This is a book written by authors well known as former CIA personnel in Turkey. This rather old book has numerous mistakes as facts and one feels that the authors' best sources are Turkish university professors!

This book is completely misnamed, as it reflects neither history nor reality. It is less a Romanian viewpoint than an anti-Hungarian viewpoint. According to the thesis of this book Hungarians existed only to torture Romanians. Apparently the author only used information fabricated by the Ceasescu regime and its minions to expel Hungarian-Transylvanians. This book is neither well balanced nor well researched, and should not be considered a valid scholastic work. For a book on Transylvania actually worth reading try "The Nationalities Problem in Transylvania 1867-1940" by Sandor Biro.

This book focuses on the Hungarian discrimination against the Romanians in Transylvania from the Middle Ages until World War II. Told from the Romanian point of view. Not much about the Transylvanian Saxons who were the third largest group to reside in Transylvania. Interesting reading. You will learn alot about this region.

The author was extremelly thourough in his research. The book is worth reading.
Regarding a previous comment that "Apparently the author only used information fabricated by the Cea[u]sescu", this cannot be true since the book was written before the end of WW2.
Also, Milton Lehrer was a Jew, and Jews are generally known for being very objective with regard to the history of the countries they lived in.

The reviewer below is too generous in allocating his stars, but I essentially agree with the views presented. Dragnich is otherwise a quite effective propagandist for the Serb nationalist cause, at least in America, since he has the veneer of academic legitimacy. This book is essentially an appendix to his earlier epic of pro-Serbian historiography called "Serbs and Croats." Read this only if you're doing an analysis of propaganda in the recent Balkan wars. The only thing I can't believe is that this was published as a part of the "East European Monographs," otherwise a series of fine scholarly works, which this book definitely is not.

The author provides a slick, articulate defense for the actions of his thuggish kinsmen extending the boundaries of "Greater Serbia" (Milosevic, Karadavic, Mladic). Revolutions may be won by illiterate, gun-toting gangsters, but in order to justify their existence they inevitably turn to members of the "intelligentsia". The author performs an admirable job of providing just enough pontificating to appear unbiased, while eagerly embracing the antics of a group of wannabe Storm Troopers. Give this material an "I" for idiotic.

Recent events in the Balkans have shown that due to the ethnological, neopolitical and historical complexity of the region, in depth analysis is of paramount importance in understanding the truth. Apart from the thousands that have died in the 1990's during the Yugoslav civil war, another victim of war has been the truth, as is the case in most wars, especially in the 20th century.
The truth is based on undisputed facts (dates, events etc), and in relation to opinion, the truth always lies somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, the two previous "reviewers," instead of treating this book for what it is, i.e. a valuable primary source from the Serb point of view, they dismiss it on the grounds that is written by a University of Belgrade professor...This book provides valuable and serious insight in understanding the Serbian psyche. It is a "must" for any serious historian or political analyst interested in the Balkan region.

Dragnich's view is that the Serbs were the victims since the Ottomon Turks conquered Serbia. People with common sense would say that this view is not based on facts. Dragnich defends the Serbs even though most of the facts don't back him up. He simply ignores those facts, and digs up what facts and statistics do make the Serbs look good.
For instance, Dragnich maintains the Serb government had nothing to do with the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Of course he ignores the facts that the Black Hand terrorist group was supported by the Serb intelligence group of the Army.
Dragnich states Princip was just a fanatical Bosnian Serb. He also blames Franz Ferdinand because he should not have ventured to Bosnia during the time because of the Serb national holiday.
This is just one instance where Dragnich ignores the facts and says the victims were the Serbs and not the Archduke and his wife.
For the remainder of the book, Dragnich portrays the Croats, Slovenes, and Muslims as benefiting from Serb rule. This would be like equating a colony as a good experience for those ruled.
Atrocities, well the Croats and Muslims were more guilty than the Serbs. This is the context of this book.
At the very least, one gains an idea of what the Serbs have in their heads. This explains what happened in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. The Serbs say let us take back what we gave them. It might not be true, but this is how they explain their actions.

As a relatively young American, with little knowledge of the conflict in the Balkans, I decided to pick up a book that would give me an unbiased opinion on the conflict, so that I could form my own opinion. I thought that a book with the title, "Serbs and Croats: The Struggle in Yugoslavia" would be such a book. I was wrong. While informative, the information does have a very strong slant. This is probably due to the heavy influence the Serbs have on the media. It is the same influence that led to our nation's ignorance of the Concentration camps set up in Serbia and Croatia during the war. So, if you are looking for an interesting and quick read on the topic, this is a book to read, however, if you want an unbiased book, this is NOT the book to read. I have also picked up Croatia: A History, which is surprisingly much less biased, and much more thorough. I would recommend that book over Serbs and Croats, if you want something more substantial, and less biased.

Recent events in the Balkans have shown that due to the ethnological, geopolitical and historical complexity of the region, in depth analysis is of paramount importance in understanding the truth.
Apart from the thousands that have died in the 1990's during the Yugoslav civil war, another victim of war has been the truth, as is the case in most wars, especially in the 20th century.
The truth is based on undisputed facts (dates, events etc), and in relation to opinion, the truth always lies somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, the two previous "reviewers," instead of treating this book for what it is, i.e. a valuable primary source from the Serb point of view, they dismiss it on the grounds that is written by a University of Belgrade professor. A rather childish and yet dangerous reaction.
In a democracy all voices should be heard instead of being immediately disregarded on the basis of their origin. One cannot and should not silence another just because they disagree with them!
This book provides valuable and serious insight to the understanding of the Serbian psyche. It is a "must" for any serious historian or political analyst interested in the Balkan region.

Reviewed by Zhidas Daskalovski (School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London) E-mail: daskalovski@hotmail.com

-----------------------------------------------------------

In less then a year time span, the academic world was offered two accounts of the so-called Macedonian Question. First, in 1999, James Pettifer edited The New Macedonian Question, and then, in 2000, Victor Roudometof presented his The Macedonian Question. Both books were compiled by visiting professors at academic institutions based in Thessaloniki, Greece, Petiffer at the Institute of Balkan Studies, Roudometof at American College Of Thessaloniki. Given the political situation in the Southern Balkans, this fact raises the question about who wants to reintroduce a "Macedonian question" in the academic and indirectly, in the policy making world, and in whose interest this might be. An informed observer would immediately notice that both monographs are biased in the selection of essays and themes covered. Roudometof, for example, writing a book concerning Macedonia, does not include a single contribution from authors originating from Republic of Macedonia, while Petiffer has two reprints of articles and only one new piece written by a Macedonian sociologist. In any case let's turn our attention to the latest of the two books, The Macedonian Question.

In the introduction of the book Roudometof provides the background to the current state of affairs (p.2), briefly describing the reemergence of the Macedonian question in Balkan politics. Unfortunately, he does this with many inaccuracies and a Greek bias. An early sign of this bias is the editor's usage of the acronym "FYROM" instead of Republic of Macedonia. Given that the reference FYROM is to be used in official UN documents, and the book discussed is obviously not being a part of the UN system, then it is clear that the author himself have decided to use the acronym, instead of the name of the country chosen by itself, Republika Makedonija or Republic of Macedonia in English. Furthermore, the author very early in the introduction poses a link between Macedonia and Kosovo claiming that ^Óover the last two decades the persisting internal political conflict between Albanians and Macedonians has carried with it the seeds of civil unrest and possibly civil war and then asserts that the possibility of limited autonomy or independence for the Kosovo Albanians (including the option of unification with the Albanian state) could set a precedent for FYROM's own Albanian population. (p.2, 3) Doing so, the author proposes that there is a deep enmity among the Macedonians and Macedonian Albanians (two decades of conflict, civil war,) ignores the facts that Serbia's policies in Kosovo have nothing in common with Macedonia's political arrangements and internal party relations, the first being autocratic and exclusionist, the second one being based on democratic principles and ethnic moderation. Further on, Roudometof explains that in the early 1990's the latest twist in the Macedonian Question occurred, as a direct consequence of the disintegration of the second Yugoslavia.(p.3) The reader is puzzled what is the "Macedonian Question" and consequently how long has it lasted (why is it now that the latest twist occurred)? Indeed nowhere in the introduction Roudometof, answers "what is it about", and 'why it is a question' (Macedonian). Posing Macedonia as a "question" is rather different then talking about the contemporary issues concerning Macedonia. Problematizing Macedonia's identity has been long lasting Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian strategy. Ever since Macedonia was partitioned by the three in the Balkan Wars 1912/1913, its majority Macedonian native population has been object of fierce assimilation policies aimed at questioning, destroying and/or modifying the Macedonian identity into Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian. Even today, Macedonian national identity is denied by the Greek and Bulgarian official circles not only in Pirin and Aegean Macedonia which are under their jurisdiction and where only small fragments of Macedonian minority still openly declare their Macedonianess, but also in relation to the Macedonians from Republic of Macedonia itself. Sadly, enough in the introduction Roudometof indicates that he has taken this view. For example, he writes the central contemporary controversy concerns the manner in which Bulgarians, Greeks and Macedonians view and interpret Macedonian identity. In particular, conflict centers on the premise that the Slavs of Macedonia [sic] constitute a distinct nation, the Macedonian nation and further on, ..human rights advocates in Bulgaria and Greece have suggested the existence of Macedonian minorities in both states. Thus, the author leaves open the question of the existence of Macedonian nation both in Republic of Macedonia and in Greece and Bulgaria, for why else he would write that there are reports that suggest existence, and that the conflict is over the premise that there is a Macedonian nation. Macedonians as distinct people are a fact which gives difficult times to Sofia and Athens, but why does it make Roudometof uncertain is hard to grasp. In fact, later on in the text the author states that Western academia discovered Macedonians as ethnic group in Canada and Australia, which has led to a debate about the status of the Macedonian "ethnicity" before 1945. He then goes to say that this is far from an academic issue and that at stake is the very distinctiveness of the Macedonians as a separate people, and this in turn is closely associated with their claim [italics mine] to form the Macedonian nation (p.12). At the last page of the brief introduction Roudometof appears prophetic stating as a final note I would like to add that the saga of the Macedonian Question is far from over (p.18). His last words on the matter hint in what kind of direction the book will aim: since the central theme of the Macedonian Question is the social construction of national homogeneity and identity, the historical social sciences can and should contribute to the production of relevant knowledge (p.18).

Loring Danforth's piece is exactly concerned with the question of social construction of identity. Danforth underlines the importance of social upbringing and personal histories for the construction of national identities. Once the members of a single ethnic group originating from northwestern Aegean Macedonia moved into Australia they manifested conflicting national identities. For these people the church served as a significant marker of national identity and they established three different National churches in Melbourne, Australia. Greek state policies vis-à-vis this ethnic group and different interpretation of the local history permeates the feelings and actions of the immigrants. Anastasia Karakasidou's essay strikes a similar note to the one written by Danforth. Karakasidou meticulously analyses the process of assimilation or acculturation of the indigenous population of Northwest Aegean Macedonia into the Greek cultural realm. Karakasidou's evidence that, among the population of the region, Greeks were a substantial minority at the time of the incorporation of this area to the Greek state is perplexing. So is the Greek official terminology for the local Slavo-Macedonians used at the time:

"Voulgharophrones, fanatic Bulgarians, Schismatics, Patriarchists," etc., despite the fact that the bulk of the people who spoke Slavic (i.e. Macedonian dialects) called themselves Macedonians (p.64). As the study shows, these Macedonians, through emigration, forced deportation, refugee resettlement of Asia Minor Greeks, repression, violence and voluntary assimilation have nowadays become a minority population of North Greece(Aegean Macedonia). Especially gruesome is the cited story in which a Greek policeman becomes angry at a Macedonian farmer, who accidentally cursed a recalcitrant ox in his own language rather then Greek, and extinguishes a burning cigarette on the farmer's tongue. Unfortunately enough, the repression of Macedonian language and identity is still part of Greek politics and therefore, to assess the share of the Macedonian population in this country is very intricate. As a final note, I should mention that Karakasidou's study suffers from an unexpected imprecision, as she refers to works that are not mentioned in the list of references. (Her work referred to on pages 58, 61, 65, as well as Danforth's reference on page 84).

Basil Gounaris and Iakovos Mihailidis' "The Pen and the Sword" critically analyses the interplay between politics and historiography. Trying to debunk political agendas by historians writing on the topic of Macedonia the authors point out to a very important detail, a not surprising statement for experienced

analysts of Balkan history, but often overseen by partisan historians and policy makers: "Until the early 1960's few of those who wrote about Macedonia, in the Balkans or in Western Europe, were academics, and even fewer if any at all were professional histo

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?

...That someone did something about the misinformation and propaganda that surrounds this "issue"
The propagandists of FYROM need to understand that there is no way for them to get access to the Aegean (The desire for which, i might add, is even mentioned in their constitution.)
To say that the Macedonians (not the skopjans who CALL themselves Macedonians) and Alexander the Great are not Greek is as ludicrous as saying that the people living in Texas are not Americans..

A very interesting book, yet with some weaknesses! "Not written by a native" gives this book more of a third side glance advantage, yet it does not provide a profound information of someone who has lived for decades among the Macedonians, Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians etc. The Republic of Macedonia is a politically independent sovereign country with internationally recognized borders and peoples. What makes a "state" a STATE?
Land/Territory, Population, Sovereignty (and I would add National Identity). The Republic of Macedonia has it all. This truth is undeniable. The ones who deny it, have no clue about politics and should start with the book Basic Politics 101.

Recent events in the Balkans have shown that due to the ethnological, geopolitical and historical complexity of the region, serious in depth analysis is of paramount importance in understanding the truth. Apart from the thousands that have died as a result of the break up of Yugoslavia in the 1990's, another victim has been the truth, as is the case in most wars, especially in the 20th century.
The truth is based on undisputed facts (dates, events etc), and in relation to opinion, the truth always lies somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, the first "reviewer," instead of treating this book for what it is, i.e. a valuable and objective source, they dismiss it on the grounds that it does not serve their interests. The "reviewer" states: "If Macedonia has always been Greek, why did the Greek government deny its existence until the 1980's". The question is how can Greece, of all countries, deny the existence of her own history? A rather childish and yet dangerous reaction coming as a result of Yugoslav communist propaganda and indoctrination aiming at conditioning the majority Bulgarian-Slavic population of South Serbia into believing they belong to a fictitious "Macedonian" nationality. What's next? Did the Vikings build the Parthenon, were the Spartans African spearmen or was Alexander the Great a Slav?
Let's be serious. In a democracy all voices should be heard instead of being immediately disregarded on the basis of their origin. One cannot and should not silence another just because they disagree with them! At the same time, however, the truth should be protected at all cost and not be left to be sacrificed in pursuit of political agendas.
This book is written by someone who is not a native of the region, and yet it provides a valuable insight in the study of Macedonia. It is a "must" for any serious historian or political analyst interested in the Balkan region.

I picked up a used set of Extreme Management (book and audio) at a flea market. I should have saved my dollar. The book was laborious reading, bordering on pontification, so I tried the tape. What a mistake. If the amateurish and combative writing style was bad in print, the voice used on the tape made things exponentially worse - a classic case of really bad writing getting worse.

Here's the quick scoop:
1. I checked with Harvard and they did NOT authorize this book.
2. The author did NOT attend the classes he wrote about.
3. The writing style is very reminiscent of pre-canned smoke-and-mirrors business-speak...much verbosity, little content.
4. The author sounds positively angry about something.
5. I was angry, too, only because I wasted a dollar on this junk.

I agree with the jist of almost every reviewer on this page, especially Publisher's Weekly and AudioFile. I should have read the reviews on this site first. Oh well, it was only a buck.

The title was a little over stated. As a business student myself, all of the enclosed information was positive reenforcemnet for what I had already learned and a little more! Some of the quotes in the text were reassuring to the reader of a point well explained. although some of the points explained in the text were over explained and it became "dry" reading after awhile. The author had good usage of business terms, but lacked other examples other then that from Harvard Business school.

The text was by far an ad for the Advanced Management Program and Harvard Business school. It also touched slightly on management from a global arena, when most would know that all businesses are likely to go global. So more information is needed for a non-AMP student to learn how to manage in a global market.

Overall the book was informational, but could not be used as the only form of education for potential managers. Not everyone can afford to go to Harvard, but any business school would be better then just reading this book. Because business school can explain these points better and with more content then the book did.

Poor ratings and skewed reviews by others prompted me to write this review to provide objective information for knowledge seekers.

In my view it is a good book considering the price i paid, reading time, breadth of topics, simplicity and few good examples of how high level concepts could be translated into actions. I felt like spending few hours in the company of professors and executives, what they shared made sense to me and made me collect their words as jewels. Where else could one find synthesized knowledge from people like Michael Porter, Fruhan and other renowned scholars within 190/200 pages? I liked the simple manner in which DuPont and other fundamental financial management concepts are explained. I wouldn't mind recommending it to anyone for casual reading during a 3hr flight. Indeed it is not a text book, should not be taken seriously and may not be permanent part of your collection. The book is NOT for technical person who likes to live in details, nor for one who tends to seek ready-made solutions, nor for one who is interested in structured learning or pursuing graduate degree in management. One finds elements of inspiration and motivation to act, hallmark of good books. The stuff about Harvard or text on cover is more of marketing gimmick but nowhere author claims school endorses his book. There is a clear statement to that fact so don't know what caused the confusion written in other reviews. What matters is that the interviews, wisdom and thought process shared by people is original and real.... writer did not make up those 7 OFP points or market competition strategies. Don't expect a book could make you good manager or reveal secrets of success - there is no formula book.

Bottomline, professors who are Harvard's brain and their executive students from Fortune500/Global2000, .....talk to you in this book. It does not matter whether the book is endorsed by the school or if the writer himself attended the AMP program.....knowledge shouldn't have strings attached to it.

Horrible book from the person who has no right to even talk about the war in Bosnia, since he himself was indirectly responsible for prolonging it. I would strongly recommend a book by Brendan Simms "Unfinest Hour - Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia" that clarifies Owen's role during the war in Bosnia.

Lord Owen's recounting of his efforts to help resolve the Bosnian war is really little more than a list of meetings and conferences. To this dry unending litany he adds a few cursory and, in some cases, inaccurate descriptions of players associated with the conflict. If you are hoping to get insight from a seemingly well placed person who spent hours and days locked in discussion with some of the 20th Century's most reviled figures you will not find it here. His descriptions are little more than ambiguous diplomatic niceties. During the course of this confusing peace process, Owen only occasionally pens restrained displeasure about the continued obstructionism of American administrations and the blatant deception of Balkan leaders. Just as the international community feared backlash against any form of decisive action, it seems Lord Owen had similar reservations about libel - neither approach is conducive to establishing lasting peace nor fruitful discourse. Owen's isolation in conference rooms and hotels quickly becomes apparent as his detached, incomplete descriptions of realities on the ground appear more like secondhand gossip than any useful form of analysis.

In this book, Lord Owen missed a glorious opportunity to expose the countess agendas and duplicities he faced from all sides. He could have spoken his mind but instead chose to remain a politician. In the end, this book is really just another apology for the shameful failure of Western collective security.

I suppose this book is somewhat unavoidable for the serious student of the Balkan wars of the 1990s, since David Owen was deeply involved in "peace" diplomacy in the Balkans from late 1992 to mid-1995. However, after reading his memoir, one comes out with little in the way of new insights or even interesting details. Most of the time Owen simply tries to white-wash his own role in the Bosnian war; I'm not saying he should be completely blamed for certain events which occured during his tenure as international peace mediator, but he certainly bears some of the culpability. One example is the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, which, by drawing little serpentine lines over the map of Bosnia and designating ethnically-based territories, gave the Croatian militia and Croatian nationalist leaders something of an international mandate to make territorial claims and expel Bosnian Muslims and others from these territories. It's a common cop-out of Croatian nationalists to blame the Vance-Owen plan for the Muslim-Croat conflict, which is wrong, but Owen did nothing to hinder this conflict and his actions in fact fanned the fire--something he glosses over in this book. There's also the case of Owen bringing smuggler-extraordinaire Fikret Abdic into the peace talks as a counterweight to the Sarajevo-based Muslim leadership, who were too obstinate for Owen's tastes. Abdic was popular in his own little pocket of northwestern Bosnia and reviled everywhere else because he was a corrupt businessman and black-marketeer. His introduction to the peace talks by Owen only confused the diplomatic negotiations and led to one of the most bizarre episodes in the Bosnian war: the inter-Muslim confict in the Bihac pocket (Abdic's power base). Yet Owen describes his political rehabilitation of Abdic as a diplomatic triumph. I suppose it's too much to expect him to be overly self-critical, but his self-serving apologetics in this book are almost repugnant. In addition, his writing style leaves something to be desired. Despite the dramatic events which were the subject of this book, "Balkan Odyssey" is about as exciting as a lawnmower owner's manual. All in all, a disappointing book.

A well-intentioned but seriously flawed book for the general reader, by a Yugoslav American of unusual background (his parents were both Protestant ministers in Vojvodina). Tries to spread the blame for the war as widely as possible; ends by recommending Western military intervention, against all sides, in order to effect a partition of Bosnia.

This book is somewhat flawed in that the author dwells a little too much on the religious aspect of the wars in the former Yugoslavia. However, he is quite correct in pointing out the culpability of religious leaders among the Serbs, Croats, Bosnian Muslims and others in fomenting mutual intolerance. Another problem is that his conclusions about how to create a lasting solution to the conflicts (massive Western intervention, basically) seem a bit naive given the record of outside involvement (from the UN to NATO). The historical analysis is also a bit weak. More interesting are the author's insights and opinions of the various Yugoslav peoples, because he speaks from the point of view of an insider, i.e. as someone born and raised in Yugoslavia. Thus, readers can get something of an idea of how the various ex-Yugoslav peoples view each other's nationalisms - because Mojzes is equally critical of all nationalisms in the former Yugoslavia. This makes "Yugoslavian Inferno" an interesting supplement to the literature on the former Yugoslavia, despite its obvious flaws.

If you are truly devoted into learning about Albania, this book might be a bit of a disappointment. But, if you really have to have it, don't expect too gain much out of it. If you really want to learn about Albania, its people, culture, history, and politics you should then look at some of the other titles on Albania that Amazon has in stock. This book does not have much valuable insight on Albania. The book for the most part is very brief and gives the reader just a quick introduction on the country. Even with that, the brief introduction on Albania or the profile that is presented for the country is not very good. I would not even recommend this book for elementary school students. Save your money and find something else!