@@tacticalterminator9477 they did not choose the Chines they chose India but the then socialist prime minister declined the offer saying that ROC's seat should be given to PRC in order to show respect to the Chinese leadership he was known for many strategic blunders and then later admitting only to do more.
@@tacticalterminator9477 soviets were offered the seat cause fought against the Germans with Americans and also USA wanted UN to have some credibility and excluding the only other super power wouldn't help.
@@flaminmongrel6955 Both the US and USSR did, Nehru was hell bent on turning India into neutral socialist paradise(Hellhole) and rejected both offers to not get dragged into a geopolitical conflict between the 2 giants. He didn't actually offer India's place to the PRC however,it's said metaphorically as he advocated for giving the ROC(in exile)'s place to the PRC all the while rejecting offers for India itself to be on the council. Nehru despite however good his contributions to building India's foundation was,completely fucked over India's economy and geopolitical situation through his neutral socialist and anti colonial brotherhood sentimental mindset.
@@flaminmongrel6955 in 1945 when the UNSC is established, India was still a colony of Britain, how can anyone offer the seat to another great power's colony?
@@flaminmongrel6955 lol, India did nothing during world war 2, they just sit in the couch, and watch allies beat the shit out of axis. I know there were several million Indians died of famine, but that was Britain to blame, they didn't contribute much when fighting against axis, at least not comparable to China. India wasn't even an independent country back then, it was part of Britain, so Britain was one of the five.
The British dream is to invent a technology that makes possible to move the British Isles to the Middle of the Atlantic, just so they won't need to play with the French and Germans anymore.
Well, right *on* the Eurasian continental plate, to be honest. But a British friend got a bit needled by reference to a North Atlantic island state. So, I think the British kind of want it both ways.
Britain did a fair amount to keep France going in this time period. Such as in Vietnam, or when they stopped the Americans from treating France as a defeated nation as opposed to a victor after Germany fell
It's a small detail, but I appreciate that you showed the proper US flags for the 1940's and for the current day, i.e. the 48-star vs. the 50-star flags. Interesting video as always!
UK: Oh id happily be a permanent member and take both the responsibility and power USA: So you're in charge of western Eur- UK: Haaaaaave you met France?
The United Kingdom: the European country that desperately wants nothing to do with the rest of Europe. I'm convinced that, if they could, they'd move their islands further out to sea to escape it.
So true XD. That said "Europe" isn't even a continent anymore, thanks to advances in terran understanding of geology since WWII. As such we Brit's have been right all along to be ambivolent about being labelled "europeans", as there isn't really any such thing, and unbeknowest to literally everyone there never has been. Being Britons & Eurasians though... that's fine.
@@looinrims it wasn't really their choice, it was a geopolitical necessity. The UK would be next if all of continental Europe was taken over, potentially by a French or German guy, but you know that's never happened before *wink*
@@saebre.lmao bullshit, angloids love playing both sides and causing trouble everywhere, if two fish in a pond are fighting an englishman was just visiting
What's interesting is that India wants a permanent seat on the SC now (with veto power). No guarantee if they'll get it (since China hates them), but an intriguing development nonetheless.
Soviets: there’s only 1 Communist nation in the security council. The 2 Western Democratic Nation’s will vote against me every time UK: let’s add another western democratic nation That will vote against you, however they may hesitate before agreeing with the US Soviets: Deal!
There were no communist countries to consider other than China and it’s a member anyway. France have always disagreed with britian and that’s what they thought gonna happen after the war, that things will return to normal. Also France was extremely socialist in western standards. They even got support from the ussr before the war began. But after the war, they alligned themselves with the west, which is reasonable, since both China and USSR caused shit ton of genocides and trouble for the world.
Well at that time France was led by Socialist and some Communist and it was unsure if France would side with USA. In fact, it was the only nation large enough that was no clearly pro USA. The others large nation : Bresil and India was too Anglo-Saxons influenced, Japan was a WW2 enemy and Indonesia wasn't independent. Only France and his large Colonial Empire met the requirements. France definitely sided with the West side in 1949, when France created NATO with the rest of the West. But even after that, France kept (and it still the case today) advocating to create an independent Europe from USA and USSR. So they leaved NATO in 1966 and didn't supported USA for Vietnam for example.
It's weird to think that at some point, Russia considered China* more of an American ally than one of their own and France as not that. *Yes, I'm aware the Republic of China is now Taiwan, so technically the allegiance hasn't changed. I'm referring to the place people actually mean when they say "China".
Historically, Russia considers France and itself as "continental Europe", and UK is a troublemaker who benefits from conflicts between European countries. The UK, when asked, would say "sure I'm European", but it doesn't FEEL like it. And France just considers both Russia and UK as "fringe nations, barely European". As for China, all these European powers were young nations suddenly popping out of nowhere and trying to carve out pieces of China for themselves just a few decades ago (and a few decades = yesterday in Chinese perspective) so none of them is more trustworthy than the others. Even during the ROC period, China was more or less neutral between Soviet and US influences. During PRC times there was also the Sino-Soviet split. So essentially China has always been neutral, and never allied with any side, it has voted for "pass" vastly more than any other countries on the security council. In the past decade the US has literally pushed Russia and China closer together than they've ever been in history, so let's see how that will change the game.
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force. As if Millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I feel something terrrible has happened..."
@@phosphoros60 The Ukraine shudders, and hand drifting to Its stomach as an old pain resurges. “No, it’s nothing” It whispers, voice wavering, “it’s nothing.”
@Mershikov On the other hand because of the veto power on the Security council there has only been one successful intervention with the UN. Which the Soviets did not participate in due to the CCP's lack of membership
@Mershikov The League of Nations also failed when Japan invaded China. It was very much just a European club, not a global organization like the United Nations.
Britain: 'So we know people aren't taking you as seriously anymore after that whole 1940 thing, but we're happy to support you retaking your place at the top' France: 'Wow, that's really kind, you guys aren't so bad really...' Britain: 'Do you mind militarily handling the entire European continent from now on? Can't be arsed anymore' France:🙄
I have just watched the video by the way I’m just saying that France isn’t in its own but I get what you mean lol . France was invited purely to save the British some money ! 😂😂
It wasn't invited purely to save money. It was so Britain didn't have to essentially lead the entirety of Western Europe alone especially after the massive manpower and economic losses of WWII. The British still poured massive amounts of money into defending Europe and was the force that was meant to, and would have, faced the main thrust of any Soviet attack across the North German plain. Even with France it was still always meant to be Britain that bore the bulk of the fighting until American reinforcements arrived.
I think it’s obvious who has defended Western Europe for the past 75 years, and it isn’t France. Hell, they even abandoned NATO in 1966, and didn’t rejoin until 2009.
The main first response in continental Europe would be France, the UK would reprise its role as staging ground to counter attacks and support until american help cross the ocean. France didnt like It, as well as Germany, then France made their own plan that the germans hated even more because french plans were not shy about nuking half of germany in case of soviet attack and hold into the Rhine.
@@lordbonney9779 More like you couldn't get your own way in Europe so you took your ball and went home. Then realised that you had no one to play with.
@@SirAntoniousBlock you do know what the Commonwealth of Nations is right? If you do then you’d know that Britain went home to find over fifty people waiting for the football to arrive.
The fact that Britain offered France the membership isn't very surprising. The surprising part is the fact that France agreed with the idea that came from the UK
The communist party was really powerful in France at that time, and they gained a lot of credibility because many communists were in the Résistance and USSR was victorious. Then in 1945 it was not absurd to think that France can turn into a soft communist country. I guess USSR hoped that. In fact, the USA gave loads of money with the Marshal Plan, with several conditions, including: keep the commies out of politics. That's what they did during the forth Republic, which explains partly how messy this Republic was: no way to make any sufficiently powerful coalition in the Parliament. Then there were no way to back the USSR rather than the USA during all the Cold War.
The communists being so strong in France is the reason France only sent volunteers and a few regular regiments in Indochina. That's also the reason France agreed to leave the region and divide Vietnam in 2 parts.
Yup France was dangerously close to becoming a Communist country after WW2 and the USSR and USA were fighting hard for influence there. US won out obviously
The Fourth Republic was as messy as the Third was, it doesnt matter if the communists were in or out. Furthermore, although the communists emerged stronger in post war France, it was still not enough to pose any threat in turning the country in a communist country. As for the Marshall plan, its goal was mainly to save the US economy. Keeping the commies out was secondary and "being kind and helpful" was only for the show
@@lore-mastereothad955 - Are you nuts?! The US economy after WWII was the strongest the planet had ever seen. The Marshall Plan was 100% to rebuild Europe, and a _non-communist_ Europe. Not the least of reasons being that Stalin was worse than Hitler. And thank god we did! A communist France would have led to an inevitable WWIII..
@@HailAnts well rebuild Europe AND enforce depandancy to the US Its pretty much i pay you you support me and not my ennemy, otherwise well you wont get the money to repair your country and will fall in stagnation with no recovery in sight for 50 years
Fun Fact: Germany, Brazil, India, and Japan (known as the G4) have agreed to back each others' claims to permanent seats the Security Council. They argue that their influence is relatively comparable to the five current members' (P5), and that their exclusion really does make the Security Council the "We won WW2" club and thus incompatible to modern day politics. There is another group, Uniting for Consensus (UFC) whose purpose is to tell the G4 "hold up" and block the creation of any new permanent seats. Finally, while the U.S., China, France, U.K., and Russia hold permanent seats, and thus never have to worry about losing them, they're not the only members. There are temporary seats (2 years irrc) occupied by members of a UN region it's assigned to, leading to some pretty intense bids to gain the seat. However, since a permanent member can singlehandedly veto anything and a temporary member can not, there's a pretty good reason we never hear about them in the news.
@@zylnexxd842 what about us Indians who's 2.5 milion soldiers died for allied forces for nothing ? Don't say we get independence Which we already gonna get after WW2 Britan already broke 🤣 They can't run our economy since they loot us too much
Yeah and it can easily be argued that the UFC is led by countries such as Italy who know they’d never come into question for permanent membership anyway which is the only reason they’re doing this.
@@zylnexxd842 WW2 has no place in modern day world politics, it is over and the world has moved on, Britain and France need to realize that their empires have fallen a long time ago and they aren’t as relevant on the world stage as they tell themselves.
It's curious to note that, during the last two decades, Brazil has made it's foreign policy trying to get into a permanent seat in the UN Security Counsel, which explains the drive for participation in international mediation efforts and the command of UN Peacekeeping Mission in Haiti after the several disasters that occurred there in the last decades. To know that we've been given a shot before and denied it, and now our (previous) government were trying too hard to get another one is damn funny...and ironic.
Brazil during the time were economically unstable and the fear of Anglo-American Hegemony in South America was at its height in the early years of the cold war with having a sizable fascist and socialist sympathizers and fear of american intervention specially if they became part of the council. also the USSR will probably deny it.
For a new world country to be a part of the head of a global organization like this they need to be more influential in the old world. The US was a lot more important than brazil is today well before WW2 in terms of it's economy and military potential but because it was mostly in the western hemisphere it didn't really matter to global institutions so much, only WW2 changed that otherwise it probably would have continued outside of such institutions for some time longer. Brazil is not even close to being a global power outside of it's region.
@@ssssaa2 Exactly. Even though we are the world's 10th biggest military power according to Global Fire Power and the world's 9th biggest economy according to the IMF, we're only relevant in Latin America and as the leader of it. India ranks higher in both lists I've mentioned. And now that WWII is over, why not Japan and Germany, which rank a bit ahead or before us in the same two lists (they have a way higher GDP per capita but that's not important for the sakes of this analisis)
It’s been brazilian foreign policy to get a permanent seat ever since the Sarney presidency, in fact, it only changed focus, being front and center during FHC and PT administrations. Bolsonaro foreign minister is the first one since 1988 to expressly say it’s not his goal to put Brazil in a permanent seat. So for nearly 30 years we have struggling to get a seat there until the present administration gave up
That's not the only thing they do at all. They promote cooperation between nations which ultimately has made war less common. They also set out rules of war which still apply even when war isn't formally declared. The international criminal court of the UN does prosecute war criminals to the best of their ability too. The most recent example is Omar al-Bashir, former Sudanese president who is set to be formally prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
Even including americas war on pretty much everybody, violent conflicts this decade are the lowest they've ever been. So while every country on the security council has gone to war anyway, the UN has almost certainly stopped most violent conflicts from happening.
@Tejas Misra True, and that's also one of the main reasons why these five powers are entitled to hold those permanent seats. They are the only nations who have a legal right to maintain nuclear arsenals with a global reach. When you have five countries who have the power to destroy humanity, you might as well just give up and let them run the planet. xD
USA, USSR, UK, and China (ROC), the four main allied powers of WW2, selected themselves. The USSR didn't like the amount of influence the USA had, so everyone agreed to add France because France hates everyone. The Kuomintang (ROC) losses the civil war against the Communist Party (PRC) in 1949, the ROC retains control of Taiwan and continues to represent China in the UN. In 1971 the UN general assembly votes to replace the ROC with the PRC as the representative of China in the UN, thus the PRC gains the seat on the security council. Soviet Union collaspes in 1991, Russia takes the USSRs seat on the council. Nothing has changed in the 30 years since.
Well, let a french navigate through the net for a couple of hours, watch comments sections and the such....and he'll hate everyone very quickly, and feel glad his country pushed to be a part of the "We can end the world with nukes" club. Just in case.
@Olivier Verdys anyone who even simply starts understanding politics properly will say that Only pursue self interest because someone else will, and you don't want to pay for something that doesn't benefit yourself
Nothing has changed in the balance of power between the 5 and the rest of the world so of course the SC hasn't changed. It properly reflects power. The Security Council is not about Regional representation. It's about a Veto to stop a policy a Great Power doesn't like instead of resorting to military action and millions of casualties and massive economic damage.
You missed a key reason for Britain's support of France on the Security Council which was that the French would be more likely to support British colonial policies against independence movements. Britain and Frances cooperation on Imperial/Colonial policy was a major reason for their alliance through the 20th century, no way should it have been left out as a key element here as well.
@@samrevlej9331 well if it wasnt for the shift in power toward the US and USSR, it actually couldve worked, Suez for example was a military victory but a diplomatic disaster for the colonial which definitly showed to the world who was the boss now
@@samrevlej9331 Well yes and unless you are from the US or China than UK and France are still far more powerful and influential then whatever state you are from
@@Honking_Goose not really. They are considerable powers yes, but Russia, India, Germany , Japan and Brazil are at least at par with their influence, if not already surpassing them. The US and China are the two poles the world stands on and Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal so they're untouchable but yeh
@@samrevlej9331 it literally did You might want to look back on their veto usage. They literally got away with every single colonial issue via vetoes and vetoing on eachothers behalf
"Let's pick some countries to enforce world peace!" Literally picks a country that has civil wars on an annual basis, the two biggest imperialist nations, a country that has been at war ~75% of it's lifespan, and one that just annexed multiple neighbors a decade earlier.
1950s: hey Brazil, we are forming this club for a selective group of people, want in? Brazil: nahhhh 2000s Brazil: I want in! I want in! I wanna ! I wanna ! I wanna! Unsc: naaahhh
@@andreavlis93 the guy is just bullshiting, I study Brazil’s foreign policy in university and there is nothing that proves his point, also even what the video says is wrong, Brazil always fought for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, Brazil even advocated for this in the League of Nations
Actually, Brazil is currently a proposed permanent member for the planned expansion of the UNSC, including Japan, Germany, and India. There have also been debates to add an African and a Muslim-majority country as well. However, it's unlikely to take place.
@@ricojes Well the old communist party does still exist. I'm sure they'd kill for a return to popularity. Maybe when Putin dies/drags Russia into a major war.
Another significant change to mention would be the fact that in 1964/65 the number of seats of non-permanent members in the UNSC was lifted up from 6 non-permanent members to 10 non-permanent members so all in all since the mentioned years there are 15 seats in the UNSC consisting of 5 permanent (USA, UK, Russia, France and PRC) and 10non-permanent members.
To those who may be annoyed at the permanent members thing: 1. The UN was never set up to be the "forum for all the world to be friends", even though the unelected secretariat likes to portray the UN as such now. The UN was set up to maintain world peace by the allies of WW2, to prevent another Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan from rising. 2. As a whole, the UN was (and to a large degree still is) a creation of realpolitik. At the level of individual nations we must aim for democracy and equality and all that. But at the international level, only a fool would think Ghana is equal to China or America in world influence. The General Assembly is the most equal the UN will ever get, an assembly where dictatorships outnumber democracies, and where countries like Sweden and the UK are sermonised by countries like Libya and Saudi Arabia. The UN Security Council has substantially more power, power that is far more likely to be used for bad than for good. And so, having a balance between the democratic West and the not so democratic East is neccesary to prevent anything one-sided (and therefore war-provoking) from being passed by the Security Council. Be a little realistic people. If the none of the 5 major powers were on the Council and all 15 members were less than regional powers, but through the UNSC had the power to impose upon America or Russia or China, what do you think would happen? All 5 nations would leave the UN and then... Good luck keeping the peace then.
" where countries like Sweden and the UK are sermonised by countries like Libya and Saudi Arabia." Lol like the UK has any room to talk, they'll always be proud of their legacy of raping, looting, and murdering and they continue to proudly uphold those ideals today whenever they visit foreign countries.
And, the U.S. could use that valuable real estate in Manhattan. It wouldn't matter one bit to most Americans if the U.N. ended, since the U.S. thinks rightly or wrongly that they bear far too much of the cost of the U.N. Moving the U.N. headquarters from New York to Switzerland or Paris would be just peachy. But, if the U.N. is serious about improving the lot of the disadvantaged, they should move the headquarters to Haiti or Ghana or Cambodia. They could take daily instruction in the effects of poverty on societie and perhaps be moved to work to improve peoples' lives. That would be far more useful than flaunting the local laws in New York with their abuse of diplomatic immunity.
Except France, They didn't do squat, because they surrendered early on in the war. It wasn't until we Brits along with the Americans freed France from the Nazis.
@@beaucaspar3990 Sometimes I wonder if France falling so rapidly was maybe the best thing that could have happened to them and also the future Western Allies.
@@beaucaspar3990 did you even open a History Book did you even know the Free France started the fight in 1940 ? Did you know the Free France army was more than 2 000 000 man ? Did you even know Free France force saved the brit in bir hakeim to get Time for the brit in el alamein and stop Rommel ?
@@beaucaspar3990 meanwhile, France had the biggest resistance to nazi occupation during WW2. England and the US just armed and trained them using OSS operatives to help them.
Never knew about Brazil's almost-membership on the Security Council until watching this video. So I did a bit of reading, and what I read indicates that this video is correct about the UK and USSR objecting, but not about Brazil's reluctance. They appear to have wanted it. And the US wanted it even more; they really expected Brazil to be their best buddy. But man, Brazil is not the nation it was back then. It would be fascinating to see how UN history would have unfolded with Brazil instead of France (or even in addition to France) on the Security Council.
@@kevinmiller9760 but also, the USSR and China (and possibly the UK) would've ceased to exist if they'd contributed any less. UNSC seats weren't a reward for altruism, they were mostly a reflection of the most powerful nations at the time (and China due to having a massive population, they weren't in the same tier as the Big 3 power-wise).
@@ChrisCrossClash They could've ceased to exist if they hadn't contributed a lot during the war (see comment I'm replying to). Point being, it wasn't altruistic.
I think the Security Council would just have been sidelined far more - the US would probably have been able to keep Brazil, China and the UK very close leaving just the USSR to look for different outlets to express themselves
2:43 in case you're wondering why Yeltsin is drunk, that's because he's an alcohol abuser. When he was on a state visit to the U.S., he got himself drunk and was found on the streets in his underwear and attempt to order a pizza while in a drunken stupor
Uhm... Brazil actually actively pushed towards being accepted as a member. There were Brazilian diplomatic missions to the USSR at the time to try and convince them that it was a good idea to let Brazil in (because BR has always effectively been in a love-hate relation with the US just like France), but the USSR's resistance ultimately prevailed. So yeah, that part of the video is actually wrong, but it's nice to see that the channel remembers this piece of history. Because it matters (pun intended).
The world has in fact gotten more peaceful in the last 75 years and especially more so since the end of the Cold War and it's immediate aftermath (so about 2004 let's say). The rate at which armed conflict causes deaths as a ratio of the total deaths in the world each year is far lower than it was before, and true direct wars between sovereign countries is very rare these days, and even when it does happen it's often more so tied with skirmishes like Pakistan and India and Azerbaijan and Armenia.
i like the irony of how you're ironic about that, yet ironically this is factually true. there's always skirmishes here and there, squabbling between minor powers, but overall the world has never been more peaceful. modern weapons make wars more terrifying than ever, but they also make them a lot quicker to resolve. so yeah, the military industrial complex brought world peace more than any goody-willy hippie ever did.
@@AnglosArentHuman the war on terror is not a war between nation, and has no relation to military industrial complex. And why have you forget the war on crime? Or the war on drugs? It's not a "war", it's a fight to mantain order.
The one main problem is that the permanent members each get a chance to veto, and that ends the discussion. There is no override. If everyone on the council wants something, but just one vetos it, that's it. Nothing happens.
I think it was the idea of "Half a loaf of bread is better than none". US and USSR completely dominated the landscape and the idea of someone telling them no is not acceptable. I guess some things never change. For all its weaknesses the UN is far more effective than anybody expected (which was a very low bar).
@@edsr164 too late. Now the ticket is replaced by making Hydrogen bombs then win a war with any other permanent 5 but I'm afraid even US will support China for hydrogen bomb monopoly.
I guess having nukes brings with it this sort of enlightenment where a nation which has built nuclear weapons truly understands the value and price of world peace, because they know the kind of destruction they can cause, if they fail to keep it.
Well India joined the un just after it’s establishment.they weren’t given veto and weren’t given a place in the security council.the un is largely dominated by the US
You do have an amazing ability to select subject matter that speaks to my ow curiosity. I found myself wish your videos were longer, but that in turn would defeat the purpose so here we are. Thanks.
“Permanent seat” was a really short-sighted idea. The UN would be necessarily dependent on the political, military, and economic position of those countries. As the geopolitical situation changes, the UN Security Council would necessarily be less relevant.
@@George-cr6jq You can debate what parts of the post wwii system led to there not being a third world war a generation later, but something clearly worked in a way the post wwi system didn't. The UN, America rebuilding West Germany and Japan, the Pax Atomica, some combination of these (and possibly other) factors broke the cycle of increasingly bloody wars the world had been in.
Fun fact: Kazakhstan was the last country to leave the USSR making it the entirety of the USSR for like a week. If they had stayed as part of the USSR they could have contested the UN security council seat.
In all likelihood, hardly. Other countries agreed to recognize Russia’s claim to the Soviet seat only on the condition that Russia pays off the Soviet national debt. Even for an economy as big as Russia’s, it was far from given since the economy was in collapse, and it was unclear when the collapse would stop (spoiler: in 1999, after a final crisis occurred in 1998). The Kazakhs could never pay off a debt that big; they even gave up Soviet nukes easily because maintaining them is very expensive (as if they had a choice).
What about picking France, maybe simply because it represented 10% of the planet in term of territory in 1945 and 5% of the total population. Brazil at that time was half of that. Another reason could simply be that even if France was defeated in 1940, it fought its place as a combatant with the Resistance in France, its troops fighting on the Eastern front as early as 1942, its active participation in North Africa (Bir Hakeim), Italy (Monte Cassino, Rome), France (Toulon, Marseille, Strasbourg), and sending 8 divisions in Germany in 1945. In October 1945 it gained an occupation zone in Germany and in Berlin.
I know you've considered doing an episode on Salazar and the Estado Novo in Portugal, and both your videos on Portugal are rather good, so would you give this tricky topic a chance? There are lots of other subject about Portugal that I would love to see you do, but given that you have shown interest in this topic, and your video on Franco was excellent, and that we're almost a month away from one of the most important dates that set our current regime (25th of November), I think it would be an fantastic topic, if you're willing.
Oh boy, I can't wait for the Salazar apologists, that species of orangutan so malformed not even Afonso de Albuquerque would give them the common courtesy of shooting them with an arquebus. Though the prospect of a chair THUD is highly appealing.
"I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you! Let' me see your whole palace, or else!" "Or else, what?" "Or else we will be very, very angry with you, and we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are" UN in a nutshell
Something interesting happened both the times the permanent UNSC Members changed: Blue, white and red flag became red and yellow.. Red and yellow flag became blue, white and red..
I'm brazilian and never knew that Brazil was thought of being appointed to the UN security council, giving it's small participation in WW2. What I've known is the fact that it tried in the early 2000's to get in, but France, just as planned in this video, voted "NON"
@@TheGirard62 I think India should be a new member instead of Germany since Germany really doesn't care about military. Heck even Italy has a stronger military then Germany.
India should replace the UK's seat. It both used to be part of the British empire and is militarily stronger (if mostly by quantity) than the UK. Also, there's no need for two major European countries, and France is an EU member giving Europe implicitly more of a voice through it than the UK.
I wonder how different of history Latin America would have had if Brazil had a permanent membership in the UN council. Probably a lot of coups could have been avoided. I think we would have been a little bit richer but definitely a lot more stable.
No, tbh, being a permanent member required the will to build up military and diplomatic influence, that would have been probably too much to handle for the country, and the developpment of the nation could have been slowed a lot, brazil needed 20-25 more year before being able to have a permanent seat
Not much since Brazil really shouldn't be up there with those superpowers. It's just an irrelevant country like any of southamerica on the international stage
@@philippevernot9553 But that’s because South American nations don’t give a shit about international relations. Brazil has a stronger military than Turkey, Germany or Italy with out even investing in it.
It is a club of super powers who are distrustful of each other but are willing to work together to maintain status quo and to suppress any outside force that threatens to disrupt it.
That's... the whole point, each country on UNSC can do some crazy shit, the others make sure it doesn't happen, they're *supposed* to distrust each other, better than Fallout.
I remember thinking of the Security Council as the majors who won WWII club also. But also, they’re huge countries and have huge influence (or did at the time).
Exactly. The Security Council is not about Regional representation. It's about a Veto to stop a policy a Great Power doesn't like instead of resorting to military action and millions of casualties and massive economic damage.
Honeslty India couldve joined instead of France, India's an ally of both Russia and the Us, while having some diplomatic ties to China despite the fact they hate each other. And thus could lean to diffrent sides that wouldnt be just american, and it would also foster better relationships with China as a result of this, if India ever were to be the 6th member of the concil.
Brazil would have to have built nuclear weapons, rapidly industrialized, become a major aid donor, and invest untold billions into her military to be on par with the other world powers; the US, UK, China, or USSR. Notice how after China replaced Taiwan in the UNSC, it invested heavily in nukes and aggressively modernized its economy. Brazil simply cannot afford that, so they were right to reject the membership
Made a un kahoot the other day, tried to add unsc(from halo) as a joke answer before remembering that the unsc is a real thing, never been more disappointed:(
France has always been kinda of a wild card when int comes to international politics. Although they often side with the US, they're also capable of saying no to them, like with the Iraq War.
The four victorious nations, CCCP, US, UK, China(Alliance of KMT and Communist, called Anti-Japanese National United Front) in World War II, plus restored France (the operations of Free France in the North African battlefield and the resistance in France mainland made great contributions to the victory of the Allied forces). Then, due to successful diplomacy in the Third World and the production of nuclear weapons, coupled with the support of Gaullism-compliant France (France was the first Western country to establish diplomatic relations with PRC), PRC on the mainland replaced the Republic of China on Taiwan.
Q: who picked the UN Security Council?
A: the UN Security Council
@@tacticalterminator9477 they did not choose the Chines they chose India but the then socialist prime minister declined the offer saying that ROC's seat should be given to PRC in order to show respect to the Chinese leadership he was known for many strategic blunders and then later admitting only to do more.
@@tacticalterminator9477 soviets were offered the seat cause fought against the Germans with Americans and also USA wanted UN to have some credibility and excluding the only other super power wouldn't help.
@@flaminmongrel6955 Both the US and USSR did,
Nehru was hell bent on turning India into neutral socialist paradise(Hellhole) and rejected both offers to not get dragged into a geopolitical conflict between the 2 giants.
He didn't actually offer India's place to the PRC however,it's said metaphorically as he advocated for giving the ROC(in exile)'s place to the PRC all the while rejecting offers for India itself to be on the council.
Nehru despite however good his contributions to building India's foundation was,completely fucked over India's economy and geopolitical situation through his neutral socialist and anti colonial brotherhood sentimental mindset.
@@flaminmongrel6955 in 1945 when the UNSC is established, India was still a colony of Britain, how can anyone offer the seat to another great power's colony?
@@flaminmongrel6955 lol, India did nothing during world war 2, they just sit in the couch, and watch allies beat the shit out of axis. I know there were several million Indians died of famine, but that was Britain to blame, they didn't contribute much when fighting against axis, at least not comparable to China. India wasn't even an independent country back then, it was part of Britain, so Britain was one of the five.
USSR: "We need someone to stand up to the US, but who has that kind of gall?"
France: "We have de Gaulle."
USSR: "Sold!"
NICE DUDE! Why does this not have MORE LIKES?!?!
😂 you got me
PUNS!
That's legitimately fantastic
OMG! James Bissonnette, fund this man! 🤣🤣
UK "Can we invite France?"
US "I thought you hated France."
UK "Yes, we need someone to blame when things go wrong."
US: You had me at blaming the Fr*nch!
@@pieceofschmidtgamer
this you 👉🤓
@@kurochigothis you 👉 👨🥛🛫😢
@@LykanHyper10
why are you describing your fatherless life
@@kurochigobro used fatherless as an insult, did I hurt your feelings? 🥺🥺🥺
I love how Britain likes to pretend it is in the middle of the Atlantic and not right off Europe.
facts
The British dream is to invent a technology that makes possible to move the British Isles to the Middle of the Atlantic, just so they won't need to play with the French and Germans anymore.
Well, right *on* the Eurasian continental plate, to be honest. But a British friend got a bit needled by reference to a North Atlantic island state. So, I think the British kind of want it both ways.
Brexiteers want it to become a Pacific island.
Well why do you think Brits take a bucket and spade with them on holiday?
We're collectively widening the Channel...
The Brit backing France?
Somethings wrong I can feel it
More like "Brits outsourced the work to France"
Classic Frenemy
Britain did a fair amount to keep France going in this time period. Such as in Vietnam, or when they stopped the Americans from treating France as a defeated nation as opposed to a victor after Germany fell
Seems we only picked them so they could be responsible for their neighbours
It's a trap!
"Otherwise known as the we won ww2 club"
Absolutely genius
it's funny because it's true
As a french, i agree ^^
Yet the French are included.
Would you *ever* grow a moustache?
I think I see you no-moustache guy in like every video I go lol...
"the USSR entered a phase of no longer existing" Can relate.
When was your phase of not existing. I decided to not exist in 2003
Blitz I think I might try it again in a couple decades
@@BlitzerXYZ Well mine was in 2018.
*DANCES THROUGH FLOWERS*
@@greenkoopa
Nooo you can't just joke about the collapse of a country!
Haha flowers go brrr
It's a small detail, but I appreciate that you showed the proper US flags for the 1940's and for the current day, i.e. the 48-star vs. the 50-star flags. Interesting video as always!
And also showed poland-soviet border diferently because the ussr didnt yet gace back some land to poland.
you counted?
@@viv_roblox2915 don’t need to count; the pattern is obvious. 6x8 array vs the overlapping 5x6 and 4x5 of the current flag.
UK: Oh id happily be a permanent member and take both the responsibility and power
USA: So you're in charge of western Eur-
UK: Haaaaaave you met France?
The United Kingdom: the European country that desperately wants nothing to do with the rest of Europe.
I'm convinced that, if they could, they'd move their islands further out to sea to escape it.
@@NinjaMan47 Yep, even better if we could be like a moving aircraft carrier... Sorry, got a little carried away there (no puns intended)
I wouldn’t blame them especially when the council was created.
@@NinjaMan47 They would probably be happier if they were in the middle of the Atlantic
So true XD.
That said "Europe" isn't even a continent anymore, thanks to advances in terran understanding of geology since WWII.
As such we Brit's have been right all along to be ambivolent about being labelled "europeans", as there isn't really any such thing, and unbeknowest to literally everyone there never has been.
Being Britons & Eurasians though... that's fine.
"We should pick a council of nations to make world peace!"
"Yeah!"
"And it should be us obviously"
"Of course"
I mean, can you blame them for wanting to be on top, they did win after all
Imagine a council made of Canada, Switzerland, Singapore, Bangladesh and Madagascar... would the council have any weight in international affairs ?
@@twoscarabsintheswarm9055
Not France
@@kimok4716 Canada would have a bit, everyone else would be completely useless
@@hkchan1339
France had 1 million soldiers in Germany* in 1945
Question:Who picked them?
Answer: Themselves
yea i know, gotta admit this video was kinda pointless
@@Iason29
Still a great video
Who else gonna pick? Paraguay, Switzerland, Thailand and Tibet?
@@yeeyee5057 Let's be real, we all want some alternative history where those guys make all the rules.
@@drewstaser9726 no
"Britain saw Europe as something that dragged them into wars"
British humor at its finest
We like invading non European countries, they ruined our fun ruling over everyone with their squabbling which we always had to break up.
It's just facts.
@@Antarius1999 hey, no one asked Britain to get involved in the continent, it was their choice
@@looinrims it wasn't really their choice, it was a geopolitical necessity. The UK would be next if all of continental Europe was taken over, potentially by a French or German guy, but you know that's never happened before *wink*
@@saebre.lmao bullshit, angloids love playing both sides and causing trouble everywhere, if two fish in a pond are fighting an englishman was just visiting
Fun fact: "United Nations" was the official name of the Allies in WW2
Fun fact: “The Associated Powers” was the proposed alternative name for the United Nations.
oh man.. who tied them tgt? why were they untied...? 🙄🙄🙄
@@LamZL1 cause 6 feet or 2 meters cause coronavirus is dangerous. Duh
When the elites took over the world and the civilians lost
[citation needed]
"They largely picked themselves"
well no surprise there
What's interesting is that India wants a permanent seat on the SC now (with veto power). No guarantee if they'll get it (since China hates them), but an intriguing development nonetheless.
I mean who else to pick really? I do think it could be expanded though at this point to include Germany and India.
@POOP india gained it's freedom in 1947 and the people's republic of china didn't join untill 1971 before that it was the republic of china (taiwan)
@@jimbomchooch6007 we indians as the third largest economy and 4th strongest power in earth want a seat in un council
@@thunderbird1921 In any case, Japan is the third largest economy in the world and still can't get in, so there's no way anyone else can get in.
Soviets: there’s only 1 Communist nation in the security council. The 2 Western Democratic Nation’s will vote against me every time
UK: let’s add another western democratic nation That will vote against you, however they may hesitate before agreeing with the US
Soviets: Deal!
It's at least a marginal improvement. They might also have expected Taiwan to eventually lose their seat.
There were no communist countries to consider other than China and it’s a member anyway. France have always disagreed with britian and that’s what they thought gonna happen after the war, that things will return to normal. Also France was extremely socialist in western standards. They even got support from the ussr before the war began. But after the war, they alligned themselves with the west, which is reasonable, since both China and USSR caused shit ton of genocides and trouble for the world.
Well at that time France was led by Socialist and some Communist and it was unsure if France would side with USA.
In fact, it was the only nation large enough that was no clearly pro USA. The others large nation : Bresil and India was too Anglo-Saxons influenced, Japan was a WW2 enemy and Indonesia wasn't independent. Only France and his large Colonial Empire met the requirements.
France definitely sided with the West side in 1949, when France created NATO with the rest of the West.
But even after that, France kept (and it still the case today) advocating to create an independent Europe from USA and USSR. So they leaved NATO in 1966 and didn't supported USA for Vietnam for example.
France was, is and will always be a communist shithole so of course stalin liked them
Sounds legit
It's weird to think that at some point, Russia considered China* more of an American ally than one of their own and France as not that.
*Yes, I'm aware the Republic of China is now Taiwan, so technically the allegiance hasn't changed. I'm referring to the place people actually mean when they say "China".
Historically, Russia considers France and itself as "continental Europe", and UK is a troublemaker who benefits from conflicts between European countries. The UK, when asked, would say "sure I'm European", but it doesn't FEEL like it. And France just considers both Russia and UK as "fringe nations, barely European". As for China, all these European powers were young nations suddenly popping out of nowhere and trying to carve out pieces of China for themselves just a few decades ago (and a few decades = yesterday in Chinese perspective) so none of them is more trustworthy than the others. Even during the ROC period, China was more or less neutral between Soviet and US influences. During PRC times there was also the Sino-Soviet split. So essentially China has always been neutral, and never allied with any side, it has voted for "pass" vastly more than any other countries on the security council. In the past decade the US has literally pushed Russia and China closer together than they've ever been in history, so let's see how that will change the game.
China was one or US’s closest Allies prior to communist victory.
@@janusjones6519 Yes, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour because the Americans told them to stop attacking China.
China and the Soviet Union went to war if you don't know.
@@jutea9858 I didn't know that, actually, but it doesn't surprise me.
"The USSR no longer exists."
"It's just a phase, Comrade."
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force. As if Millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I feel something terrrible has happened..."
@@phosphoros60
The Ukraine shudders, and hand drifting to Its stomach as an old pain resurges. “No, it’s nothing” It whispers, voice wavering, “it’s nothing.”
Eternal Soviet Union, when?
Who the hell needs the Soviet Union when you got Putin doing whatever he wants in eastern europe.
That Simpsons bit where Russia flips over its nameplate in the UN
“All in favor for giving us more power?”
-basically victorious powers after WWII
when i mean... who was gonna stop em?
@Mershikov On the other hand because of the veto power on the Security council there has only been one successful intervention with the UN. Which the Soviets did not participate in due to the CCP's lack of membership
@Luís Filipe Andrade well the UN's job was to avoid a new world war and they have done a good job at that, unlike the LoN
mxn1948 I know who could’ve stopped them... they wouldn’t have expected the Spanish Inquisition
@Mershikov The League of Nations also failed when Japan invaded China. It was very much just a European club, not a global organization like the United Nations.
Britain: 'So we know people aren't taking you as seriously anymore after that whole 1940 thing, but we're happy to support you retaking your place at the top'
France: 'Wow, that's really kind, you guys aren't so bad really...'
Britain: 'Do you mind militarily handling the entire European continent from now on? Can't be arsed anymore'
France:🙄
Wait when did that happen ? Britain still has troops stationed in other parts of Europe so France isn’t handling it alone.
I have just watched the video by the way I’m just saying that France isn’t in its own but I get what you mean lol . France was invited purely to save the British some money ! 😂😂
It wasn't invited purely to save money. It was so Britain didn't have to essentially lead the entirety of Western Europe alone especially after the massive manpower and economic losses of WWII. The British still poured massive amounts of money into defending Europe and was the force that was meant to, and would have, faced the main thrust of any Soviet attack across the North German plain. Even with France it was still always meant to be Britain that bore the bulk of the fighting until American reinforcements arrived.
I think it’s obvious who has defended Western Europe for the past 75 years, and it isn’t France.
Hell, they even abandoned NATO in 1966, and didn’t rejoin until 2009.
The main first response in continental Europe would be France, the UK would reprise its role as staging ground to counter attacks and support until american help cross the ocean. France didnt like It, as well as Germany, then France made their own plan that the germans hated even more because french plans were not shy about nuking half of germany in case of soviet attack and hold into the Rhine.
The UK be like:
"We`re gonna be in charge of Western Europe and the French are gonna pay for it"
tell that to the BAOR
Little did they know the german would end up paying for it while the UK wants to leave further away from a rather peaceful europe
@@Freedmoon44 we couldn’t Bankrupt France via NATO and the UN, so there’s little point in Europe anymore for us!
@@lordbonney9779 More like you couldn't get your own way in Europe so you took your ball and went home.
Then realised that you had no one to play with.
@@SirAntoniousBlock you do know what the Commonwealth of Nations is right? If you do then you’d know that Britain went home to find over fifty people waiting for the football to arrive.
**eye roll** James Bisonette, obviously.
Can you spin 3 plates?
@@Ggdivhjkjl Not yet, I can spin two plates on a good day.
Kelly money maker
@@Ggdivhjkjl James Bisonette wanted you assemble his own avengers
@@Nathannorris744 Legendary 🤩
The fact that Britain offered France the membership isn't very surprising. The surprising part is the fact that France agreed with the idea that came from the UK
The communist party was really powerful in France at that time, and they gained a lot of credibility because many communists were in the Résistance and USSR was victorious.
Then in 1945 it was not absurd to think that France can turn into a soft communist country. I guess USSR hoped that.
In fact, the USA gave loads of money with the Marshal Plan, with several conditions, including: keep the commies out of politics.
That's what they did during the forth Republic, which explains partly how messy this Republic was: no way to make any sufficiently powerful coalition in the Parliament.
Then there were no way to back the USSR rather than the USA during all the Cold War.
The communists being so strong in France is the reason France only sent volunteers and a few regular regiments in Indochina. That's also the reason France agreed to leave the region and divide Vietnam in 2 parts.
Yup France was dangerously close to becoming a Communist country after WW2 and the USSR and USA were fighting hard for influence there. US won out obviously
The Fourth Republic was as messy as the Third was, it doesnt matter if the communists were in or out. Furthermore, although the communists emerged stronger in post war France, it was still not enough to pose any threat in turning the country in a communist country.
As for the Marshall plan, its goal was mainly to save the US economy. Keeping the commies out was secondary and "being kind and helpful" was only for the show
@@lore-mastereothad955 - Are you nuts?! The US economy after WWII was the strongest the planet had ever seen. The Marshall Plan was 100% to rebuild Europe, and a _non-communist_ Europe. Not the least of reasons being that Stalin was worse than Hitler.
And thank god we did! A communist France would have led to an inevitable WWIII..
@@HailAnts well rebuild Europe AND enforce depandancy to the US
Its pretty much i pay you you support me and not my ennemy, otherwise well you wont get the money to repair your country and will fall in stagnation with no recovery in sight for 50 years
Wait a minute, you said that the USSR was going through a “phase” of not existing? As in their gonna... oh boy...
*СОЮЭ НЕРУШИМЫЙ*
*Communist Noises Intensifies*
@@moosesandmeese969 soyue
Yes
@@moosesandmeese969 SOYUZ NERUSHIMIY!!
Fun Fact: Germany, Brazil, India, and Japan (known as the G4) have agreed to back each others' claims to permanent seats the Security Council. They argue that their influence is relatively comparable to the five current members' (P5), and that their exclusion really does make the Security Council the "We won WW2" club and thus incompatible to modern day politics.
There is another group, Uniting for Consensus (UFC) whose purpose is to tell the G4 "hold up" and block the creation of any new permanent seats.
Finally, while the U.S., China, France, U.K., and Russia hold permanent seats, and thus never have to worry about losing them, they're not the only members. There are temporary seats (2 years irrc) occupied by members of a UN region it's assigned to, leading to some pretty intense bids to gain the seat. However, since a permanent member can singlehandedly veto anything and a temporary member can not, there's a pretty good reason we never hear about them in the news.
Still in 2020, they won WW2
Germany and Japan lost WW2
@@zylnexxd842 what about us Indians who's
2.5 milion soldiers died for allied forces for nothing ?
Don't say we get independence
Which we already gonna get after WW2 Britan already broke 🤣
They can't run our economy since they loot us too much
Yeah and it can easily be argued that the UFC is led by countries such as Italy who know they’d never come into question for permanent membership anyway which is the only reason they’re doing this.
@@zylnexxd842 WW2 has no place in modern day world politics, it is over and the world has moved on, Britain and France need to realize that their empires have fallen a long time ago and they aren’t as relevant on the world stage as they tell themselves.
UN Security Council in RUclips:
India ,Turkey ,Vietnam, South Korea , Poland
哈哈哈。
波蘭是為什麼呀
India in particular is annoying loll
@@lyx_427你问的好，所以他成立😂
Poland should replace Russia to be honest
It's curious to note that, during the last two decades, Brazil has made it's foreign policy trying to get into a permanent seat in the UN Security Counsel, which explains the drive for participation in international mediation efforts and the command of UN Peacekeeping Mission in Haiti after the several disasters that occurred there in the last decades. To know that we've been given a shot before and denied it, and now our (previous) government were trying too hard to get another one is damn funny...and ironic.
Brazil during the time were economically unstable and the fear of Anglo-American Hegemony in South America was at its height in the early years of the cold war with having a sizable fascist and socialist sympathizers and fear of american intervention specially if they became part of the council. also the USSR will probably deny it.
Yes, we were under the Estado Novo of Vargas, and were still developing our basic heavy industry. Not much an economic powerhouse back then.
For a new world country to be a part of the head of a global organization like this they need to be more influential in the old world. The US was a lot more important than brazil is today well before WW2 in terms of it's economy and military potential but because it was mostly in the western hemisphere it didn't really matter to global institutions so much, only WW2 changed that otherwise it probably would have continued outside of such institutions for some time longer. Brazil is not even close to being a global power outside of it's region.
@@ssssaa2 Exactly. Even though we are the world's 10th biggest military power according to Global Fire Power and the world's 9th biggest economy according to the IMF, we're only relevant in Latin America and as the leader of it. India ranks higher in both lists I've mentioned. And now that WWII is over, why not Japan and Germany, which rank a bit ahead or before us in the same two lists (they have a way higher GDP per capita but that's not important for the sakes of this analisis)
It’s been brazilian foreign policy to get a permanent seat ever since the Sarney presidency, in fact, it only changed focus, being front and center during FHC and PT administrations. Bolsonaro foreign minister is the first one since 1988 to expressly say it’s not his goal to put Brazil in a permanent seat. So for nearly 30 years we have struggling to get a seat there until the present administration gave up
"And unlike the failed League of Nations before it, the people who came up with the idea were on board this time."
Savage.
That was hilarious!!!
UN:Lets make rules that will prevent wars.
Nations:Stops declaring war officially while bombing other nations to avoid having to follow rules.
That's not the only thing they do at all. They promote cooperation between nations which ultimately has made war less common. They also set out rules of war which still apply even when war isn't formally declared. The international criminal court of the UN does prosecute war criminals to the best of their ability too. The most recent example is Omar al-Bashir, former Sudanese president who is set to be formally prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
It's not war if there's no war declaration (and we call if operation or mission of something righteous and fancy like that)
Even including americas war on pretty much everybody, violent conflicts this decade are the lowest they've ever been. So while every country on the security council has gone to war anyway, the UN has almost certainly stopped most violent conflicts from happening.
yet surprisingly, humans have entered an era of unprecedented peace.
@Tejas Misra True, and that's also one of the main reasons why these five powers are entitled to hold those permanent seats. They are the only nations who have a legal right to maintain nuclear arsenals with a global reach. When you have five countries who have the power to destroy humanity, you might as well just give up and let them run the planet. xD
USA, USSR, UK, and China (ROC), the four main allied powers of WW2, selected themselves.
The USSR didn't like the amount of influence the USA had, so everyone agreed to add France because France hates everyone.
The Kuomintang (ROC) losses the civil war against the Communist Party (PRC) in 1949, the ROC retains control of Taiwan and continues to represent China in the UN. In 1971 the UN general assembly votes to replace the ROC with the PRC as the representative of China in the UN, thus the PRC gains the seat on the security council.
Soviet Union collaspes in 1991, Russia takes the USSRs seat on the council.
Nothing has changed in the 30 years since.
Well, let a french navigate through the net for a couple of hours, watch comments sections and the such....and he'll hate everyone very quickly, and feel glad his country pushed to be a part of the "We can end the world with nukes" club. Just in case.
@Olivier Verdys anyone who even simply starts understanding politics properly will say that
Only pursue self interest because someone else will, and you don't want to pay for something that doesn't benefit yourself
Nothing has changed in the balance of power between the 5 and the rest of the world so of course the SC hasn't changed. It properly reflects power. The Security Council is not about Regional representation. It's about a Veto to stop a policy a Great Power doesn't like instead of resorting to military action and millions of casualties and massive economic damage.
You missed a key reason for Britain's support of France on the Security Council which was that the French would be more likely to support British colonial policies against independence movements. Britain and Frances cooperation on Imperial/Colonial policy was a major reason for their alliance through the 20th century, no way should it have been left out as a key element here as well.
Lot of good that did them.
@@samrevlej9331 well if it wasnt for the shift in power toward the US and USSR, it actually couldve worked, Suez for example was a military victory but a diplomatic disaster for the colonial which definitly showed to the world who was the boss now
@@samrevlej9331 Well yes and unless you are from the US or China than UK and France are still far more powerful and influential then whatever state you are from
@@Honking_Goose not really. They are considerable powers yes, but Russia, India, Germany , Japan and Brazil are at least at par with their influence, if not already surpassing them. The US and China are the two poles the world stands on and Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal so they're untouchable but yeh
@@samrevlej9331 it literally did
You might want to look back on their veto usage. They literally got away with every single colonial issue via vetoes and vetoing on eachothers behalf
After credit scenes also entered a phase of no longer existing.
I know right? I miss those clips.
There has been After Credit Scenes?! O.o
Matt Steiner
Yup.
"Let's pick some countries to enforce world peace!" Literally picks a country that has civil wars on an annual basis, the two biggest imperialist nations, a country that has been at war ~75% of it's lifespan, and one that just annexed multiple neighbors a decade earlier.
Seems about right
aaaaaand the top five arms sellers in the world
Which one describe France ? Actually all of them fit 😂
Gonna have to be more specific with which one applies to which... sadly lol
I mean they aren’t going to pick Germany or Japan
1950s: hey Brazil, we are forming this club for a selective group of people, want in?
Brazil: nahhhh
2000s Brazil: I want in! I want in! I wanna ! I wanna ! I wanna!
Unsc: naaahhh
UNSC= united nation space Command.
[Insert relatable halo pun here]
I can't believe that brazil actually turned down such position, they could have been huuuge
@Nospam Spamisham Source?
@Nospam Spamisham that makes no sense
@@andreavlis93 the guy is just bullshiting, I study Brazil’s foreign policy in university and there is nothing that proves his point, also even what the video says is wrong, Brazil always fought for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, Brazil even advocated for this in the League of Nations
@@andreavlis93 also he is basically being racist
Actually, Brazil is currently a proposed permanent member for the planned expansion of the UNSC, including Japan, Germany, and India. There have also been debates to add an African and a Muslim-majority country as well. However, it's unlikely to take place.
France, when Brittain isn't feeling like it: *"Fine, I'll do it myself."*
Yeah, that will show us France
Britian: Laughing
"When the USSR entered a phase of no longer existing."
(Soviet National Anthem fades out...)
Nate Randall
The tune is the same. The lyrics are different.
@@hamzaharoon6336 bruh
(*Sad communist noises*)
A "phase" suggests that it might be temporary. Hmmm....
@@ricojes Well the old communist party does still exist. I'm sure they'd kill for a return to popularity. Maybe when Putin dies/drags Russia into a major war.
Another significant change to mention would be the fact that in 1964/65 the number of seats of non-permanent members in the UNSC was lifted up from 6 non-permanent members to 10 non-permanent members so all in all since the mentioned years there are 15 seats in the UNSC consisting of 5 permanent (USA, UK, Russia, France and PRC) and 10non-permanent members.
Two History Matters uploads in one week. We've been blessed by the power of James Bissonette
My guy avery
You're everywhere aren't you
@Bangbabangbabangbang Yeah, quite pathetic
Spotted
Let's not forget *Penny Moneymaker!*
To those who may be annoyed at the permanent members thing:
1. The UN was never set up to be the "forum for all the world to be friends", even though the unelected secretariat likes to portray the UN as such now. The UN was set up to maintain world peace by the allies of WW2, to prevent another Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan from rising.
2. As a whole, the UN was (and to a large degree still is) a creation of realpolitik. At the level of individual nations we must aim for democracy and equality and all that. But at the international level, only a fool would think Ghana is equal to China or America in world influence. The General Assembly is the most equal the UN will ever get, an assembly where dictatorships outnumber democracies, and where countries like Sweden and the UK are sermonised by countries like Libya and Saudi Arabia.
The UN Security Council has substantially more power, power that is far more likely to be used for bad than for good. And so, having a balance between the democratic West and the not so democratic East is neccesary to prevent anything one-sided (and therefore war-provoking) from being passed by the Security Council.
Be a little realistic people. If the none of the 5 major powers were on the Council and all 15 members were less than regional powers, but through the UNSC had the power to impose upon America or Russia or China, what do you think would happen? All 5 nations would leave the UN and then... Good luck keeping the peace then.
That's a good comment here.
UN gives some power to everyone involved, but it can't change reality into opposite direction.
" where countries like Sweden and the UK are sermonised by countries like Libya and Saudi Arabia."
Lol like the UK has any room to talk, they'll always be proud of their legacy of raping, looting, and murdering and they continue to proudly uphold those ideals today whenever they visit foreign countries.
And, the U.S. could use that valuable real estate in Manhattan. It wouldn't matter one bit to most Americans if the U.N. ended, since the U.S. thinks rightly or wrongly that they bear far too much of the cost of the U.N.
Moving the U.N. headquarters from New York to Switzerland or Paris would be just peachy.
But, if the U.N. is serious about improving the lot of the disadvantaged, they should move the headquarters to Haiti or Ghana or Cambodia. They could take daily instruction in the effects of poverty on societie and perhaps be moved to work to improve peoples' lives. That would be far more useful than flaunting the local laws in New York with their abuse of diplomatic immunity.
As if peace is being kept nowadays
“Otherwise known as the ‘We won WW2 club’” Lmao I died
Yes we can get this channel to zero subs lol
Except France, They didn't do squat, because they surrendered early on in the war.
It wasn't until we Brits along with the Americans freed France from the Nazis.
@@beaucaspar3990 Sometimes I wonder if France falling so rapidly was maybe the best thing that could have happened to them and also the future Western Allies.
@@beaucaspar3990 did you even open a History Book did you even know the Free France started the fight in 1940 ? Did you know the Free France army was more than 2 000 000 man ? Did you even know Free France force saved the brit in bir hakeim to get Time for the brit in el alamein and stop Rommel ?
@@beaucaspar3990 meanwhile, France had the biggest resistance to nazi occupation during WW2. England and the US just armed and trained them using OSS operatives to help them.
Never knew about Brazil's almost-membership on the Security Council until watching this video. So I did a bit of reading, and what I read indicates that this video is correct about the UK and USSR objecting, but not about Brazil's reluctance. They appear to have wanted it. And the US wanted it even more; they really expected Brazil to be their best buddy.
But man, Brazil is not the nation it was back then. It would be fascinating to see how UN history would have unfolded with Brazil instead of France (or even in addition to France) on the Security Council.
But you have to understand UK, USA, USSR and China contributes a lot during the War
@@kevinmiller9760 but also, the USSR and China (and possibly the UK) would've ceased to exist if they'd contributed any less. UNSC seats weren't a reward for altruism, they were mostly a reflection of the most powerful nations at the time (and China due to having a massive population, they weren't in the same tier as the Big 3 power-wise).
@@threenumbnuts What you mean the UK wouldn’t exist?
@@ChrisCrossClash They could've ceased to exist if they hadn't contributed a lot during the war (see comment I'm replying to). Point being, it wasn't altruistic.
I think the Security Council would just have been sidelined far more - the US would probably have been able to keep Brazil, China and the UK very close leaving just the USSR to look for different outlets to express themselves
Imagine if Brazil have James Bissonnette wealth on that time
Lol
Or Kelly moneymaker
@@ramon-theyseemerollintheyh1982 yeah the person doesn't get any attention even tho he/she has been supported Mr.history for a while
2:43 in case you're wondering why Yeltsin is drunk, that's because he's an alcohol abuser.
When he was on a state visit to the U.S., he got himself drunk and was found on the streets in his underwear and attempt to order a pizza while in a drunken stupor
Lmao funny but I already know that's not true
*я ХоТеЛ пИцЦаУ!*
Uhm... Brazil actually actively pushed towards being accepted as a member. There were Brazilian diplomatic missions to the USSR at the time to try and convince them that it was a good idea to let Brazil in (because BR has always effectively been in a love-hate relation with the US just like France), but the USSR's resistance ultimately prevailed. So yeah, that part of the video is actually wrong, but it's nice to see that the channel remembers this piece of history. Because it matters (pun intended).
Imagine wanting world peace
This comment was made by the military industrial complex
m.i.c. never cares about conflicts
they care about selling stuff
what happens after is not a concern for them
The world has in fact gotten more peaceful in the last 75 years and especially more so since the end of the Cold War and it's immediate aftermath (so about 2004 let's say). The rate at which armed conflict causes deaths as a ratio of the total deaths in the world each year is far lower than it was before, and true direct wars between sovereign countries is very rare these days, and even when it does happen it's often more so tied with skirmishes like Pakistan and India and Azerbaijan and Armenia.
i like the irony of how you're ironic about that, yet ironically this is factually true.
there's always skirmishes here and there, squabbling between minor powers, but overall the world has never been more peaceful. modern weapons make wars more terrifying than ever, but they also make them a lot quicker to resolve.
so yeah, the military industrial complex brought world peace more than any goody-willy hippie ever did.
@@Lapantouflemagic0
Yeah, sure. Just squabbling between minor powers. Not like the war on terror has been ongoing for the last two decades.
@@AnglosArentHuman the war on terror is not a war between nation, and has no relation to military industrial complex.
And why have you forget the war on crime? Or the war on drugs?
It's not a "war", it's a fight to mantain order.
0:29 Freaking Mao over the blackboard, eying Chiang Kai-shek.
“Who picked the security council?”
Well, obviously the security council
I like how he drew the UN logo. "Insert Earth Here" XD
2:38 “the USSR entered a phase of no longer existing” followed by the breaking glass sound, got me
The one main problem is that the permanent members each get a chance to veto, and that ends the discussion. There is no override. If everyone on the council wants something, but just one vetos it, that's it. Nothing happens.
And seeing as half of the council hates the other half, it's no wonder the world is a mess
Makes it useless then
America has two allies on the Permanent UN Security Council, Britain and France. Russia only has one ally on the Permanent UN Security Council, China.
I think it was the idea of "Half a loaf of bread is better than none". US and USSR completely dominated the landscape and the idea of someone telling them no is not acceptable. I guess some things never change.
For all its weaknesses the UN is far more effective than anybody expected (which was a very low bar).
@@hadracks Bullshit.
UN = United Nothings.
What I rly like about ur vids are that they are all short and straight to the point unlike really long videos that get boring
"even the ussr entered the phase of no longer existing"
don't you just love this channel?
"Can I be on the council?"
"You got any nukes?"
"Yes."
"Welcome aboard."
That’s not so, India is not a permanent member
@@edsr164 too late. Now the ticket is replaced by making Hydrogen bombs then win a war with any other permanent 5 but I'm afraid even US will support China for hydrogen bomb monopoly.
I guess having nukes brings with it this sort of enlightenment where a nation which has built nuclear weapons truly understands the value and price of world peace, because they know the kind of destruction they can cause, if they fail to keep it.
Well India joined the un just after it’s establishment.they weren’t given veto and weren’t given a place in the security council.the un is largely dominated by the US
@@kirillnikonov6662 tell that to South Africa lol
You do have an amazing ability to select subject matter that speaks to my ow curiosity. I found myself wish your videos were longer, but that in turn would defeat the purpose so here we are. Thanks.
it's amazing how much that square resembles chiang kai shek.
I love how you put Boris Yeltsin so damn drunk and then he just *THUD*
Having a drunk Boris Yeltsin in russia was kind of easy in the world but now you got Putin who always want to spoil the fun of everybody
I love how, even with something like this, even with 3 1/2 minutes or less, I still learn at least something from every video.
US: "Well, how about Brazil?"
Brazil: "Wait, wha-?"
2:03 Churchill:OOF
"The USSR entered a phase of no longer existing" Sounds much better than just breaking up. LOL!!!
Funny enough, Brazil now spends it's years gunning for a permanent seat on the UN Scurity Council. It has yet to work
“Permanent seat” was a really short-sighted idea. The UN would be necessarily dependent on the political, military, and economic position of those countries. As the geopolitical situation changes, the UN Security Council would necessarily be less relevant.
That part was probably just self-interest. "Why yes, I would like to give myself more power"
Well without these countries the Un will be as irrelevant as the League of Nations
@@George-cr6jq it's not? All it does is promote cooperation. Which probs saved the world a couple times, but who cares amirite?
@@freddy4603 Only time UN did shit was in the Korean War and some "humanitarian" work and that's about it
@@George-cr6jq You can debate what parts of the post wwii system led to there not being a third world war a generation later, but something clearly worked in a way the post wwi system didn't. The UN, America rebuilding West Germany and Japan, the Pax Atomica, some combination of these (and possibly other) factors broke the cycle of increasingly bloody wars the world had been in.
Fun fact: Kazakhstan was the last country to leave the USSR making it the entirety of the USSR for like a week. If they had stayed as part of the USSR they could have contested the UN security council seat.
In all likelihood, hardly. Other countries agreed to recognize Russia’s claim to the Soviet seat only on the condition that Russia pays off the Soviet national debt. Even for an economy as big as Russia’s, it was far from given since the economy was in collapse, and it was unclear when the collapse would stop (spoiler: in 1999, after a final crisis occurred in 1998). The Kazakhs could never pay off a debt that big; they even gave up Soviet nukes easily because maintaining them is very expensive (as if they had a choice).
The Russia/China seats swapping flag colour palettes is very satisfying
What about picking France, maybe simply because it represented 10% of the planet in term of territory in 1945 and 5% of the total population. Brazil at that time was half of that. Another reason could simply be that even if France was defeated in 1940, it fought its place as a combatant with the Resistance in France, its troops fighting on the Eastern front as early as 1942, its active participation in North Africa (Bir Hakeim), Italy (Monte Cassino, Rome), France (Toulon, Marseille, Strasbourg), and sending 8 divisions in Germany in 1945. In October 1945 it gained an occupation zone in Germany and in Berlin.
0:01 he finally showed every security Council member at their seats in 1 slide!
"We need someone who will stand up to the U.S. and be the defender of Europe too."
"James Bissonette is busy."
"Ok, how about France?"
"The second time was in 1991 when the Soviet Union entered a phase of no longer existing "
It's just a phase!
Ah yes, from the video we just watched >_>
yes, make me wonder what the next phase will be.
Q: Who picked them?
A: Themselves
“We’re the only people that matter. You’re never going to get rid of us,” America, China, Russia, France and UK said in chorus.
Five arseholes that hate each other, and make sure no one does something *too* stupid, worked great so far.
Britain and the USSR pushing for France sounds, to anyone oblivious of the context, absolutely SURREAL.
I know you've considered doing an episode on Salazar and the Estado Novo in Portugal, and both your videos on Portugal are rather good, so would you give this tricky topic a chance?
There are lots of other subject about Portugal that I would love to see you do, but given that you have shown interest in this topic, and your video on Franco was excellent, and that we're almost a month away from one of the most important dates that set our current regime (25th of November), I think it would be an fantastic topic, if you're willing.
Oh boy, I can't wait for the Salazar apologists, that species of orangutan so malformed not even Afonso de Albuquerque would give them the common courtesy of shooting them with an arquebus.
Though the prospect of a chair THUD is highly appealing.
"I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you! Let' me see your whole palace, or else!"
"Or else, what?"
"Or else we will be very, very angry with you, and we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are"
UN in a nutshell
Heil supreme leader
0:59
Except for FDR...he is dead.
Something interesting happened both the times the permanent UNSC Members changed:
Blue, white and red flag became red and yellow..
Red and yellow flag became blue, white and red..
“America and friends” sounds like some kinda of political Thomas the Train cartoon...
I'm brazilian and never knew that Brazil was thought of being appointed to the UN security council, giving it's small participation in WW2.
What I've known is the fact that it tried in the early 2000's to get in, but France, just as planned in this video, voted "NON"
France actually want germany to be the 6th otan member, and will probably disagree with any enlargment untill germany get in
@@TheGirard62 I think India should be a new member instead of Germany since Germany really doesn't care about military. Heck even Italy has a stronger military then Germany.
@@olsenfernandes3634 if i have good memory, france also support india for onu security concil
Brazil was also offered ocupation zone in Austria
@@luisfernandosantosn no, they was offered to participate with their troop to the american occupation zone in austria
It’s Bob. I know it’s him.
Much love, your friends at Rev Media!!
India should replace the UK's seat. It both used to be part of the British empire and is militarily stronger (if mostly by quantity) than the UK. Also, there's no need for two major European countries, and France is an EU member giving Europe implicitly more of a voice through it than the UK.
India was offered a seat but refused.
I@@CB-fz3liit was offered the ROC's seat as a jest to the CCP, but nehru felt it would spoil relations with the CCP.
I wonder how different of history Latin America would have had if Brazil had a permanent membership in the UN council. Probably a lot of coups could have been avoided. I think we would have been a little bit richer but definitely a lot more stable.
No, tbh, being a permanent member required the will to build up military and diplomatic influence, that would have been probably too much to handle for the country, and the developpment of the nation could have been slowed a lot, brazil needed 20-25 more year before being able to have a permanent seat
between 2008 and 2012 Brazilian growth helped to boost all economic sectors in Latin America beyond its economy as all countries saw us as a good ally
Not much since Brazil really shouldn't be up there with those superpowers. It's just an irrelevant country like any of southamerica on the international stage
@@philippevernot9553 But that’s because South American nations don’t give a shit about international relations. Brazil has a stronger military than Turkey, Germany or Italy with out even investing in it.
@@Emersonunes thats a biiiiit late though isnt it
Called itself "Security Council", but locked in a state of Cold War between its member smh
yeah but it wasn't all out war. So it weren't a complete failure
As opposed to a state of nuclear warfare?
It is a club of super powers who are distrustful of each other but are willing to work together to maintain status quo and to suppress any outside force that threatens to disrupt it.
That's... the whole point, each country on UNSC can do some crazy shit, the others make sure it doesn't happen, they're *supposed* to distrust each other, better than Fallout.
Other nations: The security council is a sham!
*The human rights council walks away whistling*
Oh God no not the human rights council! If they didn't exist, think about what could have happened in...well...umm
I got some major issues with the UN Human Rights council especially when they add members with abysmal human rights records.
@King of the Barbarians wtf? Are you serious?
Thanks for shedding a bit of light on this situation. Been watchin a lot of yer vids and have been liken the pace and quality thank you.
I remember thinking of the Security Council as the majors who won WWII club also. But also, they’re huge countries and have huge influence (or did at the time).
Worry not, they still have (China, Russia, and the USA are pretty big. The UK and France love neocolonialism and France is better at it)
Exactly. The Security Council is not about Regional representation. It's about a Veto to stop a policy a Great Power doesn't like instead of resorting to military action and millions of casualties and massive economic damage.
Honeslty India couldve joined instead of France, India's an ally of both Russia and the Us, while having some diplomatic ties to China despite the fact they hate each other. And thus could lean to diffrent sides that wouldnt be just american, and it would also foster better relationships with China as a result of this, if India ever were to be the 6th member of the concil.
Or instead India take Britain or China's place.
@@fandemusique4693 Chinas too important a country as of now to not have a spot, but yeah ig subbing out Britain wouldve worked too
India was still a British colony at that time, which could not be regarded as a sovereign state.
The permanent members also are the main suppliers of Arms, so that works well!
After watching many of your videos the last couple of days i found it amazing how many wars were fought for little to no land gain.
Brazil really dismissed a golden ticket to become a world power
💀
Brazil would have to have built nuclear weapons, rapidly industrialized, become a major aid donor, and invest untold billions into her military to be on par with the other world powers; the US, UK, China, or USSR. Notice how after China replaced Taiwan in the UNSC, it invested heavily in nukes and aggressively modernized its economy. Brazil simply cannot afford that, so they were right to reject the membership
The UN security council must have 4 red,blue,white(used to be ROC,now Russia), and 1 red yellow.(used to be USSR,now PRC)
“When the USSR entered a phase of no longer existing” genius
Made a un kahoot the other day, tried to add unsc(from halo) as a joke answer before remembering that the unsc is a real thing, never been more disappointed:(
2:38 when the USSR entered the phase of *no longer existing*
i laughed so much
The happy of a brazilian to listen that Brazil was invited to this is big
I just realized that the 5 nations on the security council are also the first 5 countries to develop nuclear weapons.
Kinda shows that they were good picks
Honestly i'm really surprised USSR allowed France, though very interesting
France has always been kinda of a wild card when int comes to international politics. Although they often side with the US, they're also capable of saying no to them, like with the Iraq War.
@@averageborincano9691 Yeah, makes sense, they don't always unconditionally just agree with the US, they have their own things and opinions, thanks
Actually a lot of french intellectuals were communist symphatsers.
@@thorthewolf8801 Yep, heard of that before,
@@averageborincano9691Funny they protested against the U.S war with Iraq, yet France were gung-ho in there in intervention in Libya’s civil war.
World: "Wait... who picked the UN Security Council?"
The UN Security Council: "Sorry guys, we forgot our dentist appointment..."
its the 5 countries with the most nukes if you didnt know
H bombs
不仅仅是因为核武器，p5的科技军事经济和政治影响力几乎全面领先其他国家，其他国家加起来都不如p5,战败国没有资格加入😅
The four victorious nations, CCCP, US, UK, China(Alliance of KMT and Communist, called Anti-Japanese National United Front) in World War II, plus restored France (the operations of Free France in the North African battlefield and the resistance in France mainland made great contributions to the victory of the Allied forces).
Then, due to successful diplomacy in the Third World and the production of nuclear weapons, coupled with the support of Gaullism-compliant France (France was the first Western country to establish diplomatic relations with PRC), PRC on the mainland replaced the Republic of China on Taiwan.
If they kept Republic of China, all the members would have red, white & blue flags 🇫🇷🇬🇧🇺🇸🇷🇺🇹🇼