Soviet relations with Tito's Yugoslavia if Stalin dies in 1946 or 1947?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think there is a decent chance successor leadership would try to have good relations with Tito, and would see a good relationship with him as an asset within Soviet politics.

This could possible extend to endorsing the proposed Yugoslav-Bulgarian union (which may well take in Albania too).

Under these circumstances, would Tito continue backing the Greek insurgency, or ultimately quit it?

On the one hand the post-Stalin Soviet leaders might seek to minimize confrontation with the west, on the other hand they may be reluctant to firmly tell Tito to change his policy and shut down the war.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think that there won't be a sharp Yugoslav-Soviet break in this case. Maybe over the long term there would be a drifting apart. I would think the Yugoslavs would gain some relative strength in the relationship.
 
Who inherits Stalin? Beria or some hardliner like Zhdanov?
Yugoslavia is still far from stable inside. Tito dreamed of the Balkan Confederation composed of Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and Greece. Such a state would be a significant player in world geopolitics, but it is in its essence impossible.
The fate of Greece was agreed on Jalta and Tito and he would have to comply with that agreement or he would face a complicated internal situation in the state. By 1948 and Informbiro's resolution, Tito still had powerful enemies in the party, many of them were openly pro-Soviet.
I don't believe anyone who succeeded Stalin would allow Tito to make his empire out of Moscow's influence.
In fact, I believe that some hardliner in Kremlin would replace Tito and install a puppet.

The problem was also a fact that Tito wanted Bulgaria as 7th republic of Yugoslavia, but Dimitrov wanted a confederation between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.
Such a state would significantly complicated the 90s and the breakup of Yugoslavia.
 
Top