Customer Reviews

Bosnia and Hercegovina: A Tradition Betrayed

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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

WRITTEN BY AN AUTHOR THAT HAS FULLY EXPERIENCED BOSNIAN ENVIRONMENT DURING POST WORLD WAR TWO PERIOD HE IS TELLING ABSOLUTELY UNBIASED STORY ABOUT THE THREE NATIONS THAT LIVE ON BOSNIAN TERITORY . WHAT I LIKED THE MOST AS A BOSNIAN CITIZEN IS THAT THE AUTHOR HIMSELF AS AN AMERICAN DEDICATED HIS TIME AND WILL TO SPEND BIG AMOUNT OF TIME IN THE REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AS A UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR WHICH HELPED HIM TO FULLY UNDERSTAND BOSNIAN MENTALITY.

*****

Good information provided, but authors used their own biased axiom to analyze Bosnia, its people and history. That devaluated the significance of this nice book.

Robert J. Donia and John V.A. Fine make clear a couple of points on the conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina, and to do that, they dig the history of Bosnia from an independent Catholic kingdom to Ottoman overlordship, Austro-Hungarian overlordship, Serbian-dominated royal Yugoslavia, the fascist Independent State of Croatia under Ante Pavelic, Socialist Yugoslavia under Marshal Tito, to the independent Bosnia that was torn apart by ethnic strife.

Those of you who saw American Marines on TV saying, "Oh, these people have been fighting each other for thousands of years," should clearly realize their ignorance of Balkan history. Clearly, ancient history is not a prerequisite for grunts.

Another interest point is how the Ottomans classified their Slavic subjects. They did so under religion, i.e. Orthodox, Catholic, Muslim, or Jew. They were more favourable to the Orthodox Slavs, as the Orthodox patriarch in Constantinople was under their thrall, so in civil complaints, guess which Christian the judge favoured more?

The other dimension to categorizing by religion was how the people identified themselves. Most nationalities think, "I'm German," or "I'm British." In this case, the logic goes something like this: "I'm Orthodox, therefore I'm Serb" or "I'm Catholic, therefore I'm Croat" or "I'm Muslim [in religion], therefore I'm Muslim [nationality]". Interesting indeed.

But let's not forget the main point: it wasn't until the Austo-Hungarian Empire took over the Balkans that the religious animosities flared up. Before, people of all three religions got along just fine. Oh, and guess what? The Serbs and Croats got their names from Iranian tribes who migrated to the region. These tribes became Slavicised and that was that.

This book goes up to 1994, just missing the massacres of Srebrenica and Zepa, as well as the shopping square massacre in Sarajevo that got the Western powers to finally say, "That's it! We gotta do something!"

The handful of maps of the region helpfully compliment the sections of the book, and early on, the legitimacy of Bosnia as a distinct polity is successfully argued. Its division into states along the river-boundaries (Banovinas) of royal Yugoslavia is also of particular interest.

What happened in Bosnia was very horrific, there's no denying that. This book will explain the facts, debunk myths, and give the reader a quick primer in Bosnian history.

John Fine Professor of History at the University of Michigan and probably the leading expert in the world on the Balkans, author of the two-volume and extremely detailed "History of the Balkans" and his former student and expert in his own right, Robert Donia have written a nice synopsis of the situation in Bosnia and Hercegovinia.

This is a useful book, and a merciful read for those who don't want to wade through the thousands of pages they have written on this subject. I have "waded" and actually completed one volume of the history by Fine (cover-to-cover) and part of the second volume. Believe me it gets painful in places. If you want more detail about the history of the Balkans check out some of the more comprehensive books written by Fine and Donia, or the wonderful books by JJ Norwich which cover a similar period in history as Fine's books.

This could be a useful source on several different levels, but there are some problems in the text that may confuse the average reader. The book is designed for readers to better understand the basics of the Balkan Crisis. However, the reader must understand a good deal of history (a little more than a college survey in Western history) in order to fully comprehend the method the authors use to describe Bosnian History. Furthermore, the book contains too many generalizations and not enough details. Evidence is rarely given to support their conclusions or defend their position from other theories. Definitions on some key pharses are lacking in the text itself when the reader encounters it for the first time. A glossary is provided but the information there should be mirrored, at least partially, in the body of the text. I do hold that the authors are well studied and educated, and that their conclusions *seem* correct. But I need some documentation and evidence that should be contained in their arguements in order to trust in their conclusions.

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

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

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

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

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

Those unfamiliar with the complex and rich history of Bosnia ought to start with Donia and Fine's work. Though not as detailed as other books, it nonetheless conveys with great clarity the past of that region. It greatest value, however, is not the masterly summary of a complicated history, but the theme which the authors see in Bosnia's past -- a theme of tolerance and cooperation among diverse people. The popular notion that Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats have always hated each other is misleading and, more importantly, dehumanizing. The authors have done a wonderful job of countering that notion by cogently arguing for a more sympathetic approach to Bosnia's people and history.

For the reviewer who complained about lack of details, please understand this book was written as an "idiots guide" to Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time when Americans and rest of the world were bombarded with information about war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. If you would like to learn more please see other books by Fine and Donia. For example Bosnian Church by John V.A. Fine will give you an excellent overview of medieval Bosnia, its people and the role the religion played in their life.

For everybody else this book is very good historical chronology of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Majority of books written about Balkan states written by local historians deserves scrutiny because they were written to support nationalist and chauvinist view of one or the other ethnic community.
Robert J. Donia and John V.A. Fine are unbiased researchers whose judgments you can trust.

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

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

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

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

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