Save Royalist Yugoslavia? -- Sporazum in 1934

After King Alexander of Yugoslavia was assassinated in 1934, his cousin Paul became Regent for Alexander's seven-year-old son. OTL, Paul ruled until spring 1941, when he was run out of the country on the eve of the German invasion.



Regent Paul had his little quirks, but he was no fool. And he gradually came to realize that Serb dominance, and the corresponding resentment that it generated, was crippling Yugoslavia. So, starting in 1938, he began actively seeking an accommodation with the Croats.



These negotiations resulted in the _Sporazum_ ("Agreement") of 1939, which gave home rule to Croatia. It un-gerrymandered the borders (which had been redrawn by Alexander, enraging everyone and accomplishing nothing) and created a Croatian Parliament. The new Croatian state was given a very high degree of internal autonomy, including control over the judiciary, internal commerce, and all non-military state property.



The _Sporazum_ bore a more than passing resemblance to the Austro-Hungarian _Ausgleich_ of 70 years earlier, and for good reason. It had the same purpose and effect: to amicably settle relations between the nation's two largest ethnic groups -- albeit at the expense of all the smaller groups -- by creating a sort of Siamese twin nation joined only at the very top, in the person of the King. (Or, in Yugoslavia's case, the Regent.)


Unfortunately, the _Sporazum_ was given less than two years to show its possibilities; it went into effect in September 1939, and Yugoslavia was crushed in April 1941.



Furthermore, it was perpetually under internal attack from day one. In Serbia, it was widely seen as a sellout of Serb interests by the "foreign" Prince Paul. Some moderate voices spoke in its favor, but Serb nationalists loathed it from day one. And even in Croatia, it was attacked and undermined both by radical nationalists (who wanted full independence, not autonomy) and by Communists (who had been making good headway fishing in the troubled waters of Croat-Serb tension, and had no interest in seeing the issue peacefully resolved). Also, Prince Paul made the mistake of not holding elections. True, it was a reasonable mistake; World War Two was going on, and Paul felt that elections would be disruptive and dangerous. But the result was the _Sporazum_ was never given the legitimacy of having been tested electorally, and remained a top-down enactment with limited popular support.



That said, the _Sporazum_ seems to have been a very reasonable compromise, acceptable to a clear majority of Croats and at least a large minority of Serbs. Unfortunately, it was a little too closely associated with the person of Prince Paul...



Okay, so: say that Paul comes up with the _Sporazum_ several years earlier. In fact, say he implements it soon after Alexander's death, no later than 1935. That's a stretch, but what the hey -- let's handwave it and see what happens.


As noted, Serb nationalists will hate it, and will also cast it in terms of a betrayal of the sacred memory of the martyred King. (Who, as noted, had his own daft and failed plans for inter-ethnic brotherhood.) But Prince Paul was smart enough to surround himself with bodyguards, and I don't see anyone starting a revolution over this.


So... maybe we see a more stable Royalist Yugoslavia. More importantly, one with a lot more legitimacy in Croatia.


Now, 1941 will probably still go off as iOTL. But Pavelic's government will have noticeably less popular support. And Tito will have a harder time claiming legitimacy.


Oddly, this may lead to a postwar Yugoslavia that's less stable than iOTL. Hm.


Thoughts?




Doug M.
 
Bumping this a little.

Say our *Sporazum results in a prewar Yugoslavia that's satisfactory to a majority of Croats and a plurality of Serbs.

The Pavelic regime, which enjoyed a fair amount of popular support at first, is going to be a lot less popular. On the other hand, Tito will have more trouble gaining traction -- the Royalist regime will be considerably less unpopular.

A key question is whether the Cetniks will be able to present themselves as Yugoslavs rather than Serb nationalists. Although, upon consideration, there's another possibility: the Cetniks are Serb nationalists as iOTL, but less pathological, and they work together with a nationalist but pro-Yugoslav Croat resistance (which barely existed iOTL, but which I think would be plausible here).

So, come the end of the war, we could have three resistance movements: pro-Yugoslav Croats, pro-Yugoslav Cetniks, and Tito.

Tito still comes out on top, because the Red Army is still going to swing through Belgrade and the northern part of Yugoslavia. But he's going to have a lot less legitimacy; instead of being seen as Yugoslavia's own native revolutionary, a lot of people will perceive him as having been installed by Stalin. Which will be half true! So possibly we've aborted, or at least delayed, the Tito-Stalin split.

Thoughts?


Doug M.
 
Thing with trying to save Kingdom of Yugoslavia is "what happens when WWII starts".

Best immediate hope for survival is siding with Germans, as OTL, and stronger central government can prevent Allied sponsored coup.
Great, now entire Yugoslavia gets "liberated" by Red Army in '44 and becomes another "Democratic Republic". Next 50 years are certainly worse for everyone, although it could lead to peaceful break up like Czechoslovakia OTL, but still ethnical borders in YU are maybe just too much hopelessly murky. But back otoh, siting in German camp till '44 means no Ustashe and Chetniks... so lesser overall long term hatred.
 
Interesting! I've been assuming that a more stable Yugoslavia would still fall to the anti-Axis coup as iOTL. After all, that coup was driven by enraged Serb nationalists, who'd be even crankier in this TL.

But if the government is actually more stable... hm. As you say, you could end up with a Yugoslavia that acts like Bulgaria (not declaring war on anyone), and then suffers the same fate (liberation by the Red Army).

Well: without a WWII on Yugoslav soil, I think the chances for a peaceful breakup are a lot better. You'd still have opportunistic nationalist politicians, sure, but you wouldn't have all those all-too-recent bleeding memories to exploit.


Doug M.
 
Interesting! I've been assuming that a more stable Yugoslavia would still fall to the anti-Axis coup as iOTL. After all, that coup was driven by enraged Serb nationalists, who'd be even crankier in this TL.

But if the government is actually more stable... hm. As you say, you could end up with a Yugoslavia that acts like Bulgaria (not declaring war on anyone), and then suffers the same fate (liberation by the Red Army).

Well: without a WWII on Yugoslav soil, I think the chances for a peaceful breakup are a lot better. You'd still have opportunistic nationalist politicians, sure, but you wouldn't have all those all-too-recent bleeding memories to exploit.


Doug M.

Indeed, it seems pretty clear that Serbia-Macedonia and Croatia-Slovenia will split amicably and without bloodshed (with the other two republics breaking off as well peacefully, as OTL). Bosnia, however, is IMO a lost case for an amicable split. You've got a disjointed Serb population wanting to join Serbia, Serbia wanting the lot, Croatians contiguous with the borders of Croatia, but where joining Croatia makes the Bosniaks unsustainable and split, and split populations of Bosniaks.

Of course, a more successfull balancing of power could lead in effect to a situation where Bosnia is partitioned between Serbia and Croatia, with the Bosniaks ending up as a new Kosovo population (parallel works better in Serbia, in Croatia they'll be a minority, but better treated.

Something like this. White borders are the old Bosnian borders which have been entirely eliminated. Black borders are the remaining Bosnian Autonomous areas (same situation as Kosovo). Borders are as close as possible to pre 1991 ethnic borders (though with a bit of Bosniak territory added to Serbia to join the disjoined halves). Yes, it's nothing like the current division.

Bosnia Partition.png
 

abc123

Banned
Indeed, it seems pretty clear that Serbia-Macedonia and Croatia-Slovenia will split amicably and without bloodshed (with the other two republics breaking off as well peacefully, as OTL). Bosnia, however, is IMO a lost case for an amicable split. You've got a disjointed Serb population wanting to join Serbia, Serbia wanting the lot, Croatians contiguous with the borders of Croatia, but where joining Croatia makes the Bosniaks unsustainable and split, and split populations of Bosniaks.

Of course, a more successfull balancing of power could lead in effect to a situation where Bosnia is partitioned between Serbia and Croatia, with the Bosniaks ending up as a new Kosovo population (parallel works better in Serbia, in Croatia they'll be a minority, but better treated.

Something like this. White borders are the old Bosnian borders which have been entirely eliminated. Black borders are the remaining Bosnian Autonomous areas (same situation as Kosovo). Borders are as close as possible to pre 1991 ethnic borders (though with a bit of Bosniak territory added to Serbia to join the disjoined halves). Yes, it's nothing like the current division.


OK, THIS is Banovina Croatia ( Banovina Hrvatska in Croatian )






623px-BanHrvatska1939.gif

Now, about the Agreement/Sporazum, I dont know, it might have worked if it was in 1935. But Serbs and Prince Paul didn't want to negotiate with Croats until danger of WW2, when they was told fromLondon and Paris to settle things with Croats to prepare Yugoslavia to be a good and useful ally of France and UK.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cvetković-Maček_Agreement
 
Another factor here is Italy. Benny the Moose has been not-so-quietly supporting Croat seperatists and any possibility of a truly united Yugoslavia is a direct threat in Italian eyes to a) Adriatic security, b) the Italian foothold in Istria, and c) remaining irredentist claims to Dalmatia. Add to that anti-Fascist factions in the Trieste area (TIGR). Expect BM to keep sending cash and arms to Slovene and Croat nationalists and fascists in any possible effort to continue destabilizing the Yugoslav kingdom. It'll be a running political scramble for hearts & minds plagued by terrorism and revenge killings.
 

abc123

Banned
Another factor here is Italy. Benny the Moose has been not-so-quietly supporting Croat seperatists and any possibility of a truly united Yugoslavia is a direct threat in Italian eyes to a) Adriatic security, b) the Italian foothold in Istria, and c) remaining irredentist claims to Dalmatia. Add to that anti-Fascist factions in the Trieste area (TIGR). Expect BM to keep sending cash and arms to Slovene and Croat nationalists and fascists in any possible effort to continue destabilizing the Yugoslav kingdom. It'll be a running political scramble for hearts & minds plagued by terrorism and revenge killings.

Yep.
Trough, Ustaše were a pretty minor political movement in Croatia until 1941. So, with earlier solution of "Croatian question" Ustaše could be totaly marginalised.
;)
 
Okay, so: say that Paul comes up with the _Sporazum_ several years earlier. In fact, say he implements it soon after Alexander's death, no later than 1935. That's a stretch, but what the hey -- let's handwave it and see what happens.


As noted, Serb nationalists will hate it, and will also cast it in terms of a betrayal of the sacred memory of the martyred King. (Who, as noted, had his own daft and failed plans for inter-ethnic brotherhood.) But Prince Paul was smart enough to surround himself with bodyguards, and I don't see anyone starting a revolution over this.
So what If -- ?Pauls attempts in 1934~5, do lead to Revolution and the Breakup of Yugoslavia in 1936?
 

abc123

Banned
So what If -- ?Pauls attempts in 1934~5, do lead to Revolution and the Breakup of Yugoslavia in 1936?


Paul, as I said before, would most definitly try something like Sporazum before he is absolutly forced to do so by UK and France. And they won't pressure him on that without end of appeasment.
;)
 
This probably won't save Yugoslavia from Axis invasion. But 7 years of such arranegment may mean the Chetniks remain more loyal to Yugoslavia than Serbian nationalism. This could make the Chetniks more acceptable to the Allies. So the US and UK might be more willing to support them instead of backing Tito exclusively after 1943.

I don't know what the results of that would be. If the Chetniks were able to liberate a substantial area by 1944, then it is conceivable that Churchill might want to support them by landing British troops there in conjunction with the planned Italian offensive. This is a big if, but it is certainly possible. If there are British troops there, then Yugoslavia retains a non-Communist government.

There will probably be an attempt in 1945-1947 for Royalists and Communists to work together, but we know that will fail. At this point, it's possible a civil war will occur. Stalin probably won't risk WWIII, but we might have a partition of the country into a Communist Croatia and a Royalist Serbia.

If the Chetniks don't get Western backing, or they aren't very successful, then Yugoslavia ends up as it did IOTL.
 

abc123

Banned
This probably won't save Yugoslavia from Axis invasion. But 7 years of such arranegment may mean the Chetniks remain more loyal to Yugoslavia than Serbian nationalism. This could make the Chetniks more acceptable to the Allies. So the US and UK might be more willing to support them instead of backing Tito exclusively after 1943.

I don't know what the results of that would be. If the Chetniks were able to liberate a substantial area by 1944, then it is conceivable that Churchill might want to support them by landing British troops there in conjunction with the planned Italian offensive. This is a big if, but it is certainly possible. If there are British troops there, then Yugoslavia retains a non-Communist government.

There will probably be an attempt in 1945-1947 for Royalists and Communists to work together, but we know that will fail. At this point, it's possible a civil war will occur. Stalin probably won't risk WWIII, but we might have a partition of the country into a Communist Croatia and a Royalist Serbia.

If the Chetniks don't get Western backing, or they aren't very successful, then Yugoslavia ends up as it did IOTL.


Chetniks will most definitly be a Serb nationalists, they are intrested for Great Serbia, and for Yugoslavia only if it is a Great Serbia actually. So for Yugoslavia with Banovina Hrvatska in 1935. they definitly will not be intrested.
;)
About partisans, well, maybe partisans will be a minor option in a quagmire of Croatia & Bosnia and Herzegovina. Chetniks=Serbs, Partisans=Communists/Serbs/Croats, Ustashe ( probably not influential as OTL ) and some sort of rebels from HSS ( Croatian Peasant Party ) who intentionally were not active in WW2.
 
Top