Subject: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 19:55:07 +0100 From: "Ed Thomas" Organization: Customer of PlusNet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if The challenge is simple: With a POD of no later then 1945, swap the relative situations in Spain and the former Yugoslavia. By this, I mean that by 2001 Yugoslavia should be a relatively stable and prosperous member of the EU, while Spain should be a war ravaged state with at least the Basques being independant if not Catalonia etc. Points will be deducted for the use of world war 3, and will be added the closer the two countries follow each other's history- e.g, A mid 1970's restoration of the Yugoslavian monarchy (probably impossible) or the inditement of a genocidal Spanish leader at the Hague. Probably difficult, but any attempts welcome! Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: 27 Jul 2001 21:25:02 +0200 From: Steve Holland Organization: UNI-C Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 "Ed Thomas" writes: > The challenge is simple: With a POD of no later then 1945, swap the > relative situations in Spain and the former Yugoslavia. By this, I > mean that by 2001 Yugoslavia should be a relatively stable and > prosperous member of the EU, while Spain should be a war ravaged > state with at least the Basques being independant if not Catalonia > etc. That's a tough one. To get a prosperous Yugoslavia you probably need an alternate Tito. Let's say that Tito turned to the West in 1945 and asked for allied troops and money to help keep Stalin out of Yugoslavia. In this time line Yugoslavia would be a critical western ally because it would keep the USSR from having access to the Mediterranean. It's possible that the U.S. and Britain would have pumped large amounts of money into Yugoslavia and strongly encouraged it to industrialise and become a democracy. Spain is harder. For Spain to collapse into ethnic turmoil would probably require something to go wrong when Franco died. If Juan Carlos had turned out to be a clone of Franco then it's possible (albeit unlikely) that Spain would have descended into another civil war, which could have fractured the country. ===================================================================== To find out who and where I am look at: http://www.nd.edu/~sholland/index.html Spammers: Please send spam to: abuse@aol.com and abuse@yahoo.com ===================================================================== Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:21:41 -0400 From: "Walter R. Strapps" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Steve Holland wrote: > > "Ed Thomas" writes: > > > The challenge is simple: With a POD of no later then 1945, swap the > > relative situations in Spain and the former Yugoslavia. By this, I > > mean that by 2001 Yugoslavia should be a relatively stable and > > prosperous member of the EU, while Spain should be a war ravaged > > state with at least the Basques being independant if not Catalonia > > etc. > > That's a tough one. To get a prosperous Yugoslavia you probably > need an alternate Tito. Compared to the other Communist nations of Europe, Yugoslavia *was* prosperous. In many ways they were the envy of much of Eastern Europe, and in fact, to a certain extent, they were disliked by these countries because of their prosperity. Someone who knows better can probably say if in the 50s and 60s Yugoslavia was actually in better shape than Spain. In fact, and I may be wrong here, the real turn around in the relative postions of Yugoslavia and the other EE countries was with the fall of Communism and the end of Yugoslavia as anything but a rump state. I call your attention to Slovenia which will probably join the EU within the next 5 years (and definitely the next 10). I think that simply not having Yugoslavia fall apart (that breeze you felt was my handwave :)) and then your postulated civil war in Spain accomplishes things quite well. I await corrections to my statements with baited breath :) Cheers, Walter R. Strapps Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:41:16 -0700 From: Conrad Hodson Organization: Oregon Public Networking Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Walter R. Strapps wrote: > > > Steve Holland wrote: > > > > "Ed Thomas" writes: > > > > > The challenge is simple: With a POD of no later then 1945, swap the > > > relative situations in Spain and the former Yugoslavia. By this, I > > > mean that by 2001 Yugoslavia should be a relatively stable and > > > prosperous member of the EU, while Spain should be a war ravaged > > > state with at least the Basques being independant if not Catalonia > > > etc. > > > > That's a tough one. To get a prosperous Yugoslavia you probably > > need an alternate Tito. > > Compared to the other Communist nations of Europe, Yugoslavia *was* > prosperous. In many ways they were the envy of much of Eastern Europe, > and in fact, to a certain extent, they were disliked by these countries > because of their prosperity. Someone who knows better can probably say > if in the 50s and 60s Yugoslavia was actually in better shape than > Spain. Also, the original post suggested that an "alternate Tito" might turn to the West to keep Stalin out of the country. Tito did that all by himself! Yugoslavia is that rare thing, a country that liberated _itself_ from the Nazis. At horrendous cost, to be sure, but Tito basically met the Red Army at the border, greeted his socialist comrades in arms, and suggested that "Budapest was that way." (pointing) The Soviets never overran Yugoslavia, never had the troops to take control the way they did in other parts of eastern Europe. Tito's brief cooperation with Stalin was quite voluntary, as proven by the way he told Stalin to bugger off when the USSR tried to treat him as another satellite. And he got away with it--for much the same reasons as the Nazis had for not invading Switzerland a few years earlier. > > In fact, and I may be wrong here, the real turn around in the relative > postions of Yugoslavia and the other EE countries was with the fall of > Communism and the end of Yugoslavia as anything but a rump state. I > call your attention to Slovenia which will probably join the EU within > the next 5 years (and definitely the next 10). I think that simply not > having Yugoslavia fall apart (that breeze you felt was my handwave :)) > and then your postulated civil war in Spain accomplishes things quite > well. Tito basically kept the lid on ethnic violence while he lasted. As has been pointed out before, the problem with strongmen as tough as Tito is in the succession; anyone strong enough to be a successor in the original style is strong and ambitious enough to be a threat during the earlier part of their political rise. Without the apprenticeship, they don't have the experience and connections they need; but if they're proctosculatory enough to survive their time in the second rank, they're more likely to be courtier types than another strongman. I strongly suggest that holding Yugoslavia together long enough for the traditional ethnic hatreds to diminish would need a whole series of leaders of the Tito caliber, and at least a century or two. Can anyone think of a dynasty in all of history that turned up six strong and wise leaders in an unbroken row? Conrad Hodson Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: 31 Jul 2001 15:31:26 +0200 From: Thomas Martin Widmann Organization: Aarhus University Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Conrad Hodson writes: > Tito basically kept the lid on ethnic violence while he lasted. As has > been pointed out before, the problem with strongmen as tough as Tito is in > the succession; anyone strong enough to be a successor in the original > style is strong and ambitious enough to be a threat during the earlier > part of their political rise. Would it take ASBs to have Tito appoint Crown Prince Alexander (born on 17 July 1945) his successor? I realise Tito was a communist, but he might have thought it was the best chance to hold Yugoslavia together. > I strongly suggest that holding Yugoslavia together long enough for > the traditional ethnic hatreds to diminish would need a whole series > of leaders of the Tito caliber, and at least a century or two. I'm not so sure. Money helps a lot, so if Yugoslavia enters the EEC in 1985, people may think that it's more important to become rich fast. On the other hand, if Spain is denied access to the EEC, nationalist politicians may use the economic dissatisfaction to put more power into local nationalism. So what about the following: Spain: Franco never makes Juan Carlos his successor. Instead, he devolves lots of power (don't know why -- any ideas?). Franco lives a little longer and doesn't die until 1980. He is succeeded by some rather weak leader, who just tries to keep the country going. EEC Membership is of course not a possibility. In the late 1980s, some strong Castillian nationalist politician becomes head of the Spanish Falangist party, whereupon the Basque Country and Catalonia declare their independence. In this TL, only relatively few non-Basques have moved to the Basque country, and after a very brief war with few casualties, it is permitted to leave Spain. Catalonia is more difficult. In this TL, very many Castillians have moved there, and the border lies a little further to the west. A large-scale civil war is the result, but in the end Catalonian independence is accepted. Now comes the time for Leon. In the 1970 power devolution reform, a new region had been created consisting of OTL Galicia, Asturia and Leon. This means that the population is very mixed. Portugal supplies the Galicians with weapons (their language is very close), and some veterans from Catalonia also join the war. It becomes very cruel, and the 1995 massacre in Oviedo becomes world-famous. The UN and NATO intervenes and stops the war. I'm not sure whether one could find an equivalent to Kosovo in Spain, but it doesn't really matter. Spain is now ethnically homogeneous, but the country is ruined. Some parts of it may try to leave for economic reasons (like OTL Montenegro). The Basque Country is about to become an EU member in 2004. Catalonia is also rapidly on its way towards Europe after the death of Pujol in 1999. Yugoslavia: In the 1960s, Tito sees that the only way to hold Yugoslavia together is to bring the king back. Crown Prince Alexander is brought to Yugoslavia, and when Tito dies in 1975, he becomes king. In 1979, a democratic constitution is introduced which also devolves some power to the regions. In 1986, Yugoslavia and Austria enter the EEC. (The USSR protests, but in the end accepts that the EEC and NATO are not the same thing.) Although there is a lot of regional nationalism, the swift economic progress means that there are few problems. Only the Albanian independence organisation UCK still tries to obtain independence for all Albanian areas (Kosovo, NW Macedonia and parts of Montenegro), but without success. Is this too improbable? /Thomas -- Thomas Martin Widmann, Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333, DK-8000 Århus C Tel.: 7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465 MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 00:44:16 -0400 From: Old Toby Organization: The University of Michigan Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Thomas Martin Widmann wrote: > > In the late 1980s, some strong Castillian nationalist politician > becomes head of the Spanish Falangist party, whereupon the Basque > Country and Catalonia declare their independence. In this TL, only > relatively few non-Basques have moved to the Basque country, and after > a very brief war with few casualties, it is permitted to leave Spain. > > Catalonia is more difficult. In this TL, very many Castillians have > moved there, and the border lies a little further to the west. A > large-scale civil war is the result, but in the end Catalonian > independence is accepted. > > Now comes the time for Leon. In the 1970 power devolution reform, a > new region had been created consisting of OTL Galicia, Asturia and > Leon. This means that the population is very mixed. Portugal > supplies the Galicians with weapons (their language is very close), > and some veterans from Catalonia also join the war. It becomes very > cruel, and the 1995 massacre in Oviedo becomes world-famous. The UN > and NATO intervenes and stops the war. > > I'm not sure whether one could find an equivalent to Kosovo in Spain, > but it doesn't really matter. Spain is now ethnically homogeneous, Valencia is part Castilian speaking, and part Catalan speaking, no? I'd use that as your "Bosnia" (although it lacks a "Muslim" equivalent) and Galicia as your "Kosovo" > Although there is a lot of regional nationalism, the swift economic > progress means that there are few problems. Only the Albanian > independence organisation UCK still tries to obtain independence for > all Albanian areas (Kosovo, NW Macedonia and parts of Montenegro), but > without success. The UCK was a relatively recent organization, really only emerging in the late 1990s. Before that, Kosovar Albanians focused their independence efforts on non-violently creating a "shadow state" that paralleled the Serbian administration of the province. OTOH, Croatian seperatist terrorists were active in the west in the 1970s, so I'd use them as an ETA equivalent. Old Toby Least Known Dog on the Net Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: 01 Aug 2001 15:05:30 +0200 From: Thomas Martin Widmann Organization: Aarhus University Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Old Toby writes: > Thomas Martin Widmann wrote: > > > > In the late 1980s, some strong Castillian nationalist politician > > becomes head of the Spanish Falangist party, whereupon the Basque > > Country and Catalonia declare their independence. In this TL, only > > relatively few non-Basques have moved to the Basque country, and after > > a very brief war with few casualties, it is permitted to leave Spain. > > > > Catalonia is more difficult. In this TL, very many Castillians have > > moved there, and the border lies a little further to the west. A > > large-scale civil war is the result, but in the end Catalonian > > independence is accepted. > > > > Now comes the time for Leon. In the 1970 power devolution reform, a > > new region had been created consisting of OTL Galicia, Asturia and > > Leon. This means that the population is very mixed. Portugal > > supplies the Galicians with weapons (their language is very close), > > and some veterans from Catalonia also join the war. It becomes very > > cruel, and the 1995 massacre in Oviedo becomes world-famous. The UN > > and NATO intervenes and stops the war. > > > > I'm not sure whether one could find an equivalent to Kosovo in Spain, > > but it doesn't really matter. Spain is now ethnically homogeneous, > > Valencia is part Castilian speaking, and part Catalan speaking, no? I'm not sure. They're speaking a language that the Catalans insist is a dialect of Catalan, but the Valencians themselves regard it as a different language. I have no idea what the number of Castillians in Valencia is. > I'd use that as your "Bosnia" (although it lacks a "Muslim" equivalent) > and Galicia as your "Kosovo" Well, for a "good" Bosnia we need an area with three different ethnic groups. If somehow we could make some of the Valencians regard themselves as Catalans, and some as Valencians, it might work. > > Although there is a lot of regional nationalism, the swift economic > > progress means that there are few problems. Only the Albanian > > independence organisation UCK still tries to obtain independence for > > all Albanian areas (Kosovo, NW Macedonia and parts of Montenegro), but > > without success. > > The UCK was a relatively recent organization, really only emerging > in the late 1990s. Before that, Kosovar Albanians focused their > independence efforts on non-violently creating a "shadow state" > that paralleled the Serbian administration of the province. > > OTOH, Croatian seperatist terrorists were active in the west in > the 1970s, so I'd use them as an ETA equivalent. Oh, I didn't know that. Croatian terrorists will do nicely. /Thomas -- Thomas Martin Widmann, Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333, DK-8000 Århus C Tel.: 7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465 MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 17:21:59 +0200 From: Perique des Palottes Organization: La Botifarra Catalana Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 Thomas Martin Widmann wrote: > > Old Toby writes: > > > Thomas Martin Widmann wrote: > > > > > > ... Portugal > > > supplies the Galicians with weapons (their language is very close)... > > ... Pretty what-if-esque to supply them with weapons because you consider the contemporary Galician language 'very close' to Portuguese... What about undercover British support so that they can get a naval base in El Ferrol? > > Valencia is part Castilian speaking, and part Catalan speaking, no? > > I'm not sure. They're speaking a language that the Catalans insist is > a dialect of Catalan, but the Valencians themselves regard it as a > different language. I have no idea what the number of Castillians in > Valencia is. Other than what most Romance philologists and linguists (not only Catalan and Valencian ones) might say, what about asking the Valencian speakers themselves? (Side note: most of speakers of Valencian are in the provinces of Alacant/Alicante and Castello de la Plana/Castellon de la Plana, not in Valencia city). Curiously enough the most furibund defenders of 'Valencian is a separate language' tag line are usually Spanish monolinguals. > > I'd use that as your "Bosnia" (although it lacks a "Muslim" equivalent) > > and Galicia as your "Kosovo" > > Well, for a "good" Bosnia we need an area with three different ethnic > groups. If somehow we could make some of the Valencians regard > themselves as Catalans, and some as Valencians, it might work. Most of contemporary Valencians simply consider themselves as 'Spanish', or at least the linguistic and identitary matters are pretty low rank in their interests, as you can suspect from elections results. Pro-Catalan Valencian activists are a very reduced minority who have never achieved any representation in Valencian Parliament (regional one). -- All true believers shall break their eggs at the convenient end. news:soc.culture.catalan FAQ at http://www.gea.cesca.es/~ipa/SCC/ Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: 01 Aug 2001 17:58:23 +0200 From: Thomas Martin Widmann Organization: Aarhus University Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 Perique des Palottes writes: > Thomas Martin Widmann wrote: > > > > Old Toby writes: > > > > > Thomas Martin Widmann wrote: > > > > > > > > ... Portugal > > > > supplies the Galicians with weapons (their language is very close)... > > > ... > > Pretty what-if-esque to supply them with weapons because you consider > the contemporary Galician language 'very close' to Portuguese... It certainly does require a Portugal that has diverged from the country we know in OTL. But would it be more realistic to have the French send weapons to the Catalans? Or would the Americans of Basque ancestry be more likely to arm Euskal Herria? > What about undercover British support so that they can get a naval > base in El Ferrol? Which ASB is British Prime Minister in this TL? > > > Valencia is part Castilian speaking, and part Catalan speaking, no? > > > > I'm not sure. They're speaking a language that the Catalans insist is > > a dialect of Catalan, but the Valencians themselves regard it as a > > different language. I have no idea what the number of Castillians in > > Valencia is. > > Other than what most Romance philologists and linguists (not only > Catalan and Valencian ones) might say, what about asking the Valencian > speakers themselves? (Side note: most of speakers of Valencian are in > the provinces of Alacant/Alicante and Castello de la Plana/Castellon > de la Plana, not in Valencia city). Curiously enough the most furibund > defenders of 'Valencian is a separate language' tag line are usually > Spanish monolinguals. Oh, interesting. I've never been to Valencia, so I believed what I read somewhere (it might have been in some book on linguistics or in a Spanish newspaper). > > > I'd use that as your "Bosnia" (although it lacks a "Muslim" equivalent) > > > and Galicia as your "Kosovo" > > > > Well, for a "good" Bosnia we need an area with three different ethnic > > groups. If somehow we could make some of the Valencians regard > > themselves as Catalans, and some as Valencians, it might work. > > Most of contemporary Valencians simply consider themselves as 'Spanish', > or at least the linguistic and identitary matters are pretty low rank > in their interests, as you can suspect from elections results. > Pro-Catalan Valencian activists are a very reduced minority who have > never achieved any representation in Valencian Parliament (regional > one). This is how it is in OTL. But couldn't a skilled demagogue have made a third of the population regard themselves as Catalans? /Thomas -- Thomas Martin Widmann, Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333, DK-8000 Århus C Tel.: 7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465 MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 20:51:37 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Thomas Martin Widmann wrote: > > Conrad Hodson writes: > > > Tito basically kept the lid on ethnic violence while he lasted. As has > > been pointed out before, the problem with strongmen as tough as Tito is in > > the succession; anyone strong enough to be a successor in the original > > style is strong and ambitious enough to be a threat during the earlier > > part of their political rise. > > Would it take ASBs to have Tito appoint Crown Prince Alexander (born > on 17 July 1945) his successor? I realise Tito was a communist, but > he might have thought it was the best chance to hold Yugoslavia > together. I think it would be improbable. Franco could name Juan Carlos as head of state after his passing because there was a fair degree of (perceived) ideological continuity between Franco's own right-wing dictatorship and a presumably right-wing monarchy. Even after he died, Franco expected Juan Carlos to carry on his ideological legacy. Fortunately for Spain, Franco was wrong. Tito, on the other hand, would have to be willing to risk the complete destruction of his favourite left-wing ideology by allowing a _monarch_ to take up the throne of Yugoslavia. (And then there's the whole question of non-Serbs not wanting a Serbian monarch as their head of state.) For Spain's post-Francoist model of transition to be applied to Yugoslavia, then, you'd have to see Tito plan to give up power to a seemingly dependable collection of socialists who, after Tito's death, would do an abrupt about-face and then aim for some kind of Swedish-style social democracy/democratic socialism. Any candidates? > [deletia] > > /Thomas > -- > Thomas Martin Widmann, Universitetsparken 8, 2., -333, DK-8000 Århus C > Tel.: 7028 4406 * (park) 8942 7333 * (mob.) 2167 6127 * (SDS) 8733 4465 > > MA stud. (ling-dat); stud.prog.; aktiv radikal; formand/DK-TUG; T4ONF/TK -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PEI Canada Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 23:43:19 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Possibly my last post from my faithful old G3 Mac. Conrad Hodson wrote: > Yugoslavia is that rare thing, a country that liberated _itself_ from the > Nazis. At horrendous cost, to be sure, but Tito basically met the Red > Army at the border, greeted his socialist comrades in arms, and suggested > that "Budapest was that way." (pointing) The Soviets never overran > Yugoslavia, never had the troops to take control the way they did in other > parts of eastern Europe. Kinda sorta. The Red Army did advance quite far into Yugoslavia, and in large numbers; Belgrade, frex, was liberated by a joint Soviet-Partisan force, and Soviet divisions moved through Bosnia and eastern Croatia. However, they passed through and did not stay. See, Tito had secretly flown to Moscow in September '44, a few weeks before the Red Army reached the Yugoslav-Rumanian border. There, he'd managed to convince Stalin that he was a loyal (to Moscow, of course) Communist and that there was no need to keep large Soviet forces in Yugoslavia. Stalin, improbably, agreed to this. The precise reasons are lost to history, but "of course I trust you, dear Comrade Tito" was probably not one of them. More likely, 1) Stalin decided that those divisions could be used more profitably to capture Hungary and Czecheslovakia, and push the East/West meeting line a few miles further westwards; and/or, 2) Stalin took a good hard look at the map and decided that trusting Tito, though risky, was better than trying to occupy a mountainous country whose partisans had tied down ten German divisions. -- Incidentally, one of the first rifts in the Soviet-Yugoslav relationship was caused by the Red Army's behavior in Yugoslavia. The Soviet soldiers showed an unfortunate tendency to behave the same way they'd behaved in Romania, viz., looting, raping, and killing anyone who tried to stop them. When Tito complained to Stalin about this, Uncle Joe pooh-poohed it: "It should hardly be a matter for concern, if a soldier who has fought his way through a thousand miles of blood should pick up some trifle, or have a few minutes' fun with a woman." Tito didn't take this well, and things went downhill from there. > Tito basically kept the lid on ethnic violence while he lasted. As has > been pointed out before, the problem with strongmen as tough as Tito is in > the succession; anyone strong enough to be a successor in the original > style is strong and ambitious enough to be a threat during the earlier > part of their political rise. > > Without the apprenticeship, they don't have the experience and connections > they need; but if they're proctosculatory enough to survive their time in > the second rank, they're more likely to be courtier types than another > strongman. True, but my (intensive but quite recent) research suggests that this may not have been the crux of the problem. Tito rewrote the Yugoslav Constitution in 1974. The new version devolved a lot of power to the six "nations", while weakening the federal Yugoslav government. This didn't matter much at the time; while Tito was alive, real power stayed in his hands. Once he was gone, though, the flow of power outward from the center began to accelerate in a reinforcing feedback loop. Tito's reasons for doing this were and still are unclear. He may have thought that a looser federation would be a Good Thing -- and who knows? If the Cold War had continued indefinitely, it might have been. Or he may just have wanted to prevent the rise of another Tito. Whatever the reason, I'd point to this as a possible POD for a better Yugoslavia: have Tito strengthen the central government, or at least leave it alone. If money and jobs flow from Belgrade, politicians will go to Belgrade to make deals, instead of staying home and whipping up nationalism. (It might also serve as a POD for a fractured Spain: have Franco, in a fit of senile whimsy, devolve power to the provinces. Of course, this would be very un-Franco-like -- he was a relentless centralizer OTL.) > I strongly suggest that holding Yugoslavia together long enough for the > traditional ethnic hatreds to diminish would need a whole series of > leaders of the Tito caliber, and at least a century or two. Can anyone > think of a dynasty in all of history that turned up six strong and wise > leaders in an unbroken row? The Ottoman Turks, up to and including Suleiman the Magnificent. Of course, they picked the most promising male in each generation, and strangled all the others. The adoptive Roman Emperors and the Tokugawa Shoguns managed to produce streaks of four or five really good ones. Neither of them followed strict male primogeniture either, of course. Doug M. -- who expects to know a bit more about Yugoslav history Real Soon Now Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:47:19 -0700 From: "Robert A. Woodward" Organization: Home User Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 In article , Conrad Hodson wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Walter R. Strapps wrote: > > > > > > > Steve Holland wrote: > > > > > > "Ed Thomas" writes: > > > > > > > The challenge is simple: With a POD of no later then 1945, swap the > > > > relative situations in Spain and the former Yugoslavia. By this, I > > > > mean that by 2001 Yugoslavia should be a relatively stable and > > > > prosperous member of the EU, while Spain should be a war ravaged > > > > state with at least the Basques being independant if not Catalonia > > > > etc. > > > > > > That's a tough one. To get a prosperous Yugoslavia you probably > > > need an alternate Tito. > > > > Compared to the other Communist nations of Europe, Yugoslavia *was* > > prosperous. In many ways they were the envy of much of Eastern Europe, > > and in fact, to a certain extent, they were disliked by these countries > > because of their prosperity. Someone who knows better can probably say > > if in the 50s and 60s Yugoslavia was actually in better shape than > > Spain. > > Also, the original post suggested that an "alternate Tito" might turn to > the West to keep Stalin out of the country. Tito did that all by himself! > > Yugoslavia is that rare thing, a country that liberated _itself_ from the > Nazis. At horrendous cost, to be sure, but Tito basically met the Red > Army at the border, greeted his socialist comrades in arms, and suggested > that "Budapest was that way." (pointing) > > Tito basically kept the lid on ethnic violence while he lasted. As has > been pointed out before, the problem with strongmen as tough as Tito is in > the succession; anyone strong enough to be a successor in the original > style is strong and ambitious enough to be a threat during the earlier > part of their political rise. > > I strongly suggest that holding Yugoslavia together long enough for the > traditional ethnic hatreds to diminish would need a whole series of > leaders of the Tito caliber, and at least a century or two. Can anyone > think of a dynasty in all of history that turned up six strong and wise > leaders in an unbroken row? The House of Wessex managed it; but then they hit Ethelred the Unready and all the work of freeing England from Vikings was overthrown in a generation. -- robertaw@halcyon.com http://www.halcyon.com/robertaw/ rawoodward@aol.com Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: 28 Jul 2001 05:30:42 -0700 From: rxp3@psu.edu (Callisto) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Conrad Hodson wrote in message news:... > On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Walter R. Strapps wrote: > > Tito basically kept the lid on ethnic violence while he lasted. As has > been pointed out before, the problem with strongmen as tough as Tito is in > the succession; anyone strong enough to be a successor in the original > style is strong and ambitious enough to be a threat during the earlier > part of their political rise. > > Without the apprenticeship, they don't have the experience and connections > they need; but if they're proctosculatory enough to survive their time in > the second rank, they're more likely to be courtier types than another > strongman. > > I strongly suggest that holding Yugoslavia together long enough for the > traditional ethnic hatreds to diminish would need a whole series of > leaders of the Tito caliber, and at least a century or two. Can anyone > think of a dynasty in all of history that turned up six strong and wise > leaders in an unbroken row? > > Conrad Hodson Conrad, I would suggest what if Tito put something like the PRI system from Mexico in Yugoslavia, with a strong Party in charge, with apprenticeship for ambitious youngsters, and with the "dedazo" to select successors. After all, the PRI lasted 70 years, and the transfer of power to Fox has been quite peaceful. So, how do you get Tito to adopt the Mexican system? Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 19:29:33 +0200 From: "Dragan Antulov" Organization: Iskon Internet d.d. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 Callisto wrote in message news:89dcabe3.0107280430.1ce1e9b1@posting.google.com... > Conrad Hodson wrote in message news:... > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Walter R. Strapps wrote: > > Tito basically kept the lid on ethnic violence while he lasted. As has > > been pointed out before, the problem with strongmen as tough as Tito is in > > the succession; anyone strong enough to be a successor in the original > > style is strong and ambitious enough to be a threat during the earlier > > part of their political rise. > Conrad, I would suggest what if Tito put something like the PRI system > from Mexico in Yugoslavia, with a strong Party in charge, with > apprenticeship for ambitious youngsters, and with the "dedazo" to > select successors. > After all, the PRI lasted 70 years, and the transfer of power to Fox > has been quite peaceful. > So, how do you get Tito to adopt the Mexican system? I don't know much about PRI system, but Tito actually tried something similar with ambitious youngsters in late 1960s. The idea was to rejuvenate the Party by putting younger people in charge. At least, this was in theory. In reality, Tito was just playing the old Habsburg game of playing different factions (ethnic, ideological etc.) against each other and thus perpetuate his own power as the Man with the Last Word. Problem was that the youngsters refused to play along and that their calls for some kind of reform became too unisone for Tito's ears. So he had them purged from the Party in early 1970s and replaced by his incompentent but loyal gray-haired Old Guard. -- Dragan Antulov a.k.a. Drax E-mail: dragan.antulov@st.tel.hr http://www.film.purger.com - Filmske recenzije na hrvatskom/Movie Reviews in Croatian Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: 29 Jul 2001 14:56:27 -0700 From: rxp3@psu.edu (Callisto) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 "Dragan Antulov" wrote in message news:<9k1hoe$u5e$6@sunce.iskon.hr>... > Callisto wrote in message > news:89dcabe3.0107280430.1ce1e9b1@posting.google.com... > > Conrad Hodson wrote in message > news:... > > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Walter R. Strapps wrote: > > > > Tito basically kept the lid on ethnic violence while he lasted. As > has > > > been pointed out before, the problem with strongmen as tough as Tito > is in > > > the succession; anyone strong enough to be a successor in the > original > > > style is strong and ambitious enough to be a threat during the > earlier > > > part of their political rise. > > > Conrad, I would suggest what if Tito put something like the PRI system > > from Mexico in Yugoslavia, with a strong Party in charge, with > > apprenticeship for ambitious youngsters, and with the "dedazo" to > > select successors. > > After all, the PRI lasted 70 years, and the transfer of power to Fox > > has been quite peaceful. > > So, how do you get Tito to adopt the Mexican system? > > I don't know much about PRI system, but Tito actually tried something > similar with ambitious youngsters in late 1960s. The idea was to > rejuvenate the Party by putting younger people in charge. At least, this > was in theory. In reality, Tito was just playing the old Habsburg game > of playing different factions (ethnic, ideological etc.) against each > other and thus perpetuate his own power as the Man with the Last Word. > Problem was that the youngsters refused to play along and that their > calls for some kind of reform became too unisone for Tito's ears. So he > had them purged from the Party in early 1970s and replaced by his > incompentent but loyal gray-haired Old Guard. WEll, what if the young people foudn someone like Lazaro Cardenas who could forcibly retire the old man, the same way that Calles was retired in Mexico? Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: 1 Aug 2001 15:51:48 -0700 From: maurer@itam.mx (Noel) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 rxp3@psu.edu (Callisto) wrote in message news:<89dcabe3.0107291356.732f5017@posting.google.com>... > "Dragan Antulov" wrote in message news:<9k1hoe$u5e$6@sunce.iskon.hr>... > > Callisto wrote in message > > news:89dcabe3.0107280430.1ce1e9b1@posting.google.com... > > > Conrad Hodson wrote in message > news:... > > > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Walter R. Strapps wrote: > > > > > Tito basically kept the lid on ethnic violence while he lasted. As > has > > > > been pointed out before, the problem with strongmen as tough as Tito > is in > > > > the succession; anyone strong enough to be a successor in the > original > > > > style is strong and ambitious enough to be a threat during the > earlier > > > > part of their political rise. > > > > Conrad, I would suggest what if Tito put something like the PRI system > > > from Mexico in Yugoslavia, with a strong Party in charge, with > > > apprenticeship for ambitious youngsters, and with the "dedazo" to > > > select successors. > > > After all, the PRI lasted 70 years, and the transfer of power to Fox > > > has been quite peaceful. > > > So, how do you get Tito to adopt the Mexican system? > > > > I don't know much about PRI system, but Tito actually tried something > > similar with ambitious youngsters in late 1960s. The idea was to > > rejuvenate the Party by putting younger people in charge. At least, this > > was in theory. In reality, Tito was just playing the old Habsburg game > > of playing different factions (ethnic, ideological etc.) against each > > other and thus perpetuate his own power as the Man with the Last Word. > > Problem was that the youngsters refused to play along and that their > > calls for some kind of reform became too unisone for Tito's ears. So he > > had them purged from the Party in early 1970s and replaced by his > > incompentent but loyal gray-haired Old Guard. > > WEll, what if the young people foudn someone like Lazaro Cardenas who > could forcibly retire the old man, the same way that Calles was > retired in Mexico? ---Interesting, but not possible. The reason is simple. The PRI evolved, slowly, in an unstable polity. Multiple armed power centers needed to be conciliated. The system which finally emerged was far from the deliberate creation of a single dictator. I'm oversimplifying, but I think I'm allowed to since Cambridge University Press just accepted our book on this topic... Tito, OTOH, had Yugoslavia in his glove. There were no credible internal threats to his power. That meant there was no way to make any political promises of his (or his successors) credible. If a Mexican president had refused to step down, the country would have collapsed violently, and everyone knew it. If one of Tito's hypothetical successors refused to step down, he would, uh, refuse to step down, and that would be the end of that. Of course, Tito could have deliberately weakened his regime to make the threat of civil war very real should the political balance be upset. Some- how I have trouble seeing a responsible leader of any stripe doing such a thing. Anyway, a PRI system doesn't get you Spain, it gets you Mexico. If Mexico's lucky, 2000 will be its version of 1975, and by 2020 the two countries will be similar. But it won't work for the posted challenge. Noel Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 00:41:35 -0400 From: Douglas Muir Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 > Compared to the other Communist nations of Europe, Yugoslavia *was* > prosperous. In many ways they were the envy of much of Eastern Europe, > and in fact, to a certain extent, they were disliked by these countries > because of their prosperity. Someone who knows better can probably say > if in the 50s and 60s Yugoslavia was actually in better shape than > Spain. Yugoslavia was prosperous by Eastern European standards in large part because of higher postwar growth rates. According to the Penn World Tables, Yugoslavia had about 2/3 of Spain's per capita GDP in 1960, and had closed this gap to about 3/4 by 1980. Yugoslavia's growth rate during this period was 6.1% per annum, as opposed to about 4.5% for Spain. Was Yugoslavia "in better shape" than Spain, economically speaking? No, but it was close. Yugoslavia was at the top of the Communist "Second World", while Spain was at or near the bottom of the "First World" -- indeed, you could argue that Franco's Spain was not really a First World country at all. In 1980, Yugoslavia had a per capita GDP that was just over 3/4 as high as Spain's. Their standard of living index was almost identical, however -- probably reflecting the fact that Yugoslavia had much flatter wealth and income curves and a more effective social safety net. The typical Yugoslav, c. 1980, was just about as well off as the typical Spaniard. This began to change rapidly after 1980, though, as Spain's economy perked up while Yugoslavia's began to nosedive. I mentioned the problems caused by Yugoslavia's 1974 Constitution in another recent post. Well, these political problems were /vastly/ exacerbated by a sudden flatlining of the economy after 1980. Annual growth dropped from over 6% to about 2%, and unemployment and other economic problems picked up sharply. If Yugoslavia had maintained a 6% or even 4% growth rate for the last 20 years, they'd be richer than the Greeks or the Portuguese, roughly as rich as the Spanish, and almost certainly members of the EU. Doug M. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 19:10:24 +0200 From: "Dragan Antulov" Organization: Iskon Internet d.d. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Walter R. Strapps wrote in message news:3B61CD55.383267FB@sentigen.com... > > That's a tough one. To get a prosperous Yugoslavia you probably > > need an alternate Tito. > Compared to the other Communist nations of Europe, Yugoslavia *was* > prosperous. In many ways they were the envy of much of Eastern Europe, > and in fact, to a certain extent, they were disliked by these countries > because of their prosperity. Someone who knows better can probably say > if in the 50s and 60s Yugoslavia was actually in better shape than > Spain. > > In fact, and I may be wrong here, the real turn around in the relative > postions of Yugoslavia and the other EE countries was with the fall of > Communism and the end of Yugoslavia as anything but a rump state. I True. In 1970s and 1980s few fortunate Czechs and Hungarians who could have afforded to come to Adriatic Coast as tourists were constant target of local ridicule because of their poverty. Nowadays, Czech, Hungarian and Polish tourists are having the same low opinion of the unsofisticated and impoverished locals. -- Dragan Antulov a.k.a. Drax E-mail: dragan.antulov@st.tel.hr http://www.film.purger.com - Filmske recenzije na hrvatskom/Movie Reviews in Croatian Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:59:29 -0300 From: Randy McDonald Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Steve Holland wrote: > > [deletia] > > Spain is harder. For Spain to collapse into ethnic turmoil would > probably require something to go wrong when Franco died. If Juan > Carlos had turned out to be a clone of Franco then it's possible > (albeit unlikely) that Spain would have descended into another civil > war, which could have fractured the country. If the transition to democracy in the mid-1970's was mismanaged -- in particular, if the model opted for by the democrats was a centralizing regime with no concession made to regional languages and cultures -- then there might be general instability. I think that secessions would be difficult, though, particularly since Hispanophones make up 70% of the Spanish population and majorities or near-majorities in most of the Basque and Catalan regions. Perhaps the POD, here, is to have the Republicans win the Civil War, to create a Union of Spanish Socialist Republics, mismanage things, and then have an incompetent transition to democrcy sometime in the 1960's or 1970's. > ===================================================================== > To find out who and where I am look at: > http://www.nd.edu/~sholland/index.html > Spammers: Please send spam to: abuse@aol.com and abuse@yahoo.com > ===================================================================== -- Randy McDonald Charlottetown PEI Canada Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: 29 Jul 2001 17:00:21 -0700 From: Jonathan I. Edelstein Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On 27 July 2001, Randy McDonald wrote: [deletia] >> If Juan Carlos had turned out to be a clone of Franco then it's >> possible (albeit unlikely) that Spain would have descended into >> another civil war, which could have fractured the country. > If the transition to democracy in the mid-1970's was mismanaged -- > in particular, if the model opted for by the democrats was a > centralizing regime with no concession made to regional languages > and cultures -- then there might be general instability. What if Juan Carlos supported the military coup of February 1981 and Spain entered into another decade or so of military rule? Isolation from the EU wouldn't help its economy, and the Basques and Catalans might want nothing more to do with the Spanish state by the time democracy was restored. Jonathan I. Edelstein in Kew Gardens, NY "Who is wise? He who learns froma ll." - Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1 Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 06:09:45 GMT From: "Larry Bernard" Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 what if some of the issues of J-C legitimacy were bigger and a rival claimant ( or more) came up? as well as a franco wannabe Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 19:02:05 +0200 From: "Dragan Antulov" Organization: Iskon Internet d.d. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Steve Holland wrote in message news:w4766cenpip.fsf@origo.ifa.au.dk... > "Ed Thomas" writes: > > The challenge is simple: With a POD of no later then 1945, swap the > > relative situations in Spain and the former Yugoslavia. By this, I > > mean that by 2001 Yugoslavia should be a relatively stable and > > prosperous member of the EU, while Spain should be a war ravaged > > state with at least the Basques being independant if not Catalonia > > etc. > That's a tough one. To get a prosperous Yugoslavia you probably > need an alternate Tito. Let's say that Tito turned to the West in > 1945 and asked for allied troops and money to help keep Stalin out of > Yugoslavia. In this time line Yugoslavia would be a critical western > ally because it would keep the USSR from having access to the > Mediterranean. It's possible that the U.S. and Britain would have > pumped large amounts of money into Yugoslavia and strongly encouraged > it to industrialise and become a democracy. Actually, this is what, more or less, happened in OTL. Tito enjoyed Western financial support, and the country was rather prosperous. The best POD should be in the early 1970s. Tito's death in 1972 might prevent Constitution of 1974 and Associated Labour Act of 1976 - documents responsible for escalation of nationalism and economic mismanagement in 1980s. Of course, from Slovenian or Croatian nationalist POV, this development might not be a good thing. -- Dragan Antulov a.k.a. Drax E-mail: dragan.antulov@st.tel.hr http://www.film.purger.com - Filmske recenzije na hrvatskom/Movie Reviews in Croatian Subject: Re: AH Challenge: Inverted countries Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 18:54:37 +0200 From: "Dragan Antulov" Organization: Iskon Internet d.d. Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Ed Thomas wrote in message news:OVi87.83$xa6.12820@wards... > The challenge is simple: With a POD of no later then 1945, swap the relative > situations in Spain and the former Yugoslavia. By this, I mean that by 2001 > Yugoslavia should be a relatively stable and prosperous member of the EU, > while Spain should be a war ravaged state with at least the Basques being > independant if not Catalonia etc. > Points will be deducted for the use of world war 3, and will be added the > closer the two countries follow each other's history- e.g, A mid 1970's > restoration of the Yugoslavian monarchy (probably impossible) or the > inditement of a genocidal Spanish leader at the Hague. > Probably difficult, but any attempts welcome! Well, it is difficult. Keeping good old SFRY in one piece is hard, but EU membership is even harder. Dissolution of Spain might come as the results of few PODs that turn Franco's rule longer and much nastier, and with much more violent and unstable post-Franco period. -- Dragan Antulov a.k.a. Drax E-mail: dragan.antulov@st.tel.hr http://www.film.purger.com - Filmske recenzije na hrvatskom/Movie Reviews in Croatian