So, if Tito had died, let's say, in 1944-1945, who would have taken his place after the end of WW2 as leader of Yugoslavia? Would Yugoslavia have ended as a soviet satellite like the rest of Eastern Europe?
WI: Tito dies during WW2, who rules Yugoslavia?
- Thread starter El_Presidente
- Start date
Are we assuming that there's a surviving Yugoslavia and no breakup into independent constituent countries? Without knowing more about the Yugoslavian communists it's impossible for me to say – if they're strong enough to hold together then nothing much changes, if Tito was a large part of unifying them and they split into factions it opens up more possibilities.
Interesting, sounds as though Rankovic could have cause other nationalities to become much less enthusiastic about a continued Yugoslavia. A three way conflict between a Kardelj faction, a Rankovic faction, and the Royalists has potential.
I know it's not the initial question, but how would Kardelj or Rankovic leading Yugoslavia effect the internal organisation of the country?
Kardelj would decentralize it perhaps more, give Albanians somewhat equal rights as long as they adhere to socialism, perhaps a federal unit out of Kosovo. Otherwise more or less the same as OTL since he was the main driving factor behind OTL Yugoslavia organization. Rankovic would push for punishing Croats, expelling Bosniaks and Albanians, expanding and trying to cement Serbian control over Krajina, Montenegro, Bosnia and Kosovo. Croatia is split up to accommodate it. More executions etc.