AHC/WI: Serbia won the Bosnian War

[Lord General Mihalic]

I have always been fascinated by the Bosnian War, not only because of the battles and the diplomatic shitfight that followed, but also because I have members in the family that fought, even died in the war. As the son of Croats, i've heard the stories and such.

But as this is alternate history, I must ask the question so this will be a AHC and WI hybrid.

What if/what would it take, for Serbia to have won the Bosnian conflict? If so, what would the Balkans look like and what might be the reprecussions of a Serbian victory (if possible).

 

[Summoner]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag_line Borders of Greater Serbia as proposed by the Serbian Radical Party during Yugoslav Wars.

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Serbia

 

[Uruk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag_line Borders of Greater Serbia as proposed by the Serbian Radical Party during Yugoslav Wars.

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Serbia

That is an old proposal first proposed during WW2 in the Ba conference, SRS was trying to show itself as the "true" successor to the Chetnik movement.

For Serbia to win it has to drop the pretense that it isnt involved, a direct intervention by the Serbian armed forces would probably lead to a rather rapid victory. That would probably lead to a division of BiH between Serbia and Croatia (if they can keep it).

 

[Pellegrino]

I think one way to have the Serbs win would be to have Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic killed on May 18, 1992 when he was captured by Serb soldiers. Izetbegovic's death leave a vaccum in the Bosnian leadership which the Serbs and Croats could have taken advantage of. The next in line technically was Ejup Ganic, but it is doubtful that Fikrit Abdec would have accepted that. As a result, you could have had Bosnian forces fighting each other at a time when they needed to present a unified front agaisnt the Serbs. If there is a power struggle between Ganic and Abdec, the Croats and Serbs most likely would have backed Abdec (as they did in OTL). Abdec eventually seizes power and agrees to put aside independence for the short term.

Long term Bosnia would stll leave though, probably about the same time as Montenegro.

 

[Andreas]

What is required for Serbia to win the Bosnian War:

1. No Milosevic: if Milosevic dies in 1991-2, the crypto-communists of Yugoslavia are probably down. That means that Serbia is a little more attractive for the West, and given that the new leadership can play the game of the media that "bad muslims are killing innocent Serb children and women" and show to the public that muslim extremists are sent to Bosnia by Iran and terrorist groups, there could be no NATO intervention and less support for the Muslims.

2. Definately a solid peace with Croatia: if the Croats decide to constitutionaly guarantee the Krajna Serbs, or if there's a secret agreement that Serbia won't intervene if Croatia attacks Krajna, in exchange of Croatias cooperation against the Muslims.

3. A stronger Russia: definately no Yeltsin, but someone more like Putin

 

[MarshalBraginsky]

What is required for Serbia to win the Bosnian War:

1. No Milosevic: if Milosevic dies in 1991-2, the crypto-communists of Yugoslavia are probably down. That means that Serbia is a little more attractive for the West, and given that the new leadership can play the game of the media that "bad muslims are killing innocent Serb children and women" and show to the public that muslim extremists are sent to Bosnia by Iran and terrorist groups, there could be no NATO intervention and less support for the Muslims.

2. Definately a solid peace with Croatia: if the Croats decide to constitutionaly guarantee the Krajna Serbs, or if there's a secret agreement that Serbia won't intervene if Croatia attacks Krajna, in exchange of Croatias cooperation against the Muslims.

3. A stronger Russia: definately no Yeltsin, but someone more like Putin

How about a junta led by someone in the JNA? I'm not sure if Yugoslavia even has its own "Yeltsin", given the fact that Milosevic was anything but pragmatic.

Also, find a way to prevent the Serb-Croat war from escalating too much.

With Russia, I can take a guess that Rutskoy or even someone in the Russian military could qualify as Zyuganov would be more of a liability than an asset in aiding the Serbs, and we all know too well the end results of what happens if Zhirinovsky is in power.

 

[gloster meteor mk3]

A lot more Muslim men- women and children dead and the death toll will be more than the holocaust at best at worst some one gets some chemical weapons and uses them leading to the UN getting involved and NATO using a tactical nuke.

 

[Whanztastic]

A lot more Muslim men- women and children dead and the death toll will be more than the holocaust at best at worst some one gets some chemical weapons and uses them leading to the UN getting involved and NATO using a tactical nuke.

I agree it would be bad but this is outlandish. There simply aren't enough people for that level of loss, and NATO would never deploy a tactical nuke as a strike against a non-nuclear target, especially within Europe.

 

[Halagaz]

For Serbia to win the Bosnian War it would actually have to take part...not sit on the sidelines while providing on-again, off-again support to the Bosnian Serbs. So, removing Milosevic from power beforehand is probably necessary.

...the crypto-communists of Yugoslavia are probably down. That means that Serbia is a little more attractive for the West...

This would also be a bonus for Serbia without Milosevic.

Sadly, there would probably be more war crimes, though I'm not sure anything as large-scale as a second Srebrenica would occur. Any plans of ethnically cleansing the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina are out of the question, since the Bosnian Serb leadership had a strategic objective of establishing a separate Bosniak-Muslim puppet state from the very beginning of the war.

A lot more Muslim men- women and children dead and the death toll will be more than the holocaust at best

A death toll bigger than the holocaust would require every single Muslim, Serbian and Croatian man, woman and child in Bosnia to be somehow killed. And then some more.

 

[sparky42]

A lot more Muslim men- women and children dead and the death toll will be more than the holocaust at best at worst some one gets some chemical weapons and uses them leading to the UN getting involved and NATO using a tactical nuke.

Utter nonsense that NATO would use a tactical Nuke in Europe over this. If widespread sustained deliberate ethnic cleansing was happening then NATO would have engaged along the lines of the Kosovo campaign in attacking the military capability of Serbia.

There's no need what so ever in using nukes and only risks pissing Russia off in the "Oh Crap" way.

 

[MarshalBraginsky]

How will Russia react though to the Bosnian War if there is some other leader besides Yeltsin, Zyuganov or Zhirinovsky?

 

[Angel Heart]

I have always been fascinated by the Bosnian War, not only because of the battles and the diplomatic shitfight that followed, but also because I have members in the family that fought, even died in the war. As the son of Croats, i've heard the stories and such.

But as this is alternate history, I must ask the question so this will be a AHC and WI hybrid.

What if/what would it take, for Serbia to have won the Bosnian conflict? If so, what would the Balkans look like and what might be the reprecussions of a Serbian victory (if possible).

First of all what do you mean with "Serbia"? The entity whose policy was that of a double-headed ostrich with its heads in the sand and that especially since 1994 was jacking off at the sidelines or do you mean the Republika Srpska that since the retreat of the JNA was doing most of the fighting? It's certainly my own bias but even though the war ended in a stalemae IOTL the Republika Srpska was the closest to having achieved something resembling a "victory" even if it's on the basis of having by far the best outcome rather then achieving it militarily.

Recently the CIA has declassified some of their once secret papers on the Bosnian war. Most of the stuff is actually nothing we didn't already know or at least suspect, but one paper IIRC even suggested that Madeleine Albright seriously considered to let the Republika Srpska having a referendum on wether they wish to remain in BiH or to join the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (back then Serbia and Montenegro). I'd have to look it up again, but Sloba himself wasn't all too keen of having us as part of his little fiefdom. As a matter of fact he even saw as a potential threat to his regime.

To finally answer your question. To achieve a total victory (62% of BiH and an extit to the Adriatic coast) you need following things.

1. A better leadership. People have already suggested removing Milošević. Problem: The only realistic alternatives were Šešelj and Drašković who were some goofy ultranationalists and neo-Četniks as they both made Sloba look sane by comparison. In hindsight though Drašković may have appeared as the lesser evil.

2. A much better propaganda department. The main reason Serbs were demonized in the international mass media was the lack of credible propaganda. In fact Serb propaganda was only concentrated for internal consumption rather then creating international sympathy. That's the reason our media had some...eccentric reports to say it diplomatically, like the "Ustaše" being assisted by Kurdish mercs and Korean Kamikaze (I wish I was making this up...), Germany creating a Fourth Reich, Serb children being fed to the lions in the Sarajevo zoo etc. IOTL at the beginning of the war Ruder Finn even offered to make propaganda for us, unfortunately Serbia didn't have the money to pay them and on top of that Sloba believed how "the truth will prevail in the end". In an ATL Serbia should have invested lots of cash in propaganda (playing for example the right for national self-determination card) while securing herself powerful allies like the United States and reviving the old "friendships" with France and the United Kingdom.

That is an old proposal first proposed during WW2 in the Ba conference, SRS was trying to show itself as the "true" successor to the Chetnik movement.

Which in hindsight is quite amusing as Šešelj was stripped of his Četnik Vojvoda title after his intensive flirt with Sloba during the mid/late 1990s.

 

[MarshalBraginsky]

What about Kadijevic as leader of Yugoslavia? Wouldn't he be better off leading a Burma-style junta until the Bosnian War can come to a conclusion? Would a military junta also try to get the job done without the usual screw ups?

 

[Mookie]

.....

I dont see what more could Serbs do to win the war, to be honest?
They had about 870 tanks at the start of the war. All donated nicely by Yugoslav National Army.
Their artilery numbered in thousands and was already dug into hills around towns and cities along with soldiers when the war started. They also had munitions and supplies given to them by Serbia troughout the war.
On the other hand, Bosniaks had an embargo placed upon them by UN (like Serbs, except they didnt have JNA weaponry)
The total number of tanks during the war owned by ABiH was 47 or something. All captured.
They also didnt have any AT or heavy weapons along with no airforce.

The only way I see the Serbs winning the war, is if they dont commit any atrocities or war crimes. Bosniaks were pushed against the wall with that, and had no other option than to fight for their lives. Alternative was a gruesome death.

So, Serbs dont commit war-crimes, and instead they play on "Yugoslav sentiment" among the Bosniaks, as well as making vilains out of Croats.
Without war crimes I doubt Bosniaks would fight against them.

 

[Halagaz]

The only way I see the Serbs winning the war, is if they dont commit any atrocities or war crimes. Bosniaks were pushed against the wall with that, and had no other option than to fight for their lives. Alternative was a gruesome death.

So, Serbs dont commit war-crimes, and instead they play on "Yugoslav sentiment" among the Bosniaks, as well as making vilains out of Croats.
Without war crimes I doubt Bosniaks would fight against them.

I'm pretty sure Yugoslav sentiment was a dead horse by the beginning of the war...the Serbs could have maybe propped up one or two more local Bosniak "puppets" like Fikret Abdic? Still, not sure if that would have helped much.

Also, the Serbs were hardly the only ones to commit war crimes. And as for making villains out of Croats, well, the Bosniaks and the Croats were fighting each other anyway.

 

[Mookie]

I'm pretty sure Yugoslav sentiment was a dead horse by the beginning of the war...the Serbs could have maybe propped up one or two more local Bosniak "puppets" like Fikret Abdic? Still, not sure if that would have helped much.

Also, the Serbs were hardly the only ones to commit war crimes. And as for making villains out of Croats, well, the Bosniaks and the Croats were fighting each other anyway.

The Yugoslav sentiment was far from dead, at least in Bosniaks.
They even caried photos of Tito and Yugoslav flags as the JNA was shooting at them.
Unfortunately the Serbs followed a policy of "revenge for the Turks". Basicaly, since they cant reach Turks, they will put all their anger on Bosniaks.
First Crimes in the war were commited by Serbs on Bosniaks.
And while it is true that Serbs arent only commiting them, there is a difference between 70 000 killed Bosniaks and 4750 killed Serb civilians who were killed even by Serbs if they fought for Bosnian army.

So basicaly, without crimes, while portraying Croats as Ustashe they could easily win Bosniaks over. Maybe even hold a referendum post war for Bosnia to join back into Yugoslavia

 

[tuareg109]

Unfortunately the Serbs followed a policy of "revenge for the Turks". Basicaly, since they cant reach Turks, they will put all their anger on Bosniaks.

Oh! Oh! Don't forget that they were brainwashed or educated (depends on your opinion) on the fact that Tito was a half-Croat half-Slovene, and that this was somehow bad.

As for OP's POD:

You're caught in a Catch-22 insofar as the liberality/appeal to the West of Serbia is concerned. If Serbia becomes a modern, more democratic state, then it's unlikely that it'll get involved in the war at all. If it gets involved in the war, that sets the West against them (say what you will about mujahideens and Muslims in Bosnia, the region and its capital of Sarajevo were well known for their cultural liberality).

As far as making Serbia more liberal/democratic, I'd say you should find a way to keep Ante Markovic's reforms in place. His stabilization of the currency and greater leaning toward the West greatly endeared him to the U.S. (well, and there were many who called him a CIA agent!), and prolongation and full implementation of these reforms could've outright avoided war with Bosnia.

Which is honestly I think the best scenario for Serbia at this time. Slovenia saw new markets and greater options in independence, and Croatia--with its tourism and fishing resources, and its refound nationalism--was veritably howling for independence; allowing those two states and Macedonia to succeed, and keeping Bosnia, would be a worthwhile and realistic goal.

Funny that the Serbia-saving reforms would be instituted by a Croat, but that's life, right? In addition to that, you can have Alija arrested/assassinated/whatever, and set Fikret Abdic to win the Bosnian presidency. He was all set in his little corner of Velika Kladusa with Agrokomerc, and was also a West- and business-oriented man. He was also very popular in Bosnia. In 1990 he and Alija Izetbegovic ran for the Bosnian Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia; both of them filled the two slots, and Fikret Abdic even won the popular vote to become President of the Presidency. For some reason though, he didn't win the "official" vote.

One theory is that the powers-that-were in the West wanted Bosnia to break away from Serbia; Muslim nationalist Alija Izetbegovic as President of the Presidency would have driven Bosnia to the brink of independence--and did. A group of weak, economically insolvent and dependent states in the Balkans were infinitely preferable to the West than another strong powerhouse-monster such as Yugoslavia.

Well, that's some info and a bit of help for your POD. Ante Markovic's reforms endure, and Fikret Abdic becomes President of Bosnia's Presidency.

 

[Mookie]

Oh! Oh! Don't forget that they were brainwashed or educated (depends on your opinion) on the fact that Tito was a half-Croat half-Slovene, and that this was somehow bad.

As for OP's POD:

You're caught in a Catch-22 insofar as the liberality/appeal to the West of Serbia is concerned. If Serbia becomes a modern, more democratic state, then it's unlikely that it'll get involved in the war at all. If it gets involved in the war, that sets the West against them (say what you will about mujahideens and Muslims in Bosnia, the region and its capital of Sarajevo were well known for their cultural liberality).

As far as making Serbia more liberal/democratic, I'd say you should find a way to keep Ante Markovic's reforms in place. His stabilization of the currency and greater leaning toward the West greatly endeared him to the U.S. (well, and there were many who called him a CIA agent!), and prolongation and full implementation of these reforms could've outright avoided war with Bosnia.

Which is honestly I think the best scenario for Serbia at this time. Slovenia saw new markets and greater options in independence, and Croatia--with its tourism and fishing resources, and its refound nationalism--was veritably howling for independence; allowing those two states and Macedonia to succeed, and keeping Bosnia, would be a worthwhile and realistic goal.

Funny that the Serbia-saving reforms would be instituted by a Croat, but that's life, right? In addition to that, you can have Alija arrested/assassinated/whatever, and set Fikret Abdic to win the Bosnian presidency. He was all set in his little corner of Velika Kladusa with Agrokomerc, and was also a West- and business-oriented man. He was also very popular in Bosnia. In 1990 he and Alija Izetbegovic ran for the Bosnian Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia; both of them filled the two slots, and Fikret Abdic even won the popular vote to become President of the Presidency. For some reason though, he didn't win the "official" vote.

One theory is that the powers-that-were in the West wanted Bosnia to break away from Serbia; Muslim nationalist Alija Izetbegovic as President of the Presidency would have driven Bosnia to the brink of independence--and did. A group of weak, economically insolvent and dependent states in the Balkans were infinitely preferable to the West than another strong powerhouse-monster such as Yugoslavia.

Well, that's some info and a bit of help for your POD. Ante Markovic's reforms endure, and Fikret Abdic becomes President of Bosnia's Presidency.

I dont think Alija had much choice
Serbia allready controled the votes of Montenegro, Vojvodina, Serbia and Kosovo. That is 4.
With Croatia out, Slovenia out, Macedonia out, that leaves Bosnia at the mercy of the Serbs, and Bosnian vote would never count, since its 4 to 1.
And I dont see how you can be a muslim nationalist ?

 

[Karelian]

Milosevic and Tudjman agree to divide the spoils way back in 1992, and pressure Karadzic and Boban to make a deal. War ends early with Croatia and Serbian-dominated "Yugoslavia" expanding at the expense of former BiH, with an isolated, landlocked rump Bosniac enclave left in the middle.

 

[Mookie]

Milosevic and Tudjman agree to divide the spoils way back in 1992, and pressure Karadzic and Boban to make a deal. War ends early with Croatia and Serbian-dominated "Yugoslavia" expanding at the expense of former BiH, with an isolated, landlocked rump Bosniac enclave left in the middle.

How do you plan on making Bosniaks accept that?