5 comments about The Balkan Wars: Conquest, Revolution, and Retribution from the Ottoman Era to the Twentieth Century and Beyond.

1. Certain populations seem destined for greatness. Others seemed forever cursed by their very existence. Unfortunately for residents of Southeast Europe, the latter is much more the case than the former. In his important work The Balkan Wars, Andre Gerolymatos illustrates how war and brutality have made life for Balkan residents as bleak as their geographical landscape.

   Gerolymatos randomly moves between the recent past and distant history to show how little has changed in the psyche of Balkan soldiers. Brutal murder and rape are not new concepts to the region. Ethnic cleansing is not a new concept, and has been around since Christian and Muslim first fought over disputed territory. Political upheaval through assassination, and suppression of nationalism through dehumanizing acts of violence, span the centuries in this war-torn region. The Great Powers are in part responsible as their only interests in this part of Europe seem to be when geopolitics suits their needs.

   Gerolymatos covers his subject well, though he may give too much credit to Austria-Hungary as a true world power, and he rarely fails to mention the role sex played in the material he covers. He offers solid evidence of the role the Eastern Orthodox Church played in its unique position of dominance within a Muslim imperial capitol city. Maps would have made the book more easily understood, but careful reading reveals the deep knowledge the author has of the subject.

   This book is ready to take a prominent role in works on this subject, and offers some of the better details of the 1912-3 Balkan Wars that set the stage for World War One.




2. The inclusion of several pages of photographs of the civilian victims of the 1999 NATO attack on Serbia in a book that otherwise barely mentions the Kosovo war betrays the author's pro-Serbia bias, implying that Serbs are human beings too. This is doubleplusungood, comrades, and smacks of thoughtcrime. All ranting aside, this is an informative but not very well organized survey of Balkan history. There are interesting accounts of various episodes such as the Battle of Kosovo and the death of Ali Pasha, but it never really hangs together. The account of the 1912-13 Balkan Wars themselves is merely a chapter of dull military history. However, I read it all the way through, which I never do with a truly bad book. Read it and then look in the bibliography for more comprehensive Balkan histories.



3. This is a book with strong opinions, unfortunately, most of them are anti- Turk and pro-Greek. As one can tell from his name Gerolymatos is of Greek heritage and he seldom misses a chance to make the Greeks look like the oppressed as opposed to the oppressors. He also makes everyone around the Greeks appear to be bloodthirsty savages committing rape and pillage on a grand scale. He also takes liberties, such a always referring to Salonika as Thessaloniki, making it sound like a greek town. In fact Salonika was never more than 10% Greek prior to the two world wars (see Mark Mazower's book "Salonika").
   
   He especially skips over the later history of the Balkans by not mention- ing the Greek-Turkish War at the end of the First World War. Could it be because the Greeks were the instigators of this war, which cost them control of the traditional Greek Orthodox areas of Asia Minor? And that after the war, almost a million greeks and turks were exchanged; thereby ethnically cleansing both countries, not to mention the number of Bulgars that were forced out of Thessaly.
   
   This does not mean that the rest of the Balkan peoples, Serbs, Croats, Muslims (Bosniaks and Albanians), Montenegrins, Bulgars, Romanians, etc. were innocent victims. Most of these groups at one time or another spent a considerable time, killing and torturing each other as a way of clearing an area for themselves. Macedonia, which is at the confluence of four different ethnic groups (Albanians, Serbs, Greeks and Bulgars) has only been saved by the intervention of the UN and NATO, and is forced (by the Greek Government) to go by the ridiculous acronym of FYROM (former yugoslav republic of macedonia) because they claim the name as part of their heritage.
   
   Though Gerolymatos spends a good amount of time trying to explain the reasoning behind all of this ethnic hatred, what it comes down to in the end is the same problem that there is in the middle east. There are too many groups claiming the same land as their 'historical' heritage. In truth, most of the groups that are now there, are interlopers and came in and killed most of the indigenous people as they fled from the Mongols and Huns. The Bulgars especially are documented to have had a kingdom in the area around the Caspian Sea before they migrated to the Balkans. The Serbs claim Kossovo because they lost a battle there over six hundred years ago; even though even before the wars of the 1990s, they represented less than 15% of the population (the rest is mostly muslim Albanians).
   
   So what we have here is a good deep background which for some reason ends at the beginning of WWI, hardly mentions the rest of the twentieth century until we get to the 1990s. It's reasonably good for what it does, but not for what it doesn't do.
   
   Lastly, the true major failure of this book is its' lack of maps. The only one included is the boundaries of 1913 just after the two Balkan Wars, and then many of the towns mentioned are not included. It makes no sense to be discussing movements of armies when you don't understand what it means in the way of geography. I know that Gerolymatos teaches in Vancouver, BC, Canada, but I can't believe that Canadians are any better at geography than the average American. It's always helpful to see what you are reading about without having to find an atlas first.



4. I'm ambivalent about this book: on one hand I found it very useful; on the other, I suspect that objectively speaking it is not very good.
   
   In reading history I often find I'm frustrated at being unable, even after digesting whatever facts are on offer, to enter very deeply into the worldviews of those I'm reading about. Thucydides has been criticized for interspersing his narrative with unhistorical speeches, but I find these enormously helpful as conveying something of the self-interpretations of the actors.
   
   What Gerolymatos gives us here is something like Thucydides' speeches: he wants to show what the Balkan peoples themselves have made of their wars, that is, how they remember them, and how this memory shapes the ongoing conflicts. So there are certain archetypes, like the Noble Assassin, that have been inherited from the Middle Ages, and continue to be applied; there are certain unchanging sociological facts that have shaped Balkan wars for centuries, like the habit of fluid and frequent transitions back and forth between simple brigandage and guerrilla warfare and the celebration of both in popular lore.
   
   Memory of past wars affects present ones also as wrongs to be righted and atrocities to be avenged. Gerolymatos points out, without really explaining why, that Balkan wars are not just Clausewitzian political struggles "by other means", but existential trials involving pointless-seeming cruelties and humiliations, which are then cultivated in long memories. These memories play such an important role because the Balkan peoples come so new to nationalism and national identities: for 2000 years, more or less, they had belonged to empires which came to identify subject peoples according to religion, not nationality. So the sense of common wrongs to avenge seems to have filled in for absent national traditions in the creation of modern identities.
   
   This kind of thing was just what I had been looking for, and am grateful for finding it here. But the book is under-conceptualized, under-theorized--it isn't very clear about what exactly it is doing or why. It is inconsistent in its memory-focus, and sometimes, especially in dealing with late 19th and early 20th century wars, it just gives potted accounts of the battles themselves. It doesn't seem to contain much original historiography, so the fact that it is so hazy conceptually is a serious flaw.



5. Not very well structured and, as a result, the sort of book that tends to go in one ear and out the other. Altogether a depressing treatment of a historically volatile and brutal region.

5 comments about First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and the Destruction of Yugoslavia.

1. David Gibbs has written one of the few chronicles of the wars in Yugoslavia designed simply to tell the truth about what happened. Since so many mainstream accounts are content to recycle propaganda, it is no small accomplishment to present the facts without fear or favor. With a twenty-five page bibliography, "First Do No Harm" is a substantive contribution to the scholarly literature, one that will have to be engaged with whatever your perspective on the Balkan wars.
   
   For Gibbs, the key to understanding the trajectory of the Balkan wars was rivalry over what was considered a ripe plum. Germany had its own imperial interests and was actually the first capitalist power to begin the process of tearing apart a social system that had proven quite viable until economic contradictions began to make it vulnerable to outside powers in the 1970s.
   
   Although the United States and Germany shared hostility toward Milosevic, who was perceived as a Titoist holdover standing in the way of converting the Yugoslav economy into one more favorable to Western economic ambitions, they by no means saw their own interests as coinciding. Like dogs fighting over a bone, the United States sought to push its rivals aside and viewed NATO in particular as a means toward that end. Sharing Gervasi's emphasis on the role of NATO, Gibbs makes a strong case for seeing this military alliance as a bid to enhance the US hegemonic power at the expense of what became known as "Old Europe" in the early stages of the war in Iraq.
   
   Gibbs fully intended "First Do No Harm" as a critique of both successful interventions such as the one that took place in Yugoslavia and the one that still lurches unsteadily in Iraq. It is essential for those committed to world peace to become familiar with the sorry history of so-called humanitarian intervention in Yugoslavia, since the same characters who orchestrated American strategy in the period are now in the driver's seat. Not only do we face escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we are likely to hear the same kinds of "human rights" rhetoric that accompanied the Balkan wars. Given these looming dangers, "First Do No Harm" is a must read.



2. David Gibbs argues Humanitarian Intervention in The former Yugoslavia was a pretext to muzzle a resurgent EU which was spearheaded by Germany. After the break up of the Soviet Union, US geostrategy lacked a pretense to maintain a military presence in Europe via NATO. The EU began taking assertive measures to chart foreign policy objectives independent of the USA. Yugoslavia was the EU's first test case...
   
   The common front between the US and the EC was to thwart Serbian attempts to keep the Yugoslavian political units integrated with the central government in Belgrade. Repeatedly the US subverted EU diplomatic initiatives which regressed into military solutions. Diplomatic initiatives would play into the hands of European interests vs military solutions by the USA. Of course, in the end America maintained hegemon status through NATO.
   
   Gibbs persuasively argues a huge propaganda campaign mounted which totally distorted reality. Serb agression was emphasized while the US/EU backed Bosnian Muslims/Croats/Albanian attrocities were not reported or underplayed. For example, a NY public relation firm, Ruder-Finn Inc. Orchestrated a campaign to associate the Holocaust with Serbian agression. The President of Ruder-Finn explained how Jewish groups form the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Congress were Manipulated to place a political advertisment in the New York Times which would link Serbia with the Holcaust in the popular imagination.
   
   To put Gibbs work into total context, he argues IMF intervention helped to dislocate the Yugoslavian economy/ coupled with US/Western interference which encouraged secessionist movements by unscrupulous politicians. It appears if humanitarinism were the true motive then debt forgiveness and initiatives to encourage the Yugoslovian political units to remain cohesive would have prevented thousands of deaths. Gibbs also points out Yugoslavian debt was roughly 16 billion v over 20 billion spent on the war and counting.
   
   I highly recomend this book. Gibbs arguments are clearly presented and backed by a multitude of sources/footnotes.



3. At the age of 56, having been educated in the 1970's when political science created "comparative studies" as a ruse for avoiding field world and foreign language mastery in favor of statistical comparisons from afar, I am now quite accustomed to seeing each generation rediscover core knowledge.
   
   Even more distressing for one who loves books as artifacts of human wisdom, is to see each generation re-discover knowledge known to earlier generations, without citation. Scholarship seems to be on a wheel making little forward progress, at least in the humanities.
   
   This is a fine book. It is exceptional for both its clear-eyed understanding of the combination of evil and banal ignorance that characterizes those in power, whether of one party or another. In the 1970's, for the US Institute of Peace, I wrote that the greatest threat to peace was the cataclysmic separation of those with power from those with knowledge. This book manifests all of that brilliantly.
   
   It is also exceptional in this era for being a clear-eyes appraisal of the evil of military intervention. This again is not new knowledge, but it is helpful to have this generation be reminded.
   
   Great evil has been done "in our name," for the basest of reasons. I pray that our rising generation of digital literati will not be as ignorant in power as those who now surround world leaders--sychophants, dilitants, and craven opportunists.
   
   See also:
   The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (The American Empire Project)
   Deliver Us from Evil: Peacekeepers, Warlords and a World of Endless Conflict
   Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time
   War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier
   Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World's Last Dictators by 2025
   Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
   The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
   Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It
   Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny
   The Search for Security: A U.S. Grand Strategy for the Twenty-First Century



4. I've read many books on the Yugoslav wars. I did so because I was born in a little Bosnian town called Bihac. But my family moved to Belgrade when I was 3 years old. This was during WWII and in Belgrade we suffered terrifying bombing raids. We left Yugoslavia when I was 6 years old.
   
   You couldn't miss the news of the Yugoslav wars as they screamed from the headlines throughout the 90s. Milosevic was Hitler, the Serbs were the Nazis, and the Muslims were the helpless victims. Really? Then in 1999 I heard that we were bombing Belgrade: I felt like I was bombing myself.
   
   In 2004 my husband Richard and I traveled throughout all of former Yugoslavia. The devastation was overwhelming - but it turned out that what we automatically assumed to be the handiwork of Serbs had just as often been perpetrated by Croats or Muslims. In Belgrade we found that NATO's "smart bombs' had hit a famous church and a monastery. Why?
   
   Dr. Gibbs' book is one of the very best I've read on the subject of "WHY." It is meticulously researched and documented, but written with exemplary clarity. I expect it will strike some readers as controversial because it questions the idea that our engagement in the Bosnian and Kosovo wars was a purely "humanitarian intervention."
   
   Think again. Dr. Gibbs demolishes this myth with enviable objectivity. The only axe he grinds is the pursuit of truth. It is an honest book and an absorbing read.
   
   Next time somebody gushes over another "humanitarian intervention" - somewhere in the Middle-East or in darkest Africa, you'll know to look for skeletons. The trick is to stop the now habitual hypocrisy before another country is wiped out.



5. This book, First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and the Destruction of Yugoslavia, given to me by a friend, is one of the best, if not the best, written on the subject of the mess that was created in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s into the present. Personally, I believe that U.S. military intervention is, and has been, appropriate in certain circumstances and is justified. Military intervention in the former Yugoslavia, however, was a huge "mistake" for a number of reasons, the primary one being that it was done under the false pretenses of "humanitarianism" at the expense of the Serbs. The West, unfortunately, took the side of the bad guys against the good guys. It will be a while before all the "Truths" come out about what really happened in the former Yugoslavia from 1989 through 2009 and beyond, but this important book by David Gibbs is an essential part of that process.
   
   
   Although Gibbs repeats and holds fast to some of the disinformation and myths regarding alleged Serbian "crimes" in the former Yugoslavia, to his great credit he is far better than most in being willing and able to cut through all the lies that have pervaded the analysis of what went on in the Balkans in the last two decades. I highly recommend this book, "First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and the Destruction of Yugoslavia" by David N. Gibbs. Even those who believe they know all there is to know about the issue of the former Yugoslavia will be shocked at the extent of the external subterfuge that went on in ripping that country apart and making the Serbs the scapegoats for the crimes. This external "intervention" will have repercussions for the free world, especially the Christian world, far into the future.
   
   Here is a valuable excerpt from "First Do No Harm" regarding the alleged "Srebrenica Massacre" in Bosnia:
   
   From Pages 160 and 161 by D. Gibbs:
   
   "The origin of the Srebrenica massacre lay in a series of Muslim attacks that began in the spring of 1995. These attacks were launched from UN-protected safe areas, including the one in Srebrenica. According to the Dutch investigation of the massacre:"
   
   "'The UN headquarters in Zagreb had...concluded that the Bosnian Muslims continually misused the safe areas to maintain their armed forces, which in some cases it looked as if they intended to provoke shelling by the Bosnian Serbs.'"
   
   "Such actions invited Serb reprisals, and this dynamic contributed to the fall of the safe area. Beginning on July 6, 1995 Serb forces assaulted Srebrenica and quickly overran it, despite the (nominal) UN protection."
   
   "The Bosnian government made no serious effort to defend the town and appeared unconcerned that it might be captured. EU negotiator Carl Bildt notes that Bosnian military forces assigned to protect Srebrenica were 'not putting up any resistance. Later it was revealed that they had been ordered by the Sarajevo commanders not to defend Srebrenica.' And Bosnia's foreign minister, Muhamed Sacirbey, told Bildt that Srebrenica 'had always been a problem for his government. They knew that a peace settlement would mean the loss of the enclave. So from this point of view, what had happened [the Serb capture of the town] made things easier' (emphases added by Gibbs). Bildt also noted that during his conversation with Sacirbey, 'I was more upset about what had happened than he [Sacirbey] seemed to be. His calm reactions and controlled arguments still seem to me to be a mysterious piece of the Srebrenica puzzle.'"
   
   "And military correspondent Ripley provides further evidence that the Bosnian government allowed Serb armies to seize the town:"
   
   "'British, Dutch, and other UNPROFOR personnel and many veterans of the Sarajevo press corps, including [Martin] Bell of the BBC, and Nick Gowing of the Channel Four television network all came to the conclusion that the Bosnian government decided to let Srebrenica fall to increase the pressure on the international community to intervene against the Serbs....A month before [the Serb attack], Sarajevo had ordered [Brigadier Oric, the local commander]...to leave for no apparent reason. He was then prevented from returning. As the situation worsened, the Sarajevo leadership made no effort to launch diversionary attacks...Dutch peacekeepers near Tuzla told Gowing that they saw Bosnian troops escaping from Srebrenica...carrying brand new anti-tank weapons, still in their plastic wrappings...[British UN peacekeeper Lieutenant Col. Jim] Baxter said 'they [the Bosnian government] knew what was happening in Srebrenica. I am certain they decided it was worth the sacrifice.'" [emphasis added by Gibbs]
   
   "The foregoing information raises the possibility that the Izetbegovic government actually welcomed the conquest of Srebrenica and took specific measures to increase the likelihood that conquest would occur; and that in doing this, the government was acting on the basis of a larger strategy, which aimed at augmenting international sympathy for the Bosnian cause and thus drawing in NATO military intervention to be directed against the Serbs."
   
   *****
   
   The entire book is packed with valuable information such as the above. "First Do No Harm" is easy to read, which is remarkable considering the wealth of information it contains about a subject full of complexities. Gibbs is not only a meticulous researcher, he compiles and communicates his findings with integrity, which in this day and age of "Spin", is valuable indeed.
   
   
   
   Aleksandra Rebic
   February 2010

5 comments about My War Gone By, I Miss It So.

1. It is a positively realistic book. I understand his connection between addictions. One in his blood by choice the other not. So to those not capable of digesting the dark observations of this story, stay away. There is a reason people will take vacation to Disney World and not Baghdad. Lets be glad that there are Loyd's who have the stomach to see these things, and the head to write the story.



2. This is an amazing account of a terrible war, and it's beautifully written. If you don't know the background of the wars in the former Yugoslavia, be sure to read a quick history online first to fill you in. But don't let a lack of knowledge of the situation deter you from reading the book - it's incredible.



3. This is Anthony Loyd's first book, an accounting of his somewhat haphazard entry into the world of freelance journalism during the 1990s war in Bosnia. His writing style is alternately informational, amusing, harrowing, ornate and thought-provoking, and I recommend it highly for anyone interested in war reporting that is not jingoistic, self-assured or written in a "I know it all, I have all the answers" fashion. It also furnishes a good overview of the root causes of the Serb-Croat-Muslim nightmare that gripped Europe; it's a confusing and tangled web, but for those of us who don't remember what happened or why, he for the most part successfully explains the sequence of events and the disastrous consequences.
   Loyd's second book, "Another Bloody Love Letter", covers his further adventures as a freelancer in various parts of the world; with his musings on death, the power of addiction, the travails of war and the lure of being in the midst of danger and bloodshed, it's even more well-written and gripping, but both are really fascinating reads.
   In the context of what is happening today in Iraq and other parts of the world, it behooves us to learn what we can about what is really happening on the ground: it is thanks to freelancers like Loyd, his murdered journo friend Kurt Schork, the freelance journalist Steven Vincent, killed in Iraq in 2005, and so many others who risk their lives to report on what they see without having to filter it through the cheesecloth of a major media organization, that we know as much as we do. Read these books. Learn, and never forget what risks people take to get you those stories and photographs in your morning paper.



4. A harrowing, shocking, poetic memoir of the Bosnian war by a fine, if slightly unhinged, writer. Lloyd, who grew up in a military family, also grew up fascinated, apparently, by war and by the time he sets out for the killing fields of Bosnia is beset by the demons of addiction and despair. The horrors and chaos of war become a sort of counter-point for his addictions and emotional problems. One feels he becomes as addicted to the adrenaline rush of war as to the drugs, booze and sex. I admit I found the work intensely moving, and deeply human, although I do wish he'd provided more clarity at the end. I would have given it five stars, but for the fact I was left unsure as to how much the experiences about which he wrote with so much insight had changed him, and whether, in the end, he was able to put down his soul-destroying addictions.
   
   I found this book an invaluable reference when I was writing THE RADIANT CITY, about a war correspondent who suffered a breakdown in Rwanda.



5. Unemployed journalist travels to Bosnia, becomes war tourist. Writes about bad people doing bad things. The Balkan wars produces books like these in spades. I'm not complaining - we need down'n'dirty accounts like these as much as the more "official" versions. But I'm a little surprised that, as loquacious as the author is, he avoids the anti-Serb/ anti-UN rants I've seen cluttering up Slaughterhouse and Love Thy Neighbor. I guess he figures it's not his house being destroyed. The author himself is an interesting fellow: a druggie from a broken family, and I enjoyed the chapters with him and his physically/ emotionally distant father as much as the bang bang. The chapter about Chechnya was a little out of place, though, considering this book is supposed to be about Bosnia and the Bosnians. In the end I still didn't "get" Lloyd, which I guess is unsurprising: His life is not my life. While not the best first-hand account of the Bosnian tragedy (that would go to Slaughterhouse or Love Thy Neighbor), My War Gone By is not a bad way to spend an afternoon.

1 comments about Shadows on the Mountain: The Allies, the Resistance, and the Rivalries that Doomed WWII Yugoslavia.

1. Bravo for making readable and clear the story of the fighting in Yugoslavia during WWII. Most important, the story of the 500 US airmen rescued by Mihailovich, men who were grateful and wanted to help him after the war ended only to be rebuffed reads like a mystery novel. Kurapovna's research is meticulous -- a universal story for all the behind the scenes politicking, manipulations, rivalries and hidden agendas that accompany war outcomes. She wrote a clear and heartbreaking account well worth reading and thinking about.

5 comments about Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation.

1. As most other reviews stated, this book is easy to read, and it provides a detailed description of the events throughout the Croatian and Bosnian War (1990-1995) This book is supplemented by the highly popular BBC series - "Death of Yugoslavia," which is perhaps the most-known documentary on the war. The documentary follows the book quiet closely, with an inherent strength of BBC reports having interviews to most of the major players - Milosevic, Tudjman, Stambolic, Izanbegovic, and others (most of which are in jail or dead now anyways).
   
   Nonetheless, this book has a strong anti-Serb thesis, which, I suppose, it needs in order to be conclusive. In other words, if there are no good guys and bad guys, the Laura Silber would create an incomplete work. But for someone who wants to get a good insight of the war in Balkans, it cannot be looked through the lenses of "black and white," as this book tries to convey.
   
   It is important for readers to know that the accounts of the war are carefully selected and edited in the anti-Serb fashion. For example, the ethnic cleansing atrocities, when described in detail, are almost always pertaining to the Serbs. But when it comes to the Croats and the Muslims, the book overlooks their actions during the war. In addition, the book provides little evidence of the involvement of the bigger powers - EU and USA.
   
   For example, early chapters go into great depth talking about the pointless shelling of Dubrovnik, talking about Montenegrins peasants getting their "revenge" to fulfill their jealousies against the prominent Croatian population of Ragusa. But when it talks about Operation Storm - the single biggest even of ethnic cleansing during the entire war, undertaken by Croatian Forces will full military, logistical, and financial support from the US, it does not go into any depth at all. It is dismissed as "Krajina Serbs" got what they deserved. The Krajina Serbs did not "occupy" that part of Croatia - they lived there for hundreds of years.
   
   When dealing with international involvement, it goes to great length to disapprove Srebrenica, while Operation Storm is supported by the West. Perhaps US and EU had other motivations in this conflict? What about the arming of Croats and Bosnia throughout before the war in the old SFRJ (which was then illegal)
   
   In addition to a one-sided view, it fails to address other major issues, such as economic disparities. Invoking economics, it justifies Croatia's and Slovenia's promising economic position before the disintegration, nevertheless, it mentions to compare facts. Slovenia and Croatia assumed a high level of industry due to the fact they had cheap natural resources that mostly came from Serbia and Kosovo. In addition, the economic status of Serbia is taken under consideration with Kosovo - even though Kosovo, not Serbia, is the most impoverished region in former Yugoslavia. The fact that Kosovo Albanian's have been boycotting the federal institutions since early 1980s - not paying taxes, utilities, and other duties since the death of Tito had something to do with this idea.
   
   While I do not discourage people from reading this book, I only state that Laura Silber (et al) provides a narrow-minded, opinionated, and sensationally journalistic view of the breakup of former Yugoslavia.
   
   If anyone is interested in truly learning about this conflict, more resources are necessary.



2. If ever there was a book published that covered nearly all the bases on what happened and who was in charge, the dynamics of the countries involved and all the political and military players, this is the book. I've read several books now on the history of the Balkans and the fall of Yugoslavia and this book is probably the least biased by authors who were there and watched it all unfold. The book leaves no doubt that atrocities did occur and that those responsible covered all the bases. There is plenty of blame to go around and plenty of denial by those involved and even those who ignored the plight of Croats, Serbs and Bosnians throughout this disastrous war of ethnic cleansing. Highly recommended if you know nothing or think you know it all.



3. Probably the best account of what exactly happened in Bosnia, and how the whole thing started (not just Bosnia, but Kosovo and Croatia as well). Authors go into extensive detail, providing the reader with a solid background to the war(s). While I was intimately familiar with the conflicts, or so I thought, this book shed some much needed light on some of the doubts I had, some confusing contradictions I picked up through the media, etc. The book, contrary to what some people are saying here, is not biased at all. That one side is portrayed in an "evil" tone is merely a result of what that "side" did during the conflicts, as documented by thousands of media outlets, historians, cameras and photographs. Of course, no one is an angel, but that should not diminish the fact that - there are demons and then there are DEMONS. Or whatever the daily word for evil, bad, ruthless people is.
   
   The book is thoroughly researched with a lot of important and verifiable information. It focuses on Croatia and Bosnia, mostly in Bosnia. It is the most accurate account that I've encountered yet; written in a clear and harmonious way. Did not get bored for one second, even though most of the information was not new to me. But what was new to me was certainly worth the wait.



4. This book is an outstanding account of the political, cultural, and ethnic factors behind the meltdown and genocide in Yugoslavia between 1991-1995. If you are not familiar with the conflict, this work may be a bit dense as an introduction. However, if you are familiar with the basic Serb-Croat, and Bosnia-Muslim differences, this book will spell out in very exact detail many of the key events that led to the conflict there. It may refresh your memory and give you new insights. Offering a rich blend of history and current events, Silber and Little have produced a work of lasting value to anyone interested in those terrible years. It also makes one reflect, in a way yet unanswered, as to how people can plunge to such terrible depth of barbarity, yet also hopeful that the "ethnic cleansing" was ultimately brought to a halt.



5. I took a great interest in the Balkan war of the 1990's. At the time, i would have been listening to BBC reports & reading the Independent & Guardian.
   
   In the past 5 years i have made several trips to the region. However, this is my first serious book on the subject. I read the book in 3 days instead of my normal 1-2 weeks. I just couldn't put it down whenever i had a spare moment.
   
   It's a great starting point to learn the facts of the war rather than looking at the theories behind it. I would love to find a book which can bring me up to date with how things have evolved since 95/96.
   
   As it's my first book i have read on the subject i cannot comment on whether i think it's biased towards one side. I am planning to start reading as many books on the subject as possible & hope that they are as fascinating as this one.
   
   As a side-note, i am just planning my next trip to Bosnia. I looked at the arrival board on the Sarajevo aiport website. Most of the flights were from Belgrade, Zagreb, Ljubljana, Banja Luka & Skopje. I heartening sight i believe!

5 comments about The Balkans: Nationalism, War & the Great Powers, 1804-1999.

1. Amazing ride through modern history. Now I understand how we got to the war in the 1990's.



2. DISCLAIMER: I am Greek and thus know and understand the history of my country much more than the history of our neighbors. Therefore, I am not in a position to review the book thoroughly when it comes to Serbian or Bulgarian history - even turkish to which by definition we Greeks are more familiar with. END OF DISCLAIMER.
   This was a very interesting and very well written book. The coverage of events up to World War I is immaculate and the author's effort has paid off in what seems to be a good mix of narrative and attempt to explain the historical reasons behind the events.
   The seconds half of the book - starting right after the end of World War I is more hastily written - partially due to the lack of abundance of historical resources, I presume - but also increasingly fails to incorporate any ethnic perspective in the analysis of events. Some premature conclusions are drawn - i.e. the author blatantly calls Eleftherios Venizelos the main culprit of the Asia Minor Disaster - a position that has been fiercely debated inside and outside Greece for the longest time and at a bare minimum should not been presented with such confidence.
   The position of Greece towards the Bosnian as well as Kosovo conflict has been severely misconstrued here - albeit the undisputed emotional ties between the two people as well as the government of the two countries Greece fully yet unwillingly aligned with the NATO "party line" in the Kosovo conflict.
   There are also some minor errors in election dates in the 1960s in Greece - at least at my edition.
   Overall, I strongly recommend the book. I caught myself disagreeing with the author in many points and I really came to believe that the weak sport of the book - if there is any - has been the omission to incorporate the thinking and mind frame of the Balkan people as one of the pivotal forces behind history making. It thus supports indirectly a very naive and dangerous notion - that modern events can only be affected by the status quo bequeathed by the Ottoman Empire. In some aspect the author neglects to admit that there has been a very vivid history of the area (esp. Southern Balkans) prior to the Ottomans. Of course it is not a new element in the way western analysts and historians approach the area.
   
   Overall again a great book to read.



3. A simply excellent book. The way Glenny uses actual Balkan phrases to get his point across instead of lazily attempting to use an English substitute is fantastic. Also I found the book to be very accurate.



4. As I come from Macedonia,one of the most troublesome Balkan states, I definitively think that this awesome book should be use as a basic textbook in schools trough most of the Balkan states, because it is so precise, full of informations and history accounts. I was astonished of this work of Mr. Glennys', especially from the precise details of the history accounts, some of which are purposely (or unpurposely) omitted from the history textbooks in the Balkans.
   Therefore I would definitively recommend this book to anyone who wants to better understand the history of Balkan states, and, of course, the meaning of the present situation in this European region. And, I hope, that this book could give some hints in resolving the problems, or at least better understanding, in the Balkans.



5. The best word that comes to mind to describe The Balkans is, "dense." I picked it up several years ago and was fascinated to learn about a part of the world cast in so much mystery and intrigue. Glenny illuminates that intrigue--down to the last, exquisite detail, and the detail often weighed down the narrative. For an amateur historian like me, I easily became lost among all the strange names and events.
   
   Nevertheless, The Balkans gave me a good survey of the history of the region from 1800 onward; and, as the subtitle, War, Nationalism, and the Great Powers suggests it did a good job--an excellent job--of explaining his subject in terms of the world powers' policies and their effects on the Balkan nations.
   
   The book read more like a history text at times, though, which doesn't do credit to the drama that has unfolded in that part of the world over the past two hundred years. I recently returned from a year-long deployment to Kosovo--right in the heart of the Balkans--and I know how vibrant and energetic the cultures are. I wish that energy came out more in Glenny's book.
   
   I recommend this book for those who want a lot of information packed into a few hundred pages.

5 comments about Safe Area Gorazde: The War in Eastern Bosnia 1992-1995.

1. I teach Central European political geography at the University of Minnesota. I just read this book, and I have to say that it better evokes the true state of chaos and genocide that was occurring in Bosnia than almost any other book on the subject. It is basically a reporter's diary... filled with eyewitness accounts of unbelievable atrocities and hatred. The key thing that this adds, and that other accounts lack, are the images. The fact that it is a cartoon does not dumb down the atrocities but adds an element of suspense and terror that written narratives like Peter Maass's "Love Thy Neighbor" largely lack, i.e., you can see the family dodging bullets and jumping in the river. Also, unlike a lot of war journalism, Joe Sacco doesn't dwell on himself and other reporters much at all -- it is focused on the people that survived genocide. With Karadzic's arrest this past week, there is no better time to read this book and remember exactly why he will be found guilty of the most heinous crimes in Europe since Stalin was in power.



2. An excellent account from the war in Bosnia. Well-written, well-drawn, informative & heart-breaking. Hearing 30 second blurbs on the news about things like this can be easy to ignore (or miss entirely). Reading a book like this & through it getting to know people like yourself & your friends who survived (or didn't) hellish years is harder to forget.



3. Politically sharp, an eye for the human side of modern day war zones, heart warming and breathtaking: Safe Area Gorazde is a must read. Sacco's other work 'Palestine' is also an absolute must read. Both very good journalistic accounts of real existing people in real existing desperate circumstances, and in the form of graphic novels. Giving you images of the conflicts you could only better experience if you would have been there with Sacco.
   Fantastic.
   If you are not a frequent comic book reader yet: start with 'Safe Area Gorazde' or 'Palestine'!



4. This book is amazing. Sacco's a talented artist/journalist/storyteller/traveler with a clear voice. The book has a compelling combination of humor and horror, historical facts and personal experience. Sacco doesn't pretend to be unbiased or to remove himself from the story. His narration is honest and compelling. It's not emotionally an easy read, but I had no problem moving through this text quickly.



5. Joe Sacco is an engaging and direct writer, and an incredibly detailed black-and-white cartoonist, but above all, he is a good journalist. Comics just happen to be the outlet for his reportage.
   
   Sacco has published cartoons since the 1980s, but Safe Area Gorazde: The War in Eastern Bosnia 1992-1995 marked his first graphic novel when it was released in 2000, followed quickly by the collected graphic novel publication of Palestine in 2001. Though Sacco is probably better known for his work in the award-winning Palestine (originally published as nine smaller books in 1996), Safe Area is arguably the better of the two, earned Sacco the Eisner Award for Best Original Graphic Novel in 2001, and cemented his role as a master of the unique medium of comics journalism.
   
   Safe Area documents Sacco's four trips in late 1995 and early 1996 to Gorazde (pronounced "go-RAJH-duh," as the author explains), a United Nations-designated safe area in eastern Bosnia. Its Muslim population suffered many losses during the Bosnian War--both in lives and an incredible amount of property destroyed--but the town was the only one in eastern Bosnia to hold out while the Bosnian Serb forces carried out an "ethnic cleansing" of the region.
   
   Sacco documents the siege imposed upon Garozde's population by the Serb forces and its impact on the town's people in 227 pages of journalism at its finest. His recognizable black-and-white visuals include a portrayal of himself, but unlike the tendency of Art Spiegelman to become the center of attention in his tales, Sacco keeps the focus on his subjects. He seems only to portray himself for the purpose of transparency of the journalistic process, ultimately even exposing some personal flaws and unavoidable conflicts that go along with being an American embedded in another country for the purposes of a story.
   
   In one scene, Sacco recounts reviewing gruesome home footage of a Serb shelling before having the Gorazde resident who taped it name an "outrageous" price for the video. Sacco also points out that as an American journalist he receives passage in and out of Gorazde via U.N. escort, but his subjects--such as Edin, a graduate student who takes Sacco into his home and provides much of the graphic novel's stories--did not have that luxury. Sacco also takes requests for American-made jeans and films when he leaves town, and occasionally gets overburdened by his task or certain individuals. And though he does find the need to editorialize at times, it is kept to a minimum.
   
   The honesty lends credibility to his effort and makes the stories incredibly personable, which is Sacco's entire goal with Safe Area. The book is not a documentation of the general events from a broad prospective; the news at large already had that covered. It is instead an account of how those major events affected real people--what they felt like on the other side of the world. Though Sacco provides a well-researched outline of the events to keep everything in perspective, Safe Area primarily relies on snapshot stories to convey its messages, and offers things like Bill Clinton's statements during the war through the eyes of Muslims.
   
   Sacco's images are as richly detailed as his text. Every person in every panel looks like a unique individual, and Sacco accurately documents everything from the clothes they wear to their posture to the way they speak. The art is slightly less caricatured than that of Palestine and better for it. Sacco's images are still just a bit larger than life and carry with them a liveliness and convincing realism few journalists have captured.
   
   -- William Jones

5 comments about Stripping Bare the Body: Politics Violence War.

1. Seeing Mark Danner in conversation with Bill Moyers inspired me to read his book, Stripping Bare the Body. In a quiet and deeply informed way, Danner pulls apart the threads of America's various foreign interventions of the past 25 years, from Haiti to Bosnia to Iraq. In each case he shows us the complexities of the local reality and how American foreign policy interventions got it all wrong. The usual scenario is action based on misinformation and/or support for the villain in power who promises us whatever he thinks we want to hear. In the general outline of the story, Danner uses more current interventions to relate what some of us have been hearing since the early 1950s. But his journalism has taken him deep into these places, often to where his life was on the line, so he shares details of each place that are new and that bring into sharp relief the larger policy questions. In this he reminds me of Rory Stewart's brilliant narratives about Iraq and Afghanistan.



2. This guy is wise, and he brings you the news so you don't have to (go to these hellholes for yourself). Veteran reporter calls it like he sees it, and the literary quality is outstanding.



3. I really like how this book gave you an inside look on topics you would otherwise know about. I expecially like the end of the book about the war in Iraq. I have to agree with the point Danner makes about former President Bush, and his policy. The book also shows you a lot of details surrounding the things that actually happened in Iraq that you wouldn't see in regular media coverage. It does show some good that has come out of the war in Iraq



4. This book is a bit of a dense read at points, which is why I gave it four stars, but on content and information it rates a five. The book is split into three distinct sections: on Haiti, Bosnia, and Iraq, and each section is different in its treatment of the subject as well. The Haiti section gives an informative history on the country, explaining its political evolution and providing a thorough understanding of the failed and destitute state that existed even before the recent earthquake. The Iraq section is what I most expected from the book--a thorough analysis of the U.S. mistakes and failures in Iraq. It has many fascinating and revealing stories and helps one understand why supposedly brilliant people could make so many idiotic mistakes. The middle section on Bosnia was the one that affected me the most. I remember being outraged and horrified by the news broadcasts from Bosnia, but I had no comprehension of how truly horrible it was. The stories told in this section are beyond heartbreaking; they are soul-scarring. This part of the book almost threw me into a black depression, but for many reasons, this is a story that needs to be told and to be known more widely.
   
   Overall, the book gives its reader an excellent understanding of how the U.S. foreign policy machine really works, and why, despite our avowed good intentions as a people, we ultimately do not have the will, the ability, the clarity of moral purpose or the good judgment to significantly lessen instability, suffering, and bloodshed in other parts of the world.



5. I too became aware of Stripping Bare the Body by way of an hour-long discussion devoted to it on the excellent Bill Moyers' Journal -podcast from USA PBS. So I was prevented from being put off either by the somewhat obscure title or the sheer size of the book: 563 pages of real journalism for various heavyweight New York magazines from Mr Danner's reports from trouhle zones around the world. Readers will note that sections of the book, published in 2009, have also been published previously under their own cover.
   
   Beginning in 1989 with an account of his first visit to Haiti when he was just 31, the book falls into four - not three - separate sections covering events in Haiti, Bosnia Herzegovina and finally, Iraq. The third section, called Marooned in the Cold War which in my view would alone be worth the price of the book, contains his reflections on the faltering steps being taken by Western - specifically American - diplomatic minds to try finally to come to some sort of accommodation with the world after the 1989 collapse of the Berlin Wall. Danner traces the determination of America to remain the world's preponderant power from 1945 and the creation of NATO in 1949, to its decision in the late nineties to march east. `We have chosen to do for Europe's east, what NATO did for Europe's west,' declared the then US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 1997, `to integrate new democracies, eliminate old hatreds, provide confidence in economic recovery and deter conflict.....' Danner is aghast at the degree of hubris and ignorance on display. He goes on to reflect on how and when the USA first became `the indispensable nation.' Throughout the 19th century, he points out, while the US was busying itself in its own continent, it was Britain's Royal Navy, pursuing its own preoccupations; protection of worldwide trade routes and the balance of power in Europe,which maintained the order that now the US struggles to maintain.
   
   Danner has no time for President Wilson. He illuminatingly describes Wilson's first encounter with the Old World at Versailles in 1918 as `one of great set pieces of history' `While we were dealing with momentous questions of land and sea,' said Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, `He was soaring in clouds of serene rhetoric.'
   
   And it was rhetoric which trapped Clinton as the Yugoslav war unfolded. Danners's chapters are a marvellously detailed tutorial on the action, reaction and inaction, hopelessly confusing to people like me at the time, as we watched just a little of the human misery and suffering rolling out day by day from our television screens. Now I realise we didn't know the half of it. His chapters on Iraq cover ground made more familiar by reporters like Bob Woodward, George Packer and Anthony Shadid on whom he draws freely. However he has the benefit of a great deal of published reporting, both official and unofficial, on the subject of the US treatment of prisoners and torture which he pulls together in an unflinching condemnation of an Administration which allowed itself to be driven to such lengths in pursuit of a victory which still eludes its successor.
   
   Danners's writing is detailed, urgent and well researched. But it isn't perfect. He has a penchant for long sentences which sometimes defeat eye and mind. One such, which there is no space to quote, runs to 12 lines - 83 words.
   
   But Stripping Bare the Body is a valuable work which should have a place in sixth form and University libraries everywhere. Oh - and the title? It comes, we read, from Haiti. `Political violence strips bare the social body, the better to place the stethoscope and track the life beneath the skin'. That comes from the President of Haiti in 1987 - and he should know. Worth bearing in mind as the mills of 24 hour news spin on day after day and the post cold war world slouches menacingly ever closer.

1 comments about Fortunes of War: The Balkan Trilogy (New York Review Books Classics).

1. I read this book back when Kenneth Branagh was still married to Emma Thompson. The two of them made a mini-series version of this for Masterpiece Theater that was wonderful, and I hunted down the book back then. It was wonderful also, an engrossing story of the WWII in the Balkans. ALso the story of a couple of British newlyweds far from home. I recommend it AND the video Fortunes of War. Glad this is back in print, although I still have my copy from before.

No comments about Spies of the Balkans: A Novel.