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.

I just wonder how did this woman get her University degree. This book does not show it.A total waste of time by a woman who has nothing else to do but put her lies and sick thoughts on a paper.

Took my breath away, a must read

Dr. Markovic is truly a great writter. One of my all time favorites, this book is a definite classic. Makes women proud. Every page is a work of art on it's own. Very powerful troughout.

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?

Too academic and philosophic. I could not finish the book. If you want to know about Tito, read West's book.

It hardly needs to be said that anyone interested in studying the life and times of the famed Yugoslav dictator Tito cannot avoid reading this book. Milovan Djilas was one of Tito's most trusted deputies during the communist-led antifascist resistance during World War II, and one of Yugoslavia's most influential politicians during the immediate postwar years (considered one of the regime's chief ideologues). Even after his break with Tito in the early 1950s and general fall from grace, Djilas kept abreast of Yugoslav political events at the highest levels, as well as the personalities standing behind them. Here he offers a relatively candid and often critical view of Tito, and provides many insights into his actions and motivations. At one point in the text, Djilas also inadvertently repeats some of the rationalizations used by Tito and other Yugoslav officials for the often brutal political repression of opponents (both real and imagined), especially after the 1948 Comintern crisis. All in all, this is a very readable and illuminating insider's account of Tito and his leadership style.

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.

General essays on such subjects as the idea of Yugoslavia (a valuable summary by Ivo Banac), Titoism (a routine article by Paul Shoup) and EC policy in 1991 (a short and dim piece by Maarten Lak); this is not a sharply focused book, and contains little of direct relevance to the war in Bosnia

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 is the worst anti-Bulgarian propaganda I have seen in the recent years. Unbelievable the author is a Bulgarian women which unmistakably sold its country, culture and people. On one hand we have a book full of lies and misunderstandings and on other, the arrogant and false statements of her friends and colleagues ( with positive opinions ) posted on Amazon.com.The Bulgarian community was outrage of this betrayal and many organization will take drastic measures to get this book out of publication as soon as possible. Do not consider anything from this author for any relay able source of information about Bulgaria. This country has a history of more than 1300 years, with enormous influence in the ancient world and deep roots in the European heritage. Land of heroes and legends, kings and treasures, land where the reality mix with the myth in the mists of Rhodopa Mountain.

Bulgaria - one god, one law, one nation ! Amen..

Any serious representation of Bulgaria, its people and culture in the Western world is a welcome celebration of our culture and rich history. Dr. Stavreva's fascinating book does not only quench masterfully the new interest of the Western World in our beautiful country, but also is the first swallow to bring the spring of our national culture and identity reflecting the cosmopolitan and politically and culturally tolerant spirit of the world community in the beginning of the new millenium.
In the following exegesis, I would like to address two matters: 1) the author's inspiring account of Bulgaria's rich historical and cultural heritage, accomplished with loving pathos and patriotism which should satisfy the highest expectations of the most demanding compatriots; and 2) the unfortunate testament to the lack of civilized and contemporary progressive understanding of the complexity of the making of a nation and the lack of patriotic integrity, which have been so profoundly expressed in the series of completely undeserved ill-intended and hateful reviews which Dr. Stavreva's work has received.
Let me turn to the first subject of my intent. I, too, since many reviewers proclaim as a point of authoritative prerogative, am Bulgarian. So are the author and a handful of other sober minded reviewers (Svetlana, Roumyana Slabakova, Zlatko Anguelov). I came upon Dr. Stavreva's book back in 1997 while browsing a bookstore's shelves to satisfy my couriosity what Americans would read to learn about my country. My attention was naturally called by the Bulgarian name of the author of Bulgaria (Cultures of the World). I was surprised even more pleasantly by the engaging and lively narrative of the book which winds diligently and with erudition down the intertwained paths of our rich and not-so-easy to explain history. What surprised me most is the author's intelligent and very humanistic portrayal of Bulgaria's diverse ethnic population and the challenges which this diversity poses for a small nation which has had to defend its identity on so many occasions in its history. For that I congratulate the author for her genuine humanism and patriotic integrity.

Let me address the second subject of my response. It is an unfortunate fact that the national shovinism and misunderstood national identity are still part of the mentality of some Bulgarians (even more so the ones who have chosen to place the Atlantic Ocean as a natural geographical line of separation between them and the difficulties of their fatherland ). The blind rage which penetrates some of the reviews is a result of two causes: 1) the reviewers' understandable ignorance of the process of book publishing in the US; and 2) the reviewers' misunderstood patrotism which is a remnant of the prejudice and uninformed citisenship, fostered in our schools 30-20 years ago. I regret that I am compelled to recall two facts from our not so remote history in order to make my point: the first one is a brilliant example of Bulgarian humanism which has entered the pages of world history: Bulgaria did not participate in the anti-semitic hatred of its allies. And today we are proud of this. The second one is a very unfortunate example: our long-lasting communist leader attempted to erase the Muslim minority from our enthic landscape in the 80es. And today we are not, I hope, so proud of this. So which way do we want to follow in the making of our new, revolutionary and progressive, open and post-communist identity? I think the answer lies in Dr. Stavreva's informed book, opposed by the spirited outbreak of her reviewers. We have given the Western World numerous examples of national integrity and inspiring patriotism. Let us do it again. It is time to move on.

Unlike some of those who have posted "reviews" of this book, I have actually read this wonderful introduction to Bulgarian culture and heritage. Readers will learn about the values and accomplishments of the Bulgarian people,while photographs on every page show the beauty of the country and the diversity of the nation. The vicious nonsense that those too lazy to look beyond the cover have posted here is inexcusable. Those who have attacked the book here with misrepresentations, hostility to minorities, and uninformed derision unfortunately accomplish precisely the opposite effect. I am Bulgarian and I really don't share this apparent hatered of minorities living in the country.