The Balkans--their cultures, languages, religion and history

... was a failed imitation of Austria-Hungary, with all of its weaknesses and none of its strengths?

Well,not an exact imitation because in Austro-Hungarian empire you had Austrians,Hungarians and Czechs(Slovakians) who were 3 different nations with different languages,different customs etc.

Yugoslavia in its borders had united nations who were more or less of the same origines(they were all of Slavic origine),who all had more or less the same maternal language-Serbian,Bosnian,Croatian,Montenegrian is ONE language with just different accent...only Macedonian and Slovenian are a bit different but people could also understand and comunicate with eachother...

In the end it was the same ending because everything that is artofficial could not last long...

But was the collapse of Y inevitable and unavoidable? Things might have been radically different if Tito had put aside his antagonism with Franco and recognised that F had acted wisely in appointing and grooming a successor. A clear successor would obviously have been better than the committee that T left in charge--which was the same thing as leaving NOBODY in charge.
In addition, I have read that, before the crisis brought about by Milosevic that started the process of Y's collapse, the citizenry had sent to Belgrade more than 300 proposals to improve the national constitution. I would say that was a positive development, because it showed that the citizenry still had faith in the concept of a country that was an Union of the Southern Slavs.

I know these two were not Royalty per se, but they sure ACTED like they were.  They ran Romania between them, gave important government positions to family and friends, and their three children acted like spoiled Princes and a Princess (they had one daughter, two sons).  Furthermore, when Nicolae died, his oldest son, Nico, was to take over (much like Kim Jong Il took over from his old man, Kim Il Sung in North Korea).  This was not a Communist leader, this was a despotic king and his queen.   

Unfortunately, the Ceausescu's showed the WORST of Royalty the way they ran the country.  It was "Love us, or die."  Ceausescu called himself fancy names like "Genius Of The Carpathians" while Elena presented herself as a brilliant scientist (despite the fact that she flunked out of high school).  Of course, when you're co-ruler of a country, you can have as many doctorates as you want, because of ghost written papers. 

They lived in fancy houses, droves fancy cars, and wanted for nothing.  All this while their people starved.  They were building this big super palace in Bucharest when the Revolution of 1989 came.  When I heard they were executed, I felt no sympathy.  They died fast, unlike many of their victims.  I believe that had they just given up, like the other Communist leaders of Eastern Europe did in 1989, they might not have been executed (although they might have received prison sentences).  However, when they ordered the military to fire on the crowds, that was it.  When the military switched sides, it was game over.

So while these two were not officially royal autocrats, they sure played the part well, didn't they.

I know these two were not Royalty per se, but they sure ACTED like they were.  They ran Romania between them, gave important government positions to family and friends, and their three children acted like spoiled Princes and a Princess (they had one daughter, two sons).  Furthermore, when Nicolae died, his oldest son, Nico, was to take over (much like Kim Jong Il took over from his old man, Kim Il Sung in North Korea).  This was not a Communist leader, this was a despotic king and his queen.  

Unfortunately, the Ceausescu's showed the WORST of Royalty the way they ran the country.  It was "Love us, or die."  Ceausescu called himself fancy names like "Genius Of The Carpathians" while Elena presented herself as a brilliant scientist (despite the fact that she flunked out of high school).  Of course, when you're co-ruler of a country, you can have as many doctorates as you want, because of ghost written papers.  

They lived in fancy houses, droves fancy cars, and wanted for nothing.  All this while their people starved.  They were building this big super palace in Bucharest when the Revolution of 1989 came.  When I heard they were executed, I felt no sympathy.  They died fast, unlike many of their victims.  I believe that had they just given up, like the other Communist leaders of Eastern Europe did in 1989, they might not have been executed (although they might have received prison sentences).  However, when they ordered the military to fire on the crowds, that was it.  When the military switched sides, it was game over.

So while these two were not officially royal autocrats, they sure played the part well, didn't they.

I understand your point but they are not Royals, as you had said. So I merged your topic with this the Balkan History thread.

Okay, Svetlana (did I spell that right?).  Sorry about that, but I wasn't sure where to post it.