Balkan Wars with the Soviets still around?

The break up of Yugoslavia and the folllowing genocide. If the Soviet Union had not fallen apart, what would happen? Would Nato still be willing to sned troops into a communist (all be it neutral) country?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
why not?

Yugo was not a Warsaw Pact nation. It's slide into dissolution was probably more directly influenced by deteriorating unity in the decade after Tito died, rather than the USSR's collapse.
 
Yugo was not a Warsaw Pact nation. It's slide into dissolution was probably more directly influenced by deteriorating unity in the decade after Tito died, rather than the USSR's collapse.

The U.S.S.R might keep NATO off Serbia' back as the U.S.S.R if still around wouldnt be the basket-case Russia was during the late 90's. As any scenario where the U.S.S.R is intact implies improvment on it’s situation. It also effects the satellite states as no eastward expansion of NATO would be countenanced with the Soviet military still intact.

Of course it depends on the leadership in the Kremlin after all there is a precedent for forced retirements in the Soviet leadership.

I think the point about Yugoslav split being down to Tito's death is true, Tito was a classic ''charismatic leader'' good at holding together a nation/empire during his lifetime which will tend to collapse after he’s gone the ‘’collative leadership’’ that Tito wanted put in place after he died didn’t help as it consisted of a bunch of greedy, venal assholes who wanted to be king of their own petty little statelets and jettison all the dreary obligations to ‘’the people’’.

The U.S.S.R may back the Serbs due to their historic ties with Russia and as a way to increase their influence in an area that had been denied to them during Tito’s lifetime.
 
I dunno where this analysis would take me, but I'll try:
  1. With USSR around, nobody is going to kick "Yalta borders are sacred" idea out, as it would trip too many signal wires in post-WWII settlement USSR is hell-bent to keep. So, open Western meddling in Yugoslav affairs (and I do consider Tujman's support in 1991 "open meddling") would not happen.
  2. Without direct encouragement of Croat separatism (as in "arming and bankrolling Croat militia") Serbo-Croatian war and continuation Bosnian free-for-all isn't likely to happen, as JNA might not disintegrate along ethnic lines. IOTL Croatian servicemen participated in JNA actions in Slovenia in Summer 1991. It wasn't happy union, but people tend to follow existing rules if there're no chances for new ones to success (for examples, Balts weren't happy with Soviet rule, but they were quiet until Russia started to shake Communism off itself).
  3. Would breakup still happen, poisonous propaganda campaign which singled Serbs out as designated guilty devils of war might not happen. Propaganda spin in 1991-1995 was just unbelievable. Dissidents who dared to suggest that there're no saints in Balcan ethnic war saw their reputations irrevocably tarnished.
P.S. In order to feel magnitude of deliberate demonization of Serbo-Montenegrin side of Balkan wars, one might look at this article. It deals with completely separate region (Congo), which makes Balkan references there truly priceless, as authors aren't bound by unwritten rules affecting almost everyone who covered Balkan wars for mainstream media. While discussing relationships between Rwandan government and Tutsi militias in Congo, author casually says something in effect of "Rwandans and militia are loose allies, much like Bosnian Serbs and authorities of Serbia proper". Excuse me, but weren't we told ad nauseam by very same Economist about unified Serbian conspiracy, evily plotting to take over whole Balkans??? Wasn't Milosevic tried for control of his genocidal sidekicks in Bosnia??? And now this casual off-hand remark, referring to well known fact "Bosnians weren't Milosevic's pawns", as something obvious to anyone who following Balkan affairs. Well, to me this statement just oozes one fact: Economist deliberately lied in it's Balkan coverage in order to demonize Serbs (or was it "Yugoslavia"?)
 
The Serbo-Montenegrin side which died the instant Montenegro was permitted to vote on whether or not to remain in Yugoslavia?


So the proof that the Economist lied about Serbia consists of statements made in one article about Congo in the Economist?;)


There were no saints in the former Yugoslavia, however, there was only one group which felt a need to preserve Yugoslavia by throwing out any political basis for Yugoslavia's survival and dispensing with the rights granted to all the republics.
 
The Serbo-Montenegrin side which died the instant Montenegro was permitted to vote on whether or not to remain in Yugoslavia?
Well, no. It took almost a decade of direct sponsorship of "Separation" idea plus propaganda bombardment that Montenegrins would be awashed in Western money the day they split from Serbia before it really took off. Milosevic was a Montenegrin (his cousin is/was a prominent Montenegrin "nationalist", the family never shied away from any idea it could exploit to ascend to power).

So the proof that the Economist lied about Serbia consists of statements made in one article about Congo in the Economist?
I did not call it "proof". I called it "indication". And yes, off-hand remark dismissing carved in stone tradition of "independent coverage" as propaganda lie is pretty indicative.

There were no saints in the former Yugoslavia, however, there was only one group which felt a need to preserve Yugoslavia by throwing out any political basis for Yugoslavia's survival and dispensing with the rights granted to all the republics.
I don't remember that Macedonia was exceedingly fond of separation idea. And Bosnia is non-entity, as far as "group" is concerned. It is a mishmash of 3 major groups. So, it can be said that there were only two groups (Croats and Slovenes) who actively opposed Yugoslavia.

P.S. I was often wondering in 1991=1995 what would happen in region would foreign sponsors of separatists make their support conditional on letting majority Serbian regions of Bosnia and Croatia go from new virulently anti-Serbian regimes. I understand it is complete ASB, but would Bosnian Serbs and Krajina joining Serbian Republic (effectively creating much-derided "Greater Serbia") be worse than IOTL bloodshed? Say whatever you want about Milosevic regime, he was mostly able to control most radical nationalists in Serbia (even legendary Tigers were largely held on leash before all hell in Kosovo broke out after NATO started to bomb).
 
As of the current date none of the other republics(plus Kosovo) chose to stick around and Montenegro's record as a separate and independent nation prior to 1991 was actually the best of them all.

Or it might prove that the writer of that one piece was in error. I just saw a Washington Post article on Dick Cheney which invented quotes wholesale so do I conclude Cheney and everyone who saw the interview was lying, that the entire Post is deliberately dishonest towards and hostile to Cheney or that one writer screwed up?

You ignore the point that the Serbs weren't going to accept the basic rights of any of the republics(which Kosovo wasn't), not even Slovenia or Croatia, which makes compromises somewhat more difficult to promote.
 
You ignore the point that the Serbs weren't going to accept the basic rights of any of the republics(which Kosovo wasn't), not even Slovenia or Croatia
I'm not aware that Serbia was in favour of significant restrictions of local power in Yugoslavia. Milosevic and his supporters were leaning toward more federalist (as opposed to confederation) model, but this "weren't going to accept the basic rights" thing goes farther than calling G.W. Bush "the new incarnation of Satan".
 
CanadianGoose, the Yugoslav Constitution explicitly gave the constituent republics(NOT Kosovo) the right to separate if they wished to.

Both Slovenia and Croatia exercised that right and both were attacked, Slovenia only briefly because the Serbs needed all forces in Croatia and Bosnia.

Now, as for the reasoned scientific analytical debate as to whether George Bush is the new incarnation of Satan, as opposed to Dick Cheney...
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Continued existence of USSR would definitely

make NATO reluctant/utterly unwilling to intervene (though USSR intervention would be considered dangerous). But, what I was getting at was that Yugoslavia broke up more for internal reasons than for resons having to do with the dissolution of the USSR.
 
CanadianGoose, the Yugoslav Constitution explicitly gave the constituent republics(NOT Kosovo) the right to separate if they wished to.

Oh, so now you agree with me?

Anyway, if the Soviets were still around (what about the satellites?) then the West would try to negotiate with them over the ex-Yugoslavs' heads for some sort of settlement. If that doesn't work or Milosevic won't listen to Moscow, someone in Washington, London, Paris, Bonn, Rome, Istanbul, Vienna, and/or Budapest is going to get tired of answering tough questions at press conferences and say "fuck it!" - and they're going to do something about it, USSR or no USSR. This won't be like Hungary in '56 or Czechoslovakia in '68; they'll be pissing off a much weaker Soviet Union in an area that wasn't in it's sphere of influence to begin with.
 
I never disputed that Kosovo was not a full fledged republic, simply that by the time Kosovo's final status became a concern Serbian upholding of Yugoslav law no longer had any credibility.

You can't wage war on every other republic save Montenegro for exercising their rights under the law and then credibly insist that the law is sacred and must be upheld when applied to Kosovo.

If the US Constitution gave states the right to secede and many did so only to be attacked by the remnant US, how credible would the US government be to seek to deny, say, NYC from leaving on the grounds that such an entity doesn't have that right, after having made clear that what the law actually says has nothing to do with how the federal government is going to act?
 
I never disputed that Kosovo was not a full fledged republic, simply that by the time Kosovo's final status became a concern Serbian upholding of Yugoslav law no longer had any credibility.

You can't wage war on every other republic save Montenegro for exercising their rights under the law and then credibly insist that the law is sacred and must be upheld when applied to Kosovo.

Actually, after all the efforts the West put in to ensure that Croatia and Bosnia could keep their pre-secession border, completely ignoring any claims to self-determination on the part of their Serb population (rightfully, IMO) and turning a blind eye to the call-it-what-you-will of the Krajina Serbs... Well, the least that could be expected of them would have been that they show the same dedication to principle WRT Kosovo. It's not about Serbia upholding Yugoslav law, it's about the West doing it - and then turning around and breaking it. Either you're enforcing principle or you're taking sides against the Serbs. Pick one and stick with it.

Anyway, many nations have done worse than Yugoslavia during the secession wars (a certain Southeast Asian conflict comes to mind) and expected to be treated fairly afterwards. I thought it was us Balkan types that were supposed to be petty and vindictive, always digging up history when passing judgment. Or is Western moral superiority to be discarded whenever it can get its kicks?
 
Last edited:
Slovenia: Fighting took place before the breakup of the USSR.

Croatia: With the USSR around, the Republic of Serb Krajina would have a better chance of survival. Part of the reason the RSK lost the support of Belgrade was international pressure, which would be less in in this ATL where the Serbs had the Soviets to provide some counterweight to NATO. Also, the Soviets might have supplied the RSK with weapons.

Bosnia: The Bosnian Serbs would do at least somewhat better, NATO bombing of Republika Srpska might not happen. If RSK survived then "Greater Serbia" could perhaps become a reality.

Kosovo: No NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and Serb forces in Kosovo, Kosovo remains part of Serbia.

If instead of losing four wars as in OTL, Milosevic had won two or three of four, his regime might have survived much longer. OTOH there was also a lot of dissatisfaction with him due to the bad economy. so maybe not.
 
Top