I think the UN was a bit of a questionable idea to begin with. The US was simply too big, rich, and strong: there's no point at which the UN could realistically

I think the UN was a bit of a questionable idea to begin with. The US was simply too big, rich, and strong: there's no point at which the UN could realistically bring any pressure on the US to make it do anything. Ultimately, even with the best of intentions, domestic politics has always been a bigger factor for the US than international pressure, simply because the US was an absolute giant in a post-war era of dwarfish client economies. The state of california is, in raw economic might, more important than, for example, the UK. It was way more unbalanced immediately after the war. So, when you're a US politician, and you have to consider the interests of, say, Texas, against the interests of France, it's not just that Texas is closer to home. It's also that Texas is a bigger deal on the world stage, i.e. if France and Texas got into a pissing match, for most of 20th century history, France would have run out of piss first. Unless the US was absolutely committed to the UN (which it hasn't been), it could never work as anything but an extension of US power, just because the US was so powerful in the post-war period that they warped the frame.