PC: Bulgaria united to Yugoslavia after WW1

[miguelrj]

Instead of the Serbs just annexing the Western Outlands after WW1, could they have gone for the whole deal and push for the integration of Bulgaria in the Kingdom of the South Slavs (or whatever name TTL Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes would have).

[DanMcCollum]

Originally Posted by miguelrj

Instead of the Serbs just annexing the Western Outlands after WW1, could they have gone for the whole deal and push for the integration of Bulgaria in the Kingdom of the South Slavs (or whatever name TTL Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes would have).

There was some very real talk of this happening in the Tito era. The big sticking point was that Bulgaria wanted to enter into the Union, not as a member state, but having the same power as the rest combined. A Yugoslavi
a-Bulgaria if you will. It would be interesting to see what would hqve occurred if this has gone down in the late 40s. I wonder if a strong Bulgaria would have prevented the Serbs from becoming so dominant and, as a daily, a more stable state in years to come.

[chelm]

There was a proposal, I think in the 1860's to unify Serbia and Bulgaria after shaking off the ottoman yoke.

[Karelian]

OTL Bled Agreement indicates that without Stalin's intereference, Georgi Dimitrov and Tito would have created such union in late-1940s/early 1950s.

A strong Bulgaria balancing Serbia within the neutral Balkan Federative Republic during the Cold War would make rather interesting TL.

[Dialga]

Question is: what would have happened to this uber-Yugoslavia come the breakups of the 90's? Would Bulgaria have broken off peacefully like Macedonia did IOTL, or would the former's presence have been enough to avert a breakup?

[Shaby]

Originally Posted by Dialga

Question is: what would have happened to this uber-Yugoslavia come the breakups of the 90's? Would Bulgaria have broken off peacefully like Macedonia did IOTL, or would the former's presence have been enough to avert a breakup?

IMO, Bulgaria and Serbia would stage rerun of Second Balkan war, scrambling to divide Macedonia. This further complicated by Albanians. Whether the Greeks join the party is questionable, probably not them being NATO member and all, but who knows. Maybe the wars in Croatia and Bosnia would have been a bit less bloody though.

[NikoZnate]

Originally Posted by Dialga

Question is: what would have happened to this uber-Yugoslavia come the breakups of the 90's? Would Bulgaria have broken off peacefully like Macedonia did IOTL, or would the former's presence have been enough to avert a breakup?

In the event of a breakup, I suspect there may have been violence when Bulgaria tries to grab/annex Macedonia to itself. I'm not sure of the scale, but it probably would have happened, especially if the breakup was rooted in large part in nationalistic sentiment as OTL.

However, I'm more inclined to think that Bulgaria's inclusion would have averted a breakup in the first place. The Serbs were dominant in Yugoslavia because they were the most populous and most widespread group and controlled most of the industry; including Bulgaria in the mix would provide a nice counter-weight to Serbian power (the Serbian and Bulgarian populations and industrial capacities would be roughly equal), and could perhaps lead to a partial realization of the dream of some Yugoslav idealists to create a "Russia of the South".

[Shaby]

Originally Posted by NikoZnate

However, I'm more inclined to think that Bulgaria's inclusion would have averted a breakup in the first place. The Serbs were dominant in Yugoslavia because they were the most populous and most widespread group and controlled most of the industry; including Bulgaria in the mix would provide a nice counter-weight to Serbian power (the Serbian and Bulgarian populations and industrial capacities would be roughly equal), and could perhaps lead to a partial realization of the dream of some Yugoslav idealists to create a "Russia of the South".

This could be possible, but I am almost certain that inhibiting nationalistic ambitions of republics is mission impossible save some large scale ASB. Yugoslavia skipped the nationalistic phase of development and skimmed entire democracy/free market concept, playing with it for whole of 20 years prior to WWII and even then rather selectively. To expect that addition of one more actor to the stage would simplify the problem, instead of exasperating it even further is IMHO wishful thinking.

[NikoZnate]

Originally Posted by Shaby

This could be possible, but I am almost certain that inhibiting nationalistic ambitions of republics is mission impossible save some large scale ASB. Yugoslavia skipped the nationalistic phase of development and skimmed entire democracy/free market concept, playing with it for whole of 20 years prior to WWII and even then rather selectively. To expect that addition of one more actor to the stage would simplify the problem, instead of exasperating it even further is IMHO wishful thinking.

Damn right it's wishful thinking!
I tend to lean toward the best-case scenarios where Yugoslavia is concerned simply because I'd rather explore those possibilities rather than dwell on a clusterf*ck potentially worse than what occurred in OTL. I am keenly aware, however, that adding another player to the game would most likely just make it more convoluted, but this is AH and therefore who's to say it wouldn't have had a more stabilizing effect if things had gone even slightly more smoothly?

[chelm]

Originally Posted by DanMcCollum

There was some very real talk of this happening in the Tito era. The big sticking point was that Bulgaria wanted to enter into the Union, not as a member state, but having the same power as the rest combined. A Yugoslavi
a-Bulgaria if you will. It would be interesting to see what would hqve occurred if this has gone down in the late 40s. I wonder if a strong Bulgaria would have prevented the Serbs from becoming so dominant and, as a daily, a more stable state in years to come.

Ahm, the Serbs (or better, serb communists) were kind of "dominant" until 1966, when Tito removed Aleksandar Rankovic from office. After that, or finally after adopting the 1974 constitution and federalization, their dominance over Bosnia and Croatia (which they definitely had until 1966) ended.

[Shaby]

Originally Posted by chelm

Ahm, the Serbs (or better, serb communists) were kind of "dominant" until 1966, when Tito removed Aleksandar Rankovic from office. After that, or finally after adopting the 1974 constitution and federalization, their dominance over Bosnia and Croatia (which they definitely had until 1966) ended.

Politically yeah. But in sheer population, economy and military potential, Serbia had huge preponderance over any single republic, and was 1:1 to all of them combined.

[miguelrj]

I knew about the post-WW2 proposal (which is interesting on its own) but I wanted to know about the viability of a post-WW1 Greater Yugoslavia also to play on how it'd go in the interwar and in WW2.

On demographics. If one considers Montegrins as Serbs (as they were considered back then) and Slavic Macedonians as Bulgarians (as Bulgarians hoped) then we have an even 1:1:1 proportion (Serbs : Bulgarians : Everyone else).

Good for the Croats, perhaps? Would the Serbs embrace the idea of creating a Yugoslavia that they couldn't outright dominate? Would Bulgarians fiercely resist annexation to a Belgrade-based state or could they eventually accept the whole "South Slav" thing?

[Cook]

Originally Posted by miguelrj

Instead of the Serbs just annexing the Western Outlands after WW1, could they have gone for the whole deal and push for the integration of Bulgaria in the Kingdom of the South Slavs (or whatever name TTL Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes would have).

The proposal was considered at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, so not at all far-fetched.

[abc123]

Originally Posted by miguelrj

Instead of the Serbs just annexing the Western Outlands after WW1, could they have gone for the whole deal and push for the integration of Bulgaria in the Kingdom of the South Slavs (or whatever name TTL Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes would have).

The problem is, as someone allready stated, that Bulgary wanted to enter federation with a whole Yugoslavia, not as seventh federal republic.
Also, if Bulgary enters Yugoslavia ( either as seventh republic/or with whole Yugoslavia ) Macedonian question will become eastern Bosnia-Herzegovina. Serbs will consider Macedonians as Serbs ( they were ready to give them separate nationality just to stick finger to Bulgarians OTL ) but ITTL they will not want to do that. Same with Bulgarians, and they, even OTL, didn't never fully accepted that Macedonians are separate nation.
So, we can expect more troubles in Yugoslavia, and in due tim, wars not only in the west, but in the east too. Or, that could mean that Serbs will be more keen for peaceful solution as they will consider that fighting Croats, Muslims, Albanians and Bulgarians in the same time is too much.

Also, a question of Albania ( will she join the union, and will she gain Kosovo and western Macedonia ) would be intresting.

[Dan1988]

Hmm, here's a question. Say the KKE was more successful in the Civil War and Greece goes Communist. Let's also assume that the KKE decides to join Yugoslavia (which, along with Bulgaria, would turn it into a Balkan Communist Federation). How would things be any different?

[Shaby]

Originally Posted by Dan1988

Hmm, here's a question. Say the KKE was more successful in the Civil War and Greece goes Communist. Let's also assume that the KKE decides to join Yugoslavia (which, along with Bulgaria, would turn it into a Balkan Communist Federation). How would things be any different?

Well, that means that Soviet Union drops Yalta agreement. If Soviet Union does that, the Lend-lease, division of Germany and entire relation with Western Allies are cast in doubt and at a time when Truman, an unknown variable takes over as head of state. Stalin dropped Greece at Yalta. Ain't gonna happen if you follow my drift.

[Hrvatskiwi]

[QUOTE=Shaby;5148884]Well, that means that Soviet Union drops Yalta agreement. If Soviet Union does that, the Lend-lease, division of Germany and entire relation with Western Allies are cast in doubt and at a time when Truman, an unknown variable takes over as head of state. Stalin dropped Greece at Yalta. Ain't gonna happen if you follow my drift.[
/QUOTE]

Not necessarily. Titoist Yugoslavia gave more support to ELAS than the Russians did. By far. It would just require the British to not intervene. But I'm very unsure on the prospect of Greece joining into a federation with Bulgaria. Considering their... history.

If Bulgaria is included, it might alienate the Croats, Slovenes, and Bosniaks more, as both Bulgars and Serbs are Orthodox culturally as well as religiously. But personally, I'm pro-Bled!

[yugo91aesop]

I created a whole thread on this topic about Bulgaria's possible inclusion into Yugoslavia following WWII. If anyone is interested just search greater yugoslavia and it should pop up. Basically, my argument was as follows:

The main reason Bulgaria has failed to historically unite with the the rest of the South Slavs is that Bulgaria has insisted on an equal union between itself and the rest of Yugoslavia, rather than losing its sovereignty and becoming simply Yugoslavia's 7th republic. However Bulgaria has historically also always claimed Macedonia as its own with Macedonians simply speaking a Western Bulgarian dialect. My proposal following WWII was therefore this: Tito would make Macedonia an autonomous province of Bulgaria, thus achieving the centuries old national dreams of Bulgarians, in exchange for Bulgaria joining Yugoslavia as a republic. Although this idea applied to WWII, I think a similar thing could very well have happened following WWI as well.

Serbs agree to cede Macedonia to Bulgaria, and Bulgaria agrees to join Yugoslavia following WWI. Moreover there is a very good chance that if Bulgaria joined, Serbs would be forced to consider a federal constitutional system for the country following the war, rather than the centralist one they rammed through parliament in 1921 thus alienating the Croats and creating huge problems for the country throughout the interwar period. In my opinion, if Serbia gave up Macedonia, it would then have to be compensated by being given Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well Southern Dalmatia around the area of Dubrovnik, to gain a more significant coastline. Serbia would also be given Vojvodina and Montenegro (which united with Serbia anyway following WWI). Croatia would then consist of Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia (thus allowing Croats to achieve their centuries old dream of re-establishing the Triune Kingdom) while the Slovenes would make up the fourth unite in the area north of the country.

The potential problems would concern accepting Belgrade as the capital city, and also the restive Albanian population in Kosovo. But overall it could prove be more stable.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by miguelrj

I knew about the post-WW2 proposal (which is interesting on its own) but I wanted to know about the viability of a post-WW1 Greater Yugoslavia also to play on how it'd go in the interwar and in WW2.

On demographics. If one considers Montegrins as Serbs (as they were considered back then) and Slavic Macedonians as Bulgarians (as Bulgarians hoped) then we have an even 1:1:1 proportion (Serbs : Bulgarians : Everyone else).

Good for the Croats, perhaps? Would the Serbs embrace the idea of creating a Yugoslavia that they couldn't outright dominate? Would Bulgarians fiercely resist annexation to a Belgrade-based state or could they eventually accept the whole "South Slav" thing?

After WW1 for it to work, you need a credible protector to help set it up. In an Entente win, this means the Tsar has to survive, so Russia can help mediate on all the nationalistic issues like language and religion. And for it to work here, it better be one of Russia top 2-5 diplomats in skill.

Or in a CP win, you have a Bulgaria that gets a lot more Slavic land. This is what I am doing in my ATL, but this is probably not what you wanted to discuss.

[Dementor]

There is very little chance of Bulgaria joining Yugoslavia after WWI. Losing independence would be extremely unpopular, especially to an enemy like Serbia but even. Even if the Bulgarian leadership is somehow persuaded to agree, they would demand that the Bulgarians in Macedonia (the majority at the time) be given the right of self-determination - which would be completely unacceptable to Serbia. And I doubt that the Entente would agree to Serbia annexing Bulgaria. In any case, I doubt that the Serbs would want their influence reduced by including a country bigger than theirs into Yugoslavia.

That Bulgaria almost joined Yugoslavia after WWII was only possible because it was led by Georgi Dimitrov, an internationalist for had accepted as an orthodox communist the Comintern idea on a separate Macedonian nationality and who was strictly following Stalin's orders to create such a nationality. Nothing like that would be possible after WWI.

And while this is going off topic, Bulgaria joining Yugoslavia would not make it more likely for Yugoslavia to survive, as there is no reason to believe that the Bulgarians would not want independence at some point, especially considering the extremely unfavorable conditions under which Bulgaria was to enter.

Originally Posted by yugo91aesop

I created a whole thread on this topic about Bulgaria's possible inclusion into Yugoslavia following WWII. If anyone is interested just search greater yugoslavia and it should pop up. Basically, my argument was as follows:

The main reason Bulgaria has failed to historically unite with the the rest of the South Slavs is that Bulgaria has insisted on an equal union between itself and the rest of Yugoslavia, rather than losing its sovereignty and becoming simply Yugoslavia's 7th republic. However Bulgaria has historically also always claimed Macedonia as its own with Macedonians simply speaking a Western Bulgarian dialect. My proposal following WWII was therefore this: Tito would make Macedonia an autonomous province of Bulgaria, thus achieving the centuries old national dreams of Bulgarians, in exchange for Bulgaria joining Yugoslavia as a republic. Although this idea applied to WWII, I think a similar thing could very well have happened following WWI as well.

Serbs agree to cede Macedonia to Bulgaria, and Bulgaria agrees to join Yugoslavia following WWI. Moreover there is a very good chance that if Bulgaria joined, Serbs would be forced to consider a federal constitutional system for the country following the war, rather than the centralist one they rammed through parliament in 1921 thus alienating the Croats and creating huge problems for the country throughout the interwar period. In my opinion, if Serbia gave up Macedonia, it would then have to be compensated by being given Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well Southern Dalmatia around the area of Dubrovnik, to gain a more significant coastline. Serbia would also be given Vojvodina and Montenegro (which united with Serbia anyway following WWI). Croatia would then consist of Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia (thus allowing Croats to achieve their centuries old dream of re-establishing the Triune Kingdom) while the Slovenes would make up the fourth unite in the area north of the country.

The potential problems would concern accepting Belgrade as the capital city, and also the restive Albanian population in Kosovo. But overall it could prove be more stable.

This scenario seems possible after WWII, but after WWI is a different matter. Consider that by 1918 Serbia had fought Bulgaria twice in the last five years over Macedonia. It seems very unlikely that they would agree to surrender it peacefully. Also, Bulgaria with Macedonia would be the largest component of this alt-Yugoslavia and I don't think the Serbs would want to play a secondary role in a country they created.