Brazil with a Permanent Seat in the Security Council.

[Cook]

In 1944 during the deliberations leading to the creation of the United Nations Churchill proposed that Brazil should be given a permanent seat in the Security Council. How do people think this would have changed events?

Lest anyone think Brazil as a Permanent Member of the SC is a bit too far fetched just consider that Britain had to push hard for China and France to receive seats too. China was in the middle of a Civil war and had most of its major cities occupied by the Japanese still and France’s capital had only just been liberated and they had only a hand full of under strength divisions to contribute to the war.

Edit: As Plumber has pointed out, China was FDR, not Churchill, Churchill backed the American’s wanting the Chinese in in return for American support on other issues.

 

[NothingNow]

In 1944 during the deliberations leading to the creation of the United Nations Churchill proposed that Brazil should be given a permanent seat in the Security Council. How do people think this would have changed events?

Considering how involved they were in the war, and the shit that happened, it'd make sense for them to have gotten the 4th seat. Infact, with Brazil as a UNSC member, it'd be easier for the Brazilians to continue playing the US and the UK against each other, and harder for the *CIA to do anything to untoward in the country. They also wouldn't be playing down Brazilian involvement in the War either.

 

[Marius]

Considering how involved they were in the war, and the shit that happened, it'd make sense for them to have gotten the 4th seat. Infact, with Brazil as a UNSC member, it'd be easier for the Brazilians to continue playing the US and the UK against each other, and harder for the *CIA to do anything to untoward in the country. They also wouldn't be playing down Brazilian involvement in the War either.

Not really.

They were involved in the war for less than a year and contributed only about 25 000 people, the Allies did not need the Brazilian contribution to the war effort.

 

[NothingNow]

Not really.

They were involved in the war for less than a year and contributed only about 25 000 people, the Allies did not need the Brazilian contribution to the war effort.

In terms of Boots on the Ground, nope, not at all, but Brazilian Logistic and Naval support was invaluable from 1940 to maintain a steady stream of supplies to the UK and Combat Operations in North Africa, the Mediterranean, and later on in Europe overall.

Ward pointed this one out to me, and it jibes with a lot of the stuff I've read about the Air operations during the war as well:

Brazil and World War II: The Forgotten Ally.
What did you do in the war, Zé Carioca?

http://www.tau.ac.il/eial/VI_2/mccann.htm

And they were treat like shit by the US . That is why they never sent troops to Korea .

 

[nastle]

Good Heavens ! why not Germany ? or India ?
why Brazil ?

 

[Fabilius]

Good Heavens ! why not Germany ? or India ?
why Brazil ?

Germany now would make sense but at the time it had just lost a World War. Also what sort of state Germany would become was anyone`s guess.

India makes sense today, but at the time it wasn`t even independent.

Brazil is actually quite powerful but underestimated.

 

[Malta]

In terms of Boots on the Ground, nope, not at all, but Brazilian Logistic and Naval support was invaluable from 1940 to maintain a steady stream of supplies to the UK and Combat Operations in North Africa, the Mediterranean, and later on in Europe overall.

Ward pointed this one out to me, and it jibes with a lot of the stuff I've read about the Air operations during the war as well:

From that HIGHLY interesting article this strikes me:

American leaders wanted the FEB to stay in Europe as part of the occupation forces, but Brazilian military and civilian leaders rejected that role. Unhappily, over American objections, the Brazilian government decided to disband the FEB upon return to Brazil. The American military had hoped that the division would be kept together to form the nucleus for a complete reformation of the Brazilian army. FEB veterans would slowly introduce the lessons of the war finto the General Staff School and Military School curricula. But the chance to use the FEB experience to project Brazilian influence on the post-war world order was lost. Those making the rapid decisions in late 1945 that led to the FEB's demise could not know how quickly the United States would demobilize, or how quickly the alliance with the Soviet Union would collapse. Perhaps if Brazil had maintained occupation troops in Europe and a standing cadre of combat-hardened troops at home, it would have had a different post-war international position

 

[Fabilius]

Ward pointed this one out to me, and it jibes with a lot of the stuff I've read about the Air operations during the war as well:

Very interesting article. Don`t have time to read it all. But I certainly learned something from reading a little from it.

 

[Maniakes]

Germany now would make sense but at the time it had just lost a World War. Also what sort of state Germany would become was anyone`s guess.

The UN, especially the Security Council, started out as a formalization of the wartime alliance into a system intended to keep the peace after the war was won. The name "United Nations" was frequently used during the war to refer collectively to the Allies (example), years before what we now know as the UN was chartered. The permenant members of the UN Security Council were the core nations of the wartime alliance. Expanding the club to admit the enemy they'd just united to defeat wasn't really a palatable option at the time.

 

[Plumber]

I could see Brazil getting the seat instead of France.
China was at Churchill's insistence? I thought it was FDR who wanted that.

 

[Anaxagoras]

FDR wanted Brazil to have a permanent UNSC seat. It was only after Stalin balked that he backed down.

 

[Jlinker613]

Odds are the US would have established far closer relations with Brazil in order to have another Permanent seat on its side in the UN. Otherwise it would have been the voice of the non-aligned movement. At the time the US and Brazil voted and thought similar so much that even Britain looked at the proposal for a Brazilian seat as another United States seat due to the fact that relations were much better back then.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

FDR wanted Brazil to have a permanent UNSC seat. It was only after Stalin balked that he backed down.

Citation needed, man

 

[Cook]

China was at Churchill's insistence? I thought it was FDR who wanted that.

You're right, my mistake.

 

[Cook]

It was only after Stalin balked that he backed down.

Stalin objected to all the nations that hadn’t already entered the war being allowed to join the UN as founding members, he felt that founding membership should be restricted to combatant nations only. Obviously this wasn’t an issue with Brazil since it was a combatant nation but it was an issue with the other South American nations that the US wanted in, and Ireland and Egypt. Stalin felt the South Americans would merely be proxies of the US, so perhaps it was a case of either/or for Brazil and China since China was seen to be an American Proxy: you can have one but not both?