Aren't bulgars south slavs? And i remember the first communist leader of Bulgaria asking for it but getting denied by stalin or something
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
IIRC the merger was conceived and there were some negotiations even. But Yugoslavia wanted Bulgaria to become simply one of the federal republics, on par with Serbia or Croatia, and Bulgaria wanted the union to be between Yugoslavia itself and Bulgaria as equal partners. And then the Tito-Stalin split happened, which decisively divided pro-Soviet Bulgaria from Yougoslavia and shelved all the plans forever.
Yep, I suppose. Could be fun alt history for Yugoslavia or Bulgaria.
It is one of the main What-ifs in Bulgarian history and I would personally love to peek into that parallel universe where it took place. Problem is that Comrade Dimitrov was basically a Soviet puppet, so defying the USSR was not an option. What uncle Stalin wants, uncle Stalin gets.
- 1
That would've been the most interesting part. Bulgaria is a lot bigger than the other Yugoslav states and forcing the central Belgrade government to fight a two-front war would've resulted in some very different outcomes.
Indeed! And then there's the macedonians, who would they side with here? Or would they have been entirely bulgarian'd?
That's the major wildcard here. We know that as part of the Yugoslav-Bulgar friendship, parts of Bulgaria had to be macedonized and then transferred over, in exchange they would get some small Serbian parts which used to be part of Bulgaria. This would've happened early on for sure. Here's the big thing though. In order to get the Macedonian identity to work, you need to push the anti-Bulgar rhetoric. This works during the Cold War due to the Iron Curtain. However, it cannot work when they are both part of the same country.
- 1
- 1
Too true. In a Yugoslavia spanning from the Adriatic to the Black Sea, Macedonian identity would post-breakup probably be more akin to the status Silesian or Moravian identity has in the present day, as observed in both Poland & Czechia respectively.
In effect, it would pretty much be a group with a somewhat distinct yet very culturally intergrated identity rather than one that view's itself to be more exclusive like in the present.
Last edited:
- 2
The US is not the only country with agency, you know. Other people have the ability to have their own wants and desires, and the power to make them real, or not.
Case in point, the allies were the last people to have any say in what was at the time an internal spat within the Eastern Block. If anything, the Tito-USSR spat was much more influential, and led to the scuppering of the process.
- 2
- 2
I read about the Tito-Stalin split happened, which decisively divided pro-Soviet Bulgaria from Yougoslavia and shelved all the plans forever.
what are you talking about? We are discussing World War 2.
The ALLIES included the Soviet Union. They all agreed on what was going to happen and SURPRISE that's what happened. Here's a picture of one of their meetings where they agreed on what would happen:
- 1
Later on decided that they are not going to colonize the Moon and that happened too... not because they lacked the capacity, but because they agreed.what are you talking about? We are discussing World War 2.
The ALLIES included the Soviet Union. They all agreed on what was going to happen and SURPRISE that's what happened. Here's a picture of one of their meetings where they agreed on what would happen:
Now that Yalta division stuff was also somewhat different, but at the end boots i mean facts on the ground what truly mattered,
the dirty little secret of global politics which is not a dirty little secret at all is that when every major power in the world agrees on something, then that thing is going to happen.
- 1
You mean this one?
Well it did not worth the paper handkerchief it was written on... because events on the ground made it moot before it is agreed on. Bulgaria become 100% Soviet sphere and Tito had the freedom to act since he liberated Yugoslavia more or less on his own (and no Soviet occupation troops to convince him otherwise).
Who had asked the VP back in 1945?
Fact is that all they agreed upon was not to challenge the status quo too radically (if you allow us to rig the Czechoslovakian elections we allow you to rig the Italian).
And Tito was strong enough and popular enough to have his own agenda.
[when there was actually a post-war to do the post-war divvying, FDR was dead, and Truman didn't agree to the power-sharing arrangement that FDR had been fine with]
that's right! they all agreed! and that's what happened.
amazing.
sure Tito was strong enough. the Great Powers were not united in their desire to keep Yugoslavia in the Soviet orbit. Had they been, he would not have been strong enough.