gottwald;
In addition, two major Sudeten German parties were set to win seats in the parliament, the German Social Democratic Party led by Wenzel Jaksch and the German Christian Social People's Party, a conservative party led by Robert Mayr-Harting.

It soon became clear that the Communists were set to win the elections, carried on a wave of dissatisfaction with the post-war development. CPP program was essentially a populist one. It promised a new round of negotiations with the USSR on the reunification of Czechoslovakia, a nationalization of key industries, an agrarian reform and redistribution of land among small farmers and most of all, more punishment for the ‘German collaborators’. Secretly funded and supported by the Soviets, the Communist Party was well-organized and very influential. It managed to infiltrate many non-Communist organizations and parties (Czech Social Democrats were heavily under the Communist influence by 1946), trade unions, the police and it also had many supporters in the military, mostly those who were fighting in the ranks of Red Army during the war. In addition to that, it had established a paramilitary arm called the People’s Militia (Lidové milice) which it often used to demonstrate its power and strength.

Other parties were naturally scared by the prospect of Communist-dominated government, yet they were not able to form a wide pre-election coalition which would face the Communist-Social Democratic bloc. As expected, the Communist party won the elections in May, 1946, but they failed to obtain absolute majority with the Social Democrats, who fared bad in the elections since they were seen largely as a mere puppet of the CPP.

A difficult political situation ensued. The Czech parties wanted to form a purely Czech government, without the German parties, but except the Social Democrats, none of them was willing to enter a Communist-dominated government. Although President Edvard Beneš first asked the CPP leader Klement Gottwald to form a government, he was unable to do so as he couldn’t obtain any support from other Czech political parties and cooperation with German parties was out of question. When the first attempt had failed, Beneš asked the leader of the 2nd strongest Czech party, the National Democratic Coalition, to try to form a government. Zenkl’s only option now was to invite both German parties into the government to form the widest possible non-Communist coalition. After other parties agreed to negotiate with the Germans about a future constitutional reform granting the German-speaking parts of Czechoslovakia fair representation in the country’s political system, it was publicly announced that an agreement was reached.

The Communists were outraged; they clearly failed to take the possibility of wide Czech-German anti-Communist coalition into consideration. Believing that it was the right time to strike (and incited by Soviet spies), they denounced the new government as “a bunch of traitors who would sell the country back to the Germans” and called for a general strike. People’s Militias began attacking the Germans and “bourgeois enemies” in the streets and clashing with the police. However, the Communist Party overplayed its hand. Despite some response to their call for a general strike, majority of trade unions didn’t take part in it and the Party’s reputation was thus greatly damaged. Also the violence displayed by the People’s Militia surprised many of CPP’s voters who realized that the Communist scare tactics was awfully similar to that used by the Nazis. As a result, many of its supporters turned away from after the post-election turmoil.

Meanwhile, the President and the Prime Minister jointly announced an ultimatum to the Communists, ordering them to dissolve the People’s Militia and end all incitement to violence. When the Communists failed to respond, a state of emergency was declared in many cities and the police accompanied by selected reliable army units were send in to disarm them. This was eventually accomplished after severe clashes which led to the death of several policemen. In the following weeks, the violence ebbed out and the Communists realized that they had lost the gambit. But the worst was yet to come: in a trial held before the Constitutional Court, the Czech Communist Party was banned for an obvious subversion of democratic order and an attempt to stage a coup d’etat. Klement Gottwald fled to Slovakia to escape imprisonment, but many top-ranking officials of the Communist Party were sentenced to many years in prison in the follow-up trials. The armed forces including the police and the military also underwent a series of purges in which pro-Communist officers were either dismissed or shifted to less important positions. Remaining Communist party members either went into illegality or they joined the Social Democratic party, now purged of the pro-Bolshevik wing after the resignation of its pro-Communist chairman Zdeněk Fierlinger. In the end, the failed Communist takeover of 1946 turned out to have been a mortal blow to the credibility of Communist ideas in Czech lands.


The end of Czechoslovakia

When the post-election turmoil finally receded, serious negotiation began between Czech and German representatives about the future of Czechoslovakia. As it was now clear that reunification is no longer viable, it was obvious that a major constitutional overhaul was necessary and with the Parliament cleansed of radical Communists, such a reform became possible.

Several models were discussed, ranging from purely unitary republic based on French concept of a political nation to a Swiss model of semi-independent cantons. In the end, a compromise solution was chosen. The constitutional reform would include an administrative reform abolishing the old Czechoslovak system of land governments and replacing it with a system of federal states of similar size and population, each with its own government and parliament. Since the territorial distribution of ethnic Germans didn’t always follow the borders of the new states, this reform resulted in 3 majority German states, 3 mixed states where no nationality had a clear majority and 3 majority Czech states. Both languages were declared official and the government committed itself to promoting bilingualism in all parts of the country. Also, the name of the country was changed to Czech Federal Republic (Bundesrepublik Böhmen was chosen as the official German translation after prolonged disputes over semantics), a clear sign that old Czechoslovakia had now definitely ceased to exist.

Despite the initial skepticism, the new system proved to be a stable one. To the surprise of many, it helped to defuse the national tensions in the C.F.R. and gradually as the economic situation began to improve, both Czechs and Germans learned to live alongside each other in peace and respect. This is not to say that this coexistence was without problems, but the pessimism of the early post-war era eventually made way to cautious optimism and a new faith that despite their differences and past disputes, the Czechs and Germans are capable of mutually profitable cooperation inside the borders of the historical Czech lands.
 
Honestly, I didn't think that much about it - they were neutral in the war, so the alternate outcome didn't affect them that much. Most probably they are pretty similar to OTL.

You're welcome to write something about their war/post-war history, as you certainly know the history of the countries better than I do :)

So your POD is a more aggressive Allies pushing deeper into Eastern Europe? Does this mean a more confident and powerful west vis-a-vis the communists?

Who becomes president in 1948?

Let's see...

The earlier and sharper Cold War is likely to go one of three ways, in descending order of likelihood. The key variable is relations with the Western leaders:

1. Quicker rehabilitation and reduced isolation of Franco as the war against fascism is eclipsed by the anti-communist sentiment. Spain's regime was remarkably free of concrete definition and policies which made it able to adapt to changing geopolitical times. Franco after 1943 was already reorienting the personnel and propaganda of his regime to emphasise "Catholic" and "Western" instead of the more fascist elements (Opus Dei and other catholic technocrats broadly displaced the Falange fascist elements, taking their positions of power over the 50s and 60s), trying to capitalise on anti-communist sentiment and secure the legitimacy and economic assistance he desperately needed.

IRL, Spain was only allowed into the UN in 1955, and didn't join NATO until 1982, post democratisation. It was a pariah state at the end of WW2 for its fascist sympathies, having nearly entered the war on the Axis side, and was deliberately excluded from all major European institutions from Marshall Plan to the Coal and Steel Community to NATO. After the war, Spain basically was cunningly opportunistic, it traded strategic cooperation with the US (there's a huge air force base in Zaragoza, and a US Naval base at the Spanish fleet headquarters at Rota in Cádiz, both established in the 1950s) for reduced isolation. There's scope for them to be able to do this more, and earlier. Maybe the US does something like basing an entire Mediterranean fleet in Cartagena and Rota...

You've got Spain in NATO in your map, you should probably remove them and leave them neutral/non-aligned but cooperating at a grand strategic level. In this timeline, even if democracy wasn't an issue for joining NATO (greater sense of emergency would lead to less European selectivity about friends), I still can't see Spain joining because of its disputes in North Africa and especially with the UK over Gibraltar. If you're going to have Francoist Spain in NATO in the late 1940s, you're going to have to resolve the Gibraltar dispute because Spain would never have joined an alliance which meant that it had to consider an attack on Gibraltar an attack on the UK and thus help defend it.

Even given the greater threat in the Mediterranean, there's really not much incentive for NATO to accept a weak, poor, barely industrialised, non-democratic, autarchy-oriented, post-conflict country, especially since in the 40s and 50s it was fighting in Morocco and mostly losing.

Here's a possibility: US need for those bases earlier than in our timeline leads to them pressuring the British to give up Gibraltar as part of a grand three-way pact? Alternatively, there's evidence that Franco would have traded the renunciation of Spanish claims on Gibraltar for enough concessions in the late 40s, I suspect full access to Marshall Aid might have done it.

Another more realistic possibility might be the inclusion of Spain in the Marshall Plan in exchange for these bases leading to earlier and greater economic development and industrialisation with unknown consequences into the 50s, 60s and 70s. Maybe a reinforced Spain is in a better position to retain parts of North Africa like Ifni. That probably depends on what happens to France's colonies, though.

2. The same level of isolation (bases, token aid, but no Marshall aid or access to things like the European Coal and Steel Community/EC) or greater isolation because the formation of a coherent western alliance happens earlier, and Spain's crimes and politics might be less easily forgotten even given the anti-communist mood. Might Eisenhower's successor be a stauncher anti-fascist than the leaders IRL?

There's a possibility that the anti-fascist, pro-democratic resentment against authoritarian Spain results in a formal pact to isolate Spain until it democratises. Perhaps the West has greater confidence than in our time-line, and feels it can afford to keep Spain at arms' length. Not that likely though. The problem with this scenario is the NATO worry would be that there is a communist revolt against Franco and I can't see them doing anything to encourage that.

2.a. A Second Civil War. An intriguing but unlikely sub-branch of this "still isolated" scenario is that a more mischievous Soviet Union with a foot-hold on the Mediterranean starts supplying these partisans and a second Spanish Civil War develops, with the West eventually backing Franco. Spain was pretty fatigued of war by 1944 and civil wars are generally borne from endogenous, nor exogenous causes. however the divisions and resentments were sill there and maybe enough chaos could be sewn to spark another one. Something like the death of Franco at the hands of a partisan bomb, exposing the contradictions in the different factions of the victorious coalition. 19th century Spain was had several politically motivated civil wars and more coups than you've got fingers, the pattern stopped for a while but returned in the 1920s and 1930s (the victory of the Francoist rebellion resulted in the third total reorientation of the Spanish state in 20 years)... why wouldn't the chaotic 150-year pattern continue for longer?

A second civil war would likely render the already impoverished Spain an unstable, conflict-racked third world basket case for decades to come, probably on par with North Africa or Latin America in terms of human development. You can't have an economic miracle with no political stability.

3. Allied liberation of Spain probably isn't likely, but it depends on how you see your Eisenhower replacement's views and thus what happens to American/Allied politics. What happens to the strength of anti-fascist sentiment in the years 1944 to 48 relative to our timeline?

Trends in Italy and elsewhere tell us it'd get forgotten in favour of anti-communist expediency, but what if, as an almost-belligerent, Franco is just seen as too closely tied to the fascists to survive? You've posited a more aggressive west, is the aggression confined to anti-communism or is it anti-fascist too?

One thing to remember is that there were still anti-Franco partisans fighting in Spain in 1944, operating across the border with France. The situation was still fluid, being a time of war. Perhaps someone might convince the Allies to roll in, perhaps Franco's fragile regime falls in short order and Spain gets its own version of Adenauer, a Christian democrat leader who dominates the post-war reconstruction... someone like the pre-war democratic/constitutionalist right leader Gil Robles. Backed up by Marshall aid, NATO membership, and US bases, it would probably lead to a more rapidly industrialising and developing Spain. Hell, even the Costa del Sol might develop earlier... yay.
 
Wow that turned out a lot longer than I intended.
 
Thanks! :)

I lean to the first scenario. My line of thought was following:

- Communist Greece -> much greater Soviet presence in the Mediterranean
- greater Soviet presence in the Med. -> more alarm amongst Western leaders

In such a situation, they'd probably want to ensure that the Med. stays open to Western navies. Spain's position is crucial as it could possibly attempt to close the Straits of Gibraltar. This would, in my opinion, force the West to swallow its distrust of its semi-fascist regime and try to get Franco into an united front against the Soviets (and later the WP).

However, your objections towards full Spanish membership are solid, so I'll probably revise the map and change the color to some other shade of blue to indicate some sort of looser alliance between Spain and the NATO.

On the other hand, OTL Greece, Turkey and Portugal weren't exactly shining beacons of democracy either, but they did join NATO because they were of great strategic value to the West.
 
Yeah, Portugal also had the advantage of the long-running British alliance, being arguably a "softer" regime, the fact that it didn't have an equivalent of the brutal Spanish Civil War on peoples' recent memories, and no equivalent to the Gibraltar dispute. Anyone who thinks NATO was a democracy club is kidding themselves, but Spain had some special issues. And its own pride and distrust of capitalism and liberalism, of course.

And actually I'd forgotten that Naxos Greece was in NATO.

If you wanna write the first scenario coherently and believably, I'd say a US-brokered grand pact over Gibraltar, much more US military presence than happened IRL, in exchange for Spain getting full access to Marshall Aid and normal diplomatic relations, all by say 1948, would justify entry into NATO. Spain's North African conflicts are an issue, but they'd probably just ignore the colonial wars like they did with France IRL.
 
What's the situation with the UN, Winner? As in OTL?

I think there is a distinct possibility that in TTL, Stalin would decide to boycott the UN. I have not yet thought about the ramifications, but it is likely that such UN would be seen as a Western diplomatic tool and many countries would stay out of it.

This in turn would mean a much more dangerous Cold War, as the relations between the two block would be icier than in OTL.
 
Back
Top Bottom