AHC/WI/PC: A Serbian headed "Yugoslavia" by the turn of the century?

Is it possible, how, and what then?

Imagining Serbia as like the "Prussia" in Balkan unification and making this happen by the twentieth century's dawn.

I like Peter I at the head and Apis as head of the military (or secret police).

I'm largely ignorant of it but I know the call for pan-serbianism and pan-slavism were contemporary.

So I'm leaving it up to you.
 
Austria-Hungary federalizes somewhat earlier on, and the West Slavic countries petition for independence, backed by France or someone.
 
Great. Effects?

Depends on Russo-Yugoslavian relationships. On the one hand, Greater Serbia!Yugoslavia will want to maintain friendliness with the regime that supported them the most. On another, it would be strong enough to see Russian influence as unnecessary.

And minor nitpick: The West Slavic peoples are the Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks.
 
Depends on Russo-Yugoslavian relationships. On the one hand, Greater Serbia!Yugoslavia will want to maintain friendliness with the regime that supported them the most. On another, it would be strong enough to see Russian influence as unnecessary.

And minor nitpick: The West Slavic peoples are the Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks.

Oops. Shows what I know about the Slavs. You might see earlier panslavism and definitely Austria-Hungary being peacefully removed from the map.
 
After WW1 there was a little polity of Slavs that was remainder of Austro - Hungary called State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs along with Kingdom of Serbia and Montenegro. Italy as one of victor states demanded Istra and westernmost parts of the state and threatened annexation of larger parts of the state if no deal was reached soon with Serbs. The very next day of the ultimatum the gendarmery of Kingdom of Serbia entered in the east through Slavonia and reached Zagreb with no problem.
So lets say Italy gives her support for rebellion of Hapsburg Slavs during the Russo - Turkish war of 1878, or first or second Balkan wars from 1912 to 1914. With Italian support given to Serbs that is no problem.
 
And minor nitpick: The West Slavic peoples are the Poles, Czechs, and Slovaks.

And the Sorbian-speaking linguistic minority in Saxony and Brandenburg. Their current population in Germany consists of about 54,000 people. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbian_languages

The people that we should be focusing on are the speakers of South Slavic languages. And their situation in the late 19th century. Slovenes (whose language included many Germanisms), Serbo-Croatians (one language for two peoples), and Bulgarians. At the time Macedonian was still regarded as a Western Bulgarian dialect.
 
What would this nation most likely be called (if it's pre-1900 or just after)? Would it still be called Yugoslavia if it's Serbia led? Serbia-Yugoslavia? A shortened form such as Serbiaslavia or Serboslavia?
 
What would this nation most likely be called (if it's pre-1900 or just after)? Would it still be called Yugoslavia if it's Serbia led? Serbia-Yugoslavia? A shortened form such as Serbiaslavia or Serboslavia?

Hmmm... you do realize that the name "Yugoslavia" is descriptive, right? It is pronounced "Jugoslavija". "Jȕg" is Serbo-Croatian for "south". "Slavija" (or Slavia) literally means "Land of the Slavs". "Jugoslavija" is the "Land of the south Slavs". Which is accurate enough, though it never included the Bulgarians who are also speakers of a south Slavic language.
 
Illyrianism was one ideology favored by the Croats as a unification of the Serbo-Croatians in the late 19th Century, but the Serbs were more interested in Greater Serbia.
 
Hmmm... you do realize that the name "Yugoslavia" is descriptive, right? It is pronounced "Jugoslavija". "Jȕg" is Serbo-Croatian for "south". "Slavija" (or Slavia) literally means "Land of the Slavs". "Jugoslavija" is the "Land of the south Slavs". Which is accurate enough, though it never included the Bulgarians who are also speakers of a south Slavic language.

And it got close to including Bulgaria too. Without the Tito-Stalin split, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia likely would have unified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Socialist_Federation#After_Comintern_period
 
Hmmm... you do realize that the name "Yugoslavia" is descriptive, right? It is pronounced "Jugoslavija". "Jȕg" is Serbo-Croatian for "south". "Slavija" (or Slavia) literally means "Land of the Slavs". "Jugoslavija" is the "Land of the south Slavs". Which is accurate enough, though it never included the Bulgarians who are also speakers of a south Slavic language.

Of course I know that, I thought my question made it pretty obvious. Which is why I asked the question about whether or not the name would change with Serbia as the Prussia analog. Care to make a guess?

Illyrianism was one ideology favored by the Croats as a unification of the Serbo-Croatians in the late 19th Century, but the Serbs were more interested in Greater Serbia.

Interesting, and thanks. Would the two be mutually exclusive, i.e. would Greater Serbia be able to include the Illyrian Croats (and maybe remain under Austria-Hungary until a war?).

And it got close to including Bulgaria too. Without the Tito-Stalin split, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia likely would have unified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Socialist_Federation#After_Comintern_period

This is promising. Maybe if The League for the Balkan Confederation somehow allies itself to the General Staff of the Serbian Army (ASB?) and realizing the need for a clear figurehead of this movement (in order to please the conservatives opposed to such a Federation, perhaps?) an alternate Peter I of Serbia (who is influenced by Socialism to whatever degree) agrees (or volunteers) to lead a unified Balkan Socialist Monarchy, with Serbia as the dominant power.

Thoughts?

Any ideas on names?
 
Interesting, and thanks. Would the two be mutually exclusive, i.e. would Greater Serbia be able to include the Illyrian Croats (and maybe remain under Austria-Hungary until a war?).
What do you mean? They were basically the same thing, except Greater Serbia traded some of Croatia for vague concepts of Macedonia and stuff. Basically, the groups that wanted a unification of the Serbo-Croatian speakers were divided into the Illyrian (Croatian and Bosnian) or Greater Serbian camp. Illyria was acceptable to be under the Habsburgs, but Greater Serbia was not. They were overjoyed to be an independent nation again and set their heights high.

This is promising. Maybe if The League for the Balkan Confederation somehow allies itself to the General Staff of the Serbian Army (ASB?) and realizing the need for a clear figurehead of this movement (in order to please the conservatives opposed to such a Federation, perhaps?) an alternate Peter I of Serbia (who is influenced by Socialism to whatever degree) agrees (or volunteers) to lead a unified Balkan Socialist Monarchy, with Serbia as the dominant power.
Still Yugoslavia, unless it includes Greece and Romania. Then it's probably like the Balkan Federation or something.

Ok, so anyways, you could have Austria-Hungary either fall and Serbia pick up Croatia and Bosnia, or Austria-Hungary conquers Serbia. Then the Yugoslavs can revolt.

Illyrianism would probably be more popular among the Serbs if they never became as independent as OTL. So the latter option would work here.
 
This is actually pretty simple...Let's say Russia had her way in the 1878 Congress of Berlin....Bulgaria would be allowed to unify with Macedonia while Serbia would be given Bosnia and Montenegro. It could then threaten to take Dalmatita from the Habsurg Empire to get a coast
 
Top