What TL does this belong too? Mitro 18:52, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Zeifodd 19:38, November 28, 2009 (UTC)1983:Doomsday but i saw the yugoslavian article.However it isn't clear what happens in balkans after that so i wrote that

I think I did a good job renovating this article from a piece of crap to a pretty decent addition to the Doomsday timeline.

Yankovic270 02:31, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

So, have you given up on the idea of Belgrade being nuked, as I mentioned in the Croatia article, or were you never really for the idea? It's fine by me one way or the other, I just feel that the two articles should be consistent--Vladivostok 07:33, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

You have to be consistent with canon. That is a must. Mitro 15:41, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Hey Yankovic, don't you think you could maybe mold your article to match the Kingdom of Macedonia article? Ownerzmcown 18:54, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I was never "with" the idea of Belgrade being nuked. The Yugoslavia article has the city avoid being targetted on Doomsday, and that the collapse was brought on by the other factors of Doomsday. In this respect it is the Croatia article that is out of step with canon, and it is Serbia that sets thing right.

Yankovic270 13:34, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yank has a point. The Yugoslavia article does say that the country was not attacked. That being said, its possible that line is implausible. Thoughts? Mitro 14:32, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Way I figure it, if Vienna gets nuked by the Soviets, then it is likely Belgrade would be nuked as well, for much the same reasons. Besides, even with Tito dead there was no love lost between the two nations-states.

Lordganon 14:35, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If anything, Belgrade is more likely to receive a nuke than Vienna would. The Austrians were just in the way, Yugoslavia on the other hand was in direct defiance with the party line in Moscow.--Vladivostok 14:49, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Did the Soviets believe Yugoslavia would either join their side or allow their troops to pass through the country in the event of war despite their differences? That's the determining factor imo. If yes, then Belgrade wouldn't have been nuked. If no, then it probably would have been nuked. Caeruleus 18:56, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Apparently in 1987 the US DoD came up with what they thought was a likely Soviet plan of action in case of WWIII. You can see info on it here. From the article it looks like Yugoslavia would be attacked by the Soviets in case of war. Mitro 19:31, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
So, do we conclusively nuke the city, or see if there are other proposed Soviet invasion plans out there?--Vladivostok 19:37, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
The Polish government released a lot of Cold War-era documents recently, which include actually Warsaw Pact contingency plans. I can't find the site atm, but I'm sure you'll be able to find it on Google. The Wilson Center also has a lot of Cold War-era documents that might have it. I know the Russians have never published the official Soviet war plans, but I'm sure there are something similar out there. Caeruleus 20:22, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Fine. What do you suggest for a substitute capital then? And could someone provide a map of Serbia and Montenegro with the chunk in Macedonia hands missing?

Yankovic270 22:21, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

If we're deciding that Belgrade would be nuked, then Smederevo would probably make a good substitute capital. Caeruleus 23:14, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Kragujevac would also work nicely.--Vladivostok 02:25, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

When do you guys think that Macedonia would have established contact with Serbia, it will have to be years after the Civil War, but probably before the Albanian War and the recently conservative administration? Ownerzmcown 00:09, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is somewhat difficult, since they share a common border with one another, and would most likely have to be in direct contact right of the bat.--Vladivostok 08:50, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Just make a no-man's land between the two. Warlords, cannibals, rebels, etc. Though after your civil war makes little sense as a date - just too late.

Lordganon 11:08, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Since neither collapsed following doomsday, they likely would have maintained contact.Oerwinde 15:45, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

And since neither collapsed, there would be no no-man's land. They would have a direct border and established contact early on. Caeruleus 19:04, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I just wanted to point out a couple of things that I think would improve this article:

  • Changing the name of the article to Serbia & Montenegro and adding the necessary history for Montenegro as well.
  • Not having Boris Tadić as the president, as it is unlikely that Milošević's cronies would give up power and Tadić is a pro-European liberal, so that wouldn't really come into effect post-Doomsday.
  • They wouldn't be the second nation to declare independence, as Slovenia was the first, and Croatia the second. During the war, Yugoslavia was Serbia & Montenegro.
  • What nation of Kosovo? It would never be created, let alone collapse.

I hope this helps.--Vladivostok 07:13, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Vlad, why don't you just take over? With Yank's advice, as he started it. But since you've already established much of the Balkans including the early history of Serbia and Montenegro, it makes sense for you to finish it.Oerwinde 08:25, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would like to let Yank finish the article first, so as not to encroach on any ideas he still might have.--Vladivostok 08:52, September 6, 2010 (UTC)


Hey LG, I'm gonna do the military for this article, any ideas, plus, I'm thinking conscription service makes the most sense? Ownerzmcown 02:56, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Definitely conscription. These guys will be dealing with rebels and other issues of that sort, so it'll need to be large military too. Weaponry will be largely leftover Yugoslav weapons as well, along with some local ones. These guys aren't getting the things from anywhere but Sicily, that's for sure.

Lordganon 03:13, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Why was Montenegro omitted from the name, and since landlocked was written in, I'm assuming that Montenegro lost its coastline?--Vladivostok 10:46, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the landlocked thing you accounted for LG, but that still doesn't explain the lack of representation in the country's name regarding Montenegro.--Vladivostok 14:52, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, like this it's more like what me and Owner have had in mind than a Federation. If we decide to keep it this way I'll adjust the various references.

Way I figure it, instead of the de-centralization that occurred otl, it just becomes more centralized.

Lordganon 06:57, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fine with centralization, even in Yugoslavia all decisions were basically made by Serbian leaders, but they at least maintained a semblance of involvement for other nations. Just calling it Serbia outright wouldn't sit well with the Montenegrins, seeing as they willingly sided with them during both this TL and OTL.--Vladivostok 07:32, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

What do you think would be the main points of Serbia's economy, and what would be its major industries and abilities. Honestly, I can imagine the government pushing for a large manufacturing sector, but also they would have many base metals and some mineral and petroleum resources from Serbia, Montenegro has a sizable steel, forestry, coal mining, and aluminum industry, and I read that Bosnia has large industries like this, too. Although I'm not sure whether thats just in the south, or the country as a whole. Ownerzmcown 03:09, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

The vote to separate in otl was only a couple points away from failing, and I figure that wouldn't be an issue here. Basically, despite their independent history, Montenegrins are still Serbs - the difference is like that between Austria and Germany. This won't be a federation, though it'll still have provinces, which should keep them happy. (Serbia proper, Serbian Bosnia, Volo~, Montenegro, and Kosovo).

None of the areas in this state are really known for anything in particular. I can suggest a large timber industry, though. From there, you can use natural resources from the more mountainous regions for some manufacturing, though I suspect without Belgrade that there won't be near so much of it going on.

As for Bosnia, most of its industry would be in non-Serb regions. However, those are also the most damaged parts. I don't see it contributing too much, either way.

Lordganon 11:02, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Where do you think the Serbs would originally get their weapons. Belgrade, a major military base, was destroyed, so I'm not sure where'd they'd get them originally. Also, when would they be able to manufacture their own weapons, I'm not sure about when this would start happening, but I'm sure it would be pretty recent. Ownerzmcown 03:13, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

The Yugoslavian government was pretty good about not having its military in one place. It'd still be pretty intact - and mostly Serb.

Most arms industry was in central Serbia and survived. They'd have had the ability retained.

Lordganon 03:45, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Hey LG, whats the program people use to make and edit maps, I forget? Ownerzmcown 20:37, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what program you've been told in the past, but the one I use is called "GIMP". Works pretty well.

All you need to do is ask politely and tell me the rough location and I'll make one for you, lol.

Lordganon 07:08, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Hey LG, what do think the political opinion would be in the military, as people in the military often have more conservative views? Ownerzmcown 02:48, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

With how the two main political parties work here atl, I suspect that they'd be more of a traditional conservative view if anything. More neutral politically than anything, just supporting the government. Lordganon 10:16, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Another thing, what weapons do you think they would use, I'm thinking old Yugoslav weapons, but I'm not sure. Ownerzmcown 02:44, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

A fair portion of their weapons would be such, true - but, at the same time their arms industry is pretty well intact and at Doomsday they were planning new weapons to begin production over the next few years. I figure that their military would end up somewhere near the same mix of tech as you have in Macedonia, possibly the same more or less as they have otl with slightly less technical innovations. Lordganon 04:32, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just thinking of giving this article a small military gallery, and just how many tanks and artillery pieces, I would probably be larger than Macedonia, so I'm just wondering. Ownerzmcown 04:36, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be a touch larger than the Macedonian military. More borders, and a higher population. Go ahead with the military gallery, if you'd like.

As for numbers, Macedonia is about 45% of the population of Serbia, with less to start with, and less factories. Doubling the military size of Macedonia is good, but I suspect it would only be 20-40% more armor, artillery, etc. If the numbers trouble you at all, remember that they have more fronts to guard, as well as an abandoned deadish zone to their north to watch.

Lordganon 05:55, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Second Balkan War

I believe that Serbia is planning to invade their neighbors . Thus, a new Balkan war is brewing. I believe that Serbia would be crushed and divided up by its neighbors . Macedonia would absorb Montenegro and Kosovo. Transvainia would gain Vojvodina. A small part of Serbia proper would go to Rhodope. I believe that Srpska Bosna and Serbia proper would go to Croatia and Slovenia. I also believe that the war would cause Croatia and Slovenia to decide to federate into a new Yugoslavia. The new capital would be Zagreb since it was the capital of the short lived State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs back in 1918. 22:10, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Almost none of that is actually happening. Lordganon 22:22, October 24, 2011 (UTC)


Went through the maintenance, help, and wiki categories. Reviewed Alternative History:Conventions in use in this wiki, QSS and QAA, Editorial Guidelines (1983: Doomsday), etc. very carefully. Nowhere did I find linking another's article to be against established convention. I'm tired of wandering about with the distinct feeling that I've missed a list of guidelines somewhere. Requesting that a member of the TSPF gives me the page where it is stated explicitly that putting '''[[these]]''' on the existing, unaltered, content in an article one didn't create violates an accepted rule.

Thanks, --Emperor of Trebizond (talk) 19:30, October 31, 2013 (UTC)

Emp, same concept as the bad edit to the article that you removed.

Not only is such a link unneeded, but I do not put them in my articles. Hence, why I continue to remove it.

Lordganon (talk) 09:15, November 1, 2013 (UTC)


This timeline is a little couch to human rights issues, but the Serbs are to blame, the Croats were deadly pigs to. It is rather morbid to me.Sheron-lucy (talk) 02:14, November 23, 2015 (UTC)

...And if you read the bloody timeline, you'd notice that they had FAR less of a chance to do this than in otl. Really didn't happen much here - and the Serbs did it here far worse than in otl. Lordganon (talk) 12:58, November 26, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.