Possibility of avoiding Yugoslavia's breakup?

[damande]

Hello together!

These days I have been thinking if there would be any possibility (and reason) for avoiding the violent yugoslavian breakup at the beginning of the 90s. What do you think? Nonsense? Possible?
There's the idea of a new post-socialist Yugoslavia in my head with a political system kind of influenced by Switzerland.

At the same moment, what if instead of Yugoslavia Romania collapses into civil war over ethnic tensions between hungarians and romanians.

I'm really looking forward to your thoughts about this scenario of mine!

 

[Magyarország]

I don't see why it would be impossible. From my understanding of the breakup, it seems that if you can somehow reduce the swing to the right after Tito's death and fight back the resurgent militant nationalism, it should be possible, especially in Serbia and Croatia. It's all possible in my opinion, but it depends on who's in charge of which republic (especially Serbia) and how they react to the growinh discontent and, especially, Kosovo, which will be complicated whatever happens.

Honestly, ethnic tension between Hungarians (and Szeklers) and Romaniand very nearly caused a war. I don't remember the details, but ethnic riots and crime soared in 1989-91. If nationalists take over Romania earlier and without support from the Magyars (which they had iOTL I believe to oust Ceaucescu) while ultranationalists in Hungary take over post-1989 and decide to revive the whole Transylvania issue once more and it can happen. Is it likely? Not really. The nationalists in '89 were quite moderate by then and the far-right relatively weak (especially compared to nowadays...) so unless the problems in Transylvania suddenly errupt way, way worse than iOTL and utranationalists swoop into power in both countries in response... it would be hard to believe.

I'm sure there's someone with a much, much better grasp of Romanian history that can help with that, though it's still a rather touchy subject from what I've read.

 

[damande]

The question would be somehow where the POD is set. A main factor in the development as it has been seems to be the inefficient political system after Tito's death. So would establishing a stronger president, who is not changed yearly, maybe as soon as 1980 ease the situation in Yu? Or does one need to go even back to an earlier point in time? Or would it be realistic (I have doubts about that!) to let Yugoslavia see the 90s with it's crisis fully grown, and then maybe, before certain events, Milošević is hit by a truck leading to someone more moderate taking over?

I also seecertain difficulties concerning economics.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

You could go back a ways and not overthrow the king. Kings, while I find them repulsive, tend to go a long way in holding nations together merely by existing. Yugoslavia's problem is that ultimately it can't exist without Tito, or a similar headman of charismatic importance (e.g. a king). Too many literal blood feuds between all the various peoples that make it up.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Better yet don't set up 3 different nationalities that hate each others guts in a single country.

 

[Alexander the Average]

You could go back a ways and not overthrow the king. Kings, while I find them repulsive, tend to go a long way in holding nations together merely by existing. Yugoslavia's problem is that ultimately it can't exist without Tito, or a similar headman of charismatic importance (e.g. a king). Too many literal blood feuds between all the various peoples that make it up.

I don't know. I can't help but think that keeping the Serbian monarchy in place would do more to alienate the various non-Serbian nationalities.

 

[damande]

I wonder if the idea of a yugoslavian confederation as proposed from the croatian side might somehow have worked... The question for me is how much power would be left to the central government in Belgrade, and if a confederation would not be too loose.

Anyhow, if this scenario is to work out, I need to think of a way to introduce at least elements of free market economy much earlier then the Yugoslavians did, because the whole economy there seems to have been through not later than at the beginning of the 80s.

 

[Halagaz]

As for the monarchy...on one hand, the model of federalization adopted by the Yugoslav monarchy appears to have been more stable and sustainable than the Communist model.

On the other hand, the teenager-king who the Communists ousted in OTL was an idiot. A well-meaning idiot, maybe, and maybe he would have grown wiser and more responsible over time - but an idiot nonetheless.

So the "ideal" scenario would be to keep the monarchy and keep Yugoslavia in the western camp; but get Peter II to abdicate early in favor of his brother (or whoever). Or make him more responsible and "kingly" - but, for that, it's probably necessary to avoid the 1934 assassination of his father King Alexander. And that may or may not spawn all sorts butterflies for Yugoslavia's interwar and WW2 experience.

 

[Magyarország]

Better yet don't set up 3 different nationalities that hate each others guts in a single country.

Except that's not true. The three nationalities far from hated each other during the Tito years. It was the problems of post-Tito governments (although how many of those problems dated from the Tito years I have no idea) and responses to tge growing crises that led to a resurgence of radical ethnic nationalism, which, in turn, made old differences and issues re-appear. Milošević and his supporters massively contributed in fueling the flames and doing nothing to stop the ethnic problems.

About the monarchy: unless the PoD is much earlier, there is little chance of that. Remember how much of a failure Alexander I's rule and it's a good indication to the unwillingness of non-Serbs to commit to another monarchist Yugoslavia. None of them want another centralist Yugoslavia. Federalism is definitely the best bet, but IMO it can't work if it's purely divided in ethnic states. The redrawing of the borders would piss off everyone since it's impossible to please everyone and the land is far too mixed. There's a reason the state borders under Tito were mostly from the Austro-Hungarian era.

 

[Tito Andronicus]

Here's a thought - what if Tito's health began gradually declining in the 1970s, giving him an incentive to try and set his succession up and make sure that the political situation would remain stable after his death?

 

[rfmcdonald]

I think it would help if you had a different reform process in the late Tito era, one that did not see the main political change be the extension of local autonomy in the context of Titoist orthodoxy and--well, something else. If you could get the economics better, somehow make Yugoslavia's trajectory equivalent to that of Spain, there certainly would have been more generosity in the 1980s.

 

[Damian0358]

While the nationalities during Tito's time didn't hate each other per say, the centralist views of the Serbs continued to manifest itself, but not in the people, but rather the pro-centralist Serbs that were in the government, such as with Aleksandar Ranković, the chief of the secret police until 1966. A PoD at the very start of the formation of Tito's Yugoslavia (if not earlier during WW2) would be needed to subvert the power held by the pro-centralists. Pushing the more liberal wing of the party, including folks like Vladimir Bakarić, Petar Stambolić and Edvard Kardelj, much much earlier (early 50s rather than OTL's mid-60s) would probably go a long way in promoting the need for the "federation to federate," and from there begin further decentralization and reforms.

However, even with a PoD that pushes the federalists' views earlier and makes it what the government follows, one would still have to appease the pro-centralists in some ways. Unfortunately, the only way I could imagine that happening is by appealing them with nationalism. For instance, while most of the Kosovar Serbian refugees returned to Kosovo after fleeing the fascist Albanian government established by Italy during the war, not all of them were allowed to return. Allowing them all to return could be one move towards pacifying the pro-centralists for the time being.

Another slightly more minor point could be the appeasement of the peasants. Collectivization very much messed with the traditionally agricultural populace that lived in the former Ottoman territories, dealing a major blow to the peasants, especially the Serbs and the production of their pork. It doesn't take much to point out that the only peasant rebellion in Cold War Europe happened in Yugoslavia. Reacting during one of the minor protests that preceded the rebellion in order to get the peasants on the table, and thus get rid of collectivization completely as part of the reforms (returning land to the peasants, and if that land used to be owned by a landowner, give it to their peasants), would surely get them on the government's good side, more willing to follow its doctrines. A balance of peasant and worker would be needed in the development of the state ideology, perhaps leading to a peasants' self-management alongside workers' self-management.

 

[damande]

So, let me do a short collection of the ideas so far:

• More federalist-minded persons get into high ranks starting in the latw 50s
• This also brings about reforms, collectivization gets at least partly undone
• Maybe more free market reforms come, triggered by western loans, economic helps and co-ventures
• As Titos health declines during the 70s, he starts to build up a "crown prince". My idea of that person is, that he must be serb. A man studied in economics, but also well liked by the general public. His family suffered dzring ww2 by the ustaša, so that there can be no doubt about his strong opposition to any kind of fascism and chauvinist nationalism.

Looking forward to your thoughts and comments!

 

[Zagan]

Having the capital in a more neutral area instead of Serbia, like Sarajevo for example, might have helped a bit.

 

[Tito Andronicus]

As Titos health declines during the 70s, he starts to build up a "crown prince". My idea of that person is, that he must be serb. A man studied in economics, but also well liked by the general public. His family suffered dzring ww2 by the ustaša, so that there can be no doubt about his strong opposition to any kind of fascism and chauvinist nationalism.

Maybe Petar Stambolić? Along with Edvard Kardelj's influence to maintain some continuity (since he was always Tito's most trusted advisor, but died in 1978 and so isn't really eligible), I can see him reining in the Serbs, and stopping the growth in nationalism that happened during the 1980s. A more public role for the Slovenian Kardelj, with him stepping out from Tito's shadow a bit, might help to butterfly away Slovene nationalism as well, which IOTL was the final straw for Yugoslavia as a political idea. Having Petar Stambolić in a high position might mean that his nephew Ivan - who became Milošević's mentor - isn't as nationalist, which in turn might help to moderate Milošević as well, if he doesn't become basically irrelevant.

 

[cmakk1012]

Having the capital in a more neutral area instead of Serbia, like Sarajevo for example, might have helped a bit.

What do you mean? That's rightfully part of Serbia too!

*accordion music intensifies*



EDIT: to make a serious point, could the Soviet Union have behaved differently in a way that could have helped Yugoslavia survive?

 

[Tito Andronicus]

Sarajevo's probably still not neutral enough - maybe a purpose-built new capital, Brasilia-style, somewhere near the borders of Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia? Perhaps Brčko, or somewhere like that?

 

[damande]

Maybe Petar Stambolić?

Yes, I also have been thinking of Petar Stambolić as a possible candidate (but felt unsure because after all my knowledge about yugoslavian politics could be better).
There would be always the option to just invent some person, but I'd prefer a person that really existed. So Stambolić would be an option!

With a worthy succesor to Tito, maybe something like the events around the publishing of the SANU memorandum could, instead of being the gasoline poured on the fire, be a starter for a multi-party system in yugoslavia. I was thinking about the league of communists might engage in a real discussion after those people from SANU published their memorandum, and critizise it heavily. After some riots and back and forth, something real might come out of it and people might from the one or another position start thinking and acting.

 

[Damian0358]

Having the capital in a more neutral area instead of Serbia, like Sarajevo for example, might have helped a bit.

Sarajevo's probably still not neutral enough - maybe a purpose-built new capital, Brasilia-style, somewhere near the borders of Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia? Perhaps Brčko, or somewhere like that?

While I don't have the sources to confirm whether or not this is true, as far as I know, Sarajevo was in the running to become the capital, but they chose to stay with Belgrade for logistical and continuity reasons.

On the topic of a Brasilia-style capital, if the logistical and continuity reasons are dealt with, building a capital on the ruins of a city decimated during the war might prove handy. However, the pro-centralist Serbs would be against the very idea of moving the capital outside of Serbia. The government would have to deal with plenty of backlash if such a move was made, and it can't risk the stability of the state so early after the war.

However, let's consider the hypothetical scenario that this move is successful, how does this affect Belgrade? Having been bombed twice during the war, it developed into a major industrial center, expanding with the construction of areas such as New Belgrade, and soon after, the absorption of Zemun. While I don't doubt that Belgrade would still develop into an industrial center, I feel as though the expansion it received at this time would be slightly lessened, perhaps to the point where Zemun was still its own city.

Maybe Petar Stambolić? Along with Edvard Kardelj's influence to maintain some continuity (since he was always Tito's most trusted advisor, but died in 1978 and so isn't really eligible), I can see him reining in the Serbs, and stopping the growth in nationalism that happened during the 1980s. A more public role for the Slovenian Kardelj, with him stepping out from Tito's shadow a bit, might help to butterfly away Slovene nationalism as well, which IOTL was the final straw for Yugoslavia as a political idea. Having Petar Stambolić in a high position might mean that his nephew Ivan - who became Milošević's mentor - isn't as nationalist, which in turn might help to moderate Milošević as well, if he doesn't become basically irrelevant.

Yes, I also have been thinking of Petar Stambolić as a possible candidate (but felt unsure because after all my knowledge about yugoslavian politics could be better).
There would be always the option to just invent some person, but I'd prefer a person that really existed. So Stambolić would be an option!

Yeah, Stambolić may seem to be a great choice. But with some limited research, it seems as though a flaw of his is that he is a bit too trusting in his colleagues, seeing as he was part of the faction that supported Milošević' rise to power, at least until he revealed his true intentions to the country. So, we would need Stambolić to be more "alike Tito" in his ways. If that fails, then I guess we could start rummaging through and searching for party members of the more liberal wing.

 

[Sheliak Lawyer]

Maybe Tito would have a designated successor that can hold things together?