A first-hand account of the endgame in Bosnia, To End A War left me thinking at times that Mr. Holbrooke had succumbed to the same nationalist passions and irrational behavior he went around accusing everyone else of. The book sticks to the facts, but they are not the most interesting part. What is more appealing are the inconsistencies in Holbrooke's personal beliefs, his almost racist approach and arrogance, and the revealing passages about the side in the conflict everyone had thought angelic so far. A disturbing book for a reader from the Balkans, this is nevertheless an excellent resource for examining the creation of the New Diplomacy, with all of its resplendent consequences today. One cannot understand the modern world without it. Read with extreme caution and with scrutiny. And, unlike Holbrooke, try to put your prejudices on hold before opening the covers.

Holbrooke summarizes the events in the former Yugoslavia in a few hundred pages and gives some insight into an important American question: Why did we send troops over there, anyhow? The transformation of a foreign war into a "vital national interest" as defined in the--for example, I know the timelines conflict--1997 US National Military Strategy is one most Americans (myself included) never understood.

There are altruistic reasons to get involved, but that alone may not be enough to commit military forces that are in limited supply, when injustice is seemingly unlimited. There are regional security issues, but the former Yugoslavia was not of regional concern to the US. Rather the reason for our involvement (as described by Holbrooke) was principally that only America had the political and military clout to negotiate a peace settlement. While critics claim this as American ego, Holbrooke says the EU, while an excellent unifier of economic concerns, did not yet command concensus with regards to security issues and could not handle the problem without US involvement. In this book, Holbrooke relived day-by-day the story as it unfolded around him.

Anyhow, long story short...good book. Its value lies in describing a version of the US political mindset for involvement in Yugoslavia. And it explains why we sent troops there. Detractors of the book are that it gets a bit wordy, and that Holbrooke sometimes has trouble reigning in his State-Department-sized ego, a condition common around the beltway. Pretty good book; solid work.

"Reads like a thriller" wrote one student on his course evaluation. This account by Clinton's principal negotiator to end the conflict in the Balkans takes the reader from the landmined mountain roads of Bosnia to the late-night arm-twisting of Milosevic and others at Wright-Patterson AFB. I have used the book in different courses to provide an understanding of the substance of the Balkan conflicts, the role of leadership, and an on-the-ground exposition of diplomacy. Students tend to have two kinds of reactions. First, it reveals (through an admittedly single, American perspective) the issues at stake in the Balkans. But it also offers a more general model for the unseen stakes and battles in diplomacy itself: the variety of interests, the relative (in)flexibility of position on different issues, examples of "spin" to the press, and displays of persistence, skill and the occasional human error (uh, we forgot to consult Croatia!).

Although the roads are better in New York, the book helps one begin to imagine some of the behind-the-scenes battles in the 2002-2003 UN negotiations on military action in Iraq.

Noel Malcolm's reputation as an authority on the Balkans has been established by his previous (and equally illuminating) studies of the region. In Kosovo: A Short History, Malcolm traces the origins of the myths that are relavant in regional conflicts today. But his book is more than just an explanation of historical fact: his prose and research are exemplary! Contrary to some other criticisms, his sections on ethnicity and linguistics are fascinating! The allegations of bias are valid but only in the intellectual sense that all history is subjective and therefore biased. I am Serbian, and I must admit that I approached this book with the same scepticism I approach all material relating to Serbia. Most of the content published today trivialises Serbian feelings towards Kosovo, and the Albanian's struggle for equality as well. This work is interesting and informative - a must for any student of history and anyone who wishes to understand the Balkans of today.

Frankly I'm amazed at those reviewers who accuse the author of anti Serb bias - this can only mean that anyone who doesn't go along with the full panoply of Serbian nationalist mythology and sense of victimhood is anti-Serb! This book is genuinely illuminating and helpful and even-handedly takes swipes at both Albanian and Serbian overstatements. For example, contrary to what some Serbians say, Kosovo simply is not the cultural 'cradle" or 'heartland' of Serbia - if anywhere that is Rascia (Raska) further north, well within Serbia proper. On the other hand, despite what some Albanian historians claim, medieval Kosovo was definitely predominantly Serb. And so on. Also the author says - and I strongly agree - that a more positive interpretation needs to be taken of the Ottoman empire - compared to many European states the Ottoman empire was a model of tolerance and good government - at least to start with (it degenerated later into incompetence and corruption). An excellent book and well worth reading - it will probably annoy Serbs and Albanians equally. One criticism I do have is that the author spends a lot of time discussing details of documentary and linguistic controversies which interrupt the narrative, are not always easy to follow, and which ought perhaps to have been banished to the footnotes.

Remarkable for its thoroughness in its research. Malcolm has dug up many documented sources that seem not to have seen the light of day for some time. According to Malcolm, "there is not a single library, in Western Europe or even in the Balkans, that offers all the relevant materials under one roof." That is a tragedy. But it goes along way to explaining the distortions of the region's history. The citation list for this book is a virtual tour of libraries and holdings in the cities and towns of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires and those of the Great Powers of the 19th century. Again this isn't surprising as a great deal of the historical mythology was created during the last half of the 19th century.

"Kosovo: a short history" is remarkable in its clear, readable prose. This is not a dull text. And the region and its history should have been better known to the West. Right through the book, well-known historical figures make cameo appearances. My favourite was a fellow who in 1912 or 1913 was " shocked by the evidence he encountered of atrocities by Serbian and Bulgarian forces." The fellow would later become better known as Leon Trotsky. But the book is full of these oddities. It isn't surpising. Look at a map and Kosovo was an overland route to the Middle East - and a bulwark of the Ottoman Empire against Western and Central Europe: Christian Europe. I should have known all this much earlier, but - like most western educated historians - I didn't pay enough attention.

This book dissects meticulously various reasons & aspects of the bosnian deluge. All in all, it's an indispensable reading. BUT, it oversimplifies one aspect of war: Croat-Muslim conflict. An uninformed reader may get the impression that Croats tried to cleanse Muslims from Central Bosnia and Herzegovina. Numbers speak the opposite:

1. Intercommunal fighting ethnically "cleansed" 150,000 Croats from Muslim-held areas & 50,000 Muslims from Croat-held areas.

2. Civilian victims of coldly calculated massacres: circa 200 Muslims and 960 Croats.

3. In Central Bosnia, Croatian forces ( HVO) fought ( successfully ) an uphill battle-they were outnumbered 12/1 by Muslim soldiers.

*This* story was presented one-sidedly & schematically via accepted stereotypes ( poor Muslims, who as if by magic earned the name Bosnians, are purely & undisputably the sole victims ). Yet, they were as yet unrecognized aggressors & butchers as well.

Cigar's "Genocide in Bosnia" is a commendable analysis of the political developments, primarily in Serbia, which eventually made possible the atrocities committed in Bosnia, and of the equivocation and general impotence of Western Europe and America in the early phases of the war. Cigar unambiguously takes the view that genocide was in fact committed in Bosnia, first and primarily by the Serbian forces and later by the Croats, and he backs up this argument with a great deal of meticulous research. Cigar's crucial point is that creating the political atmosphere which made it possible for a large number of people to accept what were generally genocidal actions was a top-down process, initiated and fomented by political leaders such as Milosevic (and later Croatia's Tudjman) who found that vitriolic and virulent nationalism was useful means to cement their hold on power. This, of course, flies in the face of the oft-repeated view of conflict fueled by irrational "ancient ethnic hatreds" proffered by spineless politicians and Balkan "experts." The truth was (and is) that the dubious concept of historical memory was simply a political tool to generate and maintain mass support. Perhaps Cigar can be criticized for having an excessively pro-Muslim bias, but regardless of what one thinks of individual Muslims political or military leaders, the Bosnian Muslims, and all of those (Muslim, Croat or Serb) who wanted a unified multiethnic Bosnia, were by far the primary victims of the war. My principal criticism is that Cigar overplays the extent of opposition and criticism to the Croat-Muslim conflict and official Croatian policy toward Bosnia in general among certain groups and institutions in Croatia (while at the same time downplaying such opposition in Serbia). Particularly questionable is Cigar's example of the Catholic Church as a source of opposition to Tudjman's policies in Croatia. While many in the Church hierarchy did make guarded public protests, much of the Church's rank-and-file passively or actively supported Tudjman's nationalist policies (this was very much the case in Herzegovina). Also, the last few chapters, in which Cigar discusses prospects for the future and dwells on junctions where different policy actions could have been taken are both dated (the book was published in 1995 before the key turning points in both Croatia and Bosnia that year) and engage in too much pointless speculation.

This book reveals the gruesome atrocities that were committed in Bosnia during the Bosnian war. Many people assume that it was a civil war, when in fact it was a genocide. It has been corroborated that Serbians started the war in an attempt to annihilate non-Serbs and create a "Great Serbia", comprising of serbs only. Other reviewers who have criticized the book are clearly oblivious to the following facts: of the 300.000 victims in Bosnia- 85% were Muslims; 90% of all war crimes in Bosnia were committed by Serbs ( Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic, Arkan and numerous others). On that account, we can conclude that Serbs are the perpetrators and Muslims are the victims. This is a fact of life. I highly recommend this book to people who want to know the truth about the war in Bosnia.

A good, popular history, written by two leading experts. Their story begins in the Middle Ages and ends in early 1994. I personally like Noel Malcom's short history a bit better, but this one is also good. Donia and Fine, like Malcom are critical of the international community, accusing its representatives of issuing "idle threats" and "(distorting) the nature of the conflict to justify inaction." (I would give it another half star, if it were possible for me to do so.)

Since this book was written with the express intent of being a short historical survey menat to clearly and concisely refute a number of widely-held misconceptions about Bosnia and the Bosnian Muslims, I find of the criticisms below (that the book is insubstantial, does not contain enough facts, etc.) misplaced. For those who want more detail, the authors thoughtfully provided a "further reading" list at the end of the book. Otherwise, Donia and Fine have done a commendable job of summarizing Bosnia's complicated history, as well as clarifying the origins of the Bosnian Muslims. Perhaps the book can be faulted for being overly passionate in its arguments in support of the much-contested specific Bosnian national identity, but the authros were writing under the influence of the often incorrect characterization of Bosnian society that was being presented by much of the media (both ex-Yugoslav and international) during the early 1990s. Alhtough a strong case can be made for the existence ofa distinct Bosnian national character, the communal bonds between the country's three main groups (Muslim, Croat and Serb) and between the more cosmopolitan cities and the surrounding rural communities, were not strong enough at the time the war broke out to hold Bosnian society together. This is the tragedy of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the authors did much to explain this. Despite the book's summary of the war being dated by subsequent events (it was published in 1994, before the signing of the Dayton Accords), it is still a much better source of information on Bosnia and its tragic war than much of the clap-trap written on the former Yugoslavia (i.e. books by Misha Glenny or Robert Kaplan) that is still being widely read and recommended even today.

The history of Bosnia and the Third balkan War have both mystified the American public. Few Americans take the time to understand that Bosnia's history and its inter-ethnic relations between Croats, Serbs, and Muslims are quite complex. Many subscribe to the myth that "Serbs, Croats and Muslims have been killing each other for thousands of years. Why worry about it now?" Ray Bradbury,had said during a program of "Politically Incorrect" that such was the tragic case of Bosnia-Hercegovina.

Donia and Fine's book systematically, clearly, and convincingly pointed out that such was not the case in Bosnia. They pointed out that Serbs, Croats, and Muslims basically got along well with each other for centuries. The people of Bosnia converted not only to Islam during the Ottoman occupation, but to Catholocism and Orthodoxy as well. Certainly, Muslims received better political treatment during the occupation from the Porte, but Croats (Catholics) and Serbs (Orthodox) were not as malignantly treated as the vitriolic nationalist Milosevic would like the world to believe.

Serbs and Croats did not become antagonistic with one another until 1878, when the Austro-Hungarian Empire occupied Bosnia. This occupation drove a wedge between them and by the early twentieth century, some minor bloodshed occurred between Croatian and Serbian nationalists in Zagreb. Even still, it was not even close to the genocide of the Third Balkan War.

However, hundreds of thousands of Serbs were killed during the German and Italian occupation of Bosnia during Workd War II. (Some Serbs say 1 million, some Croats cite 200,000 as the figure.)One can safely argue that the twentieth century was the only century for bloodshed between the peoples of the Bosnia.

Most of all, Donia and Fine make it clear to the reader that one should not dismiss Bosnia because its tradition of mutual tolerance has been lost. Submitting to the notion that there is no reason why anyone should be concerned about Bosnia because they hav! e "always been bloodthirsty" only gave the Bosnian Serbs the go-ahead to massacre its neighbors. This dismissive attitude was present among American diplomats throughout the war, and with their indecision about putting ground troops only prolonged it. Furthermore, American diplomats believed that the Vance-Owen Plan ratified ethnic cleansing, and they were unwilling to pressure the Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic with the Plan and to support the EC and its approval of the Plan. As flawed as the Plan was, no one but Cyrus Vance and Lord David Owen came up with anything better. At the time (1993), it seemed as though this was the only option the world had. Unfortunately, the United States refused to deploy ground troops to defend the Plan. I wonder what may have happened if the World cooperated to put a stop to this ethnic cleansing with the defense of the Plan. Perhaps the world would not have had to witness the horrors of Srebrenica.

As an American born child growing up in a Croatian household, I always felt my parent's passion for Croatia. I had a deep longing to understand my parents and what they suffered as Croatians in Yugoslavia.

Throughout school and college I referred to myself as an American-Croatian. Many wouldn't know where or what that was, and some would question, "Don't you mean you're from Yugoslavia?" It was at that point my Croatian passion, knowledge and experience would be shared and told to all around me.

Jerry Blaskovich's, Anatomy of Deceit, is about his personal experience, passion and knowledge on Croatian history, the vicious war and what the distorted "Yugoslavian" government represented to Croatians in the United States and in Croatia.

Anatomy of Deceit takes the reader into the complicated realities of Croatian history and suffering. It disects the truth behind the distorted creation of Yugo and the Anti-Croatian propaganda machine. The reader is then launched into the atrocities of war. The destruction, killings, mass graves, and rapes by the Serbs come alive in these pages. The reader feels, sees, and smells the war through the eyes of a phyisican trying to makes sense, and escape the sreams of war. You hear these screams and feel the deep pain that lingers long after the book is finished.

As far as the proof reading errors, the publisher is responsibile and not the author, for editing of final proof. The content and message of Anatomy of Deceit goes beyond human spelling and grammar errors, it grips and ripes at the heart.

Croatians will never forget what they had to go through to be able to scream their name and not fear for their lives.

Zivoli Hravti!

In "Anatomy of Deceit" Jerry Blaskovich offers a genuine and engaging account of how he experienced the war in Croatia. Blaskovich is particularly concerned to witness how he encountered several dramatic events. Accordingly, his narrative is personal and direct. This makes "Anatomy of Deceit" highly readable and absorbing. Furthermore, because of his attention to detail and his commitment to facts, Blaskovich's work also constitutes an important historical document. His knowledge of forensic matters as well as of particular events (the massacre of Vocin) is rare. Finally, Blaskovich's pragmatic criticism of the international community as well as the Croatian response to the war is refreshing and helpful. I believe that his critique of the political omissions that were made can serve as a lesson for many fledgling nations as well as those concerned with conflict management. In this sense, "Anatomy of Deceit" is valuable not only as an excellent introduction to the events of 1991 but also as a source of insights for the modern policymaker.

As a Croatian, I am aware that my reaction to the book will be biased. In my assessment of its qualities, however, I have attempted to bring out its strengths as a text. Also, it seems to me undeniable that Blaskovich is very knowledgeable and that he is a strong writer. These are criteria by which a work like his should be judged. I have found them little addressed in some other reviews on this webpage. That is why I feel compelled to strongly recommend "Anatomy of Deceit" to the interested reader.

Jerry Blaskovich's superb book is based on his own experience of the Serbian invasion, occupation, and ethnic cleansing of no less than one third of Croatia. Much of the horrors he relates are genuinely disturbing. Apart from his own experiences, he takes time to debunk all sorts of nonsense put out by the Serbs.

It should be remembered that the Serbs had control of the propaganda machinery in Yugoslavia; Croatia therefore had none. As a consequence, many naïve journalists and politicians went to Yugoslav sources for information, completely unaware of the fact that such sources were in fact Serbian ones. Hence the bizarre myths such as "Serbs fought the Nazis", "all sides guilty", "Serbs persecuted in Croatia" etc. These were deployed against the Croats to prevent western intervention, so that genocide and ethnic cleansing could proceed apace to create an obscene Nazi style "Greater Serbia" state. Blaskovich gives full details of all the various propaganda scams.

The fact that the Yugoslav Army was Serbian controlled and that Croatia (weaponless) did not invade Serbia gives the game away as to who the aggressor was in the war; Blaskovich also elaborates on the Serb dominated nature of the old Yugoslavia.

Despite the horrors he describes, this is ultimately a positive work. There is much energy in this book, enthusiasm for Croatia and a forceful rebuttal of propaganda. As such, it most readable.

This is a truthful book. To verify its accuracy, I strongly recommend Marcus Tanner's " Croatia : A Nation Forged in War" As Mr Tanner is British, his impartiality is not in doubt.

Glenny's book is a detailed guide to the places and people in dynamic conflict at the beginning of the "Third Balkan War". From Milan Babic and his hate-crazed Serb followers in the Krajina, to the March 1991 opposition rally in the streets of Belgrade, to the appalling destruction of Vukovar and Mostar, Glenny focuses on the personalities of the leaders and the people who trapped themselves in a cynical and inevitable march towards self-destruction. Greedy, corrupt leaders vaulted to the fore by tapping into a subconscious vein of popular nationalism. They were followed over the edge by unthinking adherents characterized by a uniquely Balkan combination of ruthlessness, self-righteousness, and utter inhumanity. It is good to ride with Glenny as he travels through a country in the process of explosive suicide if only to remind ourselves that even in Europe civilization is but a thin facade masking deep hatreds and combustive violence.

Glenny's central thesis, that Serb hegemony over Croats in a united Yugoslavia and Croat hegemony over Serbs in an independent Croatia will always lead to tensions is incontrovertible. His corollary, that wicked self-serving leaders are able to exploit these tensions and turn them to violence in the absence of a reasoned political debate and vigorous interest by the international communtiy, is an indictment of the Slavs' chronic inability to compromise.

Could Yugoslavia have split up peacefully? Probably, but not after popular elections gave power to leaders such as Tudjman and Milosevic. It is a fantastical jump to posit that Yugoslavs could have engaged in a peaceful separation on the Czech/Slovak model, because the first criterion for such a process is enlightened leadership in Zagreb and Belgrade. This does not exist. There was nothing inevitable about the Third Balkan War, we all saw it coming like a train wreck and it happened all the same. Glenny's first-hand account written in an engaging prose that combines journalism and historical analysis is an excellent guide to these tragic events.

Misha Glenny is an expert on the wars in ex-Jugoslavia. An Englishman, and a speaker of Serbo-croat, Glenny takes his reader through the mess that was the Yugoslav civil war, with eyewitness accounts that display both humanity and at other times extreme brutality. One thing in particular I must commend Glenny on is his refusal to classify the Serbs as the only bad guys, or the only instigators of the war (as much Western media has done). He places blame on various players: Milosevic, Serb paramilitaries, Bosnian politicians, Franjo Tudman and his nationalitic cronies, Germany, etc... This book invokes great sympathy in its readers for all the victims of the war:Muslims, Yugoslavs, Serbs, and Croats. He usually carefully distinguishes between the Serb-dominated Yugoslav Army and the nationalistic Serb new-Chetnik gangs who were the primary brutes involved in civilian atrocities; an important distinction. However, if you do not already have a general knowledge of the region's history, this book may at times be a bit confusing. Although many of his statements on Kosovo are innacurate, I don't find that to be highly relevant to the overall book. Highly recommended!

Having worked in Bosnia in the late '80s, this book has particular relevance for me. I know the place names, the people, the locations and the language. Those 4 characteristics seem essential for gleaning a lot from this book, since the events it describes, as Mr Glenny readily admits, were felt to be so confusing for "Western" television audiences that some events were at times misrepresented altogether.

Irrespective of that requirement for basic (historical) knowledge about the conflict, I believe that this is a superlative example not solely of journalism on the go, but of weaving together the actions of the various actors - people, governments, movements, acronyms - into a coherent frame. To say that "sanctions should not be imposed on either Serbia or Croatia" undermines much of the political rhetoric spewed out by Western nations, explicitly recognising the futility of NATO or anyone else do to ANYthing about the multitude of conflcits that took place simultaneously: we can't do anything about it, so lets impose some sanctions.

This is not a book for the novice, however, since novices cannot be expected to understand the wealth of detail at any more than the most superficial level. Unfortunately, such is the nature of popular journalism, TV viewers will never be anything but novices - shocked by images for a few seconds, but not really understanding WHY anything happens. Unfortunately, it seems that politicians didn't understand why either, and many of the problems resulted from inappropriate actions taken in consequence.

A book that needs to be read, if only for the shedding of light on Croatian history, which for too long was hidden or re- written by others. Putting aside his conclusions to the recent war, which seem to arose most criticism, he has written an even handed history of Croatia since early times, although sometimes he fails to place Croatia in its historical context, as a small nation in the greater general upheavals of Europe. Even so, Tanner has relied on many varied sources, not just myths created since the Second World War by both Western and East European historians, which many Western historians are now acknowledging as myths, half tuths or deceptions, of which Tanner is one.

Tanner is neither a Croatian nor an academic, and this limits the book in both understanding and the depth of its research. And yet, the book is successful all the same. It is a quick and accurate overview of Croatia's long and complicated history. Useful for those new to the region and its issues. Some of Tanner's conclusions (particularly those for the most recent events) are decidedly pro-Croat nationalist (unabashed support for Tudjman and the HDZ), and the still-important WW2 events are not carefully considered. But overall, it is a good, if simple book. You may want to complement it with Goldstein's history as well.

Anyone interested in going beyond the standard media sound byte to understand the history of Croatia, will find Tanner's book an invaluable resource. Tanner chronicles in detail the long history of the Croatian people and emergence of the Croatian state, including the birth and shaping of national identity, personalities, myths and changing political panorama. While most works on the subject deal with specific, disjointed time periods of Croatian history, Tanner provides an insightful and comprehensive account - complete with references and facts rarely found in other sources. An enlightening read about a surprisingly complex nation and its turbulent path through the historical landscape.

The entire book ought to be re-written. The phrase "Kosovo is holy land" etc is being repeated again and again. And it may be so to serbs nowadays, but it was never to the medieval serbs. The national myths about a crushing defeat in the battle 1389 have no basis in the known sources. Nevertheless, the myths are being repeated over and over to maintain the idea of the national martyrdom. This myth is essential: If the medieval serbs did not sacrifice themselves for christianity and their nation, this martyrdom would not exist. The souces to medieval history tells a different story than that of the myth, but the myth still prevails in "Kosovo". Thus the history of the serb state in the middle ages is being used for strictly present purposes, which, in this particular case, is misuse of historical facts.

The one star I chose to rate the book with was chosen because of the persuasiveness of the book. I almost believed it! I read it before learning about the hard facts.

The author William Dorich uses the talents of well respected Writers,Historians & Professors in getting his history of Serbia & Serbians in Kosovo across to the reader. Dorich traces the Serbs in Kosovo from there arrival over 1000 years ago,to the famous battle of Kosovo in 1389 where the Serbian ruler Lazar led a combined Christian force of Serbs,Bosnians &Albanians against the Ottoman Turks,through the horrible years of Turkish rule,where many Serbs migrated out of Kosovo,& through the Balkan & World Wars where Serbs were again driven out of Kosovo with often tragic results.(ethnic cleansing!) Dorich also covers in detail the plight of serbs from Tito through to the 1980's,where the Albanian majority imposed numerous restrictions on minority Serbs while they (Albanians)ran the Government of the provence of Kosovo. THIS BOOK IS A MUST READ for all people interested in Serbian,Albanian,European & Balkan History.

Everybody who still argues about such chauvinistic thesis as "illyrian descent of albanians","late settling of Slavs" and other hypothesis set by german nazional-socialistic historians(Gustaff Kossina),should contemplate the facts in this book.The theory that Slavs were indigenious to Balkan peninsula,is gaining more and more suport amoung certain scientist.The fact is that Serbians are idigenious people for at least several millenia-anthropologicaly-and language is second class category when ethnicity is in question-and it is more and more plausible that illyrians were actualy Slavs-inscription by Illyrian tribe of Veneti are found to be Slavic.Fact is that Illyrians inhabited entire Balkan,but there is not a single enclave of Albanians outside the south-western part of it.The truth is that Albanians have no ties with Illyrians-they call themselves Shiptars and are actually two peoples-Tosks and Ghegs.That they are recent settlers in kosovo is proven by fact that in albania there is ratio Christian vs. Muslims 60:40,while in kosovo ratio is 2:98-because Turks collonised only Muslims.By reading this book,reader will get first-class knowledge about authochtonity of Serbs in kosovo and how this teritory was settled by Albanians only in last 300 years-and how their numerical predominance is for only last few decades. Everybody should know to make difference between petty Brussels propaganda and historic truth. This book proves that Kosovo was,is,and will be Serbian-by the virtue of historical logic-regardless of the fact that world is turned upside-down since march 24,1999-simply because of Serbs ancient mentality-not to put themselves volontarily to slavery-as many Eastern Europians gladly did.

It seems as though anyone that raises a voice against Serbian propaganda is immediately branded a racist anti-orthodox zealot. This is certainly what's happened with Mr. Judah and it is just as certainly false. Mr. Judah does a good job of presenting the facts about the Serbian history and mentality. Like many prominent historians and journalists he draws the conclusion that the conflicts in the Former Yugoslavia were caused by two factors: 1. A leadership that preyed on it's own people to advance it's interests. 2. A population that has been spoon-fed so much revisionist history and propaganda that it is incredibly malleable and suffers from a martyrdom complex. To see many of the points in this book illustrated by time and history read Mr. Judah's next book, Kosovo: War and Revenge.

Please ignore the other reviews on this page. They have obviously been written by people with some pent up ethnic hatreds, who can't cope with the reality that some members of their group aren't as innocent as they would like them to be. I have read practically every book on this subject I could get my hands on. Judah's book is by far the most comprehensive, well-researched and fairly balanced book on Balkan history. To top it all of, Judah also has an elegant writing style. I am Serb, but my Turkish friend and I both agree that this is the best book on the history of the Balkans we have ever read, and if a Turk and a Serb can agree on one version of history, it's got to be something special...

Who are the Serbs? Following the highly destructive warfare that obliterated the complex, multiethnic country of Yugoslavia beginning in 1991, they are now a pariah, no matter how much policy makers deny this fact. The human tendency for utter destructiveness - vastly documented in the history of the Second World War - was shown in this decade-long episode of recent history, almost as if history itself was being repeated. Tim Judah, in this superb and phenomenal book, has documented history, current events, biography and brilliant writing to paint a picture of the Serbs, who are human beings like us all.

The book draws upon the existing vast historiography and Judah's own experiences and interviews that he recorded and collected during his time throughout the former Yugoslavia. He reported for several leading Western newspapers, such as the London Times, The Economist, The Sunday Telegraph, The Guardian, and most notably the New York Review of Books, where he covered the war in Kosovo. He continues to appear on panel discussions, interviews and his opinion is consulted whenever something significant takes place in the current rump Yugoslavia of Serbia and Montenegro. Judah speaks Serbo-Croat and Albanian, among other languages, which gives him a tremendous advantage; several books cited in the Bibliography are in the original language. Additionally, he has cited Italian and French works on the history of the Balkan region. The current book was first published in 1997 following the war in Bosnia. It was completely revised in 2000 with an additional chapter to cover the events of the Kosovo war (1998-).

The book is divided into seventeen chapters, the first eight of which are historical; the remaining seven plunge into current events and details of the Balkan wars, most especially the political scene in Belgrade, background to key personalities behind the bloodshed, the conditions on the fronts, and the experiences of ordinary civilians on all sides. To prove the extent to which Serb nationalist leaders were able to draw upon a tumultuous history of the Serbs in order to win favor over the masses, Judah condenses the history of the Serbs, from medieval times to the fall of Josip Broz "Tito," the Yugoslav leader that ruled the country for over three decades following the Second World War. Judah examines the highlights of Serb history (which would later be rekindled by nationalists in the late 20th century), particularly the details surrounding the Battle of Kosovo, in June 1389, when Serb forces under Tsar Lazar were defeated by Muslim Turk forces, thus ensuring nearly four hundred years of domination by the Ottoman Empire (pp. 29-47).

Tim Judah's thesis is that politics and politicians instigated the destruction of Yugoslavia, but that nationalist politicians could not have come to power to instigate their harm had there not been a tumultuous history to which they could have turned and manipulated, thereby grossly misleading the Serbs while embarking on a horrific war path. By discussing the history of the Serbs, particularly those episodes drawn on by these nationalists and propagandists, Judah puts the conflicts into context, showing how easy it was to fall into war with rampant emotions and a nationalist fervor.

Judah is a phenomenal writer; his is the work of the professional journalist, reporting events as they happen. The transition from history to current events however, which takes place between Chapters 8 and 9, is fast and abrupt. The reader for one moment is reading about Titoist Yugoslavia, when in the next moment they find themselves reading of the early years of Slobodan Milosevic and his rise to power in 1987. Although Judah commendably knows his history and the personalities of his subjects, he occasionally writes far too much in a sentence, something of which could be slightly overwhelming for the average reader. All the same, he does a terrific job in synthesizing the massive and complex history of the Serbs into little more than one hundred pages, a history in which volumes upon volumes and thousands of pages could have been written. Most certainly, this book is essential for those that wish to gain a perspective on the situation in the former and current Yugoslavia; it beats sole press reports!

Looking at some reviews posted on online bookshops, one finds that Judah is often accused of being highly critical of the Serbs, that his judgments are extreme, and that he does not examine in sufficient detail the roles of other non-Serb nationalists who played an active and important role in the destruction of Yugoslavia. Judah himself noted in his Introduction that the Serbs were under the (common) false accusation that they are the "chief villains" in the conflicts. There is a difference between cliché and truth, but clichés are always born of some sort of truth. The Serbs are by no means any different from other people, and they are not the sole "villains" in the wars, but their politicians were most certainly the aggressors. If Milosevic had not assumed power, the history of Yugoslavia would have taken a much different turn; sadly, he epitomized the worst extreme and did the most to destroy the country, and it was his people that, in euphoria, rallied behind him. In addition, Judah's book is about the Serbs. Perhaps if it were about all the ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia, then perhaps these accusations of not pointing fingers at enough criminals would be non-existent. Judah's account is very objective, though his contempt for the highly cynical leaders and attitudes taken in the wars is evident. He has described these to be "stupid."

This book is essential reading, as is Judah's most recent book on the Kosovo conflict, now a companion volume to this current book. Quite simply, these two books are the most important that I have ever read.