Quiet Balkans

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What if for whatever reason (handwaving ensues) the Italians don't declare war on the allies. Germany now does not have to invade the Balkans. What is the effect on the war in General? In Russia?
 
Do you mean WWII? There's no clear-cut answer. According to numerous accounts, Red Army was on alert for possible German invasion in the Spring 1941. Nothing particularly serious, routine excercise prompted by usual Soviet paranoia, but they had certain degree of preparedness. Then, around June 10-15, as it was universally thought that one can't invade Russia mid-summer if one wants to reach main industrial centers during the 1st season of campaigning, army went to usual slack mode, TASS (Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union, official bullhorn of government) issued statement praising Soviet-German cooperation (which was as close to Stalin's personal statement "we're neither planning nor expecting anything nasty in the next 12 months" as one could wish) and Hitler caught Stalin with pants down. The rest is history.

Would Hitler attack around late April - early May, he could encounter Red Army in defensive formation. Taking into account high percentage of fully staffed and operational units in the Western regions of the USSR, he could get pretty nasty surprise.
 
Greece and Yugoslavia remain neutral throughout the war. Overall, this is better for the Nazis, Yugoslavs and Greeks. Yugoslavia would have spent the war selling food and raw materials to the Germans, building up their infrastructure instead of having it be demolished.

The Germans were forced to maintain 350,000 troops in Yugoslavia, which would have proved valuable, although not decisive, on the Eastern front. They probably would have been rolled over along with the rest of Army Group Center in the summer of '44.

Bottom line, Germany is a little more capable, but still loses. Yugoslavia isn't communist but remains a monarchy to today. Its breakup would still be a good possibility, since the Serbs made some major, foundational errors when the country was founded (by viewing it, not as a union of south slavs, as the other nations (Croats, Slovenians, Bosniaks, etc.) considered it when thy joined, but rather as Greater Serbia, and treated it that way. However, the bad feelings that arose from WW2 would never have happened, and in 1939 Croatia had finally achieved a measure of autonomy. Perhaps this could have been expanded into a true federation. Serbs and Croats have not traditionally been enemies and there is nothing inevitable about their conflict.
 

ninebucks

Banned
Even if the Italians aren't involved, the Ustasze are still a powerful group, and so assuming a smiling-happy Yugoslavia is a bit premature.
 
I would like to differ with you. When the Nazis put the Ustase into power in 1941 they had 360 members. The population overwhelmingly backed the Croatian Peasant's Party (like 80%+ of voters) which had built a very friendly working relationship with the Serbians who lived in Croatian territory.

I do not envisage a smiling, happy Yugoslavia, but the war in the 90s was not necessary. Things really were fine overall ethnically. A little bending on the part of the Serbs to grant the Croats some autonomy would probably sufficed. I'm just saying that a workable peace was possible and without the evils of ww2, more possible.
 
it is doubtfull there would be no war with germani in the 40is since prince petar actually signed the tripartite treaty with hitler and the folowing military coup and instalment of king ivan who sided with the alies was what made hitler invade, and ewen if there was no coup and yugoslavia stayed a german ally the soviets would enter like they did in OTL and tito would be president one way or the other, or possibly kardelj
in the longterm the thing that messed up yugoslavia more than the ustaše or jasenovac or even bleiburg and the post war mass graves, was forced centralisation and economic dependency on forein credits, as well as a terribly ineficient party rule
if right from the start in 1945 the constitutional rights of ewery federal republick were truly respected or even just from 71 onvards there is a good chance yugoslavia would still be live and kicking, as long as the people get rid of milošević as soon as posible, doing a čauševsky number on him and his family if the oportunity ocurs

and oh yes... no way in a hundred hells yugoslavia remains a monarchy, not ewen if ewery leftist serb and rightist croat are put under ground and all the bosnians deported to goli otok, just no, the rojal family didnt have enough members to surwive all the assasinations and terrorism that would hapen in the 70is if it was still a monarchy, not ewen with nato support
 
Last edited:
Yugoslavia signed a treaty with Germany, but in fact only promised to allow the movement of German supplies over their rail lines. It was an alliance only on paper and they could make a good claim to being neutral.

Once Hitler was in Russia he wouldn't have the resources to spare to knock off Yugoslavia unless they were making aggressive moves or it looked like they might allow the allies to land there. All they had to do was sit tight, sell food and minerals and wait for the end of the war. Stalin was intimidated by the western allies and would not have tried to grab a neutral country.

As for Yugoslavia being a monarchy, I think that it would be a possibility, like in Denmark, the Netherlands, etc. But I admit that Yugoslavia's future would have been murky and hard to guess at.
 
Top