Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Jug o' saliva
Topic Started: Feb 21 2014, 11:48 PM (209 Views)
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
What would it take for Yugoslavia to survive to the present day?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Petar
Member Avatar
The General
Different politics by Tito starting in 1960s, which would devolve more powers from federal authorities in Belgrade to state institutions. This would change much in Zagreb and Ljubljana.

After Tito's death, an economic crisis would have to be averted sooner. The political instability that rose in the 1980s started off as the result of economic troubles, especially hyperinflation and growing unemployment. The reforms of Ante Marković, which had begun to take effect by before being stopped by the break-up of Yugoslavia, need to be passed earlier in order to avoid exacerbating issues.

Nationalism must be avoided at all costs, or funneled into something less destructive. This would especially have to be done in Croatia and Serbia, to avoid the rise of Franjo Tuđman and Slobodan Milošević, respectively.

While Tito was capable of holding all the power in Yugoslavia in his hands, his successors were not, and as a result the Army got too strong. This would need to be avoided as well.

In short, you need some reforms before Tito dies, and a strong, charismatic leader who could effectively replace him once he does die - one with a good political and economic vision. Not impossible, but very, very difficult at any rate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Interesting. My knowledge on Yugoslavia is less than comprehensive, but it sounds from your description as if the issue of separate nationalisms was never really settled.

Leadership is a very old problem when it comes to the collapse of empires.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Petar
Member Avatar
The General
Nope, it was never settled. Nationalism - which had been a problem for almost a century by then (remember our jolly old friend Franz Ferdinand?) - was a fairly big issue, especially after WWII. Tito, knowing that he held great influence among all and aware of the fact that trying to sort out that mess would only lead to instability didn't do anything - instead he superimposed a Yugoslav nationalism based on the Partisan revolution and brotherhood and unity. The Serbian, Slovenian and Croatian extremism was hushed and pushed under the rug, as if it had never existed. They were certainly the bad guys, those extremists of WWII (Ustashas, Chetniks, Slovenian White Guards) - but nothing was ever said why they popped up in the first place.

You can imagine that it became ten times a problem it had been before when Tito died, and when the entire structure of Yugoslav nationalism collapsed, with all the Yugoslav feeling turning into Croatian, Serbian, Slovenian, Bosniak... Which only exacerbated the whole issue even more. What was once suppressed had erupted onto the surface much, much stronger than it should have.
Edited by Petar, Feb 22 2014, 12:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
It has certain parallels with the collapse of Austria-Hungary, then. It brings up the much larger but interesting question of why some nations were so capable at fashioning an overarching nationalism, despite having many smaller entities, while others were not. Every once in a while you hear something about Bavarian independence, but never in a really serious light. You hear nothing at all about restoring Wurttemberg or Brittany.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
Member Avatar

The simplest answer is: Enough prosperity for its citizens to make a disintegration of the country and subsequent series of wars not worth it.

I think that you'll find that most nations that are able to hold together numerous ethnic groups under an overarching national identity were generally prosperous.
Edited by John, Feb 22 2014, 05:53 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Petar
Member Avatar
The General
John
Feb 22 2014, 05:51 PM
The simplest answer is: Enough prosperity for its citizens to make a disintegration of the country and subsequent series of wars not worth it.

I think that you'll find that most nations that are able to hold together numerous ethnic groups under an overarching national identity were generally prosperous.
Exactly. When you've got economic issues, then you have one side blaming the others, because we, as humans, feel a need to lay the blame on someone as long as it isn't us.

Couple laying that blame with deeply rooted historical issues... and you've got a storm brewing right there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic »
Add Reply