This review is aimed at a general reader such as myself. In summer 2001 I borrowed the original edition of the book from a university library and read it completely through. I have mixed feelings about the book, though I did like it enough to purchase the recent reprint. I was mainly interested in finding a narrative history of the period in question, and while the book has some narrative, its main focus is why Theophylact wrote as he did. His writing is compared and contrasted in detail to that of the writings of other source historians of the period. This comparing is interspersed throughout even the putatively narrative sections of the book. From my viewpoint, this made for choppy reading, though I am well aware that a professional historian of the period would find these discussions the most important part of the book. To somewhat offset the choppiness of the text, there are about four pages of chronological tables, which do nicely summarize events in the Balkans and Persia. (Since Theophylact did not write about the west, there is almost nothing in the book about events west of the Balkans.) A real plus is that there are some good maps; there was no place mentioned in the text that I could not find quickly on a conveniently placed map. (However, in the recent reprint of the book, some of the shadings on the maps reproduced faintly, if at all, though borders and place names are all still clear.)

Ethnic Cleansing the the Balkans is a stark picture of the horror of war. Graphic details about the recent conflict fill page after page. Ms. Carmichael pinpoints a deranged concept of nationalism as the driving force behind the "cleansing".

The book was not comfortable to read. War is never very pretty, and certainly depressing. However, the book offers insights on how people behave during war, good and bad. I felt that the best chapter was the conclusion, where it was pointed out that there is a difference between a violent population and a population that is subjected to continued disruptive violent incursions. Rebecca West's Black Lamb Gray Falcon covers the history of the region in depth. This book is more of an analysis of recent events, with just enough history to set the scene.

For the most part, the contributions in this collection are very informative and useful studies of various aspects of gender issues in the former Yugoslavia. If nothing else, it's refreshing to see a book that covers such a chronically under-studied topic. The first article on the 'traditional' Yugoslav family by anthropologist Andrei Simic, although first published in 1983, was a good choice to head this selection of studies. His observations of some typical aspects of family relations and the gender roles therein provide a good basis for understanding other gender-related issues. Most of the other articles deal with a specific region or former Yugoslav republic (i.e. Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, etc.) Among the best is an article by Julie Mertus on women in Kosovo. She illustrates the many problems faced by Albanian women activists, particularly the deep and sometimes self-induced repression exercised by this extremely patriarchal society. The examples she cites from her fieldwork are very illuminating. Two articles by Gordana Crnkovic are particularly interesting, and too short in my opinion. Both deal with literature as this pertains to gender: the first covers mainly Serbian and Croatian women authors, while the second deals with the way women are portrayed in literature. The afterward by Branka Magaš is also helpful in that it ties together some of the common themes.

This volume is the product of a collective effort directed by three Greek-American academics, who gather the knowledge and analytical skills of some of the finest experts on Greek-Balkan and Greek-European relations. The book is a critical overview of the Greek cultural, economic and especially political influence on its northern neighbors. Browsing through the contributions in this book, readers can find a detailed retrospective of Greece's role in the Balkans from the beginnings of the 20th century to the eve of the war in Kosovo, with several historic references going further back in time. It also summarizes and evaluates the current role of Greece in the Balkans, taking into consideration the parameters of the American foreign policy, NATO, the European Union, Russia and finally the "traditional rival", Turkey. The advantage of the book is the excellent documentation and exploration of the issue's multiple aspects. A drawback is the frequent overlapping of information between chapters, especially when discussing the Greek foreign policy in the Balkans during the 90s. Undoubtedly, the book examines the developments in the Balkans from a Greek point of view. It could be argued that the fact that the majority of its contributors are Greek results in a certain degree of similarity in their choice of primary sources and theoretical tools. Therefore they eventually reach similar conclusions.

This is the best book, so far, I've read about Romanian history in brief, but, possibly because it is translated from French to English, the language is quite heavy, especially for non-native English speakers. I still recommend if interested in Romanian history.

The most important thing to remember about the "Macedonian conflict" is that the Greek position has changed dramatically over the past decade. Official Greek government policy was that Macedonia did not exist. When Greece took over Aegean Macedonia in 1913, they killed, tortured and ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Macedonians. They changed the names of people, villages, and landmarks from Macedonian to Greek in their attempts to eradicate the Macedonian name. Two things to remember:

1. It is ironic that Greeks now "love Macedonia" when they tried to eradicate its very existence.

2. If Macedonia has always been Greek, why did the Greek government deny its existence until the 1980's?

This book is very timely since the Balkans are on every front page at this time. The author has done a great job of tracing the complex roots of Balkan cuisine and the complex roots of Balkan politics. The book is more than a set of recipes, although the recipes are exellent. It is a good read for anyone who is interested in the history of cooking and the history of a complicated region of the world.

Most working definitions of nationalism incorporate, in one way or another, the view that national identity is somehow connected to territory. But in most studies on the topic of nationalism, the whole issue of territory receives little more than this perfunctory mention. White's recent study tackles the issue of territory in national identity head on. As a geographer, he offers some unique perspectives on this often overlooked aspect of nationalism. This is quite important, since at their base, almost all nationalisms are somehow grounded on a specific physical place or places and the desire of a certain group of people to control this space in some manner. White quite plausibly argues that territoriality, i.e. the protective or possessive attitude people exhibit toward places, is probably the most vital component of nationalism, even though this is an aspect that is most oft-neglected by scholars, journalists, policy-makers, etc. when dealing with specific cases of nationalism. The author's specific emphasis is on southeastern Europe, with case studies covering Hungary, Romania and Serbia. This is a good choice, since all three of these countries and their nations provide a wealth of historical examples and all three are still "hot" areas in political terms. In addition, the fact that the territorial claims of these three nations often overlap provides an excellent illustration of White's central point on the importance of places in defining identity and the potential violence which can erupt when territorial claims clash. White brings to this argument a large number of geographical and sociological sources not usually used when discussing nationalism. However, the book does have its weaknesses. The principal shortcoming is that much of the text seems to have been hastily written in the three case studies, and much of its seems formulaic (indeed, in a few places entire paragraphs are repeated almost verbatim from chapter to chapter). Also, the overall argument put forward by the author would have been better served if he included a comparison and contrast of his case study nations and also discussed how their mutual conflicts over the same territory influenced their respective national development. Nonetheless, this book represents an important recent contribution to the literature on nationalism.

Preamble: "The Other Balkan Wars" is a reprint of the Report of the International Commission To Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars (1912-1913). It was published by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in May-June of 1993, under the presidentship of Morton Abramovitz.

Professor George F. Kennan has written the Introduction only for this book -date unavailable.

Quite a long time ago, almost twenty years before CEIP president, Morton Abramowitz, has brushed this book from the shelf, I have had the original in my hands, and this with the greatest care. My father, as a volunteer telegraphist was in the midst of the first book's subject.

Giving an opinion of the first and the second edition in English -I have no knowledge of any translation- is a task of the utmost seriousness. Let Good Lord help me to condense my view in less then a thousand words. At that point I will more than gladly respond to your kind offer and continue along this lines.

Sincerely, DJGB Popadich

In Religion and Justice in the War over Bosnia, editor G. Scott Davis compiles essays by five professors of religious ethics who consider the current Bosnian conflict within the schema of the "just war" theory. This "just war" tradition, as described by noted theorists Paul Ramsey and Michael Walzer, outlines the "just" reasons for engaging in warfare, and the proper manner in which war should be conducted. The former includes proper authority, just cause, just intent, last resort, and reasonable hope of success. The latter pertains to the use of proportion and discrimination in the prosecution of warfare (16).
Davis admits that, before undertaking this project, he "had scant knowledge of the cultural and political history of Eastern Europe, much less of the Balkans" (viii). Davis assumed the role of a student in preparation for this enterprise by consulting such works as Fred Singleton's "A Short History of the Yugoslav People" and Barbara Jelavich's two-volume history on the Balkans. Two convictions on the part of Davis enters into this work--a distrust of nationalism, and an insistence that the West (particularly, the United States) should intervene militarily to end the hostilities against the Bosnian Muslims.

Michael Sells' contribution to the study, "Religion, History, and Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina," is a critical account on Western views towards the Balkans. First, Sells establishes that war tactics on the part of the Bosnian Serbs is, in fact, genocide. The "unjust" intent of the Bosnian Serbs is to destroy the cultural memory of the Bosnian Muslims (26). Second, Sells analyzes the prevailing attitude of the West towards the war in Bosnia. Sells cites an appearance by then president Bill Clinton on Larry King Live during which Clinton referred to the hostilities in Bosnia as "age-old antagonisms" which "go back five hundred years, some would say almost a thousand years" (23).
Robert Kaplan's "Balkan Ghosts" is criticized for repopularizing the idea that the Balkan peoples and cultures are "unamenable to civilized standards of behavior and locked in unchanging, perpetual tribal hatreds" (40). This belief that the Balkan peoples will always be involved in warfare is coupled with the idea that "there are no angels in the conflict" (41). According to Sells, the denial that civilized society is possible in the Balkans, and the prevailing conclusion that all sides in the Bosnian conflict are guilty causes the West to ignore the practices of cultural genocide against Muslim populations.

In "Nationalism and Self-Determination: The Bosnian Tragedy," Jean Bethke Elshtain explains another reason for the lack of direct action by the West to stop atrocities in Bosnia. The problem is that the United Nations, for a time, did not recognize Bosnia as a sovereign nation. According to Elshtain, "the United Nations Charter [only] makes provision for response to violation of the territory of a sovereign state" (46). To Elshtain, this stand is unacceptable. He also criticizes the West for regarding international conflicts with "national security interests, first and foremost, in mind" (47). Using the "just war" theory, both principles and interests would be considered in assessing whether intervention in a given conflict is or is not warranted. As Elshtain maintains, "if our [United States] policy makers had been guided by just war principles, my hunch is that, under the Nuremberg precedent, genocidal political aggression cannot be permitted to stand" (49). Like Davis, Elshtain notes the problem of nationalism in Bosnia and recommends a "middle way" between multicultural absolutists, who insist that different identities cannot mix, and civic pluralists, who preach universal solidarity (50-3). Elshtain, however, does not explain the ways in which this "middle way" can be achieved.

James Turner Johnson, in "War for Cities and Noncombatant Immunity in the Bosnian Conflict," describes the element of "double effect" in the "just war" theory. The idea of "double effect" asserts that, although deliberate and direct attacks on noncombatants is considered unjust, noncombatants can be legitimately harmed or killed if they are the unintentional victims during an assault on a military target. Considering the war in Bosnia, Johnson uses an important example to illustrate the weakness of the "double effect" idea in protecting noncombatants from unjust harm. In Sarajevo, Bosnian Serbs would cut off the water supplies to the civilian Muslim populations. As the inhabitants left their homes to attain water from a limited number of public taps (most likely, near military institutions), the Bosnian Serbs would fire upon them. According to Johnson: "If the besiegers employ means of attack that are by nature indiscriminate or disproportionate in their effects, then I am less willing to grant the double effect excuse, and if these means are chosen so as to increase the burden of possible harm on the noncombatants present and may be judged so because they are likely to have their primary effect against these and not the combatant defenders, then double effect reasoning emphatically does not apply" (84). Johnson maintains that international law, which establishes civilized war tactics, does not sufficiently address the problems associated with siege warfare.

Unlike the other essays, which condemn the West for its lack of response to the Bosnian conflict, G. Scott Davis' contribution includes a criticism of the actions employed by the West. In "Bosnia, the United States, and the Just War Tradition," Davis charges the United States and the European Community with violating the "just war" theory through their arms embargo. The purpose of the embargo imposed in September 1991 was to minimize the violence and contain the war in Croatia. The embargo, however, shifted the balance in favor of the Serbs, who inherited munitions and material from the Yugoslav National Army. Davis maintains that the embargo, which favored Serbia, "should have been particularly offensive given the conduct of the Serbs, who had already displayed a willingness to attack civilian targets and to condone atrocities" (113). Davis concluded that the proper response of the West would have been to lift the embargo and supply aid directly to the Bosnian government (114).

In the final essay, John Kelsay condemns the Western media for portraying the Muslim culture as barbarian and hostile to modernizing influences. In "Bosnia and the Muslim Critique of Modernity," Kelsay compares the Bosnian Muslims' situation to that of the Jews during the Second World War. Kelsay uses the observations of Richard L. Rubenstein to explain that, by disregarding the Muslim community as being incapable of modernization, the West defines the Bosnian Muslims as "outside the universe of moral obligation" (125). Thus "the United Nations, the European Community, and NATO all function as 'silent partners' in the efforts of the Serbians to create an 'ethically pure' region for themselves in Bosnia-Herzegovina" (125).

By using the "just war" theory to analyze the conflict in Bosnia, this compilation is an important work. It is critical to have a criterion whereby "just" or "unjust" war practices can be clearly defined. Terms, such as "genocide" and "unjust," are often used so loosely that their meanings become ambiguous and less useful. Zachery T. Irwin, who reviewed the book for Library Journal (November 15, 1996, p. 75), criticized the analogy for a lack of a conclusion. This reviewer disagrees. The conclusion of this work is that, through an understanding of the "just war" theory, the West should become more directly involved in stopping the atrocities committed in Bosnia. The argument itself, however, is weak. All contributors have little regard for nationalist feelings in the Balkans and elsewhere. Nationalism is important for producing a healthy identity for a people and instilling in them a sense of dignity and self-worth which can prompt an oppressed people to fight for their place in the world. Certainly, there are negative aspects of nationalism, however, Elshtain's insistence on retooling nationalist feelings to find a "middle way" seems very naïve. The contributors consider the Bosnian conflict as would many international journalists. Such journalists often take a global stand on many issues. Such a stand, however, underestimates the power and importance of nationalist aspirations which can determine whether a conflict, no matter how morally "unjust," warrants the risk of Western lives.