No Yugoslavia following WW2

Hvalrossen

What if Yugoslavia had not re-emerged as a political entity following WW2? Instead succesor states like Croatia and Serbia would emerge. What could be the reason or cause for this divergence from OTL?

How would the post-war settlement in Yugoslavia be like compared with OTL?

Would the borders of states like Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Serbia be the same as OTL or similar? Maybe the borders would be different?
 
Fearless Leader

Fearless Leader

Donor
Had the Abwehr been a bit more on the ball and prevented the coup of March 27th 1941 (something that very nearly happened in OTL) I could see your proposed scenario coming about, especially if Tito gets killed early on as well. In TTL, Germany props up a moribund Yugoslav State while a multitude of nationalist resistance groups take shape and tie down the remaining Yugoslav army and increasing numbers of German troops as the war progresses. The Soviets roll in and end up occupying the region after the war and impose their will on it in a similar fashion to what happened with Poland, Prussia, and the Ukraine.

Given the prominence of the Cetniks, I could see Serbia being the big loser in TTL with the population exchanges resulting in a much smaller "People's Republic of Serbia."
 

David T

Until 1935, the Comintern took the position that "Versailles Yugoslavia" was an artificial creation which should be broken up. Is there any possibility that Stalin could continue to adhere to that position after 1935?
 

thatsbunkers

Banned
David T said:
Until 1935, the Comintern took the position that "Versailles Yugoslavia" was an artificial creation which should be broken up. Is there any possibility that Stalin could continue to adhere to that position after 1935?
Click to expand...
It wouldnt matter if Stalin took that position. Tito never cared about what Stalin had to say
 

FillyofDelphi

Banned
David T said:
Until 1935, the Comintern took the position that "Versailles Yugoslavia" was an artificial creation which should be broken up. Is there any possibility that Stalin could continue to adhere to that position after 1935?
Click to expand...

It's possible; I'd say your best bet would be Germany dropping the ball somewhat on its effective coup on seizing the defense of the Italian Penninsula; maybe they only do it later, maybe the Italians aren't as fully disarmed/surprised and stage an effective resistance, delaying and disrupting Germany's ability to set up good defensive positions. Maybe there are fewer German forces there as Berlin decided to keep more on the Eastern Front. The important part is the Allies don't get as deeply bogged down and push the Germans to the point they fall back to defending the Alpine passes, leaving an opening for a move into Slavonia and Croatia. If you have Anglo-American boots on the ground, Stalin can be more than willing to make some "concessions" in partitioning Yugoslavia if it means putting Belgrade under his thumb as opposed to under a dissident Tito. Plus, he likely can finagle it into more influence at another point as part of a deal.
 

David T

thatsbunkers said:
It wouldnt matter if Stalin took that position. Tito never cared about what Stalin had to say
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, the Red Army was actually more powerful than the Partisans in 1944-5! :p

"Soviet troops entered Serbia on 28 September; the Partisans entered Belgrade on 20 October, having been granted the right to take this symbolic honour in agreement worked out at Soviet military headquarters in Craiova between Tito and the Red Army command, Marshal Tolbukhin. The Partisans were left immediately to administer their own territory, while the Red Army pursued the retreating Germans north. For the first time, Tito's forces were able to receive Soviet arms and supplies on a grand scale, and they turned these to the task of liberating the remaining occupied areas. This arrangement conferred considerable authority on Tito and lent legitimacy to Partisan assertions that they should organise the peace because they had led the liberation..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=fFFdDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA91

If Stalin had wanted to prevent the Partisans from getting control of a reunited Yugoslavia in 1944-5, he could have done so.
 

thatsbunkers

Banned
David T said:
Believe it or not, the Red Army was actually more powerful than the Partisans in 1944-5! :p

"Soviet troops entered Serbia on 28 September; the Partisans entered Belgrade on 20 October, having been granted the right to take this symbolic honour in agreement worked out at Soviet military headquarters in Craiova between Tito and the Red Army command, Marshal Tolbukhin. The Partisans were left immediately to administer their own territory, while the Red Army pursued the retreating Germans north. For the first time, Tito's forces were able to receive Soviet arms and supplies on a grand scale, and they turned these to the task of liberating the remaining occupied areas. This arrangement conferred considerable authority on Tito and lent legitimacy. to Partisan assertions that they should organise the peace because they had led the liberation..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=fFFdDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA91

If Stalin had wanted to prevent the Partisans from getting control of a reunited Yugoslavia in 1944-5, he could have done so.
Click to expand...
Stalin isn’t gonna fight the partisans while the war is still going on because he’s upset about the treaty of Versailles
 

Inter2010

As I recall, I read one that one of the proposals was to not restore unified Yugoslavia after the war. The fact is that Tito could not occupy the whole country and that without the entry of the Red Army in 1944, the state would be probably divided.

Here are some scenarios:
1) The success of Valkyrie extends the war in the east for a few months. That is why the Red Army doesn't enter Yugoslavia. Germany still lose the war, but post-war borders are somewhat different. The situation on the ground is that neither the Partisans, nor the Chetniks can control the whole country itself.
Western Yugoslavia is communist one, because of partisan support base. Communist Yugoslavia is made of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Eastern one is Kingdom of Serbia with Montenegro and Macedonia. I don't know exact borders.

2) Somewhere in 1942., Wehrmacht at the moment of enlightenment realise that the Ustashas are liability rather than an asset. Hitler accepts one of Horstenau's proporsal and depose Pavelić and extreme Ustashas. New government is some type of military junta of Croatian Home Guard supported by Wehrmacht. Repulsion of Ustasha policy would diminish support for partisans, especially if new government reject Treaty of Rome and reclaim Dalmatia as integral part of Croatia. Tito will have hard time find new recruits. In one of German offensive, communists are destroyed and Tito is killed/captured.
After the capitulation of Italy, the Croatian government moves to the side of the Allies if the Allies promise their independence after the war. After a brief, but brutal war between the Croatian and German forces, the Anglo-American forces entered the territory of entire Yugoslavia and divided it into three parts: Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia. All three states are internationally recognized and they are NATO members. Slovenia and Croatia are republics, while Serbia remains monarchy.

3) No coup in 1941. Because of this, Kingdom of Yugoslavia stays a member of Axis., even government claims that country is ''neutral''. Red Army enters country and Stalin decides to divide Yugoslavia in few states. Those new democratic people's republics are loyal members of Warsaw pact. :D

4) Stalin invades Yugoslavia in 1948, resulting in crush of Tito and his resistance and divide country with permanent occupation in new republics. Yugoslavia is divided into 6 initial republics. There are no wars in 90s since Yugoslavia doesn't exist.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
David T said:
Until 1935, the Comintern took the position that "Versailles Yugoslavia" was an artificial creation which should be broken up. Is there any possibility that Stalin could continue to adhere to that position after 1935?
Click to expand...

Yes it could happen, if the below happens:

Fearless Leader said:
Had the Abwehr been a bit more on the ball and prevented the coup of March 27th 1941 (something that very nearly happened in OTL) I could see your proposed scenario coming about, especially if Tito gets killed early on as well. In TTL, Germany props up a moribund Yugoslav State while a multitude of nationalist resistance groups take shape and tie down the remaining Yugoslav army and increasing numbers of German troops as the war progresses. The Soviets roll in and end up occupying the region after the war and impose their will on it in a similar fashion to what happened with Poland, Prussia, and the Ukraine.

Given the prominence of the Cetniks, I could see Serbia being the big loser in TTL with the population exchanges resulting in a much smaller "People's Republic of Serbia."
Click to expand...


David T said:
Until 1935, the Comintern took the position that "Versailles Yugoslavia" was an artificial creation which should be broken up. Is there any possibility that Stalin could continue to adhere to that position after 1935?
Click to expand...

Why did the COMINTERN/USSR hate it so much? Were any other states, like Czechoslovakia, called "artificial"? Did the COMINTERN voice other revisionist opinions on national territorial boundaries in Europe during the interwar? If so, what were they?
 

Inter2010

raharris1973 said:
Yes it could happen, if the below happens:






Why did the COMINTERN/USSR hate it so much? Were any other states, like Czechoslovakia, called "artificial"? Did the COMINTERN voice other revisionist opinions on national territorial boundaries in Europe during the interwar? If so, what were they?
Click to expand...

One of the theories is because the Kingdom of Yugoslavia accepted a large number of White Russians after the Russian Civil War.

The second theory is that King Alexander dreamed about the renewal of the Russian Empire and himself as a Emperor.
 
twistedirregular

twistedirregular

How about having the Chetniks become an effective resistance movement that doesn't collaborate with occupational forces but still retains Serb-oriented nationalism/ideologies and decides to transform itself into some kind of "Serb independence movement"?
 
TimTurner

TimTurner

What if Croatia and Slovenia were occupied by the Wallies and formed into a new country after the war? With the rest of Yugoslavia still forming a Yugoslav state.
 
TimTurner

TimTurner

twistedirregular said:
What monarchy? Where would any ruler come from?
Click to expand...
An army general or something? I dunno who would be King.
Since East Yugoslavia would presumably be a Soviet puppet a la Poland, I could see many people of varying nationalities fleeing to the new Croat+Slovene state. Many Partisan figures, for example.
 

David T

raharris1973 said:
Why did the COMINTERN/USSR hate it so much? Were any other states, like Czechoslovakia, called "artificial"? Did the COMINTERN voice other revisionist opinions on national territorial boundaries in Europe during the interwar? If so, what were they?
Click to expand...

"This [the early Yugoslav Communist party's] realistic appraisal of Yugoslav circumstances differed somewhat from the position taken by the Bulgarian-led Balkan Communist Federation (BCF), which by the end of 1923 had adopted the view that Yugoslavia should be divided into its national sections. At the BCF's sixth conference in May 1924, it was stated that Yugoslav-held Macedonia must be united with the other parts of Macedonia to form an independent Macedonian state. The KPJ must ally itself with all organizations fighting for self-determination and separation from Yugoslavia.. The KPJ, as a part of the BCF, was obliged to go along with this, and a month later, at its fifth congress, the Comintern went further, making separation compulsory: 'In new small imperialist states' (Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Greece were named), the ECCI insisted that 'the right of self-determination must be expressed in the slogan of the separation of the oppressed nations and their establishment as separate states'. A special section of the resolution, on the 'Yugoslav question', made it the KPJ's task to fight for the right of self-determination, including separation. The objective was 'the separation of Croatia, Slovenia and Macedonia from Yugoslavia and the creation of independent republics'.34" https://books.google.com/books?id=Eh1-DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA213

(One should remember that by the end of the 1920's the Comintern was even applying the "right of self-determination up to and including separation" to the United States--"the right to self-determination of the Negro people in the Black Belt.")
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top