I would beg to differ about Tito. Edvard Kardelj's death in OTL was identified by Sabrina Ramet (one of the best historians on the collapse of Yugoslavia IMHO) as the he beginning of the end. She argues that Kardelj was the intellectual force behind Yugoslavia. If Kardelj falls down the stairs and dies, Yugoslavia might have a tough go of it. Tito would be in over his head and at some point the sheer force of his personality isn't going to be enough to do it.

On the other hand, if Tito dies in 1945 the country may well collapse under the pressures of Communism and transition.
 
Yes, Tito will need to be killed off in order for Yugoslavia to collapse. Suppose he gets killed by a German sniper or by Italian partisans. There will chaos in the Balkans afterwards and the Allies will have to decide how to divide Yugoslavia. They first make sure that Germany, Italy, Hungary and Bulgaria does not gain any territory from this chaos. The division of territory will be in the hands of the Western Powers and the Soviet Union. Stalin will try to curb much of the post-Yugoslavic states into the Warsaw Pact as much as possible, especially Serbia. It's uncertain what else would play out.
 
If Tito is killed early - before he becomes the undisputed, well-established dictator (and before his cult of personality takes hold) - then someone else is just going to step into his role. Now, having Tito die in the 1950s or 1960s would likely result in the disintegration of the country.
 
What about something like the 1971 Croatian Spring to kick off the collapse? Again Tito has to be dead before this happens, perhaps if he were to get cancer earlier.
 
The low performance of different Arab armies against the vastly out-nubered and out-gunned enemy that had no strategic depth worth speaking about is hard to beat.
 
The low performance of different Arab armies against the vastly out-nubered and out-gunned enemy that had no strategic depth worth speaking about is hard to beat.
Arab armies? I'm talking about Yugoslavia not the Middle East; I have no idea why would you bring up the Arabs in something strictly regarding the Balkans.
 
Now if Tito were to die a decade earlier, how would the collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1980's compare to OTL's (with the Cold War back in full swing by then)?

Probably the Soviets move in and micromanage the collapse, creating several client states.

Or it's a proxy war: the NATO and the Warsaw Pact pick a side, any side, and shower it with weapons and advisors. The result might be deadlier and longer than OTL's wars.
 
Probably the Soviets move in and micromanage the collapse, creating several client states.

Or it's a proxy war: the NATO and the Warsaw Pact pick a side, any side, and shower it with weapons and advisors. The result might be deadlier and longer than OTL's wars.
OTL's wars were limited due to the relatively limited involvement of the Serbian Republic and the fact that the Soviets had collapsed.
In a different break up of yugoslavia especially earlier I agree the conflicts could have been much worse.
 
Would this be before or after Trieste was split? Or before they decided to give all land in Yugoslavia outside of that city that was evicted of Italians to the Croats. Still seems bizarre how the Slovenes got squat, not counting the partition of Trieste. Anywho, would we see the Bulgarians, Hungarians, and Albanians try to move in and take a couple snippets of land? And where do we think the Soviets are most likely to set up some bases? Somewhere along the coast no doubt, and it gives them chances to influence Italy a bit more. Anyone know if the Churchill-Stalin deal about splitting influence in the Balkans was true or just alleged?
 
Top