That could change, though. I'm not saying it's easy, but getting the reforms necessary for the survival of the Yugoslav SFR won't be easy either. Just throwing some more ideas out there.
WI Yugoslavia survives?
- Thread starter SlideAway
- Start date
- Status
Xen
Banned
Why does it have to be a monarchy or Tito? What if Tito is killed in WWII, and the Communists for some reason are divided by infighting. Now this is a long shot, but suppose for whatever reason Yugoslavia falls into the western camp when the Iron Curtain fell and like Italy decides to abolish the monarchy through the vote. A new Yugoslav Constitution is drafted declaring the Confederated Republic of Yugoslavia. In this Yugoslavia all states have complete control of their domestic affairs with some guarantees provided by the Yugoslavian constitution in all states (such as the right to vote, freedom of religion, etc.), the economic affairs are divided between the state and central government with the states having more sway, and the central government having more day to day control over foreign affairs.
It would be an odd union, but one that could likely survive and perhaps even grow stronger.
Just one thing you are forgetting: Vojvodina also had high standard (just little below Slovenia and Croatia).
About nukes, see:
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Yugoslavia/Nuclear/index.html
About nukes, see:
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Yugoslavia/Nuclear/index.html
Would require the Wallies reaching Belgrade before the Sovs. Otherwise the Yugoslav states would be devided between the Wallie and the Soviet spheres of influence, meaning no Yugoslavia.
The monarchy was nothing more than Serbian domination, it was completely ruled from Belgrade by a Serbian elite. Even most Serbs weren't that happy with the monarchy, whereas the Slovenes and Croats came to detest it.
...while Tito, don't forget, was born in Croatia, fater was a Croat (mother was Slovenian).
Also,
Oh dear, Slovenia + Croatia + Vojvodina + Belgrade (will develop fast as a capital of a uh... capitalist state), that's some core. Anybody happen to have some economic data on Yugo provinces better than what Wikipedia offers? There's no data on GDP of Vojvodina and Kosovo when it was falling apart.
Novi Sad though, it's listed with 172% of Yugo GDP per capita whereas Belgrade is 147%, and Zagreb is 188%
Also,
beer kaiser said:
Oh dear, Slovenia + Croatia + Vojvodina + Belgrade (will develop fast as a capital of a uh... capitalist state), that's some core. Anybody happen to have some economic data on Yugo provinces better than what Wikipedia offers? There's no data on GDP of Vojvodina and Kosovo when it was falling apart.
Novi Sad though, it's listed with 172% of Yugo GDP per capita whereas Belgrade is 147%, and Zagreb is 188%
It's the economy, stupid! And god...
If you ask me, a major part in separatism in Europe stems from economic reasons. As is cited above, Slovenia and Croatia were economically better off than the rest of Yugoslavia, whereas the Serbs dominated. Similar situations today exist in Spain (Basque and Catalonia richer than the rest, rest dominating), Belgium (Flandres richer, Wallonia was dominating) and Northern Italy. Of these, however, only the Basque experience a violent struggle - as far as I know.
The other major violent region in Western Europe is Northern Ireland, where the Protestants are/were often richer, but history and religion comes into play.
Now Jugoslavia has the worst of all: economically Slovenia and Croatia were better off with Serbs dominating in government. Plus religios differences. Plus history (WW2). If Jugoslavia were a stable democracy at the time, we might have seen merely terrorism.
If you ask me, a major part in separatism in Europe stems from economic reasons. As is cited above, Slovenia and Croatia were economically better off than the rest of Yugoslavia, whereas the Serbs dominated. Similar situations today exist in Spain (Basque and Catalonia richer than the rest, rest dominating), Belgium (Flandres richer, Wallonia was dominating) and Northern Italy. Of these, however, only the Basque experience a violent struggle - as far as I know.
The other major violent region in Western Europe is Northern Ireland, where the Protestants are/were often richer, but history and religion comes into play.
Now Jugoslavia has the worst of all: economically Slovenia and Croatia were better off with Serbs dominating in government. Plus religios differences. Plus history (WW2). If Jugoslavia were a stable democracy at the time, we might have seen merely terrorism.
Susano
Banned
Hm. I had an idea, and I wonder: Much of the Serbian-Croat difference is rooted in religion. The Balkan Wars were not religious wars, they were ethnic wars, but those ethnicities were and are mostly defined by religious affiliation. So lets say monarchist Yugoslavia limps on for a while: What if some sort of social revolution akin to the OTL 60s in North America and Europe happen?
Im thinking especially about the Quiet Revolution in Quebec: Before the francophone population had defined itself more by its overt catholicism than by language, but that changed in the 60s. The social influence of catholicism crumbled, and Quebec even became one of Canadas more leftleaning provinces. So what if the same happens in Croatia in Serbia wrt the Catholic and Orthodox churches? People getting sick of the churches telling them "do that, dont do this" etc... if that social influence collapses, then it seems to me there is not all too much seperating Serbs and Croats. Indeed, serbocroat unitarism could develop as a sort of counterideology to clerical conservatism, maybe...
Or am I totally off the track?
Im thinking especially about the Quiet Revolution in Quebec: Before the francophone population had defined itself more by its overt catholicism than by language, but that changed in the 60s. The social influence of catholicism crumbled, and Quebec even became one of Canadas more leftleaning provinces. So what if the same happens in Croatia in Serbia wrt the Catholic and Orthodox churches? People getting sick of the churches telling them "do that, dont do this" etc... if that social influence collapses, then it seems to me there is not all too much seperating Serbs and Croats. Indeed, serbocroat unitarism could develop as a sort of counterideology to clerical conservatism, maybe...
Or am I totally off the track?
People where far more secularised under communist Yugoslavia, and it didn't do any difference, the fact is that while the original difference was over religion until Yugoslavia Serbia and Croatia were always in different political entities, so to claim that the only difference is religion is false.
Vojvodina was admitably much better off then the rest of Serbia, but was not really "little below".
Susano
Banned
Well, yesss... thats why I did have my scenairo happen in monarchist yugoslavia. What I was thinking of is a an ideology of Yugoslavian unitarism more or less in youthful rebellion against the social dominance of the churches. Of course that wouldnt work in communist Yugoslavia where the churches as social influences had become so much, ah, reduced.
Letting Yugoslavia survive...
1. To make it happen, I only see one possibility:
Hard to imagine afterwards, but there existed actually sane politicians in all parts of Yugoslavia around 1990, pity is they didn't prevail.
Actually, it is not too hard to imagine that Yugoslavia became a federal democracy in the late 1980s - the framwork for federalism was already laid out in the Yugo consitution. It would just have to survive democratic reforms, whereas in OTL populist nationalists wrecked the state.
I rule out a monarchical alternative; it didn't work well the first time around and chances are too high that the head of state would always be seen as a Serb (accent, orthodox confession, lineage), whereas a democratically-elected president could stem from any region. Actually, the 1980s constitution replaced the president on a yearly base, handing the post around through Yugoslavia.
There is another problem with the federalism in the existing 1980s constitution. It guaranteed each republic the right to secede! Now how funny is that?
Communism is a no-no post-1989. It only makes economical problems worse and encourages the West to support any fractions advocating a break-up.
2. Possible PODs...
...have a strong personality to play the role of Tito after 1980. He (heck , maybe she) would have to be able to rally the forces of sanity throughout Yugoslavia, promoting democracy, cultural autonomy and wealth through liberalization.
Ante Markovic tried in the early 90s, but the break-up came to soon.
...an army coup in 1991. Landing with both feet on the Slovenian/Croatian secession, but also putting Milosevic on the sidelines. The Yugoslav's People's Army would have to disarm the regional forces and look for political solutions afterwards.
This is not unthinkable giving the basic initial loyality to the federation of its leadership and the high risk the territorial forces in Slovenia and Croatia were taking in their plans to resist.
...now this is ASB: a military intervention of either UN or EU forces with a preservation of a federal Yugoslavia on its agenda.
3. The situation today.
Compared to the Warsaw Pact nations, Yugoslavia as a whole was comparatively well-off, having access to the global market as a neutral power. Also, Croatia was on the way to become a major tourist destination, attracting more and more Western tourists.
The economies of all parts of it would have developed (partially extremly) better than in our timeline if the wars are avoided. Croatia reached the GDP of 1990 in 2003, Slovenia continued to grow in OTL, all other republic are still below 1990's numbers.
I found it hard to find comparable numbers; GDP per head in overall Yugoslavia was around 3500$ in 1990, this would have been higher than the CSSR (3100), Hungary (2800) and Poland (1700).
The latter states range between 9800 and 14400$/head today. I find it reasonable to assume that Yugoslavia would still enjoy at least a slight advance when compared to the Czech Republic (14400), while not reaching OTL's Slovenian figure of almost 21,000$.
For comparison: Portugal is at 18,950$, Greece/Spain/Italy between 29,500 and 33,500$.
An intact Yugoslavia would certainly have joined the EU in 2004. The Euro might have been introduced slightly later (as in OTL Slovenia), depending on their fiscal policies or they would still be on the soon-to-come list.
Also, bear in mind Europan funding of less developed countries. Infrastructure would be far better than in OTL, maybe not in Slovenia, but even in Croatia (if you wish to see a beautiful motorway, try the A1 from Karlovac to Split and beyond) - imagine a six-lane Autoput from the Austrian to the Greek border. Yugoslavia would be the transit country between the core of the EU and Greece/Turkey, as it had been prior to the wars.
After all, my resumee is: the Balkan wars of the 1990s was the case of a state and its populace stepping into a toilet and pulling hard on the flush!
1. To make it happen, I only see one possibility:
Hard to imagine afterwards, but there existed actually sane politicians in all parts of Yugoslavia around 1990, pity is they didn't prevail.
Actually, it is not too hard to imagine that Yugoslavia became a federal democracy in the late 1980s - the framwork for federalism was already laid out in the Yugo consitution. It would just have to survive democratic reforms, whereas in OTL populist nationalists wrecked the state.
I rule out a monarchical alternative; it didn't work well the first time around and chances are too high that the head of state would always be seen as a Serb (accent, orthodox confession, lineage), whereas a democratically-elected president could stem from any region. Actually, the 1980s constitution replaced the president on a yearly base, handing the post around through Yugoslavia.
There is another problem with the federalism in the existing 1980s constitution. It guaranteed each republic the right to secede! Now how funny is that?
Communism is a no-no post-1989. It only makes economical problems worse and encourages the West to support any fractions advocating a break-up.
2. Possible PODs...
...have a strong personality to play the role of Tito after 1980. He (heck , maybe she) would have to be able to rally the forces of sanity throughout Yugoslavia, promoting democracy, cultural autonomy and wealth through liberalization.
Ante Markovic tried in the early 90s, but the break-up came to soon.
...an army coup in 1991. Landing with both feet on the Slovenian/Croatian secession, but also putting Milosevic on the sidelines. The Yugoslav's People's Army would have to disarm the regional forces and look for political solutions afterwards.
This is not unthinkable giving the basic initial loyality to the federation of its leadership and the high risk the territorial forces in Slovenia and Croatia were taking in their plans to resist.
...now this is ASB: a military intervention of either UN or EU forces with a preservation of a federal Yugoslavia on its agenda.
3. The situation today.
Compared to the Warsaw Pact nations, Yugoslavia as a whole was comparatively well-off, having access to the global market as a neutral power. Also, Croatia was on the way to become a major tourist destination, attracting more and more Western tourists.
The economies of all parts of it would have developed (partially extremly) better than in our timeline if the wars are avoided. Croatia reached the GDP of 1990 in 2003, Slovenia continued to grow in OTL, all other republic are still below 1990's numbers.
I found it hard to find comparable numbers; GDP per head in overall Yugoslavia was around 3500$ in 1990, this would have been higher than the CSSR (3100), Hungary (2800) and Poland (1700).
The latter states range between 9800 and 14400$/head today. I find it reasonable to assume that Yugoslavia would still enjoy at least a slight advance when compared to the Czech Republic (14400), while not reaching OTL's Slovenian figure of almost 21,000$.
For comparison: Portugal is at 18,950$, Greece/Spain/Italy between 29,500 and 33,500$.
An intact Yugoslavia would certainly have joined the EU in 2004. The Euro might have been introduced slightly later (as in OTL Slovenia), depending on their fiscal policies or they would still be on the soon-to-come list.
Also, bear in mind Europan funding of less developed countries. Infrastructure would be far better than in OTL, maybe not in Slovenia, but even in Croatia (if you wish to see a beautiful motorway, try the A1 from Karlovac to Split and beyond) - imagine a six-lane Autoput from the Austrian to the Greek border. Yugoslavia would be the transit country between the core of the EU and Greece/Turkey, as it had been prior to the wars.
After all, my resumee is: the Balkan wars of the 1990s was the case of a state and its populace stepping into a toilet and pulling hard on the flush!
Realistic.
ASB. The army was under complete control of Milosevic. It might as well rename itself into the Serbian Army.
The flush broke under the pressure.
People talk about the yugoslavian communists with revulsion and distaste, but take a look at their ultra right counterparts from both sides; the serb chetniks and Ande Pavelic's Ustashi , who accounted for atrocities comparable to the SS sonderabteilungen AND were nazi collaborators . Rejection of one extreme doesn't absolve the other of its sins .
Jugoslavia didn't broke out because Serbs dominated the government, that's a myth.
Jugoslavian federal government had been dominated, just before the fall of the country, by Croatian, Bosnians and Slovenians : the last premier was croatian, the one before was a muslim bosniak and just after Tito we had the croatian Milka Planninc, the only female PM of Europe apart from Mrs Thatcher. Also, Jugoslavia had basically become a de facto confederacy after Tito's death.
To stop Jugoslavian fall, you must prevent the political split between Serbia and Slovenia: the rise of their combined nationalism enormously weakened the federation, considering that this meant the Army and the Economy looking into different directions. This requires probably stopping Milosevic, to placate slovenians, and recovering economy without listening to IMF, to placate not only Serbia but Bosnia and Macedonia too.
The Jugoslavian economy wasn't that terrible to think that after recovery and EU accession they would be like Bulgaria : hell, in 1979 each jugoslavian took one holiday in a foreign country !
To save the economy, I think that the following steps are necessary:
1-Curb inflation, by centralizing monetary emissions, creating real interest rates, controlling Republican budgets, and above all destroying regional monopolies.
2-Stop export subsidies, maybe devaluating the dinar to maintain competivity.
3-Mobilize the labour market, with simpler hiring and firing's procedures and the lifting of restrictions on the creation of enterprises. Also, liberalization of agricolture.
Jugoslavian federal government had been dominated, just before the fall of the country, by Croatian, Bosnians and Slovenians : the last premier was croatian, the one before was a muslim bosniak and just after Tito we had the croatian Milka Planninc, the only female PM of Europe apart from Mrs Thatcher. Also, Jugoslavia had basically become a de facto confederacy after Tito's death.
To stop Jugoslavian fall, you must prevent the political split between Serbia and Slovenia: the rise of their combined nationalism enormously weakened the federation, considering that this meant the Army and the Economy looking into different directions. This requires probably stopping Milosevic, to placate slovenians, and recovering economy without listening to IMF, to placate not only Serbia but Bosnia and Macedonia too.
The Jugoslavian economy wasn't that terrible to think that after recovery and EU accession they would be like Bulgaria : hell, in 1979 each jugoslavian took one holiday in a foreign country !
To save the economy, I think that the following steps are necessary:
1-Curb inflation, by centralizing monetary emissions, creating real interest rates, controlling Republican budgets, and above all destroying regional monopolies.
2-Stop export subsidies, maybe devaluating the dinar to maintain competivity.
3-Mobilize the labour market, with simpler hiring and firing's procedures and the lifting of restrictions on the creation of enterprises. Also, liberalization of agricolture.
The first one was dominated by Serbs. And Milosevic had such ideas as well.
Confederacy? Yugoslavia? No. It was a federation, and didnt to meet the requirements for a confederacy.
You make a couple of points I was getting at. The reason I posited a stronger federal government is because one of the key reasons Serb (and, yes, Croat and Slovene) nationalism got out of hand was because the Yugoslav central government was extremely weak. Most powers lay in the republic governments, the republics were given the right to secede, and the presidency was a rotating, collective body. Remember that the initial army that attacked Slovenia and Croatia when they seceded wasn't dominated by Milosevic - it was under Ante Markovic and most of the leading members of the armed forces were NOT Serb.
Give Yugoslavia a federalist constitution on the Spanish or German model and I think its odds of survival go up enormously.
Also, I do think that German and Austrian willingness to recognize the independence of Slovenia and Croatia was an enormous incentive. Yes, Serb nationalism was an enormous problem but so were the other nationalisms; Croatia's Tudjman was every bit the thug Milosevic was. And in the modern world, you virtually never see large-scale secessionist efforts unless secessionist forces know they can get international recognition. German and Austrian willingess to recognize Slovene and Croat independence helped doom Yugoslavia.
It was federation on its way into confederation.
Tito was said to be half Croatian half Slovene, nobody really know who he was.
Maybe Jovanka could get to power after his death?
I am currently thinking how would cantonization go for all Yugoslav region (cantons around cities with more than 50.000 people that is).
The fact is north (Slovena, Croatia, Vojvodina, Beograd) had better standard than south (the rest). I had somewhere GDP per capita for Vojvodina, now I have to find it again and will write it when I do (but it is in old dinars, good luck with currencies).
Tito was said to be half Croatian half Slovene, nobody really know who he was.
Maybe Jovanka could get to power after his death?
I am currently thinking how would cantonization go for all Yugoslav region (cantons around cities with more than 50.000 people that is).
The fact is north (Slovena, Croatia, Vojvodina, Beograd) had better standard than south (the rest). I had somewhere GDP per capita for Vojvodina, now I have to find it again and will write it when I do (but it is in old dinars, good luck with currencies).
Milosevic is overrun by a pack of wild horses in his youth. There, the obstacle to Yugolsav unity is removed.
- Status