Yugoslavia what if: Milosevic - cut down before his prime

[MrHola]

On 26 January 1986 the League of Communists of Serbia met to choose the next party leader. There were seven candidates, but everyone knew it would be Milošević. Ivan Stambolić, his friend and mentor and President of Serbia, skilfully steered the meeting in his friend’s favour.

He was actively supported by Nikola Ljubičić, who unreservedly praised Milošević as a man who ‘actively fought against nationalism, liberalism and all forms of counter-revolution in Belgrade’.

However, things did not go quite as expected. It turned out that Milošević was not very popular. Many League members feared his autocratic manner. Draža Marković, who led the anti-Milošević resistance, accused Ivan and Slobodan of seeking personal power The young party activists, uninvolved in such feuds, wished to see Špiro Galović or Radiša Gačić in the post. During a stormy debate that went on for two days it seemed that the favourite Milošević might lose.

Those who wished to avoid a complete split were increasingly backing Radiša Gačić. But although even Milošević’s supporters found Gačić acceptable, he kept refusing this high post.

The POD is that Radisa Gacic, after giving it some careful consideration, decides to go for it. He narrowly defeats Milosevic and becomes party leader.

What happens to Yugoslavia next? Will it still break apart? Will it be less severe? I’ve heard that Yugoslavia was negotiating entrance into the EEC, but the Civil War brought an end to that.

[Doug M.]

Yugoslavia still breaks apart. By 1986 there was a lot of dry tinder lying around, just waiting for a spark.

By the mid-1980s, nationalism was visibly on the rise in Serbia and Croatia; this is why the Communists were worried about electing a solid anti-nationalist. The Constitution of 1973 -- "Yugoslavia's death certificate" -- had decentralized too much control to the constituent republics. In particular, it had allowed local Party leaders to dominate the media in each republic, making it fatally easy for them to manipulate public opinion.

That said, no Slobo would be a pretty big difference. Slobo grabbed the Kosovo issue with both hands; a different leader would probably be a lot slower to do that, and might not be as quick to reassert control there. You'd still have the nationalists in the other republics, especially Tudjman. But it would take them a little longer to get going without Slobo to work against.

Broadly speaking, I think you get a breakup much as iOTL, but the details will be different and it may be delayed by six months to a year.


Doug M.

[MrHola]

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. By the way aren't you the guy who wrote a timeline based on the assassination of FDR by Zangara? Anyways, back at Yugoslavia. Do you think Slobo would raise his ugly head again after his defeat?

[Doug M.]

Originally Posted by MrHola

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. By the way aren't you the guy who wrote a timeline based on the assassination of FDR by Zangara?

That's me. I've considered reposting it on this forum, but soc.history.what-if stuff doesn't seem to get much discussion going here. Not sure why.

Originally Posted by MrHola

Anyways, back at Yugoslavia. Do you think Slobo would raise his ugly head again after his defeat?

Probably -- he was nothing if not tenacious, and he'd still have Stambolic for his patron.

In fact, as I think about it, he'd probably make the switch to nationalism within a year or two, and use that to leverage his position in the Party. (There was a brief period of a year or two when that would have made sense.)

Still, we've probably at least delayed his famous Kosovo speeches. So there's that.


Doug M.