The Fall of Yugoslavia more or less coincided with the Fall of the Soviet Union. Both were more or less inevitable after 1985.
Funny how hardly anybody noticed that in 1985. Of course, the demise of the Sovjet empire faciliated the break-up of Yugoslavia and put additional stress on its economy. But I wouldn't say that it is a "if X then Y"-kind of causal relationship.
By being authoritarian, it wouldn't need to be.
True. But it would be a recipe for failure. Even the authority of the authoritarians can be questioned. Also, we are not dealing with the interwar period but the challenge is a surviving Yugoslavia in 1990-2010. I understand a royalist-Serbian-authoritarian regime in this context?
It is not completely unthinkable, but I cannot imagine it without civil unrest in several regions, economic stagnation and international isolation (at least concerning its European neighbours- it could foster good relations with China and Russia). Once again, Yugoslavia is neither China nor Russia.
Croatia and Slovenia immediately declare independence. The others shortly follow. "Za kralja i otadzbinu" - "for King and Fatherland," was a distinctly Serbian motto.
Well, I wouldn't have had the idea of putting a king at the helm of a surviving Yugoslavia without your input. However, would the Slovenes and Croats be in the position to do so in 1974 or 1980?
Funny that you didn't point out the paradox of a socialist kingdom.
Woah there, Vojvodina, too? Even moderate Montenegrin Serbs such as myself would be in open revolt.![]()
Why do you revolt against a blessing in disguise? In a federal framework, having another Serbian-dominated regional division just adds to your influence. You only need a Greater Serbia if you wish to secede. Period.
@Komeyta.
I agree. This kind of defense scheme means begging for trouble and greatly faciliated Crotian and Slovenian independance.