A Western Yugoslavia?

All right guys, I have been puzzling over on whether Yugoslavia could survive to modern times when I bega looking back and had a thought.

What if it was the Western allies (US, French, British) who were occupying Yugoslavia insead of the Soviets? Say internal affairs in Nazi Germany made things much worse for them and Barborossa was delayed by several months.

Could Yugoslavia if someone besides Tito was elected? What could NATO do to ensure Yugoslavia could stay together?
 

Deleted member 1487

All right guys, I have been puzzling over on whether Yugoslavia could survive to modern times when I bega looking back and had a thought.

What if it was the Western allies (US, French, British) who were occupying Yugoslavia insead of the Soviets? Say internal affairs in Nazi Germany made things much worse for them and Barborossa was delayed by several months.

Could Yugoslavia if someone besides Tito was elected? What could NATO do to ensure Yugoslavia could stay together?
Arguably Yugoslavia was 'western' IOTL in that it remained independent of the USSR's bloc and was mostly liberated by it's own forces. The problem for Yugoslavia was that it was an artificially created 'greater Serbia' and alienated the non-Serb groups and the state was breaking down as the Germans invaded in 1941. Yes the occupation made things worse and effectively as a civil war at the same time as it was a national struggle for liberation against and occupier, but in the end it really was Tito that held the rickety structure together by force. Having western troops move in after the war isn't going to fix things and if anything might well result is a breakup after the war rather than it being held together by the force of a strongman. I don't necessarily even think it was in the interest of NATO to try and keep it together and frankly wasn't really in the interest of the peoples of the Yugoslav state to stay together at that point given that the post-WW1 experiment no longer had the anti-Habsburg fervor papering over the major divisions within the kingdom in 1919.

Frankly IMHO after WW2 the only way it stays together into modern times is by dictatorship and force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia#Post-World_War_II_period
 
Arguably Yugoslavia was 'western' IOTL in that it remained independent of the USSR's bloc and was mostly liberated by it's own forces. The problem for Yugoslavia was that it was an artificially created 'greater Serbia' and alienated the non-Serb groups and the state was breaking down as the Germans invaded in 1941. Yes the occupation made things worse and effectively as a civil war at the same time as it was a national struggle for liberation against and occupier, but in the end it really was Tito that held the rickety structure together by force. Having western troops move in after the war isn't going to fix things and if anything might well result is a breakup after the war rather than it being held together by the force of a strongman. I don't necessarily even think it was in the interest of NATO to try and keep it together and frankly wasn't really in the interest of the peoples of the Yugoslav state to stay together at that point given that the post-WW1 experiment no longer had the anti-Habsburg fervor papering over the major divisions within the kingdom in 1919.

Frankly IMHO after WW2 the only way it stays together into modern times is by dictatorship and force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia#Post-World_War_II_period

Well, it was non-aligned rather than western. Here, they’d be part of NATO official and rebuilt by the Marshal Plan.

Those are a lot of good points.

Hmm... what about a Yugoslavia without Serbia? Say Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina together and Serbia seperate?
 
The 1. Yugoslavia was pro-Western, but that actually doomed it, as its patron (UK) organized a coup that ensured Hitler would wreck Yugoslavia. America probably wanted to try and flip the entire 2. Yugoslavia over to capitalism, but ethnic tensions were going to bring the place down, and holding everything together was extremely unlikely.

Even just Croatia and Slovenia together in 1 South-Slavic state wouldn't work well. Maybe if a partial A-H revival were possible, then a functional state would arise, improving the life of Slovenes and Croats. Staying with Serbs was becoming dangerous.
 

Deleted member 1487

Well, it was non-aligned rather than western. Here, they’d be part of NATO official and rebuilt by the Marshal Plan.

Those are a lot of good points.

Hmm... what about a Yugoslavia without Serbia? Say Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina together and Serbia seperate?
Yes I know it was non-aligned, I'm saying functionally it was basically not Soviet dominated and relatively free to chart it's own course; being a Western puppet wouldn't have made ANYTHING better and probably would have broken up the country far sooner than it was able to keep going under Tito.
Dude, Yugoslavia got Marshall Plan aid IOTL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito–Stalin_Split
Tito used the estrangement from the USSR to obtain US aid via the Marshall Plan, as well as to found the Non-Aligned Movement, in which Yugoslavia was a leading force.[11]

There is also no Yugoslavia without Serbia. Nothing is holding all the smaller states together. Just perhaps a Slovene-Croat state to stay separate from the rest of the Southern Slav states (shared Catholic heritage under the Habsburgs, separate from the Eastern Orthodox cultures to their south, as well as the Muslim Bosnians), but that's about all that could be managed. Maybe a Bosnian-Serb state, but that would involve a lot of repression I'd think.
 
There is also no Yugoslavia without Serbia. Nothing is holding all the smaller states together. Just perhaps a Slovene-Croat state to stay separate from the rest of the Southern Slav states (shared Catholic heritage under the Habsburgs, separate from the Eastern Orthodox cultures to their south, as well as the Muslim Bosnians), but that's about all that could be managed. Maybe a Bosnian-Serb state, but that would involve a lot of repression I'd think.

I was just curious to see if anything could’ve worked. Thanks for the assistance.

Though I’m picture all of them unified in mutual fear of an USSR puppet Serbia, but I doubt that’s feasible.
 
Have the Tito-Stalin split be even sourer and the Yugoslavs opt to join NATO in response.

Stalin pushes the border to the Danube and grabs eastern Slovenia (the bit Hungary annexed during the war) as well. The spoils are divided between Hungary and Romania and refugees are Serb, Croatian, and Slovene. Yugoslav identity is strengthened due to the common threat of the Soviets and the Yugoslav capital is moved to the cosmopolitan Sarajevo away from the border (and very Serb) city of Belgrade.

Boundary marked below, with the divide between Romanian and Hungarian spoils marked as well.

upload_2018-12-5_11-27-59.png
 
Last edited:
Have the Tito-Stalin split be even sourer and the Yugoslavs opt to join NATO in response.

Stalin pushes the border to the Danube and grabs eastern Slovenia (the bit Hungary annexed during the war) as well. The spoils are divided between Hungary and Romania and refugees are Serb, Croatian, and Slovene. Yugoslav identity is strengthened due to the common threat of the Soviets and the Yugoslav capital is moved to the cosmopolitan Sarajevo away from the border (and very Serb) city of Belgrade.

Boundary marked below, with the divide between Romanian and Hungarian spoils marked as well.

Hmmm... that's an interesting idea though it probably would not last when the Cold War was over though,
 
Yugoslavia's ethnic tensions only happened as a result of its financial problems. The economy was dependent on IMF loans, Yugoslavia wouldn't even be able to pay the principal amount, let alone the interest by the '80s.
Hyperinflation and unemployment above 10% during the '80s, even with 1/5 of the workforce living in other countries as foreign workers, discredited the political system and radicalized the populace towards nationalists on both sides. The central government lost fiscal control over the republics, and politics devolved into national arguments about who "stole" from who. The Economy of Tito's Yugoslavia: Delaying the Inevitable Collapse addresses Yugoslavia's postwar economic history very well.

Yugoslavia would've needed a capitalist market economy to survive. Pre-war the King was about to give the Croats and Slovenes autonomous Banovinas, a similar framework could've worked postwar.

Yugoslavia is probably the only nation that would have benefited from being in the axis during WW2. Without the 1941 coup, Yugoslavia been an axis minor to provide natural resources for the German war machine, or minor troop contributions as with Hungary and Slovakia. German influence on Italy and the axis minors would prevent a total partition of an alt-Axis Yugoslavia as in OTL, and the Kingdom would suffer at most at third Vienna award that leaves the Serbo-Croatian core intact (preventing Jasenovac, the NDH, and the bulk of the civil war).

Yugoslavia may even have been neutral on the eastern front as Bulgaria was, or pulled an Italy and switched sides once the writing was on the wall.
YU Debt 1961 - 1980.png

YU Trade Deficit.png
 
Yugoslavia's ethnic tensions only happened as a result of its financial problems. The economy was dependent on IMF loans, Yugoslavia wouldn't even be able to pay the principal amount, let alone the interest by the '80s.

Hyperinflation and unemployment above 10% during the '80s, even with 1/5 of the workforce living in other countries as foreign workers, discredited the political system and radicalized the populace towards nationalists on both sides. The central government lost fiscal control over the republics, and politics devolved into national arguments about who "stole" from who. The Economy of Tito's Yugoslavia: Delaying the Inevitable Collapse addresses Yugoslavia's postwar economic history very well.

Yugoslavia would've needed a capitalist market economy to survive. Pre-war the King was about to give the Croats and Slovenes autonomous Banovinas, a similar framework could've worked postwar.

Yugoslavia is probably the only nation that would have benefited from being in the axis during WW2. Without the 1941 coup, Yugoslavia been an axis minor to provide natural resources for the German war machine, or minor troop contributions as with Hungary and Slovakia. German influence on Italy and the axis minors would prevent a total partition of an alt-Axis Yugoslavia as in OTL, and the Kingdom would suffer at most at third Vienna award that leaves the Serbo-Croatian core intact (preventing Jasenovac, the NDH, and the bulk of the civil war).

Well, here, the financialy problems wouldn't exist because Tito would not be in power. Furthermore, maybe a better Marshall plan could patch some of the cracks.

On the other hand, Yugoslavia would not fare well being under the Axis. They would either become puppet states or the people screwed over given the Nazi ideology regarding the slavic peoples. Furthermore, if the Nazis back the Serbian nationalists over everyone else, it would just unite the rest of the Southern Slavic states against Serbia.

Though, that could still happen if Serbia fell to Communism and the the others were in NATO.
 
Well, here, the financialy problems wouldn't exist because Tito would not be in power. Furthermore, maybe a better Marshall plan could patch some of the cracks.

On the other hand, Yugoslavia would not fare well being under the Axis. They would either become puppet states or the people screwed over given the Nazi ideology regarding the slavic peoples. Furthermore, if the Nazis back the Serbian nationalists over everyone else, it would just unite the rest of the Southern Slavic states against Serbia.

Though, that could still happen if Serbia fell to Communism and the the others were in NATO.
An axis Yugoslavia would be like a larger Bulgaria in some ways. Bulgaria joined the axis to get border areas from Romania, Yugoslavia, and Greece. Bulgaria is a slavic and still very Russia-Friendly country today after the Czar helped win them independence in the 1880s. Bulgaria was an axis member OTL, but never declared war on the Soviet Union or participated in Barbarossa, and could've switched sides Italy-style. The Bulgarian government put out diplomatic messages about its willingness to switch sides as soon as allied (non-Soviet) troops reached its borders.

An Axis Yugoslavia would probably be exploited for natural resources at below market prices, with a tug of war between Germany and Italy for economic and geopolitical influence. In this scenario, Bulgaria might've only grabbed territory from Romania and Greece, or remained neutral during the war. Nazi ideology was very arbitrary, they made occupied poland hell on earth, but had slavic countries like Croatia and Bulgaria in the axis. The Kingdom's military was nothing to write home about, at most they might've been on rearguard occupation duty to free up German soldiers for the frontline

If Churchill's mediterranean strategy had been implemented OTL, Bulgaria, Albania, and much of southern yugoslavia (South Yugoslavia/Free Yugoslavia?) would probably be in the western orbit during the Cold War.
 
An axis Yugoslavia would be like a larger Bulgaria in some ways. Bulgaria joined the axis to get border areas from Romania, Yugoslavia, and Greece. Bulgaria is a slavic and still very Russia-Friendly country today after the Czar helped win them independence in the 1880s. Bulgaria was an axis member OTL, but never declared war on the Soviet Union or participated in Barbarossa, and could've switched sides Italy-style. The Bulgarian government put out diplomatic messages about its willingness to switch sides as soon as allied (non-Soviet) troops reached its borders.

An Axis Yugoslavia would probably be exploited for natural resources at below market prices, with a tug of war between Germany and Italy for economic and geopolitical influence. In this scenario, Bulgaria might've only grabbed territory from Romania and Greece, or remained neutral during the war. Nazi ideology was very arbitrary, they made occupied poland hell on earth, but had slavic countries like Croatia and Bulgaria in the axis. The Kingdom's military was nothing to write home about, at most they might've been on rearguard occupation duty to free up German soldiers for the frontline

If Churchill's mediterranean strategy had been implemented OTL, Bulgaria, Albania, and much of southern yugoslavia (South Yugoslavia/Free Yugoslavia?) would probably be in the western orbit during the Cold War.

Not to mention the attacks on the Romani, the Jews and so on, so an Axis Yugoslavia would probably be held accountable for these actions if they were captured by the West.

Though that's not what I am trying to figure out.
 
Not to mention the attacks on the Romani, the Jews and so on, so an Axis Yugoslavia would probably be held accountable for these actions if they were captured by the West.

Though that's not what I am trying to figure out.
Avoiding communist rule will probable head off the possibilities of a total collapse that happened in the late '80s, but the nationalities question still leaves several different approaches.

The economy would be similar in some ways but very different in others. Jobs in construction rebuilding West Germany in the '60s can't be exported to other countries, but the geographic proximity and wage differential would make Yugoslavia an attractive source of foreign investment and outsourcing for heaving industry, manufacturing, etc.

OTL, about a fifth of the working age population in Yugoslavia left the country as economic migrants to send remittances home, but ATL either less would leave have to leave in the first place or they return as Yugoslavia develops.

For the sake of simplicity I'm assuming there are no Benes decree population transfers that expel Albanian muslims from Kosovo or try to turn mixed areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina into ethnically homogenous regions.

Yugoslavia's government could take a more centralist approach with a series of ethnically neutral banovinas, or an ethnic federalist approach closer to OTL. A mix of both is also possible with Catalan style autonomy for clearly distinct nations like the Macedonians and Slovenes, but treats Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks as one Serbo-Croatian core population of different faiths.
 
Last edited:
Top