PC: Bulgaria united to Yugoslavia after WW1

A lot of people are getting VERY off-topic. The OP asked if Bulgaria can become part of Yugoslavia after WWI. I think that upper Silistria will still be given to Romania, but considering that Bulgaria was in the Central Powers, if Serbia were the main ones to defeat them (and I only think they could if this was the case), then the Bulgarian king will probably be deposed and Bulgaria will unite with Yugoslavia.
 
A lot of people are getting VERY off-topic. The OP asked if Bulgaria can become part of Yugoslavia after WWI. I think that upper Silistria will still be given to Romania, but considering that Bulgaria was in the Central Powers, if Serbia were the main ones to defeat them (and I only think they could if this was the case), then the Bulgarian king will probably be deposed and Bulgaria will unite with Yugoslavia.
Aren't you going of topic yourself? No one here mentioned Romania (and was is upper Silistria exactly).
Serbia has no chance to be the main one to defeat Bulgaria and in any case, the decisions were made by the Great Powers, not minor ones like Serbia. Nor would the Serbs have much desire to incorporate a bigger country than themselves in Yugoslavia.
 
There is very little chance of Bulgaria joining Yugoslavia after WWI. Losing independence would be extremely unpopular, especially to an enemy like Serbia but even. Even if the Bulgarian leadership is somehow persuaded to agree, they would demand that the Bulgarians in Macedonia (the majority at the time) be given the right of self-determination - which would be completely unacceptable to Serbia. And I doubt that the Entente would agree to Serbia annexing Bulgaria. In any case, I doubt that the Serbs would want their influence reduced by including a country bigger than theirs into Yugoslavia.

That Bulgaria almost joined Yugoslavia after WWII was only possible because it was led by Georgi Dimitrov, an internationalist for had accepted as an orthodox communist the Comintern idea on a separate Macedonian nationality and who was strictly following Stalin's orders to create such a nationality. Nothing like that would be possible after WWI.

And while this is going off topic, Bulgaria joining Yugoslavia would not make it more likely for Yugoslavia to survive, as there is no reason to believe that the Bulgarians would not want independence at some point, especially considering the extremely unfavorable conditions under which Bulgaria was to enter.


This scenario seems possible after WWII, but after WWI is a different matter. Consider that by 1918 Serbia had fought Bulgaria twice in the last five years over Macedonia. It seems very unlikely that they would agree to surrender it peacefully. Also, Bulgaria with Macedonia would be the largest component of this alt-Yugoslavia and I don't think the Serbs would want to play a secondary role in a country they created.

Well remember that Stamboliski was the leader of Bulgaria until 1924 or 1926? when he was assassinated, but he favored a Yugoslav federation, and considered himself a South Slav rather than a Bulgarian. But I don't think it would have been impossible for Bulgaria to join Yugoslavia following WWI because:

1) Bulgaria's war aims during WWI were to annex Vardar Macedonia the territories they had lost to Serbia after the BAlkan wars, and in this way they would have gained Macedonia and achievedd those war aims, despite being on the losing side during WWI. Pretty good deal for them.

2) The more difficult thing would definetly be to convince the Serbs to include Bulgaria in Yugoslavia. This undoubtedly would have lessened Serbian influence, and it would be difficult to get them to agree. But remember that Serbia had throughout the entire 19th century viewed itself as the Piedmont of the Yugoslavs and adopted in its foreign policy the belief that Serbia was destined to take the lead in uniting all the South Slavs into one state.

Also keep in mind that a bunch of South Slavic areas were seeking unification with Serbia following the war, precisely because Serbia had agreed on forming a Yugoslav state as its war aim and giving up its own sovereignty in a way to create Yugoslavia. Vojvodina for instance directly unified with Serbia because it was afraid that the Kingdom of SHS was stalling unification. The same goes for Montenegro. Both Bosnia and Dalmatia announced they would unilaterally unite with Serbia in five days following Vojvodina's and Montenegro's unification if the SHS did not proclaim unification. Eventually even the Croat politicians in Zagreb who had been most vocal in their opposition to direct unification realized that without unification their state would fall apart and be absorbed by neighboring powers. It could have been possible for Bulgaria to also proclaim unification with Serbia in a new Yugoslav state if the right movement (Stamboliski) type politicians gained momentum. The allies would also probably desire this, since they wanted to create as large of states as possible. There was even talk of Albania joining Yugoslavia following WWI, so that all Albanians could be united in the same borders, despite Albanians not even being South Slavs.
 
Aren't you going of topic yourself? No one here mentioned Romania (and was is upper Silistria exactly).
Serbia has no chance to be the main one to defeat Bulgaria and in any case, the decisions were made by the Great Powers, not minor ones like Serbia. Nor would the Serbs have much desire to incorporate a bigger country than themselves in Yugoslavia.

Well remember, Bulgaria was not necessarily a bigger country than Serbia when Yugoslavia was created in 1918. Serbia included all of present day Central Serbia, Sandzhak, Kosovo, and Macedonia following the Balkan Wars. So it was about the same size as Bulgaria, maybe a little smaller. In any case, both Vojvodina and Montenegro united with Serbia before the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was proclaimed on December 1st 1918. So Serbia included all not only Kosovo and Macedonia but also Vojvodina and Montenegro.

Also its not entirely true that all the decisions were made only by the Great Powers as to what countries would be created following the war. The great powers were for instance against the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but when that country fell apart on its own towards the end of the war, the Great Powers had little choice but to accept the new reality and proclaim the dissolution of the state.

Likewise, the Great powers were for a long time against the creation of a Yugoslav state, because the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs laid claim to the entire Dalmatian coast which went against the London Pact of 1915 when the Allies promised much of Dalmatia to Italy.

So its entirely possible that if Bulgaria had voted for unification with Serbia in a new Yugoslav state following the war the allies would have been forced to agree to that creation, simply because that's what the reality was on the ground.
 
Bulgaria joining Yugoslavia after WW1 makes perfect sense for Bulgaria, because such way the last would avoid the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Neuilly-sur-Seine and the National Catastrophe, and even can progress further with its territorial and demographic gains.

Most of the preconditions are present: In OTL Tsar Ferdinand the Ist abdicated anyway in favor of his son Boris the IIIrd. Joining Yugoslavia would require Boris III to revert back to the title of Knyaz ( King ) , because holding its Tsar ( Emperor ) title would mean that he has higher rank than the Serbian ( Yugoslav ) king.
Greater Yugoslavia incl. Bulgaria if remaining monarhcy, may utilize other trick - the Serbian King to become a Tsar, too.

In 1919 this bigger Yugoslavia could interfere in the Hungaro-Romanian conflict ( siding Hungaria ) and in the Greako-Turkish conflict ( siding Greece ).

Both Hungaria and Greece may join this Imperial Federation.

Hungaria to get Transilvania ( most of it ).

Greece will trade ( most of ) Macedonia, Thrace, Epyrus and Tessaly for Asia Minor.

Romania will join the Empire and will be compensted for the losses with vast tracts of land taken from the falling appart Russian Empire.

Turkey may be annihilated in early 20es and its leftover territories ( Asia Minor ) to be split between Greece and Greater Armenia ( + eventually Assyria ).

The dissolution of the Russian Empire in Caucassus may be utilized in order the territories of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan ( and even North Caucassus ) to be Federated.

Effectivelly this construct will be equivalent to restoring christian Byzantium covering Balkans and Anatolia.

Capital - Constantinople ( as Imperial federal territory ).

Constituents: Slovenia ( incl. Stirya and Carinthia ), Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungaria, Romania, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan.

The ethnic issues could be extinguished with infra-Imperial "irredentist engineering" -- drawing the state lines ( internal borders ) according to the ethnicities territoriality + modest territory-populational swaps.

Languages -- as with OTL EU - every constituent's nation official language is official for the Empire.

The Crown issue could be resolved via "permanent regency". There is Emperor of all, but no man is concretely occupying this position, until the Imperial Federal legislative body and the Regency Council ( including the monarchs of the consituent nations ) have not decided that the decent figure in dynastic sense is ready "bred".

The constituents are very autonomous in every aspect less : money, defence, taxes, foreign relations. ...

Religious issues -- very very secular officially. Religions if not surpressed, than strongly discouraged and regarded as peace-disturbing human activity.

...
 
Both Bosnia and Dalmatia announced they would unilaterally unite with Serbia in five days following Vojvodina's and Montenegro's unification if the SHS did not proclaim unification. Eventually even the Croat politicians in Zagreb who had been most vocal in their opposition to direct unification realized that without unification their state would fall apart and be absorbed by neighboring powers.

1) What? :confused:

Where are you getting that info from?


2) You do know that the paper of unification brought from Zagreb had no legal strength because Sabor did not vote on it, but the unification was later accepted due to political realities.
 
1) What? :confused:

Where are you getting that info from?


2) You do know that the paper of unification brought from Zagreb had no legal strength because Sabor did not vote on it, but the unification was later accepted due to political realities.

I'm not quite sure what the Croatian argument is when it comes to the creation of Yugoslavia and why it was illegal. I'd be interested to hear a more detailed version of it. From what I understand, the Croatian Sabor did in fact vote for unification because the majority of the delegates in the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs were in favor of unification. Only Stjepan Radic's Party was against it and refused to sign it.

In any case, the Croats could not legitimately speak for the whole of State of SHS because that state consisted of both Slovenes and Serbs who were in favor of direct unification with Serbia. Also, unlike Serbia, the State of SHS was not a internationally recognized state, so the legality of that state's existence can be seriously questioned. In any cause the biggest danger facing the Croats at the end of WWI was not at all Serbian unification or the fear of Serbian domination, but rather the very real possibility that their country would be divided up between Italy, Austria, and Hungary. Not only that, but areas the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs claimed to be representing at the Sabor in Zagreb were already voting for direct unification with Serbia. Vojvodina declared direct unification with Serbia on November 25th 1918 and Montenegro followed a day after on November 26th.

After this, both the pre-war regional parliaments in Bosnia and Dalmatia declared they would unilaterally unite with Serbia in five days if Zagreb and the deputies in the Sabor did not immediately proceed with unification. There are a bunch of scholarly works that deal with the Creation of Yugoslavia and lots of them mention this being the case. When it comes to Bosnia, both the Muslim deputies in Parliament as well as the Serbian deputies came out in favor of this. When it comes to Dalmatia, the Croats here also declared their intent to unite with Serbia, but this was largely because Italy was moving to secure the entire Dalmatian coast allotted to it under the Treaty of London and the only army strong capable of defending the region was the Serbian Army. So both Bosnia and Dalmatia announced they would unify with Serbia. Now, this never actually ended up occuring, because the deputies in Zagreb realized that they were losing complete control of their state and so on December 1st 1918 their delegation arrived in Belgrade to announce unification based on the Corfu Agreement of 1917.

Its entirely possible the Bulgarian parliament could have also announced a unification in Yugoslavia in order to avoid war reperations and the Treaty of NEuilly being imposed on them. There was even a move to have Albania join Yugoslavia following the war, since that country had only formally existed since 1912, and there were just as many Albanians left outside of Yugoslavia as were left within the state. Also, Albanians were at risk of being divided between Italy and Greece.
 
Could you please state the source of the claim about the actions of Dalmatian polititians in joining with kingdom of Serbia. I know about Vojvodina, Montenegro and BiH (though that one was a bit fishy) but have never encountered the thing about Dalmatia.

It was not the Sabor in Zagreb that voted but the council of the State of SHS. Also the new Sabor in Zagreb was not just Croatian Sabor made out of Croatian delegates but a diet of the entire State of SHS.
 
Could you please state the source of the claim about the actions of Dalmatian polititians in joining with kingdom of Serbia. I know about Vojvodina, Montenegro and BiH (though that one was a bit fishy) but have never encountered the thing about Dalmatia.

It was not the Sabor in Zagreb that voted but the council of the State of SHS. Also the new Sabor in Zagreb was not just Croatian Sabor made out of Croatian delegates but a diet of the entire State of SHS.

Yeah I'm just gonna have to dig it up. Give me a second. I know I've read it in books at my university library, but I'll try to find an online source.
 
Could you please state the source of the claim about the actions of Dalmatian polititians in joining with kingdom of Serbia. I know about Vojvodina, Montenegro and BiH (though that one was a bit fishy) but have never encountered the thing about Dalmatia.

It was not the Sabor in Zagreb that voted but the council of the State of SHS. Also the new Sabor in Zagreb was not just Croatian Sabor made out of Croatian delegates but a diet of the entire State of SHS.

Alright I found the source I got it from, but I'm not 100% sure you will be able to view it because I think my university gives me access through our school network which I'm currently connected to. But here's the link anyway.
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/vi...33435.001.0001/acprof-9780195333435-chapter-2

The book is called "A Legal Geography of Yugoslavia's Disintegration" and the author of the work is Ana S. Tribovich. The book deals with the history of Yugoslavia's internal borders from the country's creation in 1918 to its destruction in 1991. I'll write down specifically the quote in the book. The author is of Serbian origin, so I realize that will immediately make it questionable for a number of Croats/Bosniaks/non-Serbs from the region, but take it for what its worth. Here's the full text below.

"It is important to note that the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was not formed for the sake of creating an independent state, but with a goal of establishing a representative body that would act on the unification of the Slav provinces of the Austro-Hungarian Empire with the Kingdom of Serbia. This is most clear in the decision of the Dalmatian National Council of November 16, 1918, declaring that the province of Dalmatia would unilaterally join the Kingdom of Serbia in the absence of overall unification. 213 As Hondius has pointed out, “the regional national councils were already threatening to join Serbia on their own accord.” 214

The two sources she cites at 213 and 214 to back up her claim are:

Milorad Ekmečić, Stvaranje Jugoslavije 1790-1918 [Creation of Yugoslavia 1790-1918], Vol 2 (Belgrade: Prosveta, 1989), 820.

and

Hondius, The Yugoslav Community of Nations, 89.

I haven't checked those sources to see if that's what they actually say (I don't have that much time on my hands unfortunately). Hope you find this of use. Cheers.
 
Actually since you may find it of interest Marko, I'm going to post the whole section of the chapter that deals with the unification of Serbia, Montenegro, and the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs in 1918. It's a very good book in my opinion because it brings to light many details about Yugoslavia's creation that I myself did not know about either. Here you go.

On October 29, 1918, the National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs proclaimed itself the government of the new state of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. 203 Its decision followed that of the Croatian Diet, which had on that day declared (p. 114 ) the end of “state-legal relations and connections” between the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia (which allegedly existed in the Middle Ages) and the Kingdom of Hungary and the Austrian Empire (Article I), and proclaimed this territory to be part of the (still not established) State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, independent of Hungary and Austria (Article 2). 204 Significantly, the Croatian Diet based its decision “on the basis of the complete right of people's self-determination which is now recognized by all warring parties” (Article 1). On November 3, 1918, the National Council requested but never obtained recognition from the governments of France, Great Britain, the USA, and Italy. On November 8, 1918, only Serbia recognized the new government but not the state. 205 The same day Pashich sent a note to the Serbian diplomatic representatives in Paris, London, and Washington asking them to seek recognition for the National Council. Again the word “government” was used, not “state.” Moreover Pashich stated that the National Council would be considered “a government of Yugoslavs on the territory of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy until the definitive constitution of a single state of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.” 206 Protich explains the Serbian act of recognition as “a sign of generosity towards a party whose status was, in the least, questionable.” 207

At the same time, the Serbian government did not consider the National Council to be on equal footing as negotiators of the internal organization of the new state. Pashich signed a declaration to that effect at the Geneva conference of November 9, 1918 (Geneva Declaration), 208 principally as a result of pressure stemming from the Serbian opposition parties. Nonetheless, a unified front was (p. 115 ) needed to demonstrate the impossibility of survival of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. 209 As Pashich explained to Stoyan Protich, the acting head of the Serbian cabinet, in a long telegram:

under the pressure of events I was faced with the alternative: yield at the expense of Serbia's reputation and my own or take upon myself the curse of the people because with our disunity we wrecked the unity of our people. 210

The Geneva Declaration refuted the Declaration of Corfu by failing to affirm that the new state would be a consititutional monarchy led by the Karageorgevich dynasty, proposing instead that a “common ministry of Serbs, Croats and Sloveness,” be composed of three members of the Serb government and three members of the National Council of Serbs, Croats and Sloveness, with a purpose of negotiating a new state arrangement and other relevant issues until the adoption of a new Constitution. The Serb Prince Regent refused to sanction Pashich's signature to the Geneva Declaration and Pashich's cabinet resigned. 211 In Zagreb, Svetozar Pribichevich, the leader of Serbs from Austria-Hungary, also opposed the agreement. The end result was that neither the Serb government nor the National Council accepted the ill-fated Geneva Declaration, a document that remained a draft proposal without legal effect. 212
It is important to note that the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was not formed for the sake of creating an independent state, but with a goal of establishing a representative body that would act on the unification of the Slav provinces of the Austro-Hungarian Empire with the Kingdom of Serbia. This is most clear in the decision of the Dalmatian National Council of November 16, 1918, declaring that the province of Dalmatia would unilaterally join the Kingdom of Serbia in the absence of overall unification. 213 As Hondius has pointed out, “the regional national councils were already threatening to join Serbia on their own accord.” 214

(p. 116 ) The process of establishing a joint government in the formerly Habsburg South Slav provinces was rushed, not entirely democratic and not entirely successful. While the Croatian Diet adopted a resolution to this end, it had jurisdiction over only two provinces—Croatia and Slavonia. The Slovenes elected a government only in October 1918, but indirectly—from the ranks of the Slovene People's Party and the National Progressive Party. In the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, “the executive authority” became the National Council of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes for Bosnia and Herzegovina, also established only on October 20, 1918 from of the ranks of political parties that were also represented in the National Council in Zagreb. 215 While both the Slovene and the Bosnian national councils initially placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the National Council in Zagreb they did so solely with the purpose of entrusting one body to perform the process of unification with Serbia. That the Zagreb government was not a full-fledged government is also supported by a decision of the Voivodina assembly (then incorporating the provinces of Bachka, Banat and Baranya) of November 25, 1918, to directly merge with the Kingdom of Serbia, which was instantly accepted by Serbia. 216 The Kingdom of Montenegro also decided to unite with Serbia unilaterally and prior to the creation of the South-Slav 217 state, as did the forty-eight of the fifty four municipalities in Bosnia. 218 In Montenegro, the Great National Assembly also voted for Montenegro's unification with Serbia on November 13, 1918, reflecting the wishes of the majority population that elected the pro-unification delegates a month prior to this decision. The Assembly (p. 117 ) simultaneously dethroned the Montenegrin King Nicholas I and the Petrovich Nyegosh dynasty, accepting the rule of the Karageorgevich dynasty: 219

… Montenegro unites with its brother Serbia into a single State under the dynasty of Karadjordjevic and, thus united, enters the common fatherland of our threefold people of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.…

… The Serbian people in Montenegro is of one blood, speaks one language and has the same aspirations, is of the same religion and has the same customs as the people that lives in Serbia and other Serbian lands. 220

However, even in Montenegro the question of unification was not posed directly to the population and very few delegates were opposed to the achieved terms of unification. 221 At the same time, the population of the Habsburg Carinthia region, the only province in which a direct vote was taken on the question of unification as a result of the Paris Conference, said ‘no’ to a Yugoslavia on October 10, 1920. Although two-thirds of the population was Slovene, only 41 percent of the total population in Carinthia desired a common South Slav State, which means that a significant number of Slovenes, like the Austrians of the region, desired to be part of Austria. 222 Some deduce from this plebiscite result that the majority of Slovenes, and perhaps even Croats, were of this opinion. Others believe that the Yugoslav movement was dominant among all South Slav peoples. No matter what the prevailing ideology, it is clear that the perceptions of the goal of the common Slav State were different among its component nations, as reflected in the ensuing argument over the constitution.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the National Council had, upon constitution, declared itself for union of all Yugoslav peoples, inviting Serbia's Fieldmarshall Stepa Stepanovich to liberate them from the Habsburgs. 223 On November 23, 1918, (p. 118 ) the Central Committee of the National Council in Zagreb proclaimed the unification of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs with Serbia and Montenegro 224 and elected an implementing Committee. This Committee had little leverage when it arrived to Belgrade on November 28, 1918. Members of the National Council of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were aware that the majority of the population they claimed to represent would no longer stand behind them if unification with Serbia were not achieved. Some of their nominally subordinate councils had already undermined their authority by deciding to join Serbia directly, such as the National Council of Voivodina and the majority of Bosnian municipalities as outlined above.

Late on 1 December 1918, the head of the delegation, Ante Pavelić (who was not the same Pavelić who later founded the Nazi Ustasha movement in Croatia) appeared before the Prince Regent Alexander and read an address that referred to a single state under the reign of the Serb monarch. At the occasion, Prince-Regent Alexander Karageorgevich proclaimed the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, 225 and this was the only proclamation producing legal effect. After all, the provisional Zagreb Council and the Belgrade government were not equal partners. On 16 December 1918, the Serbian National Assembly declared to be “happy in being able to give its political confirmation to the accomplished fact of the political union of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes” but with one important caution:

It trusts that the State frontiers will be drawn in such a way as not to impair our right of national self-determination and it expects the Government to defend this right to the uttermost. 226

In recognizing the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, the Great Powers obligated the new state to guarantee language and religious rights, as well as other (p. 119 ) group rights, both for the three constituent nations and for “nationals who belong to racial, religious or linguistic minorities.” 227
The “new state” relied in the main on the legislation of the Kingdom of Serbia prior to the adoption of the new constitution in 1921. Whether the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, formed in December 1918, is a new state or a continuation of the Kingdom of Serbia, is a question that has troubled many jurists. Slobodan Yovanovich argues that by international law, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes is a continuation of the previous Serbian state, since only Serbia existed as a state to which remnants of the Austro-Hungarian Empire were joined, succeeding to all contracts and treaties of the Kingdom of Serbia. 228 However, Yovanovich also insists that by constitutional law, this was a new state, which had new state symbols, and to which a new constitution applied (once adopted in 1921), making no reference to the previous constitution. Others disagree with Yovanovich, who, although a respected lawyer, was also an ardent yugophile and thus biased in that respect. They argue that there was constitutional continuity since the new constitution of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was based on the liberal 1903 Serbian constitution and the Serbian Parliament was the only body to officially ratify the unification of the Kingdom of Serbia with the South Slav parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Another argument in favor of those who claim the continuity of the Serbian state is that the Austro-Hungarian Slavs did not join at once but the region of Voivodina united with the Kingdom of Serbia several days earlier. 229 Montenegro also joined the Kingdom of Serbia prior to the December act of unification. Finally, the new common state of South Slavs was ruled by the same monarchy, the Serbian Karageorgevich dynasty. (p. 120 )
 
Well remember that Stamboliski was the leader of Bulgaria until 1924 or 1926? when he was assassinated, but he favored a Yugoslav federation, and considered himself a South Slav rather than a Bulgarian. But I don't think it would have been impossible for Bulgaria to join Yugoslavia following WWI because:

1) Bulgaria's war aims during WWI were to annex Vardar Macedonia the territories they had lost to Serbia after the BAlkan wars, and in this way they would have gained Macedonia and achievedd those war aims, despite being on the losing side during WWI. Pretty good deal for them.

2) The more difficult thing would definetly be to convince the Serbs to include Bulgaria in Yugoslavia. This undoubtedly would have lessened Serbian influence, and it would be difficult to get them to agree. But remember that Serbia had throughout the entire 19th century viewed itself as the Piedmont of the Yugoslavs and adopted in its foreign policy the belief that Serbia was destined to take the lead in uniting all the South Slavs into one state.

Also keep in mind that a bunch of South Slavic areas were seeking unification with Serbia following the war, precisely because Serbia had agreed on forming a Yugoslav state as its war aim and giving up its own sovereignty in a way to create Yugoslavia. Vojvodina for instance directly unified with Serbia because it was afraid that the Kingdom of SHS was stalling unification. The same goes for Montenegro. Both Bosnia and Dalmatia announced they would unilaterally unite with Serbia in five days following Vojvodina's and Montenegro's unification if the SHS did not proclaim unification. Eventually even the Croat politicians in Zagreb who had been most vocal in their opposition to direct unification realized that without unification their state would fall apart and be absorbed by neighboring powers. It could have been possible for Bulgaria to also proclaim unification with Serbia in a new Yugoslav state if the right movement (Stamboliski) type politicians gained momentum. The allies would also probably desire this, since they wanted to create as large of states as possible. There was even talk of Albania joining Yugoslavia following WWI, so that all Albanians could be united in the same borders, despite Albanians not even being South Slavs.
Stamboliyski was leader of Bulgaria until 1923 when he was overthrown and murdered partly because of his attempts to improve relations with Yugoslavia (the claim about him identifying as a Yugoslav should, like many such Wikipedia statements, be taken with a grain of salt). In fact, the people who actually killed him were Macedonian Bulgarians, angered by what they saw as a betrayal. Joining Yugoslavia would be met with far more resistance, especially considering the likely terms. And while your proposed solution looks very reasonable from today's perspective, remember that Serbia and Bulgaria had fought two wars over Macedonia in just five years. Serbia had in fact refused to cede any part of Macedonia to Bulgaria during WWI when the Entente were trying to entice Bulgaria to join them, so why should they do so in their moment of triumph. And yes, the Serbs had imagined themselves as a Piedmont of the Balkans, but that certainly didn't include a scenario where they would be equal to the Bulgarians.

And while Serbia did give part of its sovereignty up, the Serbs assumed a leading role in the new country, which caused so many problems later on. Your examples about the formation of Yugoslavia is not really comparable, as the Croats and the others had not nearly as bad relations with the Serbs as the Bulgarians - and they were not nearly as strong as the Serbs.

Well remember, Bulgaria was not necessarily a bigger country than Serbia when Yugoslavia was created in 1918. Serbia included all of present day Central Serbia, Sandzhak, Kosovo, and Macedonia following the Balkan Wars. So it was about the same size as Bulgaria, maybe a little smaller. In any case, both Vojvodina and Montenegro united with Serbia before the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was proclaimed on December 1st 1918. So Serbia included all not only Kosovo and Macedonia but also Vojvodina and Montenegro.

Also its not entirely true that all the decisions were made only by the Great Powers as to what countries would be created following the war. The great powers were for instance against the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but when that country fell apart on its own towards the end of the war, the Great Powers had little choice but to accept the new reality and proclaim the dissolution of the state.

Likewise, the Great powers were for a long time against the creation of a Yugoslav state, because the State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs laid claim to the entire Dalmatian coast which went against the London Pact of 1915 when the Allies promised much of Dalmatia to Italy.

So its entirely possible that if Bulgaria had voted for unification with Serbia in a new Yugoslav state following the war the allies would have been forced to agree to that creation, simply because that's what the reality was on the ground.
April 9th, 2012 11:09 AM
If Macedonia was to be ceded to Bulgaria (as in your solution), Bulgaria would be indeed a bit bigger than Serbia (according to these sources, Bulgaria with Macedonia had about 6 million, while Serbia with Kosovo, Montenegro and Vojvodina had about 5). But even if they were equal, that alone would reduce their influence substantially and I'm not certain that the Serbian leadership wanted that. I believe that they did want to annex a large part of Western Bulgaria, though the eventual Peace Conference limited this to some border districts.
And not everything depended on the Great Powers but it's unlikely they would have permitted Serbia to annex Bulgaria, as the poster to whom I replied seemed to think.
 
Thanks on the quotes. I will try and get the book to read it since different POW are important for understanding the matter. I went twice through your quote and failed to find the reference about Dalmatia threating to join Serbia.
 
Stamboliyski was leader of Bulgaria until 1923 when he was overthrown and murdered partly because of his attempts to improve relations with Yugoslavia (the claim about him identifying as a Yugoslav should, like many such Wikipedia statements, be taken with a grain of salt). In fact, the people who actually killed him were Macedonian Bulgarians, angered by what they saw as a betrayal. Joining Yugoslavia would be met with far more resistance, especially considering the likely terms. And while your proposed solution looks very reasonable from today's perspective, remember that Serbia and Bulgaria had fought two wars over Macedonia in just five years. Serbia had in fact refused to cede any part of Macedonia to Bulgaria during WWI when the Entente were trying to entice Bulgaria to join them, so why should they do so in their moment of triumph. And yes, the Serbs had imagined themselves as a Piedmont of the Balkans, but that certainly didn't include a scenario where they would be equal to the Bulgarians.

And while Serbia did give part of its sovereignty up, the Serbs assumed a leading role in the new country, which caused so many problems later on. Your examples about the formation of Yugoslavia is not really comparable, as the Croats and the others had not nearly as bad relations with the Serbs as the Bulgarians - and they were not nearly as strong as the Serbs.


If Macedonia was to be ceded to Bulgaria (as in your solution), Bulgaria would be indeed a bit bigger than Serbia (according to these sources, Bulgaria with Macedonia had about 6 million, while Serbia with Kosovo, Montenegro and Vojvodina had about 5). But even if they were equal, that alone would reduce their influence substantially and I'm not certain that the Serbian leadership wanted that. I believe that they did want to annex a large part of Western Bulgaria, though the eventual Peace Conference limited this to some border districts.
And not everything depended on the Great Powers but it's unlikely they would have permitted Serbia to annex Bulgaria, as the poster to whom I replied seemed to think.

Well, Serbia would definetly have to be compensated if it gave Macedonia to Bulgaria. I think it would have been reasonable to make the trade with Bosnia-Herzegovina. So Serbia gives up Macedonia to Bulgaria and in exchange gets Bosnia, as well as probably a portion of southern Dalmatia near Dubrovnik and the Peljasac Peninsula to give it a coastline. The rest of Dalmatia would be joined with Croatia re-instating the Triune Kingdom and the Slovene areas would be the fourth unit of the Yugoslav federation. The capital would have stayed in Belgrade, since Serbs were 1) the winners in the war and 2) the largest nation within the country. However it would be a federation consisting of Bulgaria Serbia Croatia and Slovenia. Each would have local autonomy regarding its own affairs. Also, I don't think a constitutional monarchy would have been acceptable. The Karadjordjevic dynasty would be overthrown and instead a federative republic form of government would have been instituted. Idk, that's just my thoughts, I think it could have worked. You get the majority of Serbs within one unit (thus satisfying Serbian nationalists) you get the Bulgarians finally gaining Macedonia (thus satisfying Bulgarian natioanlists) You get Croatia finally re-united in its historic Triune Kingdom by gaining Dalmatia (satisfying Croat nationalists) and you get Slovenes with their own unit.
 
Well, Serbia would definetly have to be compensated if it gave Macedonia to Bulgaria. I think it would have been reasonable to make the trade with Bosnia-Herzegovina. So Serbia gives up Macedonia to Bulgaria and in exchange gets Bosnia, as well as probably a portion of southern Dalmatia near Dubrovnik and the Peljasac Peninsula to give it a coastline. The rest of Dalmatia would be joined with Croatia re-instating the Triune Kingdom and the Slovene areas would be the fourth unit of the Yugoslav federation. The capital would have stayed in Belgrade, since Serbs were 1) the winners in the war and 2) the largest nation within the country. However it would be a federation consisting of Bulgaria Serbia Croatia and Slovenia. Each would have local autonomy regarding its own affairs. Also, I don't think a constitutional monarchy would have been acceptable. The Karadjordjevic dynasty would be overthrown and instead a federative republic form of government would have been instituted. Idk, that's just my thoughts, I think it could have worked. You get the majority of Serbs within one unit (thus satisfying Serbian nationalists) you get the Bulgarians finally gaining Macedonia (thus satisfying Bulgarian natioanlists) You get Croatia finally re-united in its historic Triune Kingdom by gaining Dalmatia (satisfying Croat nationalists) and you get Slovenes with their own unit.

That could sound fair in hindsight but wouldn't the victorious Serbs be outraged in compromising, ceding land to the defeated Bulgarians and being only compensated by lands that they were already promised anyway?

The way I could see this Greater Yugoslavia being formed is in the same format that of the Kingdom of SCS: not a state that is a federation of nation-states but a state either centralized or subdivded not on ethnic boundaries. This way no one is winning or losing land: all South Slavs are sharing a state.
That format didn't quite work IOTL so later we could either see reforms similar to the one that IOTL created the pan-Croatian banovina or see South Slav nationalism deeply promoted.

Belgrade is a natural capital for this state because obviously the Serbs were the ones on the winning side but also because of its central position.

I don't assume the Bulgarians are as happy to merge as Montenegrins were so I was assuming that Bulgaria is pushed into it, rubber stamped by a minority and afterwards the state will try to indoctrinate Bulgarians in South Slavism. But I can't see TTL Yugoslavia being more stable that OTL Yugoslavia... at all...
 
Top