I don't see Tito wanting to give up Slovenia.
That's why I made him die heroically in 1943...
Is there any plausible way to have an independent Slovene state after either of the World Wars, completely separate from Yugoslavia?
The circumstances given may, nonetheless, be problematic.
aktarian said:in a word, no. There simply was no chance of country that small (considering portion of it was already occupied by Italy post WW1) surviving at that time and more importantly no interest in independance by the people. The demands for independance didn't start until 1970s-80s, prior to that there were demands for greater autonomy within A-H and within various forms of Yugoslavia.
There are many problems, true.
That's the problem I also encountered when I started to think about it. Because of a lack of interest in independence and a strong local power base, Slovenia was IMO as likely to gain independence after either of the wars as Karelia was (an example closer to home to me). In my post above I tried to circumvent this problem to have the country get independent under covert Italian protection, which I think could be within certain (if very, very slim) limits of possibility. And even that would require the presence of a nationalist movement of sorts. The Italian connection would, of course, not mean very good ifor the country later.
A recognized independence between the two world wars is, in my view, pretty much required for a free Slovenia to get reconstituted after 1945 (it would not survive the war independent), otherwise it will quite likely get incorporated in a Yugoslavia or a Croatia or divided between different countries after the war.
In my view, a independent Croatia is a much more plausible option.
Probably, even better if they get a stronger local government which will be able to control the fascist elements in the country, such as the Home Guard.Would this work better if Slovene nationalism was stronger prior to World War I?
I really doubt Croatia could ever hold on to Slovenia, the relations between the two peoples are... problematic to say the least.
Slovenia was very nationalistic in during this period and in particular held a great disdain towards the rest of the Balkans, considering themselves rather Central Europeans, which they actually are, they're more closely culturally and linguistically related to the Czechs and Slovaks (via former Greater Moravia) than Croats and Serbs.
I can only see this happening if the Partisan resistance breaks apart, either through Tito's premature death or something else, and the spheres of influence held, to the word, from the Baltic to the Adriatic.
Slovenia wasn't as weak as it may have appeared, it just suffered from a weak Germano-Italo-phile government. They still had a small, but professional army, and excellent defensive terrain (kinda like Switzerland, but not as many mountains). With Allied help, I'm sure they could hold their ground quite well, though Communist groups could pose a threat. Then again, with 'a little Allied help', this can be taken care of too.
Probably, even better if they get a stronger local government which will be able to control the fascist elements in the country, such as the Home Guard.
Actually they aren't. Sure troubles persist since 1991 but nothing really big
OTOH Serbia was a beacon of sorts (being independant and all that). sure religion and lingo was a bit problematic. OTOH there are few differences with Croats (both being catholics and all)
However population will generally not favor independance and if given a say would choose yugoslavia
Actually no. Partisans were unified force. Sure, locals operated on local terrain but they were single movement.
Seeing how it was local government (in bed with RCC) that organised them and went out of their way to kiss Italian asses I find that improbable.
Well, the 'Slovenia-Croatia rivalry' actually has origins in WWII, where both vied for the affections of the Germans and Italians, often coming at odds, as Slovenians considered themselves more 'Aryan' in culture than the Croatians, while the Croatians thought of Slovenia as nothing more than a tiny speck (I might be grossly exaggerating, but it was kind of like that).
Well, the problem there was that many in both Croatia and Slovenia (especially the Peasant and forbidden nationalist parties) considered Yugoslavia to be a Serbian dominion where Serbs were unfairly given greater privileges than everybody else which was essentially true, especially during king Alexander's reign, which proved to be the reason for why he got capped in Marseilles later on.
The fact that they considered Yugoslavia itself to be Serbia's 'war booty' handed to it by the Allies at the end of WWI was one of the reasons for such high support of the Axis during WWII, because the Slovenians hoped to have an autonomous state within the Reich, which they considered treated them more fairly than the Serbs.
Actually... not quite. The Partisans only became 'The' partisans after the AVNOJ convention, where Tito took leadership of the various Anti-Fascist movements that sprung up in the Balkans, most of whom were Socialist/Communist in nature. The Greeks also and their partisans, but they were unlinked to the Yugoslav Anti-Fascist movements, and later-on the unified Partisan movement.
True, but there were leaders, mostly Social-Democratic leaning fellows, which opposed the growing fascists movements in the country, but they were pretty much gone after the Anschluss.
I mean, the Slovenes could become part of an independent Croatia, but they would, quite early, demand their autonomy within the state, which if not handled properly, could lead to unrest, something that's not really good for any state during the Cold War, if you get my jist.