Since the author actually studied under one of the twentieth century's great historians, Fernand Braudel, I really had high expectations of this book. Most of them were not met. Stoianovich attempts to present a "total history" of the Balkans, which means it is not restricted to any historical period, nor to any specific field of study, encompassing consideration of the economy, society, geography, biological/environmental factors, etc. for the region as a whole. The author should be commended for such an ambitious undertaking, and his wide knowledge of the relevant primary and secondary sources is quite impressive. However, the book requires quite a bit of prior knowledge on the Balkans, so it cannot be used as an introduction to the region and its history. It seems as though Stoianovich's narrower field of interest is the Balkans under Ottoman rule, as it is those parts of the text which deal with that period that provide the most coherent analysis and receive the most thoughtful consideration. Also, the entire book has a rather disjointed character, as the author often cites dizzying quantities of information on e.g. linguistic morphology or whether patterns from Neolithic times to the present without tying the threads together clearly, thus leaving the reader feeling more confused rather than informed. Nationalism, as an overriding socio-political force in the Balkans for much of the last two centuries, is dealt with in an unsatisfactory manner: Stoianovich never quite explains it in the context of the region's overall, long-term development. Although he indirectly cites Ernest Gellner's theory of nationalism as a by-product of modernization and industrialization, he fails to explain why nationalism emerged among many Balkan peoples in a decidedly pre-industrial stage of their development. Another failing is the author's rather obvious pro-Serb bias: the preponderance of examples he uses involve Serbia or the Serbs, and he tries to give various Serbian politicians, scholars, philosophers, etc. a wider significance than they actually merit. In his discussion of Yugoslavia's collapse and the ensuing wars in the early 1990s, this line of thought leads to a rather sad and misguided exercise in trying to assign a kind of value-based "national character" to the Serbs and Croats (suffice it to say, the Serbs are imbued with positive traits while the Croats come out as rather treacherous). For me this aspect rather sullies the entire book, which is unfortunate, since his concluding chapter contains many valid observations and warnings on the nature of global capitalism and its consequences for the natural environment. While "Balkan Worlds" has many commendable aspects, as a whole the book is disappointing and largely fails as a total history of the Balkans.

In his preface, the author is very forthright about his book's failings and shortcomings. Basically, he tries to point out that "The Fragmentation of Yugoslavia" has a specific focus, i.e. the development and role of national ideologies in the country's break-up, rather than providing a comprehensive account of the myriad political, social, cultural, economic and other factors involved. This might have been a really good book if he had stuck to this thesis. Instead, however, he goes way off focus, summarizing not only the history of the national ideologies, but the history of the country in general. For the pre-1990 period, he relies heavily on much more detailed and informative books by other experts (notably Dennison Rusinow, Paul Shoup and Harold Lydall among others). When dealing with the post-1990 period, the author often goes into excessive detail in recounting various political/diplomatic negotiations, initiatives, etc. and wartime events, without really tying this in to his main topic (national ideologies). The author's discussion always seem rather brief and summarized - as though he's in a hurry to get to the next important subject - although given his central thesis, some more depth would seem necessary and rather welcome. The text is also rather dry, lacking even the occasional sharp observation or enlightening anecdote to improve the narrative. In his conclusion, Pavkovic states that a possible solution to the Yugoslav conflicts could be the holding of plebiscites among minority populations (whether displaced or not) as a first step in a meaningful reconciliation process. While I appreciate the sentiment, this idea is rather utopian given past events, and the author does not explain how this could be carried out in practice. All in all, "Fragmentation of Yugoslavia" is a very unoriginal and disappointing book, and despite the author's scholarly credentials, it is just another mediocre addition to the vast body of "Yugoslav tragedy" literature.

This book seems to be a supplement to the earlier "Road From Paradise," written by the same authors. In it they continue their analysis of events in post-communist countries, especially in the former Yugoslavia during the Balkan wars. They also continue, somewhat needlessly, their bashing of Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" theory. While I agree that Fukuyama's silly views deserve every criticism, in this book they beat the point to death. It's not like they were the first and only persons to recognize the weaknesses and frequent contradictions in Fukuyama's arguments. In general, this book seems to have been hastily written, and the authors did not take time to refine their ideas and bolster their arguments. In addition, they did not do a good job of proofing and editing their own text, as the text is often repetitive (e.g. on p. 28 they say: "Until recently, Western analysts have tended to display a modernist, globalizing tendency to refer to one USSR, one Yugoslavia, one United States - even one world." Then a few pages later: "For a long time, convention has made one used to thinking of one America, one Yugoslavia and even one Soviet Union"). Also, this careless and hasty writing style led to the inclusion of something I can only hope is a gross error on p. 142: the authors say that Serbia is the "only European nation" to use the Cyrillic alphabet (what about Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, etc.?) which they refer to as, quite unbelievably, "outmoded." Statements like these, along with their excessively dwelling on organic views of the nation and nationalism (at points their argument leads them to use that old cliche about "ancient ethnic hatreds"), often make this book seem like an intellectual justification for the type of ethnic prejudices the authors mean to combat.

This book gives you just a brief overlook in the complex situation on the Balkan in the years 1941-1944. Sides participating in this conflict are just basically mentioned lacking more detailed description, especially of the various auxiliaries forces (chetniks are represented us unifying movement, for example, although there was several fraction inside this movement, some of the parties involved are not mentioned at all). Operation that Germans conducted against guerillas are just briefly mentioned without any detailed explanations, on the tactical levels non what so ever. I was hoping to find something more about Jagdkommando units, but even though author did inform us of the existence of such units, there is nothing about organizations or operations that such units conducted. So it may be a good book if you just begin to research the subject, but if you want to form a full picture you will need further reading.

The previous review makes some very good points about the many flaws in this hastily compiled and poorly written "historical dictionary." However, I don't believe the intent of the authors was to engage in a propaganda exercise, nor that the publisher had some hidden agenda in printing it; on the contrary, it is part of a series of "European Historical Dictionaries," which, if this volume is any indication, are not of a very high quality. The problem with this book is that it seems to be more of a political lexicon for the Republic of Croatia rather than an actual historical dictionary. For if it was a historical dictionary, it would not contain uncritical entries on certain medieval Croatian kings (like Trpimir II and Kresimir I, II & III), whose very existence beyond the realm of legend is doubted by most serious historians of this region during the Middle Ages, whether in Croatia or abroad. Even more controversial is the uncritical acceptance of the theory that the pre-Ottoman era heretics of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Dalmatia were Bogumils (a heresy otherwise centered in Bulgaria). This issue is still the subject of much controversy among historians and far from settled. These are just two examples which show that the authors are not critical historians, and that they depended too heavily on a few sources for such information. Also, if this were truly a historical dictionary, there would not be insubstantial one-line entries on such important Croatian historical figures such as 19th century writers August Senoa and Antun Gustav Matos or politicians like Ante Trumbic. There is no entry at all for the very important turn-of-the-century political leader Frano Supilo, while at the same time there are entries for often obscure and sometimes laughable contemporary political figures like Hrvoje Sosic, Slavko Degoricija, Joja Ricov, Marija Peakic-Mikuljan and even the (recently assassinated) Serbian war criminal and all-around thug Arkan. In this sense, this "dictionary" even fails as a "who's who" for the contemporary political scene in Croatia - particularly since it was published five years ago and is now truly dated.

"The Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Croatia" is a controversial book, beginning with its title. The Republic of Croatia became recognized as a sovereign country in 1992. The question that poses itself, before we even enter the contents of this dictionary, is whether it is at all possible to write the history of a state little more than two years after its international recognition, when the civil war from which it emerged had yet to reach its peak?

Wrapping a political agenda in a "scientific", usually "historical," folder is just one of the methods employed in promoting a political goal into an internationally recognized status. The claim that a certain political aspiration has historical roots and that as such it has been an object of scientific research, makes the aspiration legitimate. Moreover, if it is not challenged it acquires the solidity of fact and paves the way to the desired changes. The conflict between current politics and history is an area of research that is probably not lacking material for exploration nowadays. This book expands the controversy, adding a new spin to it by insinuating itself, with all its disregard for the facts, its fabrications and prevarications in the reference section of a respected university library where academic research usually begins.

Inaccuracy of data, one of the major problems with this book, strikes the reader from the very first pages. The infamous Nazi satellite state, the Independent State of Croatia, according to the authors, was proclaimed on April 10, 1942,(Chronology xxiii) exactly one year later than it really occured on April 10, 1941. If the proclamation of the Independent State of Croatia were presented accurately in this book, it would have been viewed in the line of two other salient historical events which all happened within 8 days in April 1941, and the nature of this Nazi satellite country would have been self-evident.

April 6, 1941Attack on Yugoslavia with the bombing Belgrade by German army. April 10, 1941 Proclamation of the Independent State of Croatia April 14, 1941Recognition of the Independent State of Croatia by Germany and Italy.

One of the longest entries, the "Borders of Croatia" (36) creates only further confusion since Croatia is also a geographical area having different borders from the Republic of Croatia. The following is perhaps a good illustration: The present interruption of the Croatian territory at Neum goes back to the same time, when Bosnia-Herzegovina was given access to the sea. It was a concession of Dubrovnik to the Ottoman Empire. It is exactly in this place that the Bosnian President Izetbegovic now wants a corridor to the sea for the Muslims.

According to the authors of this book, although Neum has been a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina for about 300 years, Neum is here defined by the authors as a "present interruption of the Croatian territory." The implication is that it is a Croatian territory, that the territory is interrupted, and that such an interruption is only for the "present," which further implies that it is not only temporary but also of a short duration. The next politically loeaded statement informs that the Bosnian President Izetbegovic " now wants a corridor to the sea for the Muslims."

Describing Neum as a corridor in political terminology implies no more than a geographical connection to something rather than the legitimate claim to that territory on other grounds. The claim that it is the Bosnian President Izetbegovic who "wants" it suggests two things: that it is (only) he who makes that claim and that such a claim is rather subjective because he "wants," which sounds rather personal, almost like a whim. And why does he want it? It is said that he wants it for Muslims, although he, as the president of the state, at least officially, represents all the nationalities who live in the state over which he presides.

The same thing could have been described as a territorial dispute between the states of the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, where Bosnia wants the borders to remain unchanged, claiming their control over Neum to be historically grounded, since 300 years of their legitimate possession of Neum was only interrupted during World War II, when it was controlled by the Independent State of Croatia, a Nazi satellite state. But, such an account, although closer to the facts, would not make the Croatian claim sound justified.

On the other hand entries that have nothing in common with the Croatian nation or the Republic of Croatia are included such as: "Miroslav Gospel" (156), "Sevdalinke" (193) "Bosanska Posavina" (39) etc. It is characteristic that all those apparently unrelated entries have one thing in common - a Bosnian element. The explanation for such a criterion can be found in the phrase that "Croatia officially inherited the borders fixed by the former Yugoslavia". This statement too is loaded with the implication that the present boarders of Croatia are not the ones with which the Republic of Croatia should be content, because they are officially inherited, and inherited from the former Yugoslavia, which was a Communist country. Merely by that fact it should be questioned. And the way they were established by the former Yugoslavia is that they were "fixed". If something is "fixed" it is rather imposed than mutually agreed to. And what was imposed by the former Communist regime was, of course, not just!

Questioning the borders of the Republic of Croatia to the extent and in the manner the authors did in this book, indicates a political agenda of Croatian territorial expansion into Bosnian territories. In view of such claims, this book could also be perceived as a piece of propaganda rather than an impartial historical overview. It is worth exploring how this book was placed in the reference section of a reputable university library (Robarts Library - University of Toronto), and what the motives of the publisher to promote this manuscript were.

A disappointing collection, with only one interesting paper: an essay by Francine Friedman and Robin Remington on the changes of strategy of the Bosniak political leadership during the war. Other contributions include a routine survey of EU policy on the war (by K. Messas), and a paper on Milosevic's policies and the Western response, by Obrad Kesic, which sneers at those Western 'moralists' who placed the primary blame for the war on Milosevic

politic

Michael Kihntopf's "Handcuffed to a Corpse" purports to be a history of Germany's intervention on behalf of the Austro-Hungarian empire during the First World War. The author asserts that "few historians have recorded the events of the World War I's [sic] Balkan and Galician Fronts." Perhaps, although Norman Stone's book on the Eastern Front is still available, and remains a solid, informative work. This, on the other hand, is not.

Kihntopf's account is, above all, superficial: the book has a mere 113 pages of text -- with fairly large type -- and there is really nothing new here. Indeed, the author has failed to consult any non-English language sources, an unforgivable failing for someone who is attempting to give a history of the German and Austro-Hungarian side of the war. Not that the author's command of English is too steady: the frequent grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors lead me to conclude that no one ever bothered to edit this book. More importantly, the author makes frequent, careless factual errors: the military governor of Bosnia was Oskar Potiorek, not "Potinorek;" the Belgian monarch was King Albert, not "Prince Albert." Finally, the book ends in 1917 -- not with the Russian Revolution (which would have made some sense), but on New Year's Day -- as if that date had any military or political significance. Perhaps the author could have justified this incomprehensible choice, but he seems to have omitted any conclusion from his final chapter.

On the plus side, there are complete organizational tables for the German and Russian armies as they stood at the outbreak of the war, although these are readily available in other books (as is the Austro-Hungarian -- it is baffling why this was omitted here). The maps are marginally useful, and the photographs are interesting. In sum, the information here is available in other books, at better prices, and with a better chance of reliability. I recommend the aforementioned book by Norman Stone or Holger Herwig's book on the German and Austro-Hungarian war efforts. Also, Spencer Tucker's short volume on the war does a better job of covering the Eastern Front than most other general histories, and is highly recommended.

This unusually shrill piece of pro-Pale polemics claims that the February 1994 market-place mortar shell, like the one in August 1995, was 'a self-inflicted act of terrorism by the Sarajevo regime'; contains much flesh-creeping rhetoric on the subject of 'Mujahedin'; and solemnly warns that any Western military intervention in Bosnia will lead to 'a new world war'. Curiously, the text was produced in November 1995: anyone can get predictions wrong in advance of the event, but it requires a special talent to make false predictions about events that have already happened.