AH challenge: Yugoslavia survives to the present day?
- Thread starter ArKhan
- Start date
Thread been going around suggesting EEC membership but I think IMF loans would be required, or less neoliberal pressure.
If the economic conditions are bettered, then there is likely less social strife, although the union may have to be renegotiated at some point to lessen Serbian dominance. A good portion of the economic concerns are Americentric in source, so despite it being about saving Yugoslavia a change in US policy is probably needed, somehow.
How early a POD are you looking for?
If the economic conditions are bettered, then there is likely less social strife, although the union may have to be renegotiated at some point to lessen Serbian dominance. A good portion of the economic concerns are Americentric in source, so despite it being about saving Yugoslavia a change in US policy is probably needed, somehow.
How early a POD are you looking for?
I've always wondered if Yugoslavia could have survived had it actually started to collapse sooner. 
Think about it...
Tito died in 1980 and the slow decline of the federal government starts. In OTL it didn't really come into play until 1989 when Slobo geve his infamous "None shall beat you again" speech in Kosovo. by then the Soviet Union was already on its last leg and had pulled out of most of Eastern Europe. But what if someone gave a speech like that several years earlier.
Let's say in 1985 an ambitious Serbian or Croatian politician pulls a "Kosovo Polje" type speech that rocks the central government.
Let's say this politician is Serbian. He starts calling for "democracy" in Yugoslavia. Thing is, to him democracy means "one man, one vote" and an end to the ethnic republics that the communists "shoved down everyone's throats" after WW2. He also calls for religious freedom and is very vocal in his Orthodox faith.
What is interesting in this scenario is that if this politician survives in 1985 without getting removed from office or arrested, he could single handedly turn Yugoslavia into another Angola. A cold war battlefield. The West had very little understanding of the underlying ethnic makeup (and tensions) in Yugoslavia in the 1980s (and even in the 1990s unfortunatly) so I could see the US suddenly coming out in strong support of this Serb nationalist who wraps his nationalist rhetoric with keywords like "democracy" and "an end to the communist dictatorship". If a civil war breaks out in 1985 it is likely that the USSR would not want to get involved directly (they were already trying to pull out of Eastern Europe). They probably would support one side with foreign and military aid however. The Americans would then support the other side (in this instance the Serbs). The Serb nationalist then "sieze" the central government in Serbia, take over the Yugoslav military, and then move on the other republics to "spread democracy". The Americans never look at it as anything more than "democracy versus communism" and continue to support the Serbs who eventually overrun the rest of the country. They end the federation, declaring the "Republic of Yugoslavia". After the fall of communism in the USSR in 1991 Yugoslavia is able to survive as a unified nation. A nation with serious ethnic strife, but it survives nonetheless.
Clearly a lot has to go right/wrong for this to happen. I really don't know if Yugoslavia could ever supress Slovenia if a war broke out. But I still could see that scenario possibly playing out if everything fell into place.
Think about it...
Tito died in 1980 and the slow decline of the federal government starts. In OTL it didn't really come into play until 1989 when Slobo geve his infamous "None shall beat you again" speech in Kosovo. by then the Soviet Union was already on its last leg and had pulled out of most of Eastern Europe. But what if someone gave a speech like that several years earlier.
Let's say in 1985 an ambitious Serbian or Croatian politician pulls a "Kosovo Polje" type speech that rocks the central government.
Let's say this politician is Serbian. He starts calling for "democracy" in Yugoslavia. Thing is, to him democracy means "one man, one vote" and an end to the ethnic republics that the communists "shoved down everyone's throats" after WW2. He also calls for religious freedom and is very vocal in his Orthodox faith.
What is interesting in this scenario is that if this politician survives in 1985 without getting removed from office or arrested, he could single handedly turn Yugoslavia into another Angola. A cold war battlefield. The West had very little understanding of the underlying ethnic makeup (and tensions) in Yugoslavia in the 1980s (and even in the 1990s unfortunatly) so I could see the US suddenly coming out in strong support of this Serb nationalist who wraps his nationalist rhetoric with keywords like "democracy" and "an end to the communist dictatorship". If a civil war breaks out in 1985 it is likely that the USSR would not want to get involved directly (they were already trying to pull out of Eastern Europe). They probably would support one side with foreign and military aid however. The Americans would then support the other side (in this instance the Serbs). The Serb nationalist then "sieze" the central government in Serbia, take over the Yugoslav military, and then move on the other republics to "spread democracy". The Americans never look at it as anything more than "democracy versus communism" and continue to support the Serbs who eventually overrun the rest of the country. They end the federation, declaring the "Republic of Yugoslavia". After the fall of communism in the USSR in 1991 Yugoslavia is able to survive as a unified nation. A nation with serious ethnic strife, but it survives nonetheless.
Clearly a lot has to go right/wrong for this to happen. I really don't know if Yugoslavia could ever supress Slovenia if a war broke out. But I still could see that scenario possibly playing out if everything fell into place.
I seem to vaguely recall that the US under Reagan targeted Yugoslavia for internal regime change in the mid-80s by toughening up the previous trade and loan agreement terms which up until that point they had been freely dealing with both East and West. Considering that they had already moved from more orthodox forms of socialist economy to worker self-management perhaps someone convinces the US government that in light of this and their status as a non-aligned state it's better to keep trading and continuing to nudge towards a more free market over time?
It's honestly a much better bet to get Dukakis to beat Bush than to get Reagan-Bush to stop their attempt to ruin communist Yugoslavia. That way the IMF won't be as likely to ruin Yugoslavia.
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
Which Yugoslavia are you talking about? Tito's Yugoslavia or Royal Yugoslavia? Because with Royal Yugoslavia, you could also have Dusan Simovic's coup against Prince Paul fail, leading to Yugoslavia as a co-belligerent on the Axis side. If it was Tito's Yugoslavia though, not seeking IMF loans would be a start. The IMF loans was the first nail in Red Yugoslavia's coffin.
Isn't a willing Axis Yugoslavia probably just going to get cut up by the allies post war?
Yugoslavia surviving to present day isn't impossible but it requires a major PoD. After ~1980 I can't even imagine what it would take.
The version of the Tripartite Pact treaty signed by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was actually little more than a declaration of neutrality. Hitler had no real need for Yugoslav military assistance, but he didn't want a wild card in the region that could potentially aid the French/British, so he accepted some arguably outrageous demands by the Yugoslav diplomats.
The final text of the protocol stated that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia wouldn't have to send troops to aid the Axis war effort, and that it wouldn't even have to allow troops of other Axis countries to be transported across its territory.
So as an Axis member in name only, it would be much less likely to be carved up than an "active" Axis country, especially if it pulled something like Italy, switching to the Allies once the nazis start clearly losing the war.
The version of the Tripartite Pact treaty signed by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was actually little more than a declaration of neutrality. Hitler had no real need for Yugoslav military assistance, but he didn't want a wild card in the region that could potentially aid the French/British, so he accepted some arguably outrageous demands by the Yugoslav diplomats.
The final text of the protocol stated that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia wouldn't have to send troops to aid the Axis war effort, and that it wouldn't even have to allow troops of other Axis countries to be transported across its territory.
So as an Axis member in name only, it would be much less likely to be carved up than an "active" Axis country, especially if it pulled something like Italy, switching to the Allies once the nazis start clearly losing the war.
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
Wasn't Royal Yugoslavia offered Salonika if they joined the Axis Powers though, or is this a misconception?
It's partially true. Germany offered to (quote from the Treaty of March 27th) "give due weight to Yugoslavia's interests for a connection to the Aegean Sea" through Thessaloniki, but that's a very vague promise. From what I've read, it most likely meant that Yugoslavia's "free trade zone" in Thessaloniki would be kept even after the Axis occupation of the city.
So it's commercial privileges, not outright annexation of Thessaloniki, although with a vaguely worded agreement like that you can never know.