Why wasn't Yugoslavia fully partitioned based on ethnic lines like the USSR was?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,060
SoCal
#1
One thing that strikes me about the internal divisions in Communist Yugoslavia is that while there were separate republics for various different ethnic groups, the internal borders in Yugoslavia weren't actually drawn based on ethnic lines. Specifically, a lot of Albanian-majority areas ended up in Macedonia and Serbia while a lot of Serb-majority areas ended up in Bosnia and Croatia and some Croat-majority areas ended up in Bosnia:



Does anyone here (Maki, Kotromanic, et cetera) know why Yugoslavia wasn't fully partitioned based on ethnic lines like the USSR was? I mean, sure, it would have been messy and the resulting Bosnian state would have become both greatly shrunken and non-contiguous, but it might still have been better for Yugoslavia in the long(er)-run since Yugoslavia would have been less likely to descend into conflict in a scenario where its internal borders matched its ethnic borders. In such a scenario, Yugoslavia could have collapsed and broken up peacefully like the USSR largely did.
 
Oct 2012
676
#4
The state borders were more based on ethnic lines in the USSR than in Yugoslavia, though.
Maybe a bit more, but there were substantial ethnic minorities in most states. And it didn`t went so peacefully in the USSR either. The casualties of the Chechen wars are on par with those of the Yugoslav war.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,060
SoCal
#5
Maybe a bit more, but there were substantial ethnic minorities in most states. And it didn`t went so peacefully in the USSR either. The casualties of the Chechen wars are on par with those of the Yugoslav war.
Yes, there were minorities in the various Soviet SSRs, but that was in large part because a lot of the urban population in various SSRs were minorities.

As for the Chechen War, it was a war on the periphery of the USSR--as was the Nagorno-Karabakh War and the Transnistrian War.
 
Oct 2012
676
#6
Yes, there were minorities in the various Soviet SSRs, but that was in large part because a lot of the urban population in various SSRs were minorities.

As for the Chechen War, it was a war on the periphery of the USSR--as was the Nagorno-Karabakh War and the Transnistrian War.
You are of course correct with both points, but being in periphery does not make those wars less wars, does it? With that locic you could say that the Yugoslav wars were not wars either, I mean they were fought somewhere
in Balkans, not in Paris.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,060
SoCal
#7
You are of course correct with both points, but being in periphery does not make those wars less wars, does it? With that locic you gould say that the Yugoslaw wars were not wars either, I mean they were fought somewhere
in Balkans, not in Paris.
Well, the Yugoslav wars were fought in the center of Yugoslavia, but Yes, from a European perspective, one could dismiss these wars as being in Europe's backyard rather than in core Europe.

Still, you are correct that they were still wars.
 
Oct 2012
676
#8
Well, the Yugoslav wars were fought in the center of Yugoslavia, but Yes, from a European perspective, one could dismiss these wars as being in Europe's backyard rather than in core Europe.

Still, you are correct that they were still wars.
Quite. With USSR the thing is that Russia being so huge that viewing from Moscow any ethnic conflict is bound to be in periphery.
 
Likes: Futurist