No Yugoslavia following WW2

Croatian-Slovenian federation would be republic with two parliaments, democratic and free elections, dominated by ''social-democrats'' in early years. Tito would win elections most likely.

No. The HSS enjoyed overwhelming popularity in inter-war Croatia, and that would most likely continue in a Croatian-Slovenian federation post-war. That party was not "social democrats".
 
Map three shows all of greater Serbia without FYROM, perhaps it is more likely that the Serbs would only get part of the territory not the entirety? Where would or could the borders go? WHat is most likely?

Chetniks didn't recognize Bosnian Muslims, Montenegrins and Macedonians as separate nations, but as part of the Serbian one. They also tried to impose a story about Serbs Catholics, but without any results. It was made for propaganda purposes so that Serbia would include both Slavonia and Dalmatia, which are majority Croatian.

If the monarchy wins at the end of the war, we would have the last map. However, such a situation would inevitably have caused the civil war and later disintegration of the state. I think the Allies knew this very well, and that's why in the end they supported Tito.

The communist division of the state was quite fair. I'm not talking here about the nature of the regime, but about the division of the state in which distinctiveness of each nation were respected. Montenegro was an independent state before Yugoslavia, and statehood was re-established in socialist Yugoslavia. The first map is most realistic.

The second map would mean the survival of Croatia as an independent state. Possible, but without Ustasha regime. The weaker Partisan movement means there is no significant unification movement. I don't think the Allies would have a choice except to acknowledge the real situation in the field.
 
Last edited:
No. The HSS enjoyed overwhelming popularity in inter-war Croatia, and that would most likely continue in a Croatian-Slovenian federation post-war. That party was not "social democrats".

I know HSS would be most powerful force in the state. Remnants of the Communist Party would create the Social Democratic option.
 

Because if you weren't, you'd have known that the HSS leaned to the right and was quite nationalist. "Republican" is a meaningless descriptor absent royal Yugoslav centralism, and for an anticlerical party they sure liked to be seen with priests and cardinals and liked to invoke God a lot.
 

The Avenger

Banned
Chetniks didn't recognize Bosnian Muslims, Montenegrins and Macedonians as separate nations, but as part of the Serbian one. They also tried to impose a story about Serbs Catholics, but without any results. It was made for propaganda purposes so that Serbia would include both Slavonia and Dalmatia, which are majority Croatian.
Why weren't Macedonians recognized?
 
Because if you weren't, you'd have known that the HSS leaned to the right and was quite nationalist. "Republican" is a meaningless descriptor absent royal Yugoslav centralism, and for an anticlerical party they sure liked to be seen with priests and cardinals and liked to invoke God a lot.

Radić was anticlerical. Some members of HSS were right winged, some left winged. Maček was in custody during the war.
Postwar policy in Europe has turned left for reasons of war, social inequality and industrialization. The same would be in Croatia. I mean that when I say social democracy.

Why weren't Macedonians recognized?

Macedonia was part of Serbia back then. Macedonians were endangered by Serbs, Bulgarians and Greeks, so they developed their own identity. Serbian politicians claimed that the Macedonians were bugarized Serbs. Real reason was that Serbia didn't want to lose direct border with Greece.
 
Last edited:

The Avenger

Banned
Macedonia was part of Serbia back then.

Did Serbia actually exist after Yugoslavia's creation, though?

Macedonians were endangered by Serbs, Bulgarians and Greeks, so they developed their own identity. Serbian politicians claimed that the Macedonians were bugarized Serbs.

What did they base their claim about bulgarized Serbs on?
 
Did Serbia actually exist after Yugoslavia's creation, though?



What did they base their claim about bulgarized Serbs on?

Before WW1, Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Montenegro were internationally recognized states. Croatia had autonomy within Austria-Hungary. Slovenia was divided into free states in the Austrian part of the country, while Bosnia and Herzegovina was under the control of the Austro-Hungarian Ministry of Finance and was a condominium.

By late 1918, Austria-Hungary ceased to exist. The Croatian Parliament abolished all relations with Vienna and proclaimed State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. That state lasted a month. The Italian army occupied Istria and Rijeka. Because of the fear that the Italians would occupy much of Croatia, especially Dalmatia, there was a unification of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and Kingdom of Serbia. Kingdom of Montenegro controversially united with Serbia, with a short-lived war between the supporters of two dynasties. Petrović-Njegoš was a Montenegrin dynasty, and Karadjordjevics were Serbian dynasty. Vojvodina declared a direct unification with Serbia.

After unificiation, King Alexander first divided the state into 33 areas. Croatian autonomy was abolished. In 1929 he divided country into 9 banovinas. In 1939, the banovina Croatia was proclaimed. It was just an administrative part of the state, without real autonomy.

Communists realized that such Yugoslavia was unsustainable. After WW2, new Yugoslavia was decorated by the Soviet model. The so-called AVNOJ borders were introduced. Socialist Yugoslavia was a federation of 6 republics. Therefore, Serbia was not an independent state, but it was part of the federation. Serbia again as an independent state was created in 2006, after Montenegro declared independence from the state union of Serbia and Montenegro.

Serbs considered the Macedonians as Serbs who, under Bulgarian propaganda, became a separate nation. Bulgaria and Serbia have been 8 times at war over Macedonia. Macedonia was an important part of medieval Serbia, and Macedonia was Serbian prize won after Balkan wars. Even today, the Serbian Orthodox Church doesn't recognize the Macedonian Orthodox Church. So the reasons are cultural, historical and geopolitical. Socialist Bulgaria recognized Macedonia as one of federative state of Yugoslavia, while Serbia had no other choice but to recognize independent Macedonia after breakup of Yugoslavia.
 
Radić was anticlerical.

He was also the head of a party that deliberately sought the votes of the deeply religious peasantry. Hell, the party itself is called the Croatian Peasant Party. Plus, Radić had been dead for a while when WWII ended.

Some members of HSS were right winged, some left winged.

Sure, but the party itself wasn't leftist, let alone socialist, unless you use the American definition of the word.

Maček was in custody during the war.

He wasn't in custody because he was a socialist if that's what you're trying to imply.

Post war policy in Europe has turned left for reasons of war, social inequality and industrialization. The same would be in Croatia. I mean that when I say social democracy.

No, you've clearly moved your position here, since it went from "Tito would be elected into power" to "the HSS would make a leftward turn on some issues".
 
He was also the head of a party that deliberately sought the votes of the deeply religious peasantry. Hell, the party itself is called the Croatian Peasant Party. Plus, Radić had been dead for a while when WWII ended.



Sure, but the party itself wasn't leftist, let alone socialist, unless you use the American definition of the word.



He wasn't in custody because he was a socialist if that's what you're trying to imply.



No, you've clearly moved your position here, since it went from "Tito would be elected into power" to "the HSS would make a leftward turn on some issues".

I know he wasn't in custody because of socialism, but because he was threat to new regime. Tito, if he stays alive, would surely be a significant political figure. How powerful, not sure.
 
Top