AHC: Make Yugoslavia survive to the present day.

You'd need a POD way before 1900 for that to happen. . .The Inherent Problems with Yugoslavia were underlying far before the formation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia after WWI. It's not only an ethnic issue, but a Religious and Political one as well.

Honestly the only reason they held together as long as they did was because Tito was beloved by every ethnic and religious group in the Nation. He literally WAS Yugoslavia. When he died it took a mere 11 years for it all to unravel.
 

Asami

Banned
Don't have Serbia unite with the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. The SSCS would likely form a happier 'Yugoslav' state than the original Kingdom of Yugoslavia did.
 
Don't have Serbia unite with the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. The SSCS would likely form a happier 'Yugoslav' state than the original Kingdom of Yugoslavia did.

There's not much reason to assume that the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs would make a better or more long-lived "Yugoslavia".

Even the short-term issues were huge. The State of SCS had extensive territorial disputes with Italy, and was recognized by no country except Serbia itself. It inherited a large peasant revolt in the Croatian countryside from Austria-Hungary, and had no way of dealing with it any time soon; it had nothing remotely close to a real army. In 1918, the SCS authorities were eager to unite with Serbia at least as much for practical as for ideological ones - they felt that it was urgent to "restore order" and that this could be accomplished only with the help of a foreign army (and the other major candidate, of course, was the Italian army...). Additionally, most Serbian-inhabited regions of SSCS were detaching themselves and starting to independently unite with Serbia. So even if SSCS manages to co-opt or suppress the Green revolt on their own, it's likely to be reduced to a mere Croatian-Slovenian federation. Which, depending on how things go, could work out reasonably well; but it doesn't entirely qualify as a "Yugoslavia".
 
From what I've read on this issue, there were four major issues which led to the downfall of Yugoslavia and the civil war: 1) the political structure of Yugoslavia, which established all power in Belgrade, but officially promoted nationalist identities in the several republics (offering a way for a Serbian nationalist to achieve power in the late 1980s), 2) the lack of a tribunal after WWII condemning the war crimes of all parties involved, 3) the armament and militarisation of society following the 1968 crushing of the Prague spring, 4) the economic crisis of the 1980s, which led to disaffected youth turning more and more violent/nihilistic and the radical fringe of them turning into cannon fodder for nationalist elites in the early 1990s.

As the idea of a united Yugoslavia was very popular after WW1, I don't think it was doomed to failure. So for this to work out, you'd have to get rid of at least points 1 and 2. And I can't see that happening in a post-WW2 world with the Communists in charge. You'd somehow need Tito to behave like a post-1994 Nelson Mandela: offering political amnesty to former enemies, and establishing a complete and honest tribunal on the war crimes of every party involved in WWII: the chetniks, the Tito partisans, and the ustasi. After that, a federalised Yugoslavia emerges, which leaves economic policy more in the hands of the single republics.
 
The Western Allies beat the Soviets to the punch by invading first with the Royalists under Peter II returning as the official government. Post-war investigations are held without fear or favour to show that there's no favouritism. Whilst Tito and the communists would be somewhat popular in free and fair elections they wouldn't be able to achieve a majority so don't get to dominate things, after a few years their wartime popularity would start to fade and the Soviet Union and satellite states sitting nearby won't do them any favours either. The new government hammers out a new constitution that pushes a certain amount of autonomy down to the states whilst retaining the main powers over the military, foreign relations, major taxation etc. I did have a Washington DC/Brasilia type idea of creating a new federal capital to try and make, and just as importantly show, the government less Serbia dominated.
 
What would that new capital be called?

Id imagine it would have different spellings/pronounciations for each of the constituant ethnicities (whos languages are all broadly similar) but I would imagine some translation of "City of the southern slavs" would be used. Yugoslavgrad?

Or, as the monarchy is still intact: Karadjordjevica?

Or if you go back further in time: Ilirskica. (the Illyrian movement was one of the first pan-South Slav movements in the 19th century)
 
Maybe if Tito died earlier, Yugoslavia could reform before the wave of nationalism hit. Let's say that Tito dies in 1967, the leadership of Yugoslavia decides to continue their close relationship with the West. They begins reforms and even enter EFTA. In the late 70ties, we see the first free elections and it join EEC in the 80ties. This keep the local to busy smiling to each other to keep receiving money from EEC/EU to have time to destroy the sweet influx of money by murdering each others.
 
Maybe if Tito died earlier, Yugoslavia could reform before the wave of nationalism hit. Let's say that Tito dies in 1967, the leadership of Yugoslavia decides to continue their close relationship with the West. They begins reforms and even enter EFTA. In the late 70ties, we see the first free elections and it join EEC in the 80ties. This keep the local to busy smiling to each other to keep receiving money from EEC/EU to have time to destroy the sweet influx of money by murdering each others.

I think that this would be necessary. If you could get Yugoslavia somehow on the path of reform, before so much power got devolved to the republics, much could be accomplished. Against this, there's the whole question of how you could get a Communist regime to reform successfully into a democratic system in the middle of the Cold War, even a neutralist one like Yugoslavia. What would the Soviet Union do?
 

CECBC

Banned
Have Tito become a health nut and live until 2016. Yugoslavia might be Europe's North Korea as he cracks down in the face of liberalism and nationalism.
 
Have Tito become a health nut and live until 2016. Yugoslavia might be Europe's North Korea as he cracks down in the face of liberalism and nationalism.

That would not be viable. Yugoslavia's economy depended critically on connections with the outside world, while the country was internally too diverse for that kind of totalitarianism to be workable.
 
What would that new capital be called?
No idea. The other option I considered was to claim an already existing city and expand upon it, Sarajevo would be interesting even if it would mean having to make Bosnia and Herzegovina relocate their capital.
 
Top