Could Yugoslavia have been saved?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Or could its break-up have been handled in a less bloody manner?

[dead0man]

Yeah, but only if you could ethnic cleanse magically.  Or a lot more coin and blood from interested third parties, but we all know that would never happen.  We care enough to half ass things, but not enough to fully ass things.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes. All it would require was the West and East blocs taking an interest in the Non-Aligned Movement early on, leading to a very stable and prosperous situation in India and Yugoslavia.

It probably needs a POD in about 1963, when they start to invest(say, Kennedy lives and starts investment there). Then, Nikola Ljubic could declare a coup if Tito dies in, say, 1973-1974 and the democratic protests start again. It would be very interesting to see how a united Yugoslavia affects history.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Probably not. At best the situation in Kosovo that served as the catalyst for what happened could have been managed in a way that kept Serbo-Croat-Bosniak unity intact, but that would've required a different Constitution of 1974 and/or a strong successor to Tito.

[Derpist]

Yes, all it would have taken Milosevic not taking control of the League of Communists in Serbia by cynically playing on ethnic tensions.

[ag]

Only as a ruthless dictatorship and only as long as that would last.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

No, otherwise it would have been.

[rob in cal]

  How about no coup in 1941 and Yugoslavia stays more or less neutral throughout all or most of the war, so even if it gets drawn into the war toward the end maybe, its far less brutal with much less historical grievances being built up.

[Kingpoleon]

  How about no coup in 1941 and Yugoslavia stays more or less neutral throughout all or most of the war, so even if it gets drawn into the war toward the end maybe, its far less brutal with much less historical grievances being built up.

As a Kingdom? Quite frankly, any involvement in WWII resulted in the downfall of kings. Maybe a UK-like scenario but with a much stronger monarchical role. A monarchy with Prince Nicholas( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Nicholas_of_Romania ) having married into the family and becoming King seems most likely. Yugoslavia would have needed ties to Romania, as the other nearby monarchies collapsed very easily and would have had no reason for their princes and kings to flee to Yugoslavia.

[Minstral]

Sure, anything is possible under the right conditions I guess. But the opposite is also true when different conditions combined plunged it into a civil are and destroyed it.

Still, it should be said that the power imbalance that was in favor with the serbs initially was always going to be a issue. Even though Tito was a Croat, the dominant power of the country was Serbian (if I remember correctly, Tito did reduce the political influence of the Serbian regions, but they still remained very powerful in the military).

[Senator-elect Spark]

Probably not. There were all different kinds of groups living together and it was only a matter of time before it would break apart.