WI Yugoslavia survives?

SlideAway · Dec 13, 2009

Having traveled in the Balkans, I was somewhat surprised at the level of Yugo-nostalgia among people in most of the former Yugoslav states. It did seem to be relatively limited to older people, and I did of course see plenty of displays of overt nationalism as well.

I know that in the West it's common to say that Yugoslavia was likely to fail from the outset. Many of the Croats and Serbs I talked with though were more skeptical. And indeed, it's often forgotten that the Croats (and Slovenes) merged with Serbia after WWI out of their own free accord.

So what POD allows Yugoslavia to endure to the present day? Could a stronger central government in the post-Tito Constitution have saved the country? Could additional U.S. aid in 1989/1990 have mitigated the economic depression that helped revive Croat and Slovene nationalism? Could European unity against recognizing Croat and Slovene independence have prevented an unraveling?

And if Yugoslavia does endure, is it in the EU today? Is its standard of living more like, say, Bulgaria or Romania's, or like Greece or Spain?

Penelope · Dec 13, 2009

I think your forgetting, for the US aid and EU Integration, that Yugoslavia was communist. If you want to see a present-day Yugoslavia, your going to need either-

a: A better preformance of communism in Europe.

b: A USA that's more communism tolerant.

SlideAway · Dec 13, 2009

Scifiguy said:
I think your forgetting, for the US aid and EU Integration, that Yugoslavia was communist. If you want to see a present-day Yugoslavia, your going to need either-

a: A better preformance of communism in Europe.

b: A USA that's more communism tolerant.

...

And because Yugoslavia was outside the Soviet block, it received substantial U.S. aid before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

DjBaraca · Dec 13, 2009

I think it would be possible for Yugoslavia still be around. But It would have to be equally dominated by Serbs and Croats to keep in together unlike OTL where it was dominated by the Serbs. It would be like a Greece, or Bulgaria in life style though. As for Communism I think that it would have evaporated by now because of the nearby democratic revolutions.

MacCaulay · Dec 14, 2009

SlideAway said:
...

And because Yugoslavia was outside the Soviet block, it received substantial U.S. aid before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Don't forget NATO aid in general. When the US was thinking about going in, two weapons systems that were talked about where the JNA's ancient US-made Jackson tank-destroyers and much newer French-made Gazelle attack helicopters.

They had stuff from all over.

yourworstnightmare · Dec 14, 2009

Stop Milosevic and Serb nationalism from coming to power.

machine3589 · Dec 14, 2009

SlideAway said:
Having traveled in the Balkans, I was somewhat surprised at the level of Yugo-nostalgia among people in most of the former Yugoslav states. It did seem to be relatively limited to older people, and I did of course see plenty of displays of overt nationalism as well.

You could drop the relatively here. It is limited to old former Partisans and old former communists. And the odd student here and there. Most older people are hard-boiled nationalists.

I know that in the West it's common to say that Yugoslavia was likely to fail from the outset. Many of the Croats and Serbs I talked with though were more skeptical. And indeed, it's often forgotten that the Croats (and Slovenes) merged with Serbia after WWI out of their own free accord.

The truth is far more complicated then saying the Croats and Slovenians wanted to join Serbia. The circumstances of the time were that they had no better option. If they could have helped it, they would not have entered Yugoslavia pt.1.

So what POD allows Yugoslavia to endure to the present day? Could a stronger central government in the post-Tito Constitution have saved the country? Could additional U.S. aid in 1989/1990 have mitigated the economic depression that helped revive Croat and Slovene nationalism? Could European unity against recognizing Croat and Slovene independence have prevented an unraveling?

Simple. Transform it into a confederation. You seem to think Croat and Slovenian nationalism are to blame for its downfall. Milosevic had done much more to stirr Slovenian and Coratian nationalism then economic depression would have ever been able to. If you stop Milosevic and make Yugoslavias economy more stable, far-right nationalism would have become a fringe idea since you avoided the war.

And if Yugoslavia does endure, is it in the EU today? Is its standard of living more like, say, Bulgaria or Romania's, or like Greece or Spain?

1. Probably not, but has a good chance.

2. Romania.

beer kaiser · Dec 14, 2009

No, there should not been US help. They largely supported nationalists.
It would been in EU by now, but probably on the level of Greece (no war means better life, economy, no (or less) factory collapsing...).
Confederation seems like the best option.

Amerigo Vespucci · Dec 14, 2009

It's an interesting idea. Can you propose a POD for it? It'd have to be something far enough back for nationalism to not be as big a factor, as machine3589 brought up.

tallwingedgoat · Dec 14, 2009

What if Yugoslavia had nukes?

ctesiphon · Dec 14, 2009

machine3589 said:
2. Romania.

You underestimate them, look at Slovenia, that was the wealthiest part of Yugoslavia, and it did not suffer from war.
GDP per capita (PPP) according to the Polish Sources, in 2008:
Spain: 24,5 thousand euros
Greece: 23,2
Portugal: 18,1
Slovenia: 21,2
Romania: 10,2

Peaceful progress and modernization as a democratic federation (assuming it will not fall apart in the transformation period) and no wars would mean, that the gap between Slovenia and other parts of Yugoslavia wouldn't be that large. In my opinion, it may have been on the level of Portugal by now - if it survived and went the path of Slovenia.

Susano · Dec 14, 2009

yourworstnightmare said:
Stop Milosevic and Serb nationalism from coming to power.

Thats difficult, though. As Ive herd things, by playing teh Ser nationalist card, Milosevic hit an undercurrent that simply was already there, ut had beenmore or less repressed - not forcefully, of course, but in pre-Milsoveic Yugoslavia any form of nationalism for the particular states was a no-no. That makes it almost a problem of psychology: A successful Yugoslavia somehow needs to account for all the different nationalisms that are there, while avoiding the notion that any of those nationalities runs the show. And that is a difficult balance act.

ctesiphon said:
You underestimate them, look at Slovenia, that was the wealthiest part of Yugoslavia, and it did not suffer from war.
GDP per capita (PPP) according to the Polish Sources, in 2008:
Spain: 24,5 thousand euros
Greece: 23,2
Portugal: 18,1
Slovenia: 21,2
Romania: 10,2

Slovenia is an unfair comparsion. After all it is THE poster child of the ex-communist countries, THE economic success, even moreso than Poland and Czechia. I dont think such a singular feat is repeatable... Still, Romania is indeed aiming way too low.

machine3589 · Dec 14, 2009

ctesiphon said:
You underestimate them, look at Slovenia, that was the wealthiest part of Yugoslavia, and it did not suffer from war.
GDP per capita (PPP) according to the Polish Sources, in 2008:
Spain: 24,5 thousand euros
Greece: 23,2
Portugal: 18,1
Slovenia: 21,2
Romania: 10,2

Peaceful progress and modernization as a democratic federation (assuming it will not fall apart in the transformation period) and no wars would mean, that the gap between Slovenia and other parts of Yugoslavia wouldn't be that large. In my opinion, it may have been on the level of Portugal by now - if it survived and went the path of Slovenia.

You overestimate them. Slovenia and Croatia were by far the most productive parts of Yugoslavia, and the gap between these two parts and everyone else was really huge. If Yugoslavia were to survive, these two states would basically be dragging everyone else. Slovenia is where it is today because it didnt have a (long) war, AND didnt have to drag underdeveloped regions. ITTL, it doesnt have the ammount of economic freedom it had IOTL. Maybe Yugoslavia would ammount to Poland or the Chech Republic, but more likely it would be behind.

ctesiphon · Dec 14, 2009

Susano said:
Slovenia is an unfair comparsion.

Is it really that unfair? If it's THE success, Croatia, which was not much poorer, could be a The success. Add Belgrade, and you get quite a lot of that state fairly strong economically.

machine3589 said:
Slovenia and Croatia were by far the most productive parts of Yugoslavia, and the gap between these two parts and everyone else was really huge.

Indeed, about two times.

If Yugoslavia were to survive, these two states would basically be dragging everyone else. Slovenia is where it is today because it didnt have a (long) war, AND didnt have to drag underdeveloped regions. ITTL, it doesnt have the ammount of economic freedom it had IOTL.

If Yugoslavia is to survive, there's no war in Croatia, Bosnia or Kosovo, so Slovenia has no advantage because of peace. And there are also EU's structural funds, they'll sure help. Also, we need to take into account Belgrade, those large capitals tend to develop really fast, Prague, Budapest and even Warsaw are way above their surroundings. It will drag them undeveloped regions too.

Maybe Yugoslavia would ammount to Poland or the Chech Republic, but more likely it would be behind.

So we agree, more or less, I'm just a bit more optimistic. Czech Rep. is sightly above Portugal in GDP per capita (PPP), so ammounting to a Czech Rep is exactly what i said. Romania is definitely below where one should aim trying to estimate Yugo economy in 2009 if it didn't collapse. I'm sure it woul be in the "first tier" of new democracies in Europe, with Czech Rep, Hungary, and Poland (and Slovakia if certain issues in it's politics are butterflied away).

Aelita · Dec 14, 2009

Yugoslav market socialism was certainly a sustainable, successful economic system, and some political reforms towards more open democracy and trade probably would have helped the government survive the tide of nationalism inspired by the end of Western investment.

Talkie Toaster · Dec 15, 2009

Does it have to be Tito's Yugoslavia that survives? Could we not continue a (reformed) Yugoslav monarchy? That would seem to be the most amenable to surviving the cold war (butterflies notwithstanding).

yourworstnightmare · Dec 15, 2009

Talkie Toaster said:
Does it have to be Tito's Yugoslavia that survives? Could we not continue a (reformed) Yugoslav monarchy? That would seem to be the most amenable to surviving the cold war (butterflies notwithstanding).

The monarchy would be hard, not even the Serbs were that pleased with King Alexander.

machine3589 · Dec 15, 2009

Talkie Toaster said:
Does it have to be Tito's Yugoslavia that survives? Could we not continue a (reformed) Yugoslav monarchy? That would seem to be the most amenable to surviving the cold war (butterflies notwithstanding).

Thus increasing nationalistic friction. The outcome: 1990`s.

Talkie Toaster · Dec 15, 2009

machine3589 said:
Thus increasing nationalistic friction. The outcome: 1990`s.

Why does the monarchy (which was dismantled by a foreign invader) automatically mean balkanisation, whereas Communist Yugoslavia (under which balkanisation actually happened) doesn't? If you can change one enough, then you can change the other enough, surely?

machine3589 · Dec 15, 2009

Talkie Toaster said:
Why does the monarchy (which was dismantled by a foreign invader) automatically mean balkanisation, whereas Communist Yugoslavia (under which balkanisation actually happened) doesn't? If you can change one enough, then you can change the other enough, surely?

The Monarchy was open and decisive Serbian dominance. Look how good that worked out for Milosevic.