What do you think?
Rate this book
Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation
"The most authoritative account in English or any other language about how the war began."— The Washington Post Book World . "An essential resource for anyone of the conflict."— The New York Times Book Review .
403 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
51 people are currently reading
1496 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
August 3, 2016
This is an excellent book about a very confused period of recent history, namely: the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s. There are two problems with the book, neither of which are the fault of the co-authors, Laura Silber and Allan Little:
First of all, by 1997, when Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation was published, the last act of Yugoslavia's demise had not yet occurred. I am referring to the Kosovo War of 1998-1999, with the subsequent bombing of Belgrade by NATO.
Secondly, the authors tried hard to follow the many diplomatic moves by European countries, the United States, Russia, the UN, and NATO. The fact is that many of the Yugoslav parties, particularly Radovan Karadzic of the Republika Srpska (Bosnian Serb Republic), did not believe in negotiating in good faith. By the end, he was eliminated from all negotiations; and the International Court at the Hague put out an arrest warrant for him and his general, Ratko Mladic.
I think this is a valuable book: It shows what happens when the leaders of a country decide to favor one nationality in a multi-ethnic society over another. That is like letting the Angry White Males in the U.S. have their way at the expense of everyone else.
First of all, by 1997, when Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation was published, the last act of Yugoslavia's demise had not yet occurred. I am referring to the Kosovo War of 1998-1999, with the subsequent bombing of Belgrade by NATO.
Secondly, the authors tried hard to follow the many diplomatic moves by European countries, the United States, Russia, the UN, and NATO. The fact is that many of the Yugoslav parties, particularly Radovan Karadzic of the Republika Srpska (Bosnian Serb Republic), did not believe in negotiating in good faith. By the end, he was eliminated from all negotiations; and the International Court at the Hague put out an arrest warrant for him and his general, Ratko Mladic.
I think this is a valuable book: It shows what happens when the leaders of a country decide to favor one nationality in a multi-ethnic society over another. That is like letting the Angry White Males in the U.S. have their way at the expense of everyone else.
September 15, 2024
I'd read two similar books by Misha Glenny and Svetozar Stojanović - both titled 'The fall of Yugoslavia, but this didn't put me off wanting to return to the subject of this troubled region again. It's meticulously researched by, at the time (the mid 90s), the Financial Times Balkan correspondent Laura Silber and BBC journalist Alan Little (there was a TV documentary also which I haven't seen), and starts off by touching upon the rise of of Slobodan Milošević, Serb Nationalism and the Anti-Bureaucratic Revolution in the late 80s, through to the fall of Krajina in 1995. Chapters are quite short, but then again it does cover a hell of a lot of ground, and I didn't feel anything was left out. Also, I was glad to see that it wasn't politically bias. Glenny's book was easier to read but less detailed, whilst Stojanović's book felt more personal.
July 7, 2020
Yugoslavia officially ceased to exist on 4 February 2003. On that day, the last two republics of what had been a six-republic federation reorganized as the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro; and after that day, there was no longer such a place as Yugoslavia on the map of Europe. Yet the original Yugoslavia, the one that the world had known from 1945 through the end of the Cold War, had died long before – a bloody and protracted death – and Laura Silber and Allan Little capture the Yugoslav nation’s death throes quite well in their 1996 book Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation.
Authors Silber, from the Financial Times, and Little, from BBC radio and television, bring to their writing of Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation years of on-the-ground reporting on the tragedy of the 1990’s wars in the former Yugoslavia. As they are British, they understand that a large part of their task consists in making the intricate politics of that part of the Balkans accessible to an English-speaking, Western audience. It is helpful, therefore, that Silber and Little include not only a wealth of maps and photographs but also an eight-page “cast of characters” – something that you may find yourself turning to many times as you read this book.
Many who are old enough to remember the outbreak of the Yugoslav wars may have initially found the region's descent into violence surprising. After all, just eight years earlier a viewer of the opening ceremonies of the 1984 Winter Olympic Games in Sarajevo might have seen performers in traditional garb from Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia – singing in perfect harmony, dancing in graceful circles, while TV journalists remarked happily on how nice it was that these lovely people, who used to quarrel a good bit back in the day, now all got on so wonderfully well.
But there was discord underneath that seemingly perfect harmony. Close observers of the Yugoslav scene would have known that that picture of peaceful multiculturalism masked histories that were strongly different and viewpoints that were potentially opposed, depending on one’s cultural and religious background. Silber and Little aptly point out that the perspectives of a Bosniak Muslim, a Roman Catholic Croat, and an Eastern Orthodox Serb might be quite different, especially when it came to historic events like the Ottoman Empire’s 600-year occupation of all or part of Yugoslavia:
A fundamental difference among the three national groups was the collective perception of their historical experience. The Serbs, for example, regarded the Ottoman period as an age of occupation. For the Muslims it was an era which saw the creation and subsequent prosperity of their own particular élite. For decades, these contradictory perceptions had coexisted, but by 1990, the rise of Serbian nationalism had turned history into the purveyor of hatred. (p. 209)
A key perpetrator of that rise of Serbian nationalism, in those post-Cold War days of the early 1990’s, was Slobodan Milošević. Indeed, it was with dizzying speed that Serb leaders like Milošević, who just a few years earlier had been advocating an international socialist brotherhood that spurned petty nationalism, suddenly morphed into Serb superpatriots. They wept over the Serbian knights’ defeat by the Ottoman forces at the Battle of Kosovo Polje in 1389, and they vowed “revenge.” And since one cannot really take revenge against an empire that went out of existence in 1922, they would take revenge against whatever surrogate enemies could be found.
As separatist movements began in republics like Slovenia and Croatia, Milošević transformed the Yugoslav People’s Army – the Jugoslovenska narodna armija or JNA – from a multicultural national defence force to a de facto Serb militia. Silber and Little point out how “Milošević was to wrench the JNA away from its historic purpose, which was to preserve the Yugoslav state, toward a wholly different goal” – one of “protecting the Serbs outside Serbia and of forging a new territorial entity. Gradually, the Yugoslav Army would become, in its over-riding military objective, and eventually, in its ethnic composition and ideology, the army of Greater Serbia” (p. 114).
Milošević’s goal, his Velika Srbija or “Greater Serbia,” would have involved taking land from neighbouring Yugoslav republics – chiefly from Bosnia and Croatia; and while republics like Slovenia and Macedonia, with no significant Serb minority, could leave Yugoslavia with little or no violence, Bosnia and Croatia, with substantial Serb populations, erupted into war at its most hideous. All of us who were of the age of reason at that time remember the photos of emaciated Bosniak men held in concentration camps run by the Bosnian Serb Army – images that inescapably recalled the Nazi death camps of the Second World War. And with those images, a chilling new phrase entered the global lexicon: etničko čišćenje – “ethnic cleansing.”
To read Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation is to read a long and grotesque litany of monstrous war crimes, as with the July 1995 massacre by Bosnian Serb forces of Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia. Srebrenica, as Silber and Little explain, was supposed to be a “safe area” under protection by United Nations forces; but the number of United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) troops assigned to protect Srebrenica was grossly inadequate, and it had already been decided in Washington that Srebrenica was “unsustainable.” That “lack of international commitment” to protection of a terribly vulnerable community led to one of the most infamous horrors of the Bosnian War:
The fall of Srebrenica was the darkest moment in international involvement in Bosnia. UNPROFOR did nothing to stop the murder of perhaps as many as 8,000 Muslim men. Some were killed after having surrendered, believing the UN would protect them, others were hunted down while trying to escape to Bosnian government-held territory, and others committed suicide, unable to endure the harrowing trek to safe ground. (p. 345)
As the war dragged on, a revitalized Croatian Army successfully drove Serb separatists out of Croatian territory; and eventually, a peace accord was hammered out at a U.S. Air Force base in Dayton, Ohio - one that restored the international boundaries that had existed between and among the Yugoslav republics before the wars. But for a visitor to any of the contemporary republics of the former Yugoslavia, the impression that is likely to come through most clearly is of a region that remains noticeably on edge.
Having visited five of the six former Yugoslav republics, I can tell you that the people are delightful, the landscape wonderful, the culture fascinating. At the same time, sooner or later one sees a poster calling for the release of a general who was convicted of war crimes, or a bumper sticker on which one republic occupies all of the former Yugoslavia, or a photo on a building showing what that building looked like when it was bombarded by the other side’s artillery – or one hears a radio broadcaster explaining earnestly how the whole problem is the result of nationalism on the other side of the border. It feels as if it all happened quite recently – which, in a way, it did – and as if it could all start over again at any time.
Silber and Little’s bleak concluding assessment is that “in the post-Cold War world there is…no international will to protect the weak against the strong”, leaving “the lesson that to win freedom and security for one’s people requires neither a sound argument nor a good cause but a big army. Victory, in former Yugoslavia, will fall not to the just but to the strong” (p. 390). Reading Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation on a visit to Ljubljana, I found myself hoping that I was reading history only, and not an illustration of the shape of things to come in that beautiful and troubled part of the world.
Authors Silber, from the Financial Times, and Little, from BBC radio and television, bring to their writing of Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation years of on-the-ground reporting on the tragedy of the 1990’s wars in the former Yugoslavia. As they are British, they understand that a large part of their task consists in making the intricate politics of that part of the Balkans accessible to an English-speaking, Western audience. It is helpful, therefore, that Silber and Little include not only a wealth of maps and photographs but also an eight-page “cast of characters” – something that you may find yourself turning to many times as you read this book.
Many who are old enough to remember the outbreak of the Yugoslav wars may have initially found the region's descent into violence surprising. After all, just eight years earlier a viewer of the opening ceremonies of the 1984 Winter Olympic Games in Sarajevo might have seen performers in traditional garb from Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia – singing in perfect harmony, dancing in graceful circles, while TV journalists remarked happily on how nice it was that these lovely people, who used to quarrel a good bit back in the day, now all got on so wonderfully well.
But there was discord underneath that seemingly perfect harmony. Close observers of the Yugoslav scene would have known that that picture of peaceful multiculturalism masked histories that were strongly different and viewpoints that were potentially opposed, depending on one’s cultural and religious background. Silber and Little aptly point out that the perspectives of a Bosniak Muslim, a Roman Catholic Croat, and an Eastern Orthodox Serb might be quite different, especially when it came to historic events like the Ottoman Empire’s 600-year occupation of all or part of Yugoslavia:
A fundamental difference among the three national groups was the collective perception of their historical experience. The Serbs, for example, regarded the Ottoman period as an age of occupation. For the Muslims it was an era which saw the creation and subsequent prosperity of their own particular élite. For decades, these contradictory perceptions had coexisted, but by 1990, the rise of Serbian nationalism had turned history into the purveyor of hatred. (p. 209)
A key perpetrator of that rise of Serbian nationalism, in those post-Cold War days of the early 1990’s, was Slobodan Milošević. Indeed, it was with dizzying speed that Serb leaders like Milošević, who just a few years earlier had been advocating an international socialist brotherhood that spurned petty nationalism, suddenly morphed into Serb superpatriots. They wept over the Serbian knights’ defeat by the Ottoman forces at the Battle of Kosovo Polje in 1389, and they vowed “revenge.” And since one cannot really take revenge against an empire that went out of existence in 1922, they would take revenge against whatever surrogate enemies could be found.
As separatist movements began in republics like Slovenia and Croatia, Milošević transformed the Yugoslav People’s Army – the Jugoslovenska narodna armija or JNA – from a multicultural national defence force to a de facto Serb militia. Silber and Little point out how “Milošević was to wrench the JNA away from its historic purpose, which was to preserve the Yugoslav state, toward a wholly different goal” – one of “protecting the Serbs outside Serbia and of forging a new territorial entity. Gradually, the Yugoslav Army would become, in its over-riding military objective, and eventually, in its ethnic composition and ideology, the army of Greater Serbia” (p. 114).
Milošević’s goal, his Velika Srbija or “Greater Serbia,” would have involved taking land from neighbouring Yugoslav republics – chiefly from Bosnia and Croatia; and while republics like Slovenia and Macedonia, with no significant Serb minority, could leave Yugoslavia with little or no violence, Bosnia and Croatia, with substantial Serb populations, erupted into war at its most hideous. All of us who were of the age of reason at that time remember the photos of emaciated Bosniak men held in concentration camps run by the Bosnian Serb Army – images that inescapably recalled the Nazi death camps of the Second World War. And with those images, a chilling new phrase entered the global lexicon: etničko čišćenje – “ethnic cleansing.”
To read Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation is to read a long and grotesque litany of monstrous war crimes, as with the July 1995 massacre by Bosnian Serb forces of Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia. Srebrenica, as Silber and Little explain, was supposed to be a “safe area” under protection by United Nations forces; but the number of United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) troops assigned to protect Srebrenica was grossly inadequate, and it had already been decided in Washington that Srebrenica was “unsustainable.” That “lack of international commitment” to protection of a terribly vulnerable community led to one of the most infamous horrors of the Bosnian War:
The fall of Srebrenica was the darkest moment in international involvement in Bosnia. UNPROFOR did nothing to stop the murder of perhaps as many as 8,000 Muslim men. Some were killed after having surrendered, believing the UN would protect them, others were hunted down while trying to escape to Bosnian government-held territory, and others committed suicide, unable to endure the harrowing trek to safe ground. (p. 345)
As the war dragged on, a revitalized Croatian Army successfully drove Serb separatists out of Croatian territory; and eventually, a peace accord was hammered out at a U.S. Air Force base in Dayton, Ohio - one that restored the international boundaries that had existed between and among the Yugoslav republics before the wars. But for a visitor to any of the contemporary republics of the former Yugoslavia, the impression that is likely to come through most clearly is of a region that remains noticeably on edge.
Having visited five of the six former Yugoslav republics, I can tell you that the people are delightful, the landscape wonderful, the culture fascinating. At the same time, sooner or later one sees a poster calling for the release of a general who was convicted of war crimes, or a bumper sticker on which one republic occupies all of the former Yugoslavia, or a photo on a building showing what that building looked like when it was bombarded by the other side’s artillery – or one hears a radio broadcaster explaining earnestly how the whole problem is the result of nationalism on the other side of the border. It feels as if it all happened quite recently – which, in a way, it did – and as if it could all start over again at any time.
Silber and Little’s bleak concluding assessment is that “in the post-Cold War world there is…no international will to protect the weak against the strong”, leaving “the lesson that to win freedom and security for one’s people requires neither a sound argument nor a good cause but a big army. Victory, in former Yugoslavia, will fall not to the just but to the strong” (p. 390). Reading Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation on a visit to Ljubljana, I found myself hoping that I was reading history only, and not an illustration of the shape of things to come in that beautiful and troubled part of the world.
January 18, 2011
I knew nothing about the wars in the Balkens. Now I feel like a whole section of the recent world history has been opened before me. This book extensively covers the breakup of the former communist state of Yugoslavia. You will learn why the country disintegrated, why Slovenia and Croatia broke away as independant countries, how Serbia played a major role in the breakup and uniting of the other states, and how Croatia and Serbia fought to carve up pieces of Bosnia by forcing Muslims out of predominantly ethnic Croat or Serb areas in Bosnia.
Be aware that Laura Silber focuses primarily on the big picture maneuvering of the various heads of State. There are only a few stories that detail the suffering of the people or the tactics of the military in individual battles. Although these would have made a lengthy book a hefty tome, it would have connected more emotionally with the reader and pushed this high 4 star book into 5 star territory.
Be aware that Laura Silber focuses primarily on the big picture maneuvering of the various heads of State. There are only a few stories that detail the suffering of the people or the tactics of the military in individual battles. Although these would have made a lengthy book a hefty tome, it would have connected more emotionally with the reader and pushed this high 4 star book into 5 star territory.
March 15, 2013
This book gives a very clear-cut picture of the disintegration of Yugoslavia. The main protagonist was Slobodan Milosevic and the key ingredient was Serbian nationalism and expansionism. The Serbs wanted and obtained ethnic cleansing in Croatia and then Bosnia Herzegovina. All the pent-up hatred and nationalism that had been suppressed (at times violently) during the Tito years sprang to the surface like the bursting of a simmering volcano.
The religious –ethnic divide of Serbs (Orthodox Christians) and Croats (Catholics) were the first to go.
The violence first started outwardly in Slovenia (which was the most civil break-up) and moved inward, becoming with the violence, increasingly closer to Serbia proper.
Milosevic manipulated and controlled the media – using it to play on Serb history and its’ supposed martyrdom by the Turks six hundred long years ago. He played the Serb-Croat and Serb-Muslim antagonisms superbly. Unfortunately it all started to go wrong as the Croats also started to use their own nationalistic animosities to the Serbs. And unfortunately caught in the middle of all this hatred were the Muslims of Bosnia Herzegovina who were the least powerful and the least protected. The Croatians received more aid as the war and the killings mounted.
Finally Milosevic – from increased international pressure – like economic isolation and NATO military escalation – was forced to back away from his Serb ‘brothers’ in both Croatia and Bosnia.
But the cleansing had been done and the hatred remains. Sarajevo was a city that was integrated with mixed neighbourhoods of Serb, Croatian and Muslims, but now Sarajevo is bleak and segregated. All this reinforces the maxim that ‘might is right’. Villages were destroyed which had existed for hundreds of years. Some were re-populated, others were abandoned and entire areas were re-settled (cleansed).
In Bosnia Herzegovina half the population was killed or expelled.
The U.N. has a long term commitment to Yugoslavia. The European community sat far too long on the sidelines while the killings were being done. You would think that from all the experiences of World War II, they would have been far more proactive in preventing another European war. Why were negotiations with Lord Oliver going on at the same time that the killings were well under way in Croatia? After a war is under way it is too late to simply talk.
The religious –ethnic divide of Serbs (Orthodox Christians) and Croats (Catholics) were the first to go.
The violence first started outwardly in Slovenia (which was the most civil break-up) and moved inward, becoming with the violence, increasingly closer to Serbia proper.
Milosevic manipulated and controlled the media – using it to play on Serb history and its’ supposed martyrdom by the Turks six hundred long years ago. He played the Serb-Croat and Serb-Muslim antagonisms superbly. Unfortunately it all started to go wrong as the Croats also started to use their own nationalistic animosities to the Serbs. And unfortunately caught in the middle of all this hatred were the Muslims of Bosnia Herzegovina who were the least powerful and the least protected. The Croatians received more aid as the war and the killings mounted.
Finally Milosevic – from increased international pressure – like economic isolation and NATO military escalation – was forced to back away from his Serb ‘brothers’ in both Croatia and Bosnia.
But the cleansing had been done and the hatred remains. Sarajevo was a city that was integrated with mixed neighbourhoods of Serb, Croatian and Muslims, but now Sarajevo is bleak and segregated. All this reinforces the maxim that ‘might is right’. Villages were destroyed which had existed for hundreds of years. Some were re-populated, others were abandoned and entire areas were re-settled (cleansed).
In Bosnia Herzegovina half the population was killed or expelled.
The U.N. has a long term commitment to Yugoslavia. The European community sat far too long on the sidelines while the killings were being done. You would think that from all the experiences of World War II, they would have been far more proactive in preventing another European war. Why were negotiations with Lord Oliver going on at the same time that the killings were well under way in Croatia? After a war is under way it is too late to simply talk.
March 19, 2019
My road to buying and reading this book started from an interesting quote I read in The Generals by Winston Groom. In 1888, Otto van Bismarck said, “One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.” Knowing hardly anything about the Balkans it made me curious why he would say that. I researched a few books about the Balkans and settled on this one. While this book mostly just covers the actual breakup of Yugoslavia from the late 80's to 1995 there was a ton of background information from about WWII on that helped me understand a little bit more about the history of that part of Europe. After reading this I'm convinced that no one can possibly understand everything that has gone on there even in just the last 30 years since the ethnic grievances among everyone involved go back at least 600 years.
It's impossible to briefly summarize everything in this story but here are some of the highlights...
Yugoslavia was formed as a country right after WWI. It was invaded by Germany during WWII. The Nazis set up Croatia as a satellite state and used their Ustase movement to maintain control over the area during WWII. The Ustase murdered many Serbs which is just one of the many issues between Croats and Serbs. Tito emerged as the leader of Yugoslavia after WWII which included Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. To maintain his communist rule, Tito suppressed all nationalism from any of the member republics. After he died, nationalism started to bubble to the surface which ultimately led to the wars in the 90s. Slobodan Milosevic rose to power in Serbia using Serbian nationalism to gain popularity. Of course as a result of that the other republics saw nationalists of their own rise to power. Milosevic was able to put some of his own men in the leadership of Montenegro, Kosovo, and Vodjvodina which essentially allowed him to make all the decisions for Yugoslavia as a whole. His idea was to create a Greater Serbia which meant taking all of the land in the other republics that had Serbian majorities and enveloping it into Serbia.
Slovenia and Croatia responded by seceding from Yugoslavia. Slovenia was allowed to go without a fight since it didn't really have many Serbs living there. However, Croatia had many areas of Serb majorities so Milosevic wouldn't let Croatia secede unless they handed over many cities and towns that had a Serb-majority population. Serbs living in Croatia took over entire cities and named themselves the Republic of Serbian Krajina in Croatia. Milosevic supported them with money and arms. It was a strange time because Yugoslavia was still its own country and had its own army yet Milosevic was essentially trying to destroy Yugoslavia to make a Greater Serbia. So he had the power to command the Yugoslavian Army yet there were many in the army who were still committed to keeping all of Yugoslavia together. Non-Serb generals were replaced by Serb generals, and many non-Serb members of the military deserted when they realized what was happening.
The war between Serbia and Croatia eventually spilled over into Bosnia where the Bosnian parliament also declared independence from Yugoslavia. Bosnian Serbs who wanted to remain in Yugoslavia (they really wanted to join Greater Serbia) began a war against the Bosniaks (Muslims). The capital city Sarajevo was under siege for years. The book details the many plans and maps drawn up to end the conflict but none of the parties could ever agree so the war continued. "Ethnic cleansing" was the highlight of the wars, which was the Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks driving people of the other ethnicities out of their towns to leave only the desired ethnicity. Although all parties share some blame for the wars it seems as though Serbia was by far the main culprit, followed by Croatia, and then the Bosniaks. The most well known example of this was what happened at Srebrenica. The massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica by Serbs was what finally got the UN and the US involved to a level that could actually change the war.
There were a few things that really turned the tide of the war, at least from what I understood from the book. One was an agreement made between the Croats and the Bosniaks to stop fighting each other. This allowed the Croats to run the Krajina Serbs out of Croatia who had been there for the last 4-5 years. It also allowed the Bosnians to retake many of the towns that the Bosnian Serb army, who was spread too thin, had overrun previously. What also changed the war was that Milosevic abandoned the Bosnian Serb cause. Serbia had faced embargoes on them for years and it was having such a strong effect on Serbia that Milosevic realized he needed to get the embargoes lifted if he wanted to be in power much longer. He stopped supplying the Bosnian Serbs with any kind of support. He also abandoned the Krajina Serbs. In the book it talks about how he was doing his best to look like a good guy near the end of the war by seeking peace and calling for the wars to end, but really he was just protecting his own hide. He was the main force behind the start of the wars.
Make no mistake this book was a very tough read. It had a lot of names, it hardly got into the actual humanity of the time period, most focusing on the politics and hard facts. That being said, the author makes it clear in the introduction that that's what the book is going to be about. Plus there is a very helpful list of characters in the book to help you remember who's who. If you want to be educated about much of the history of the Balkans and about the wars in the 90's then definitely read this book. It was written before the war in Kosovo so that isn't included, but having read this book and then reading about the Kosovo War online it makes it much easier to understand what happened in Kosovo. It is also very interesting to read online about the trials, even some of which are still going on, of the many Serb, Croatian, and Bosnian war criminals.
A few more memorable parts of the book...
- Srebrenica massacre
- The secret plans between Tudjman and Milosevic to carve up Bosnia to their liking
- The Sarajevo market shelling
- "It was to become a familiar pattern of events: Krajina Serbs provoking the Croatian authorities into conflict, the Army stepping in to 'separate the two sides' and, in effect, protecting renegade Serb areas from the Croatian authorities' attempts to bring them back under Zagreb's jurisdiction."
- "In Knin, the cradle of the rebellion, the intervention of the Army was at last a sign that the Serbs would get the support they needed from Belgrade. Milan Martic could now prepare for a war in the knowledge that the JNA, under the guise of defending Yugoslavia, or of separating the two warring national factions, would protect his rebel territories from the legally-constituted authorities of the Croatian Republic."
- "Instructed by Belgrade Television, Serbs believed that their kinsmen in Bosnia were fighting for the survival of their nation; it was not a land-grab. By contrast, 'Muslim fundamentalists' and 'Croat fascists' were waging a war of aggression."
- "Mendiluce started making plans for the evacuation of an estimated 60,000 people. It was to be the biggest single act of ethnic cleansing since the conflict began, and it was to be carried out by the U.N. Mendiluce made no effort to hide the moral repugnance with which he approached the task he was now expected to carry out. 'We denounce ethnic cleansing worldwide,' he said. 'But when you have thousands of woman and children at risk who want desperately to be evacuated, it is my responsibility to help them, to save their lives. I cannot enter any philosophical or theoretical debate now. We just have to save their lives.'"
- Larry Hollingworth: "My first thought was for the commander who gave the order to attack. I hope he burns in the hottest corner of hell. My second thought was for the soldiers who loaded the breaches and fired the guns. I hope their sleep is forever punctuated by the screams of the children and the cries of their mothers. My third thought was for Dr. of Medicine, Karadzic, the Professor of literature, Koljevic, the Biologist, Mrs. Plavsic, and the geologist, Professor Lukic. And I wonder, will they condemn this atrocity? Or will they betray their education and condone it? And I thought of the many Serbs that I know around this country, and I wondered: do they want the history of the Serb nation to include this chapter, a chapter in which their army drove innocent people from village to village to village until finally they are cornered in Srebrencia, a place from which there is no escape, and where their fate is to be transported out like cattle, or slaughtered like sheep?"
- "After two years of isolation and rising economic deprivations, Serbia was paying a steep price for its support of the wars in Croatia and Bosnia. By backing the Plan, Milosevic hoped he could secure the lifting of sanctions and end Serbia's isolation....Milosevice was abandoning his nationalist rhetoric which had made him the most powerful leader across former Yugoslavia....By trying to get rid of his rival, Milosevic wanted to find a scapegoat who could be blamed for the murder and destruction, the poverty and uncertainty. Otherwise he realized, his rule could be cut short."
- "The United Nations, led unambiguously now by the United States, in effect went to war with the Bosnian Serbs, all pretense of impartiality now abandoned."
It's impossible to briefly summarize everything in this story but here are some of the highlights...
Yugoslavia was formed as a country right after WWI. It was invaded by Germany during WWII. The Nazis set up Croatia as a satellite state and used their Ustase movement to maintain control over the area during WWII. The Ustase murdered many Serbs which is just one of the many issues between Croats and Serbs. Tito emerged as the leader of Yugoslavia after WWII which included Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. To maintain his communist rule, Tito suppressed all nationalism from any of the member republics. After he died, nationalism started to bubble to the surface which ultimately led to the wars in the 90s. Slobodan Milosevic rose to power in Serbia using Serbian nationalism to gain popularity. Of course as a result of that the other republics saw nationalists of their own rise to power. Milosevic was able to put some of his own men in the leadership of Montenegro, Kosovo, and Vodjvodina which essentially allowed him to make all the decisions for Yugoslavia as a whole. His idea was to create a Greater Serbia which meant taking all of the land in the other republics that had Serbian majorities and enveloping it into Serbia.
Slovenia and Croatia responded by seceding from Yugoslavia. Slovenia was allowed to go without a fight since it didn't really have many Serbs living there. However, Croatia had many areas of Serb majorities so Milosevic wouldn't let Croatia secede unless they handed over many cities and towns that had a Serb-majority population. Serbs living in Croatia took over entire cities and named themselves the Republic of Serbian Krajina in Croatia. Milosevic supported them with money and arms. It was a strange time because Yugoslavia was still its own country and had its own army yet Milosevic was essentially trying to destroy Yugoslavia to make a Greater Serbia. So he had the power to command the Yugoslavian Army yet there were many in the army who were still committed to keeping all of Yugoslavia together. Non-Serb generals were replaced by Serb generals, and many non-Serb members of the military deserted when they realized what was happening.
The war between Serbia and Croatia eventually spilled over into Bosnia where the Bosnian parliament also declared independence from Yugoslavia. Bosnian Serbs who wanted to remain in Yugoslavia (they really wanted to join Greater Serbia) began a war against the Bosniaks (Muslims). The capital city Sarajevo was under siege for years. The book details the many plans and maps drawn up to end the conflict but none of the parties could ever agree so the war continued. "Ethnic cleansing" was the highlight of the wars, which was the Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks driving people of the other ethnicities out of their towns to leave only the desired ethnicity. Although all parties share some blame for the wars it seems as though Serbia was by far the main culprit, followed by Croatia, and then the Bosniaks. The most well known example of this was what happened at Srebrenica. The massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica by Serbs was what finally got the UN and the US involved to a level that could actually change the war.
There were a few things that really turned the tide of the war, at least from what I understood from the book. One was an agreement made between the Croats and the Bosniaks to stop fighting each other. This allowed the Croats to run the Krajina Serbs out of Croatia who had been there for the last 4-5 years. It also allowed the Bosnians to retake many of the towns that the Bosnian Serb army, who was spread too thin, had overrun previously. What also changed the war was that Milosevic abandoned the Bosnian Serb cause. Serbia had faced embargoes on them for years and it was having such a strong effect on Serbia that Milosevic realized he needed to get the embargoes lifted if he wanted to be in power much longer. He stopped supplying the Bosnian Serbs with any kind of support. He also abandoned the Krajina Serbs. In the book it talks about how he was doing his best to look like a good guy near the end of the war by seeking peace and calling for the wars to end, but really he was just protecting his own hide. He was the main force behind the start of the wars.
Make no mistake this book was a very tough read. It had a lot of names, it hardly got into the actual humanity of the time period, most focusing on the politics and hard facts. That being said, the author makes it clear in the introduction that that's what the book is going to be about. Plus there is a very helpful list of characters in the book to help you remember who's who. If you want to be educated about much of the history of the Balkans and about the wars in the 90's then definitely read this book. It was written before the war in Kosovo so that isn't included, but having read this book and then reading about the Kosovo War online it makes it much easier to understand what happened in Kosovo. It is also very interesting to read online about the trials, even some of which are still going on, of the many Serb, Croatian, and Bosnian war criminals.
A few more memorable parts of the book...
- Srebrenica massacre
- The secret plans between Tudjman and Milosevic to carve up Bosnia to their liking
- The Sarajevo market shelling
- "It was to become a familiar pattern of events: Krajina Serbs provoking the Croatian authorities into conflict, the Army stepping in to 'separate the two sides' and, in effect, protecting renegade Serb areas from the Croatian authorities' attempts to bring them back under Zagreb's jurisdiction."
- "In Knin, the cradle of the rebellion, the intervention of the Army was at last a sign that the Serbs would get the support they needed from Belgrade. Milan Martic could now prepare for a war in the knowledge that the JNA, under the guise of defending Yugoslavia, or of separating the two warring national factions, would protect his rebel territories from the legally-constituted authorities of the Croatian Republic."
- "Instructed by Belgrade Television, Serbs believed that their kinsmen in Bosnia were fighting for the survival of their nation; it was not a land-grab. By contrast, 'Muslim fundamentalists' and 'Croat fascists' were waging a war of aggression."
- "Mendiluce started making plans for the evacuation of an estimated 60,000 people. It was to be the biggest single act of ethnic cleansing since the conflict began, and it was to be carried out by the U.N. Mendiluce made no effort to hide the moral repugnance with which he approached the task he was now expected to carry out. 'We denounce ethnic cleansing worldwide,' he said. 'But when you have thousands of woman and children at risk who want desperately to be evacuated, it is my responsibility to help them, to save their lives. I cannot enter any philosophical or theoretical debate now. We just have to save their lives.'"
- Larry Hollingworth: "My first thought was for the commander who gave the order to attack. I hope he burns in the hottest corner of hell. My second thought was for the soldiers who loaded the breaches and fired the guns. I hope their sleep is forever punctuated by the screams of the children and the cries of their mothers. My third thought was for Dr. of Medicine, Karadzic, the Professor of literature, Koljevic, the Biologist, Mrs. Plavsic, and the geologist, Professor Lukic. And I wonder, will they condemn this atrocity? Or will they betray their education and condone it? And I thought of the many Serbs that I know around this country, and I wondered: do they want the history of the Serb nation to include this chapter, a chapter in which their army drove innocent people from village to village to village until finally they are cornered in Srebrencia, a place from which there is no escape, and where their fate is to be transported out like cattle, or slaughtered like sheep?"
- "After two years of isolation and rising economic deprivations, Serbia was paying a steep price for its support of the wars in Croatia and Bosnia. By backing the Plan, Milosevic hoped he could secure the lifting of sanctions and end Serbia's isolation....Milosevice was abandoning his nationalist rhetoric which had made him the most powerful leader across former Yugoslavia....By trying to get rid of his rival, Milosevic wanted to find a scapegoat who could be blamed for the murder and destruction, the poverty and uncertainty. Otherwise he realized, his rule could be cut short."
- "The United Nations, led unambiguously now by the United States, in effect went to war with the Bosnian Serbs, all pretense of impartiality now abandoned."
April 28, 2020
The chilling conclusion to the bloodiest post-war conflict in Europe: "it was a peace that was rewarded by the use of force (...) a peace, indeed, had been achieved by forcible creation of ethnically pure territories, by means of ethnic cleansing... in the post-Cold-War world there is no collective security, no international will to protect the weak against the strong; the lesson that to win freedom and security for one's people requires neither a sound or judgement nor a good cause but a big army."
Brilliant book, very detailed retelling of the wars that slowly tore apart ex-Yugoslavia, from the Slovene Spring, to the Knin rebelling, to the transformation of Yougoslavia's army (JNA) into Serbia's army, to awkward and repeatedly failed attempts of the international community to step in, to the destruction of a pluriethnic country, Bosnia, that had lived for centuries in peaceful coexistence. There is a lot to be drawn from this book...on the status of minorities, on the interaction of world players in such conflicts, on federalism and nation-building. Strongly recommend for any avid political history readers.
Brilliant book, very detailed retelling of the wars that slowly tore apart ex-Yugoslavia, from the Slovene Spring, to the Knin rebelling, to the transformation of Yougoslavia's army (JNA) into Serbia's army, to awkward and repeatedly failed attempts of the international community to step in, to the destruction of a pluriethnic country, Bosnia, that had lived for centuries in peaceful coexistence. There is a lot to be drawn from this book...on the status of minorities, on the interaction of world players in such conflicts, on federalism and nation-building. Strongly recommend for any avid political history readers.
December 7, 2024
One of the most important books of the year for me. I struggled over it for half a year and I bet that I did not understand/memorize most of its contents, but I still learned A LOT about the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. It is also one of the most “political” books I ever read, which has both positive and negative aspects.
In short: the authors represent the political situation in Yugoslavia that led to its breakdown in the early 1990s and, as a result, to the war — more exactly, to a chain of very different military and geopolitical conflicts with different political, social, and historical consequences. As I said, this book is extremely “political,” which means that the authors focus not so much on WHAT was happening or WHEN but HOW and WHY this situation overall emerged, developed over time, and was managed on a political level, by all the key actors. I honestly was often lost in a plethora of names, abbreviations, quotes, talks, parties, factions, etc., and I felt that I personally needed less step-by-step retelling of all this complex political background (who-said-what and how all this reverberated in local and general history) and more of a generalized analysis or something like that. Nevertheless, I was still already prepared enough for such a detailed account of the events and was able to understand some of the basic drivers and personalities — Slobodan Milosevic in the first place, of course, and the whole reason for the war (no, not a desire to save “communist” Yugoslavia, as I thought before). I not only enriched my knowledge about the Yugoslav wars and found answers to many questions I had, but I now know that at least some of those people who write about the Yugoslav wars have a rudimentary or totally wrong understanding of them, which messes with brains of their readers a lot (hello, Slavenka Drakulić!).
This book is definitely not for your first reading about the subject, as it does not even try to descend to unprepared or uninterested readers. You should already have a good general understanding of what was going on in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and accumulate enough unanswered (and burning!) questions about what was discussed and done “behind the curtains” by all those political leaders in all these countries that eventually made the situation as it was (for example, if you want to find out why was Bosnia so brutally destroyed and violated genocidally while Slovenia was easily “let go” after just a symbolic and ridiculous “Ten-Day War,” and how did it ever happen that Croatia was a victim of the Serbian aggression and, at the same time, its accomplice and ally who joined the genocide over Bosniaks with great enthusiasm at some point, etc.).
For prepared and attentive readers, though, the book is a treasure trove of incredibly interesting and important information. I saved tons of quotes while reading and most of them just represented my internal “wow!”. Moreover, the book provides awesome thought-provoking material for us, Ukrainians, because today I can see a lot of poignant repercussions (both direct and analogous) of those events and our current situation, in particular, the genocidal war of Russia in Ukraine, the reaction and actions of the West, and very likely scenarios of its “resolution” (not especially optimistic for us, unfortunately, if you know the history of the Bosnia war resolution). Some of the information I’ve seen in this book worked as a very reasonable explanation of what exactly is going on “behind the curtains” in our days and how the local and geopolitical actors discuss all this right now.
At the same time, you should understand that the book was written in 1996, i.e., right after the end of the main military conflict, the so-called “Bosnian war.” As we know now, problems with Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, and other former parts of Yugoslavia did not end in 1996, and it would be more helpful to update this book with some historical perspectives regarding the described events and their future developments. Still, it is probably the best source material for those readers who want to immerse in the situation in all the possible details. I am not sure that I would ever try it but I already want to re-read it again…
Laura Silber was an American journalist, who was the main Balkans correspondent for the Financial Times and had worked in the region for nine years at the time. Allan Little was a British journalist, who was a BBC correspondent and reported on the Revolutions of 1989 in Eastern Europe, on the wars in the former Yugoslavia, on the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide in Africa, and he even worked in Russia in the last years of Boris Yeltsin’s tenure as Russian president. This book was their collective work that combines the political insights of Laura Silber and compassionate reporting of Allan Little (for me, it was “too much” of Laura Silber and “not enough” of Allan Little, as those short reporting episodes were indeed the most precious ones to me, but I understand that the initial purpose of the book was different). It was highly praised, and BBC also created a 6-episode documentary series based on it (“The Death of Yugoslavia” or “Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation” (1995-96)) — I plan to watch it as well.
In short: the authors represent the political situation in Yugoslavia that led to its breakdown in the early 1990s and, as a result, to the war — more exactly, to a chain of very different military and geopolitical conflicts with different political, social, and historical consequences. As I said, this book is extremely “political,” which means that the authors focus not so much on WHAT was happening or WHEN but HOW and WHY this situation overall emerged, developed over time, and was managed on a political level, by all the key actors. I honestly was often lost in a plethora of names, abbreviations, quotes, talks, parties, factions, etc., and I felt that I personally needed less step-by-step retelling of all this complex political background (who-said-what and how all this reverberated in local and general history) and more of a generalized analysis or something like that. Nevertheless, I was still already prepared enough for such a detailed account of the events and was able to understand some of the basic drivers and personalities — Slobodan Milosevic in the first place, of course, and the whole reason for the war (no, not a desire to save “communist” Yugoslavia, as I thought before). I not only enriched my knowledge about the Yugoslav wars and found answers to many questions I had, but I now know that at least some of those people who write about the Yugoslav wars have a rudimentary or totally wrong understanding of them, which messes with brains of their readers a lot (hello, Slavenka Drakulić!).
This book is definitely not for your first reading about the subject, as it does not even try to descend to unprepared or uninterested readers. You should already have a good general understanding of what was going on in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and accumulate enough unanswered (and burning!) questions about what was discussed and done “behind the curtains” by all those political leaders in all these countries that eventually made the situation as it was (for example, if you want to find out why was Bosnia so brutally destroyed and violated genocidally while Slovenia was easily “let go” after just a symbolic and ridiculous “Ten-Day War,” and how did it ever happen that Croatia was a victim of the Serbian aggression and, at the same time, its accomplice and ally who joined the genocide over Bosniaks with great enthusiasm at some point, etc.).
For prepared and attentive readers, though, the book is a treasure trove of incredibly interesting and important information. I saved tons of quotes while reading and most of them just represented my internal “wow!”. Moreover, the book provides awesome thought-provoking material for us, Ukrainians, because today I can see a lot of poignant repercussions (both direct and analogous) of those events and our current situation, in particular, the genocidal war of Russia in Ukraine, the reaction and actions of the West, and very likely scenarios of its “resolution” (not especially optimistic for us, unfortunately, if you know the history of the Bosnia war resolution). Some of the information I’ve seen in this book worked as a very reasonable explanation of what exactly is going on “behind the curtains” in our days and how the local and geopolitical actors discuss all this right now.
At the same time, you should understand that the book was written in 1996, i.e., right after the end of the main military conflict, the so-called “Bosnian war.” As we know now, problems with Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, and other former parts of Yugoslavia did not end in 1996, and it would be more helpful to update this book with some historical perspectives regarding the described events and their future developments. Still, it is probably the best source material for those readers who want to immerse in the situation in all the possible details. I am not sure that I would ever try it but I already want to re-read it again…
Laura Silber was an American journalist, who was the main Balkans correspondent for the Financial Times and had worked in the region for nine years at the time. Allan Little was a British journalist, who was a BBC correspondent and reported on the Revolutions of 1989 in Eastern Europe, on the wars in the former Yugoslavia, on the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide in Africa, and he even worked in Russia in the last years of Boris Yeltsin’s tenure as Russian president. This book was their collective work that combines the political insights of Laura Silber and compassionate reporting of Allan Little (for me, it was “too much” of Laura Silber and “not enough” of Allan Little, as those short reporting episodes were indeed the most precious ones to me, but I understand that the initial purpose of the book was different). It was highly praised, and BBC also created a 6-episode documentary series based on it (“The Death of Yugoslavia” or “Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation” (1995-96)) — I plan to watch it as well.
Read
September 28, 2015A spectacular overview of the Yugoslav Crisis, its roots, and its progression into intervention. In-depth analysis and interviews with those directly involved, as well as a great discussion of the lead-up! The book was released to accompany a documentary with the same name: book is suggested for more detail!
March 24, 2024
A super detailed account into the rise of nationalism and the resulting war within Yugoslavia which is argued as the main factor in the collapse of Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia was in a peculiar position in the world stage as they had no backing from the two superpowers at the time. Although they were a socialist nation, they weren’t a satellite state of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, due to the red scare, the states didn’t have deep relations either.
Due to their position it is a seldom example of war/revolution taking place internally rather than through superpower proxies/meddling.
Although the war was one of the first major uses of the ICC, the book accounts how disorganised the international community were at stopping the war. A must read for anyone interested in anything!
Yugoslavia was in a peculiar position in the world stage as they had no backing from the two superpowers at the time. Although they were a socialist nation, they weren’t a satellite state of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, due to the red scare, the states didn’t have deep relations either.
Due to their position it is a seldom example of war/revolution taking place internally rather than through superpower proxies/meddling.
Although the war was one of the first major uses of the ICC, the book accounts how disorganised the international community were at stopping the war. A must read for anyone interested in anything!
January 28, 2025
Ceļā uz katastrofu / Yugoslavia: Death of A Nation by Laura Silber and Allan Little, Penguin Book 1997, 403 p.
📕vērtējums: 9 no 10.
Parasti par Balkānu reģionu atceras tikai tad, kad tas piedzīvo problēmas un asinsizliešanu. Pārējā laikā Balkāni plašajā pasaulē tiek ignorēti un par tiem neviens īsti neatceras. Tā par reģionam piemītošu negatīvo konotāciju un zināmā veidā stereotipu izteicās viena no šī reģiona lielākajām mūsdienu pārzinātājām Marija Todorova (viņas darbs "Imagining the Balkans" ir iekļaujams obligātās literatūras kursā par Balkāniem). Tik tiešām, lielākai daļai cilvēku, pieminot vārdu “Balkāni”, visticamāk, padomā nāks kari, genocīds, asinsizliešana, etniskās tīrīšanas un šovinisms, asociējot Balkānu valstis ar Eiropas Enfant Terible. Ne velti kāda valstiskā veidojuma fragmentācija un vardarbīga sadalīšanās mazākās vienībās šobrīd ir ieguvusi apzīmējumu “balkanizācija”, kas ir T.Hobsa piesauktā “visu karu pret visiem” iemiesojums mūsdienās.
Šī “visu karu pret visiem” rašanos Balkānos laikā, kad savu sabrukumu piedzīvoja Dienvidslāvija 1990.-tajos gados, vispilnīgāk un uzskatāmāk apraksta no pirmā skatiena necila, vēl 1996.gadā divu britu žurnālistu (L.Silber bija "The Financial Times" reportiere Balkānos, A.Little – BBC TV reportieris) publicētā grāmata Yugoslavia: Death of A Nation. Šis darbs tika pabeigts neilgi pēc tam, kad ar Deitona vienošanos beidzās Bosnijas karš, kas pretendē uz Dienvidslāvijas asiņainākā kara statusu (attiecīgi pēdējais “Dienvidslāvijas” karš – konflikts Kosovā 1999.g. – šajā grāmatā netika iekļauts).
Parasti tiek pieņemts, ka vispilnīgāk uz karu var paraudzīties tikai, paejot noteiktai laika distancei. Kad “ir nosēdušies putekļi un atdzisis pulveris” un, iespējams, atklātībā nākušas jaunas liecības un arhīvu materiāli, tas liek paraudzīties uz karu ar skaidrāku un kritiskāku skatienu. Tomēr "Yugoslavia: Death of A Nation" ir izņēmums no šī likuma. Jāatzīst, ka, manuprāt, nevienam no autoriem, kas ir publicējis savus darbus par Balkānu kariem pēc 1996.g., līdz šim tā arī nav izdevies pārspēt L.Silber un A.Little. Ja kādam vajadzētu ieteikt tikai vienu grāmatu, kuru būtu obligāti jāizlasa par Dienvidslāvijas kariem, tad šis darbs noteikti būtu mans ieteikums.
Grāmatas pamatā ir ap 100 intervijām ar Dienvidslāvijas karos iesaistītajiem personāžiem - tā laika politiķi, amatpersonas, warlords, ārvalstu amatpersonas. Lielākā daļa no šiem personāžiem ir pēdējie nelieši un brīžiem eksaltētas personības. Šīs intervijas tika iekļautas 1995.g. BBC veidotājā dokumentālajā seriālā, ko varu ieteikt katram, kam ir interese par Balkāniem - https://youtu.be/bVUg-VoPAeA?si=qygI-... . Šajās intervijās fiksētas unikālas liecības. Ne velti dokumentālās filmas materiāli tika izmantoti Starptautiskajā kriminālnoziegumu tribunālā bijušajai Dienvidslāvijai.
Abiem žurnālistiem izdevās ļoti precīzi iezīmēt galvenos pagrieziena punktus (un tādu bija daudz) Dienvidslāvijas mokošajā sabrukuma posmā, kas rezultējās virknē asiņainajos konfliktos Dienvidslāvijas republikās (pāris dienu Neatkarības karš Slovēnijā, Serbijas-Horvātijas konflikts, burtiski visu karš pret visiem Bosnijā). Vienlaicīgi autori uzsver, ka Dienvidslāvijas kari nebūt nebija uzskatāmi par nenovēršamiem. Konkrēts iznākums ir izskaidrojams ar tā laika konkrētu politisko līderu apzinātu izvēli par labu konkrētai politiskai taktikai, liekot uzsvaru uz nacionālismu un šovinismu, kas nodrošinātu viņu varas pozīciju nostiprināšanos (jā, lai cik tas skanētu prasti, ne mazāk un ne vairāk…). Attiecīgi, piemēram, viens no Dienvidslāvijas karu galvenajiem vaininiekiem M.Miloševičs, pēc grāmatas autoru domām, ir uzskatāms nevis par patieso serbu nacionālistu, bet komunistu, kurš konjuktūras apsvērumu dēļ izlēma kļūt par “Varenās Serbijas” idejas iemiesotāju. Tomēr M.Miloševičs nav vienīgais starp tā laika Balkānu neliešiem, kas ir līdzatbildīgi par asinsizliešanu reģionā; gandrīz neviena no grāmatas lapaspusēm neiztiek bez kāda negatīvā personāža, kas ir pielicis savu roku pie vardarbības bijušajā Dienvidslāvijas teritorijā. Jāatzīst, ka sen nebija lasīta grāmata ar tik lielu neliešu blīvumu uz vienu lapaspusi.
No visa izlasītā gribētu īpaši izcelt to, ka savā grāmatā autori filigrāni parāda Rietumvalstu sarunvedēju un starpnieku naivos priekštatus un uzskatus, mēģinot noregulēt Dienvidslāvijas konfliktus. Pirms 20 gadiem, kad Balkānos plosījās Dienvidslāvijas kari, Eiropa maz ko varēja izdarīt, lai apturētu asiņainos konfliktus. Izšķiroša bija ASV iesaiste, kas spēja izrādīt pietiekamu spiedienu (pielietojot gan burkānus, gan pātagu), lai konfliktos iesaistītās puses panāktu vienošanās par uguns pārtraukšanu. Laiks parādīs, vai Eiropa bija spējīga mainīties šajos 20 gados, lai uzaudzētu savas spējas un pārvērstos no “papīra tīģera” par varas centru, kas ir spējīgs sakārtot lietas savā pievārtē, tiekot galā ar pašreiz notiekošu karu Ukrainā.
Vēl viens secinājums, lasot šo grāmatu par Dienvidslāvijas kariem, un velkot iespējamas analoģijas ar Krievijas karu pret Ukrainu, ka tie paši līderi, kas karus uzsāka, vēlāk bija spiesti arī tos noslēgt. Piemēram, 1996.gadā, bijušo Dienvidslāvijas republiku prezidenti bija tie paši, kas šos amatus ieņēma 1991.g. Interesanti bija vērot, kā evolucionēja S.Miloševiča pozīcija Balkānu karu gaitā 1990.-tajos gados. Ja sākotnēji viņš bija galvenais iniciators serbu minoritāšu separātisko centienu atbalstam, lai īstenotu “Varenās Serbijas” plānus, tad uz 1996.g., viņš kļuva par politiķi, kas faktiski bija gatavs upurēt serbu anklāvus Horvātijā un Bosnijā. Attiecīgi, vairākus konfliktus Balkānos, kuros bija iesaistīta serbu puse (Serbu Krajinas republika Horvātijā un R.Karadžiča vadītā Serbu republika Bosnijā), aktīvo karadarbību 1990.-to gadu vidū bija iespējams apturēt lielā mērā pateicoties tam, ka S.Miloševičam izcēlās domstarpības ar šo serbu anklāvu vadību un Belgrada pārtrauca sniegt atbalstu tiem.
Paradoksāli, bet, kā atzīst grāmatas autori, S.Miloševičs 1990.-to gadu vidū kļuva par faktiski vienu no patiesi ieinteresētajiem politiskajiem līderiem Balkānos, kas vēlējās pārtraukt aktīvo karadarbību bijušajās Dienvidslāvijas republikās. Izskaidrojums tam visam ir bijis saistīts, ka S.Miloševičs vēlējas panākt Serbijas iznākšanu no starptautiskās izolācijas un sankciju atcelšanu pret Belgradu.
Tāpat interesanti bija uzzināt, ka pēc vairāku starptautisko sarunvedēju domām, no tā laika Balkānu valstu līderu trijotnes (Serbijas līderis S.Miloševičs, Horvātijas - F.Tudžmans un Bosnijas un Hercegovinas prezidents A.Izetbegovičs) tieši Serbijas līderis bija viskonstruktīvākais un elastīgākais kompromisu meklēšanā. Neskatoties uz to, ka vairākos Balkānu karu atslēgas fāzēs serbu puse vismaz no militārā viedokļa bija uzvarētāja, tomēr beigu beigās Serbija kļuva par šo karu lielāko cietēju, kas rezultējās atteikšanos no “Varenās Serbijas” plāniem. Tāpēc, lai apturētu karadarbību un asinsizliešanu, Rietumi bija gatavi pievērt acis uz S.Miloševiča milzīgo vainu un līdzatbildību šo karu inspirēšanā, sēžoties pie viena sarunu galda ar Serbijas līderi un vēlāk atceļot lielāko daļu no sankcijām pret Serbiju. Attiecīgi varam izdarīt secinājumu, ka, visticamāk, arī šodien būs daudz tādu personāžu Rietumos, kas būs gatavi upurēt morālo pienākumu panākt taisnīgumu un atbildību par pastrādāto agresiju un noziegumiem Ukrainā par labu pamieram ar diktatoru, kas ir lielā mērā vainīgs par asinsizliešanu.
Savukārt, aprakstot Deitona vienošanos, uz ko balstās konflikta Bosnijā risinājums, autori jau 1996.gada spēja precīzi paredzēt šī valstiskā veidojuma galvenās iekšējās pretrunas un problēmas, kas nav zaudējušas savu aktualitāti arī šodien.
Mans galvenais secinājums, izlasot Yugoslavia: Death of A Nation, ir nepieciešamība vēlreiz paraudzīties netālā pagātnē, lai kritiski reflektētu par to, kur bijām un kur nonācām. Daudziem liberālo aprindu pārstāvjiem Rietumos 1989.g. Eiropā pamatā palika atmiņā kā ar Berlīnes mūra krišanas un sociālisma kraha brīdis. Tam nevar nepiekrist un patiesi, to nevar apšaubīt. Tomēr Berlīnes mūra krišanas aizmugurējā fonā Eiropas kontinentā vairāku simtu kilometru attālumā (bet arī Eiropas kontinentā) norisinājās arī citi vēsturiski notikumi – 1989.g. Kosovas laukā pie Gazimestānas pieminekļa teica savu slaveno runu S.Miloševičs. Tieši šī runa, kā izriet no L.Silber un A.Little grāmatas, iezīmēja atskaites punktu serbu nacionālisma kursam un Dienvidslāvijas asiņainiem konfliktiem 1990.-tajos gados. Manuprāt, Yugoslavia: Death of A Nation liek pārvērtēt un savādāk un kritiskāk paskatīties uz 1989.g. notikumiem Eiropā, kas joprojām pamatā asociējās ar liberālisma un demokrātijas triumfu.
Visbeidzot, nevaru tikt vaļā no domas, ka, iespējams, vairākiem lasītājiem 1996.g. likās, ka Dienvidslāvijas kari ir Eiropas traģiskās pagātnes un komplicētā vēsturiskā mantojuma pēdējais iznācies un “normalitātes” anomālija. Tomēr, izskatās, ka realitātē notikumi Balkānos, kas tika aprakstīti L.Silber un A.Little grāmatā, drīzāk bija priekšvēstnesis samērā netālai cilvēces nākotnei Eiropā…
#gramatasvaig, #LauraSilber, #AllanLittle, #Yugoslavia, #Milosevic, #Balkans, #YugoslavWars
📕vērtējums: 9 no 10.
Parasti par Balkānu reģionu atceras tikai tad, kad tas piedzīvo problēmas un asinsizliešanu. Pārējā laikā Balkāni plašajā pasaulē tiek ignorēti un par tiem neviens īsti neatceras. Tā par reģionam piemītošu negatīvo konotāciju un zināmā veidā stereotipu izteicās viena no šī reģiona lielākajām mūsdienu pārzinātājām Marija Todorova (viņas darbs "Imagining the Balkans" ir iekļaujams obligātās literatūras kursā par Balkāniem). Tik tiešām, lielākai daļai cilvēku, pieminot vārdu “Balkāni”, visticamāk, padomā nāks kari, genocīds, asinsizliešana, etniskās tīrīšanas un šovinisms, asociējot Balkānu valstis ar Eiropas Enfant Terible. Ne velti kāda valstiskā veidojuma fragmentācija un vardarbīga sadalīšanās mazākās vienībās šobrīd ir ieguvusi apzīmējumu “balkanizācija”, kas ir T.Hobsa piesauktā “visu karu pret visiem” iemiesojums mūsdienās.
Šī “visu karu pret visiem” rašanos Balkānos laikā, kad savu sabrukumu piedzīvoja Dienvidslāvija 1990.-tajos gados, vispilnīgāk un uzskatāmāk apraksta no pirmā skatiena necila, vēl 1996.gadā divu britu žurnālistu (L.Silber bija "The Financial Times" reportiere Balkānos, A.Little – BBC TV reportieris) publicētā grāmata Yugoslavia: Death of A Nation. Šis darbs tika pabeigts neilgi pēc tam, kad ar Deitona vienošanos beidzās Bosnijas karš, kas pretendē uz Dienvidslāvijas asiņainākā kara statusu (attiecīgi pēdējais “Dienvidslāvijas” karš – konflikts Kosovā 1999.g. – šajā grāmatā netika iekļauts).
Parasti tiek pieņemts, ka vispilnīgāk uz karu var paraudzīties tikai, paejot noteiktai laika distancei. Kad “ir nosēdušies putekļi un atdzisis pulveris” un, iespējams, atklātībā nākušas jaunas liecības un arhīvu materiāli, tas liek paraudzīties uz karu ar skaidrāku un kritiskāku skatienu. Tomēr "Yugoslavia: Death of A Nation" ir izņēmums no šī likuma. Jāatzīst, ka, manuprāt, nevienam no autoriem, kas ir publicējis savus darbus par Balkānu kariem pēc 1996.g., līdz šim tā arī nav izdevies pārspēt L.Silber un A.Little. Ja kādam vajadzētu ieteikt tikai vienu grāmatu, kuru būtu obligāti jāizlasa par Dienvidslāvijas kariem, tad šis darbs noteikti būtu mans ieteikums.
Grāmatas pamatā ir ap 100 intervijām ar Dienvidslāvijas karos iesaistītajiem personāžiem - tā laika politiķi, amatpersonas, warlords, ārvalstu amatpersonas. Lielākā daļa no šiem personāžiem ir pēdējie nelieši un brīžiem eksaltētas personības. Šīs intervijas tika iekļautas 1995.g. BBC veidotājā dokumentālajā seriālā, ko varu ieteikt katram, kam ir interese par Balkāniem - https://youtu.be/bVUg-VoPAeA?si=qygI-... . Šajās intervijās fiksētas unikālas liecības. Ne velti dokumentālās filmas materiāli tika izmantoti Starptautiskajā kriminālnoziegumu tribunālā bijušajai Dienvidslāvijai.
Abiem žurnālistiem izdevās ļoti precīzi iezīmēt galvenos pagrieziena punktus (un tādu bija daudz) Dienvidslāvijas mokošajā sabrukuma posmā, kas rezultējās virknē asiņainajos konfliktos Dienvidslāvijas republikās (pāris dienu Neatkarības karš Slovēnijā, Serbijas-Horvātijas konflikts, burtiski visu karš pret visiem Bosnijā). Vienlaicīgi autori uzsver, ka Dienvidslāvijas kari nebūt nebija uzskatāmi par nenovēršamiem. Konkrēts iznākums ir izskaidrojams ar tā laika konkrētu politisko līderu apzinātu izvēli par labu konkrētai politiskai taktikai, liekot uzsvaru uz nacionālismu un šovinismu, kas nodrošinātu viņu varas pozīciju nostiprināšanos (jā, lai cik tas skanētu prasti, ne mazāk un ne vairāk…). Attiecīgi, piemēram, viens no Dienvidslāvijas karu galvenajiem vaininiekiem M.Miloševičs, pēc grāmatas autoru domām, ir uzskatāms nevis par patieso serbu nacionālistu, bet komunistu, kurš konjuktūras apsvērumu dēļ izlēma kļūt par “Varenās Serbijas” idejas iemiesotāju. Tomēr M.Miloševičs nav vienīgais starp tā laika Balkānu neliešiem, kas ir līdzatbildīgi par asinsizliešanu reģionā; gandrīz neviena no grāmatas lapaspusēm neiztiek bez kāda negatīvā personāža, kas ir pielicis savu roku pie vardarbības bijušajā Dienvidslāvijas teritorijā. Jāatzīst, ka sen nebija lasīta grāmata ar tik lielu neliešu blīvumu uz vienu lapaspusi.
No visa izlasītā gribētu īpaši izcelt to, ka savā grāmatā autori filigrāni parāda Rietumvalstu sarunvedēju un starpnieku naivos priekštatus un uzskatus, mēģinot noregulēt Dienvidslāvijas konfliktus. Pirms 20 gadiem, kad Balkānos plosījās Dienvidslāvijas kari, Eiropa maz ko varēja izdarīt, lai apturētu asiņainos konfliktus. Izšķiroša bija ASV iesaiste, kas spēja izrādīt pietiekamu spiedienu (pielietojot gan burkānus, gan pātagu), lai konfliktos iesaistītās puses panāktu vienošanās par uguns pārtraukšanu. Laiks parādīs, vai Eiropa bija spējīga mainīties šajos 20 gados, lai uzaudzētu savas spējas un pārvērstos no “papīra tīģera” par varas centru, kas ir spējīgs sakārtot lietas savā pievārtē, tiekot galā ar pašreiz notiekošu karu Ukrainā.
Vēl viens secinājums, lasot šo grāmatu par Dienvidslāvijas kariem, un velkot iespējamas analoģijas ar Krievijas karu pret Ukrainu, ka tie paši līderi, kas karus uzsāka, vēlāk bija spiesti arī tos noslēgt. Piemēram, 1996.gadā, bijušo Dienvidslāvijas republiku prezidenti bija tie paši, kas šos amatus ieņēma 1991.g. Interesanti bija vērot, kā evolucionēja S.Miloševiča pozīcija Balkānu karu gaitā 1990.-tajos gados. Ja sākotnēji viņš bija galvenais iniciators serbu minoritāšu separātisko centienu atbalstam, lai īstenotu “Varenās Serbijas” plānus, tad uz 1996.g., viņš kļuva par politiķi, kas faktiski bija gatavs upurēt serbu anklāvus Horvātijā un Bosnijā. Attiecīgi, vairākus konfliktus Balkānos, kuros bija iesaistīta serbu puse (Serbu Krajinas republika Horvātijā un R.Karadžiča vadītā Serbu republika Bosnijā), aktīvo karadarbību 1990.-to gadu vidū bija iespējams apturēt lielā mērā pateicoties tam, ka S.Miloševičam izcēlās domstarpības ar šo serbu anklāvu vadību un Belgrada pārtrauca sniegt atbalstu tiem.
Paradoksāli, bet, kā atzīst grāmatas autori, S.Miloševičs 1990.-to gadu vidū kļuva par faktiski vienu no patiesi ieinteresētajiem politiskajiem līderiem Balkānos, kas vēlējās pārtraukt aktīvo karadarbību bijušajās Dienvidslāvijas republikās. Izskaidrojums tam visam ir bijis saistīts, ka S.Miloševičs vēlējas panākt Serbijas iznākšanu no starptautiskās izolācijas un sankciju atcelšanu pret Belgradu.
Tāpat interesanti bija uzzināt, ka pēc vairāku starptautisko sarunvedēju domām, no tā laika Balkānu valstu līderu trijotnes (Serbijas līderis S.Miloševičs, Horvātijas - F.Tudžmans un Bosnijas un Hercegovinas prezidents A.Izetbegovičs) tieši Serbijas līderis bija viskonstruktīvākais un elastīgākais kompromisu meklēšanā. Neskatoties uz to, ka vairākos Balkānu karu atslēgas fāzēs serbu puse vismaz no militārā viedokļa bija uzvarētāja, tomēr beigu beigās Serbija kļuva par šo karu lielāko cietēju, kas rezultējās atteikšanos no “Varenās Serbijas” plāniem. Tāpēc, lai apturētu karadarbību un asinsizliešanu, Rietumi bija gatavi pievērt acis uz S.Miloševiča milzīgo vainu un līdzatbildību šo karu inspirēšanā, sēžoties pie viena sarunu galda ar Serbijas līderi un vēlāk atceļot lielāko daļu no sankcijām pret Serbiju. Attiecīgi varam izdarīt secinājumu, ka, visticamāk, arī šodien būs daudz tādu personāžu Rietumos, kas būs gatavi upurēt morālo pienākumu panākt taisnīgumu un atbildību par pastrādāto agresiju un noziegumiem Ukrainā par labu pamieram ar diktatoru, kas ir lielā mērā vainīgs par asinsizliešanu.
Savukārt, aprakstot Deitona vienošanos, uz ko balstās konflikta Bosnijā risinājums, autori jau 1996.gada spēja precīzi paredzēt šī valstiskā veidojuma galvenās iekšējās pretrunas un problēmas, kas nav zaudējušas savu aktualitāti arī šodien.
Mans galvenais secinājums, izlasot Yugoslavia: Death of A Nation, ir nepieciešamība vēlreiz paraudzīties netālā pagātnē, lai kritiski reflektētu par to, kur bijām un kur nonācām. Daudziem liberālo aprindu pārstāvjiem Rietumos 1989.g. Eiropā pamatā palika atmiņā kā ar Berlīnes mūra krišanas un sociālisma kraha brīdis. Tam nevar nepiekrist un patiesi, to nevar apšaubīt. Tomēr Berlīnes mūra krišanas aizmugurējā fonā Eiropas kontinentā vairāku simtu kilometru attālumā (bet arī Eiropas kontinentā) norisinājās arī citi vēsturiski notikumi – 1989.g. Kosovas laukā pie Gazimestānas pieminekļa teica savu slaveno runu S.Miloševičs. Tieši šī runa, kā izriet no L.Silber un A.Little grāmatas, iezīmēja atskaites punktu serbu nacionālisma kursam un Dienvidslāvijas asiņainiem konfliktiem 1990.-tajos gados. Manuprāt, Yugoslavia: Death of A Nation liek pārvērtēt un savādāk un kritiskāk paskatīties uz 1989.g. notikumiem Eiropā, kas joprojām pamatā asociējās ar liberālisma un demokrātijas triumfu.
Visbeidzot, nevaru tikt vaļā no domas, ka, iespējams, vairākiem lasītājiem 1996.g. likās, ka Dienvidslāvijas kari ir Eiropas traģiskās pagātnes un komplicētā vēsturiskā mantojuma pēdējais iznācies un “normalitātes” anomālija. Tomēr, izskatās, ka realitātē notikumi Balkānos, kas tika aprakstīti L.Silber un A.Little grāmatā, drīzāk bija priekšvēstnesis samērā netālai cilvēces nākotnei Eiropā…
#gramatasvaig, #LauraSilber, #AllanLittle, #Yugoslavia, #Milosevic, #Balkans, #YugoslavWars
October 4, 2012
This was a very interesting political insight to the break-up of Yugoslavia. Although I knew a lot of this information having lived in the Balkans for he past 2 years, there were many details that I did not know. For a heavy historical/political book, it was pretty easy to read and follow and it flowed in a sequential order. Having a table of the more important political figures as well as different maps in the beginning was also very helpful.
However, this gets a rating of 3.5 stars for three reasons.
1) I live in Macedonia, and this book leaves out the independence of Macedonia. Not cool. Although I understand that it does not quite fit into the war events of the book (and the author highlights this as a reason as to why Macedonia was ignored in the book), since Macedonia was the only country to break from Yugoslavia peacefully, they could have fit a small chapter about their independence in there. I know the story, but would have loved to have learned more political detail around it. 21 years of independence this year- Bravo Makedonija!
2)This might sound odd, but many of the atrocities of the war were left out. This may be because of the more political nature of the book as well as its publishing so soon after the official peace treaties were signed. It talks of how villages were emptied and how all three sides were victims of ethnic cleansing and the mass murder of Muslims. But it only touches upon the concentration camps and mass rapes and other international war crimes. This was such a huge part of the war and the reality of the war situation was not given justice.
3) As mentioned above, it was published in 1995...and A LOT has happened in the past 15 years, so of course none of it gets mentioned.
However, this gets a rating of 3.5 stars for three reasons.
1) I live in Macedonia, and this book leaves out the independence of Macedonia. Not cool. Although I understand that it does not quite fit into the war events of the book (and the author highlights this as a reason as to why Macedonia was ignored in the book), since Macedonia was the only country to break from Yugoslavia peacefully, they could have fit a small chapter about their independence in there. I know the story, but would have loved to have learned more political detail around it. 21 years of independence this year- Bravo Makedonija!
2)This might sound odd, but many of the atrocities of the war were left out. This may be because of the more political nature of the book as well as its publishing so soon after the official peace treaties were signed. It talks of how villages were emptied and how all three sides were victims of ethnic cleansing and the mass murder of Muslims. But it only touches upon the concentration camps and mass rapes and other international war crimes. This was such a huge part of the war and the reality of the war situation was not given justice.
3) As mentioned above, it was published in 1995...and A LOT has happened in the past 15 years, so of course none of it gets mentioned.
July 4, 2023
An incredibly detailed and contemporary account of the collapse of Yugoslavia and the wars that followed from c.1989-1995.
The glossary of names is necessary as there are so many people mentioned throughout. It was morbidly fascinating cross referencing the names with those who were eventually indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which was only dissolved on the last day of 2017.
There is an accompanying 5 hour documentary which works well to visualise the horrors of the Yugoslav Wars.
The book is not an account of the Kosovo war which took place a few years after it was written, but that conflict is foreshadowed throughout.
The glossary of names is necessary as there are so many people mentioned throughout. It was morbidly fascinating cross referencing the names with those who were eventually indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which was only dissolved on the last day of 2017.
There is an accompanying 5 hour documentary which works well to visualise the horrors of the Yugoslav Wars.
The book is not an account of the Kosovo war which took place a few years after it was written, but that conflict is foreshadowed throughout.
August 1, 2022
This is a meticulous overview of the collapse of Yugoslavia and its descent into war, charting the rise of Slobodan Milosevic's nationalist movement in the late 1980s to the Dayton accords in 1995 which ended the wars in Croatia and Bosnia.
The is in many ways a great introduction to the history of the violent breakup of Yugoslavia, with a lot of detailed accounts of important events during the course of Yugoslavia's collapse.
Reading it in 2022 I find two problems with it.
- It was written during and right after the war, which makes it in parts dated. Much information has come to light since, especially with the many ICTY trials that have taken place.
- This is more a journalistic account than an historic one, written by two journalists. The broader structural and historical factors which contributed to Yugoslavia's demise aren't really fleshed out.
But overall a recommendation to those interested in learning more about the breakup of Yugoslavia.
The is in many ways a great introduction to the history of the violent breakup of Yugoslavia, with a lot of detailed accounts of important events during the course of Yugoslavia's collapse.
Reading it in 2022 I find two problems with it.
- It was written during and right after the war, which makes it in parts dated. Much information has come to light since, especially with the many ICTY trials that have taken place.
- This is more a journalistic account than an historic one, written by two journalists. The broader structural and historical factors which contributed to Yugoslavia's demise aren't really fleshed out.
But overall a recommendation to those interested in learning more about the breakup of Yugoslavia.
August 23, 2025
Um relato impressionante da destruição de um país às mãos de nacionalismos autofágicos, mas também da total incapacidade da comunidade internacional intervir de forma eficaz. Pior que isso, de compreender sequer o que se passava, as motivações dos intervenientes, os interesses em jogo, as mentiras de bastidores. O desenrolar dos acontecimentos é opressivo e assustador, tanto como os crimes de guerra cometidos por algumas das partes envolvidas (uns julgados e outros “esquecidos”).
É pena que o livro não tenha tido novas edições com os desenvolvimentos subsequentes, nomeadamente a guerra do Kosovo.
É pena que o livro não tenha tido novas edições com os desenvolvimentos subsequentes, nomeadamente a guerra do Kosovo.
October 30, 2007
This book provided way more detail on the break-up of Yugoslavia than I ever wanted to know. It took me more than two months to read because it was so tedious- at times becoming a masochistic exercise just to get to the end of a chapter. When I did finally finish the book, I felt something akin to what runners feel after having run an ultramarathon- sudden rush of endorphins due to cessation of extreme physical abuse.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
August 1, 2011
This was a tiresome and trivial book to read.
It mentions 100's of names of bit players who 16 years later have mostly and rightly been tossed into the dustbin of history.
It reads like 100 newspaper articles pasted together.
the small details of what happened are recounted in detail,
but other than the fact that the people of the Balkins are tribal by history,
and hate everyone not in their tribe,
the larger picture isn't there.
It mentions 100's of names of bit players who 16 years later have mostly and rightly been tossed into the dustbin of history.
It reads like 100 newspaper articles pasted together.
the small details of what happened are recounted in detail,
but other than the fact that the people of the Balkins are tribal by history,
and hate everyone not in their tribe,
the larger picture isn't there.
February 25, 2009
the best, most objective overview of the war and it's immediate origins that i've come across (far better analysis than balkans ghosts, which seems to be the go-to book on the subject). it was published in the mid-90s, so it doesn't include the war in kosovo
September 19, 2007
Really thorough but too modern to be completely objective.
Want to read
January 7, 2024Too dense, not accessible for a casual reader. Completely lost me when they introduced three different people named Marković on the same page.
February 7, 2021
This is an exceptionally well written explanation of bizarre historical events of an atavistic byzantine world inhabited by hate-driven people. It is in fact a book written by journalists to accompany a BBC film series documenting the Balkan Wars of 1991-1995. I saw the film series many years ago as an attempt to learn about the history of the conflict but unfortunately found that which was described as very hard to comprehend. Of course, I was there in the middle of things, from April-November 1999 as part of SFOR, and we were very busy keeping warring factions apart. Background material was not part of the prep for deployment and the daily battle rhythm too busy to stop and reflect. But so too were the peacemaker diplomats from the outside world ignorant of the history and the geography and the reasons, justified or not, why these people did what they did to each other. We all were ignorant here in the USA while events unfolded there and we lived our otherwise busy lives detached from the suffering. Memory defaults to watching Peter Jennings every night for three years showing us pictures of the siege in Sarajevo. I had those vague pictures in my mind when I visited some of the familiar landmarks. This book was given to me in 1999 by an Army historian who told me it was the best book to read to understand how things got to where they were in Bosnia. I should have read it earlier and I wish that I could see the documentary again but alas it is only available via VHS. I will say that reading it provided understanding as it also brought back vivid memories of the places I visited and the people I met there. The listing of characters involved, acronyms, and multiple maps are absolutely essential to keeping up with who did what to whom. Knowing what I know about military operations in general and this conflict in particular it is obvious they did their homework. I personally would have liked more pictures, especially of images that are familiar from television coverage. The authors need to review their maps and include more city and regional (Krajina, Slavonia) names on the maps because trying to follow the narrative without seeing where they are is hard. I think it would be good if the authors did a sequel because so much has gone on in the past 21 years and the world paid little notice. The hunt for, capture of and Hague trials of the key antagonists – all dead now – were of key interest to me as I read about them happening. Well done.
April 15, 2023
Provides a very important insight into many historical and political themes that are still prevalent today. Personal ambition, nationalism, human rights, and the role of international "mediators" all feature just as heavily here as they do in chronicles of other developing or conflict-ridden regions. Sadly, there are clear parallels to be drawn between the subjects of this book and those that focus on the Middle East, southern Africa (to my understanding) and with little doubt South-East Asia and Latin America too (of which I have very little knowledge). It seems that all that is necessary is the modification of dates and names to render stories like these a general overview of the plight of most post-colonial regions. Indeed, the misfortunes of bosnia-hercegovina, kosovo (though not mentioned here), and croatia may easily be understood as symptomatic of a conflict between a waining empire (the Serbian empire of Yugoslavia) and its former colonies. There were also a few grammatical errors and the text suffered, at times, from some cumbersome wording. Nonetheless, I am very glad to have read this and will certainly look for more literature that goes beyond the scope of this work.
March 17, 2018
I'll be vacationing in Croatia soon and I wanted to learn the history of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Like many others I loved through the conflict, but never really followed it. Who are the Serbs? The Bosnians? The Croats? I'm glad I read this book as it explains it all.
The book accompanies the BBC documentary, "Death of Yugoslavia" which is also worth seeing.
Lots of characters and places. The author does the best possible job, I think, in giving us adequate details as she takes us through the story. The book has little discussion on the inevitability of the breakup of Yugoslavia or on how things could have been different. Was it ever possible to have a voluntary federation of these nationalities? How could the Europeans done a better job in ending the conflict?
The descriptions of the genocide is heartbreaking. The idea that ethnically cleansing whole swaths of geography is unimaginable in the modern world - and yet we saw it in our lifetimes.
The book accompanies the BBC documentary, "Death of Yugoslavia" which is also worth seeing.
Lots of characters and places. The author does the best possible job, I think, in giving us adequate details as she takes us through the story. The book has little discussion on the inevitability of the breakup of Yugoslavia or on how things could have been different. Was it ever possible to have a voluntary federation of these nationalities? How could the Europeans done a better job in ending the conflict?
The descriptions of the genocide is heartbreaking. The idea that ethnically cleansing whole swaths of geography is unimaginable in the modern world - and yet we saw it in our lifetimes.
December 16, 2024
I suppose the reason why this book usually gets unbelievably good ratings is its simplicity: essentially, the title should read “Complete idiot’s guide to Western stereotypes on hows and whys of Yugoslavia’s collapse”. Virtually the only virtue of Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation (the title is deceptive- in non-Anglo terminology, Yugoslavia was never a nation; only a country consisting of several nations) is that you’ll get acquainted (very stereotypically) with key players of the 1991-1995 war and be told a banality that the Greater Serbia ideology was the root cause of the rampage and bloodshed (other nuances aside). The authors are journalists (the book is based on a BBC series), and this is, I suppose, the best output media professionals with superficial knowledge of history, culture, national and ideological programs can come up with. So, for complete ignoramuses interested in ex-Yugoslavia wars, this is probably both the beginning and the end of the story. Others- forget it.
September 27, 2021
Hard to rate and review. It really does focus on the disintegration of the Yugoslav state, rather than the Balkan/Kosovo wars. In fact, the author's don't get to that part of the 1990s until the middle of the book. None of this is their fault - it is still meticulously researched and laid out, but even the updated 1997 version felt like there were so many stories (such as about even more genocidal aspects of Srebenica). Milosevic hadn't even been indicted for war crimes by the time this edition was published. Wish there was an updated version from perhaps 2010 - there may be one, my copy was second hand. The strength of this book, is that I *think* I can almost explain the outbreak of conflict without using pintacks and string.
February 1, 2018
Detailed look at the diplomatic and political side to the collapse and fall of Yugoslavia written near the time of the actual events; also a companion book to a documentary. Sordid part of 20th century European history with yet another hollow communist state riddled with ethnic, religious, and nationalist conflicts erupting into violence and collapse. The locals did the deeds, but that doesn't let Europe, Russia, or the U.S. off the hook either. Precursor to the various sub-optimal outcomes as the Soviet Union itself collapsed and the demagogues and klepto-crats who took over and rule to this day. Not a story for the pollyannas of the world.
November 22, 2017
This book took some time to read - a lot is covered and it can get pretty dense. This was such a comprehensive look at the wars and it seems only fitting that I finished it the day Mladic was convicted of genocide.
February 11, 2019
Such a complicated fractured region. I learned a lot, but it's very difficult to keep the groups and players straight. The reasons for the conflict is a lesson in centuries of world history, conquest, occupation, war, and religion. This book does as good a job and is possible I think.
September 1, 2024
If you want to thoroughly understand the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1989 - 1995 then this is a book for you. I learned a lot about the conflict and how leaders can drag their constituents into conflicts based on their own ego and to the detriment of everyone else.
February 22, 2025
Very comprehensive and did its level best to explain the motivation behind why each side acted the way they did. Have a deeper understanding of why the conflict played out the way it did and the compromises needed to keep the region stable.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews