Yugoslav Breakup Inevitable?

Expat · Nov 19, 2014

First I must admit at the start that I've only "researched" this issue by reading wikipedia and a few other threads on AH.com.

Looking at Yugoslavia from the early 1980s onwards, I find it hard to think of a way things could have turned out differently. Is that the general consensus?

The US or the UN might've intervened more quickly to stop death or displacement, but beyond that, is it safe to say the breakup was just completely inevitable after Tito's death?

Were there other politicians who might have had a reasonable chance of finding themselves in power either in Belgrade or the various republics who might have changed things?

The consensus from earlier threads seems to be "hard-stop NO on Croatia and Slovenia," but I don't know about the rest.

I'm specifically interested in Bosnia, which has always seemed to be a very precarious state. Is "precarious state" really its best option?

abc123 · Nov 19, 2014

Well, very few things in history are inevitable. On the other hand, some things, while not inevitable, are VERY likely and some are NOT very likely.

So, I would say that breakup of Yugoslavia after Tito's death/end of Cold War is VERY likely and her survival NOT very likely.

Providing of course, that you use limited number of PODs. If you wan't to use 10 PODs and handwawe 3-4 things, than it's VERY likely that Yugoslavia will survive...

Expat · Nov 19, 2014

abc123 said:
Well, very few things in history are inevitable. On the other hand, some things, while not inevitable, are VERY likely and some are NOT very likely.

So, I would say that breakup of Yugoslavia after Tito's death/end of Cold War is VERY likely and her survival NOT very likely.

Providing of course, that you use limited number of PODs. If you wan't to use 10 PODs and handwawe 3-4 things, than it's VERY likely that Yugoslavia will survive...

And by breakup you mean the total package of new states we've got now, right?

abc123 · Nov 19, 2014

Expat said:
And by breakup you mean the total package of new states we've got now, right?

If you are asking me if some sort of Yugoslavia could be saved, some smaller variant, well evereything is possible with a good POD...

But, that will be Yugoslavia just by name, and for all intents and purposes, Greater Serbia.

Simply put, there's no REAL Yugoslavia without Croatia and Slovenia. And Croatia and Slovenia were the most eager to go.

Expat · Nov 19, 2014

abc123 said:
If you are asking me if some sort of Yugoslavia could be saved, some smaller variant, well evereything is possible with a good POD...

But, that will be Yugoslavia just by name, and for all intents and purposes, Greater Serbia.

Simply put, there's no REAL Yugoslavia without Croatia and Slovenia. And Croatia and Slovenia were the most eager to go.

Getting the picture.

What about alternate destinies for Bosnia? It sounds (and again, this is just after reading wiki) like if Serbia and Croatia had a more amiable split they might have tried to divide Bosnia between them.

abc123 · Nov 19, 2014

Expat said:
Getting the picture.

What about alternate destinies for Bosnia? It sounds (and again, this is just after reading wiki) like if Serbia and Croatia had a more amiable split they might have tried to divide Bosnia between them.

Certainly a possibility...

TheBrunswickian · Nov 19, 2014

Nothing is inevitable.

Yugoslavia could be saved. The only problem is that the Serbians were given too much power, according to the Croats, Slovenes and Bosniaks. If Kosovo was to become a republic of the same status as the other six, then Serbian power would be reduced and there is a greater chance of survival. I think that Serbia should have relinquished control over Kosovo and allowed for Vojvodina to have some sort of voting independence in the Federal Government. Also, if Yugoslavia reformed its structure to act as an effective Yugoslav Confederation, giving the management of internal affairs to the constituent republics and having a committee to deal with Yugoslavia's external affairs, then Yugoslavia might have been saved.

Damascius · Nov 19, 2014

1) Tudjman and Milosevic carved up Bosnia repeatedly. The persistence of the Bosnians to lie down and die put paid to that.

2) Certain currents in Yugoslavian history could have been fixed - a more centralised federal structure (federal republics unable to take out loans from the IMF) would have actually saved the country to a degree. The precipitous drop in living standards in YU could have been avoided by that. Remove the living standards imbalance and you would likely see less shit with the Croats and Slovenes feeling like they are being taxed to pay for white elephants in Serbia.

3) I'd argue the usual butterfly the leaders wouldn't work. Kardelj and Tito are to blame for this to be honest.

My external drive is out of range, but I did 2 semesters of classes on the Breakup of Yugoslavia, so I can pull some material. Look into Sabrina Ramet and Vladimir Dordevic online though. They're both pretty well regarded and good sources.

Green Painting · Nov 19, 2014

Unless you make the Croats feel that the continual existence of Yugoslavia serves their interests.

Maybe less economic disparity between Serbia and Croatia.

Great Laxit · Nov 19, 2014

Is a more partial breakup possible?

Croatia, Slovenia and Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina form Western Yugoslavia, and Serbia, RS, Montenegro and Macedonia form Eastern Yugoslavia?

abc123 · Nov 20, 2014

Kaisermuffin said:
1) Tudjman and Milosevic carved up Bosnia repeatedly. The persistence of the Bosnians to lie down and die put paid to that.

2) Certain currents in Yugoslavian history could have been fixed - a more centralised federal structure (federal republics unable to take out loans from the IMF) would have actually saved the country to a degree. The precipitous drop in living standards in YU could have been avoided by that. Remove the living standards imbalance and you would likely see less shit with the Croats and Slovenes feeling like they are being taxed to pay for white elephants in Serbia.

3) I'd argue the usual butterfly the leaders wouldn't work. Kardelj and Tito are to blame for this to be honest.

My external drive is out of range, but I did 2 semesters of classes on the Breakup of Yugoslavia, so I can pull some material. Look into Sabrina Ramet and Vladimir Dordevic online though. They're both pretty well regarded and good sources.

1) If Milošević has left Croatia alone and THEN started to negotiate with Tuđman about dividing the Bosnia and Herzegovina, that thing would be settled easily and no resistance from Muslims could change anything there.
Trouble for Milošević is that he wanted both parts of Croatia and whole Bosnia-Hercegovina.

2) Nonsence. Any more centralism in Yugoslavia just helps to those in Croatia and Slovenia ( and Albanians in Kosovo too ) to feel that they were bossed by Belgrade and that things would go much better without Belgrade. After all, first Yugoslavia was centralised, and we know how that ended- even Hitler & Mussolini were better for Croats than centralised Yugoslavia...
Simply put, centralism ALLWAYS is good for largest nation, and that were the Serbs. And, in general, what is good for Serbs, it's bad for Croats and Slovenes. And all other Yugoslav nations too. And that's bad for Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia CAN ( can, not necesarry WILL ) survive if only Serbs are not happy, but it can't survive if all others are not happy.

abc123 · Nov 20, 2014

Roman E said:
Is a more partial breakup possible?

Croatia, Slovenia and Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina form Western Yugoslavia, and Serbia, RS, Montenegro and Macedonia form Eastern Yugoslavia?

Federation/RS are post war things, so we can't speak about them in this context.

Also, name Yugoslavia was so hated in Croatia and Slovenia in 1990s that they had greater chance of taking name of Austria-Hungary than Yugoslavia...

Expat · Nov 20, 2014

Glad this is leading to a discussion!

I feel I should mention (since it's a sensitive topic) that I'm not "rooting" for Yugoslavia to stay together. It's more that this particular historical issue is hard to see in "alternate" terms. Scenarios on the board set during the 80s/90s always seem to end with the same map down in the Balkans, know what I mean?

(You might see a Kosovo-Albania merger here and there, but otherwise no change.)

Angel Heart · Nov 23, 2014

Expat said:
First I must admit at the start that I've only "researched" this issue by reading wikipedia and a few other threads on AH.com.

Looking at Yugoslavia from the early 1980s onwards, I find it hard to think of a way things could have turned out differently. Is that the general consensus?

The US or the UN might've intervened more quickly to stop death or displacement, but beyond that, is it safe to say the breakup was just completely inevitable after Tito's death?

Were there other politicians who might have had a reasonable chance of finding themselves in power either in Belgrade or the various republics who might have changed things?

The consensus from earlier threads seems to be "hard-stop NO on Croatia and Slovenia," but I don't know about the rest.

I'm specifically interested in Bosnia, which has always seemed to be a very precarious state. Is "precarious state" really its best option?

Nah. If after Tito's death an economic system would have been implemented that didn't artificially extend it's lifespan by committing autocannibalism and if the right people had been put in place to solve long standing issues, dissolution - or at least a war - doesn't seem that inevitable anymore.

Falecius · Nov 23, 2014

abc123 said:
Also, name Yugoslavia was so hated in Croatia and Slovenia in 1990s that they had greater chance of taking name of Austria-Hungary than Yugoslavia...

When did it begin to go that way?
I understand that it was largely about the economy going flushing down the toilet fast in the late Eighties, plus an embarrassing amount of toxic nationalism being floated around by all sides all along the decade.
Were there deeper unfixable issues? (To be clear, I know that there were deeper issues, but how relevant were they to the average Croat, Slovene or Serb by, say, 1986?).

machine3589 · Nov 23, 2014

Falecius said:
When did it begin to go that way?
I understand that it was largely about the economy going flushing down the toilet fast in the late Eighties, plus an embarrassing amount of toxic nationalism being floated around by all sides all along the decade.
Were there deeper unfixable issues? (To be clear, I know that there were deeper issues, but how relevant were they to the average Croat, Slovene or Serb by, say, 1986?).

Yes, there were much deeper issues. Many of which aren`t solved even to this day. As a personal example, my family was constantly blacklisted by the communist government because we had the "wrong" surname. There was a huge part of the Croatian population that had very personal, very negative experiences with Yugoslavia that were not economical in nature.

TheBrunswickian · Nov 23, 2014

abc123 said:
Also, name Yugoslavia was so hated in Croatia and Slovenia in 1990s that they had greater chance of taking name of Austria-Hungary than Yugoslavia...

Wasn't that just because Croatia and Slovenia had violently split from Yugoslavia in 1991 and were at war (or at least Croatia was) until 1995. The JNA committed mass atrocities in Croatia particularly and backed the violent VRS in Bosnia.

abc123 · Nov 24, 2014

Angel Heart said:
Nah. If after Tito's death an economic system would have been implemented that didn't artificially extend it's lifespan by committing autocannibalism and if the right people had been put in place to solve long standing issues, dissolution - or at least a war - doesn't seem that inevitable anymore.

Trouble is, Tito's economy relied on three things:

a) massive US aid ( I forgot now how many billions they recieved as gift from US in 50s-70s )

b) Cold War and ability to blackmail both sides to get aid

c) using money produced by Croatia, Slovenia and Vojvodina to finance things in Serbia Proper, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro etc.

With end of Cold War, a) and b) things ended. And Croats and Slovenes were more than determined not to allow c) thing anymore.

abc123 · Nov 24, 2014

TheBrunswickian said:
Wasn't that just because Croatia and Slovenia had violently split from Yugoslavia in 1991 and were at war (or at least Croatia was) until 1995. The JNA committed mass atrocities in Croatia particularly and backed the violent VRS in Bosnia.

Well, that separation didn't come out of blue... Also, these crimes didn't come out of blue.
The mere fact that in referendum in May 1991 about 94% of Croats was for leaving Yugoslavia tells you a lot. Try get that majority for anything else in modern Croatia...

The Professor · Nov 24, 2014

Would an inclusion of Bulgaria have helped?
Yugoslavia always seemed to me to be a contest between Croats and Serbs on who ran it