Od naroda do nacija : povijest istočne Europe

From Peoples into Nations #1-3

by John Connelly, Vuk Perišić (Translator)

Gravitacijska sila nacionalizma toliko je snažna da će i političare kojima do nacije nije stalo preobraziti u ekstremiste, konstatira američki povjesničar John Connelly u svojoj jedinstvenoj povijesti istočnoeuropskih nacionalnih previranja, Od naroda do nacija. Davna povijest invazija i migracija učinila je ovo područje iznimno raznolikim, s bezbrojnim narodima koji su tijekom dugih razdoblja živjeli u miru rame uz rame, dok bi pozivi na nacionalnu autonomiju često potom ostavljali neizbrisive krvave tragove. Od carskog dekreta Josipa II. o njemačkom jeziku, preko uspona nacionalizma i stvaranja novih država nakon Prvog svjetskog rata, osvajanja Trećeg Reicha, kontrole Sovjetskog Saveza i konačnog rušenja komunizma, pa sve do suvremenog uspona nacionalizma i populističkih politika diljem regije, Connelly minuciozno opisuje posljedice povijesnih događaja na obične ljude koji su po često nejasnim kriterijima tvorili određene etnose. S obzirom na okolnosti u kojima su živjeli, Istočni Europljani su, nedvojbeno, razvili osjećaj za neizvjesnost povijesti: nacije nisu vječne, one nastaju, a katkad i nestaju. Od naroda do nacija – povijest istočne Europe sjajan je, intrigantan i zanimljiv prikaz ovog povijesnog fenomena

Genres: History, European History, Nonfiction, Politics, Ukraine, Poland, Historical

1191 pages, Hardcover

Published January 1, 2022

About the author

John Connelly is the Sidney Hellman Ehrman Professor of History and director of the Institute for East European, Eurasian, and Slavic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of Captive University: The Sovietization of East German, Czech, and Polish Higher Education and From Enemy to Brother: The Revolution in Catholic Teaching on the Jews. He lives in Kensington, California.

Reviews

[Brett C · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very thorough examination a the peoples of Eastern Europe. The narrative starts with the migration of the Slavic tribal people into the region around 1000 AD. These peoples eventually took on unique linguistic patterns, became derivatives of each other, and turned into the various ethnic peoples of Eastern Europe. The book moves quickly through the Middle Ages and the book takes off around the 1806 after the end of the Holy Roman Empire. The book mostly is history about the people, their nationalism, languages, and interactions with each other. Aside from the core peoples (Romanians, Poles, Hungarians, Serbs, etc.) the author presents the Jews, Transylvanians, Moldovans, Wallachians, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, etc.

The book moves along into the present encompassing a lot of information. There are many places, names, characters, and peoples to include the Habsburg's, the Ottomans, World Wars I & II, the Cold War, the Bosnian Civil War, and into the present 2000s. Ethnic Russians and later, the Soviet Union, are only mentioned in relation to the core countries that make up Eastern Europe.

Something unique I found the author did extensive research on language. The author gave a good presentation on languages (Polish, Romanian, Hungarian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Slovene, Croatian, Serbian, Macedonian, Slovak. etc.) and incorporates it well into the history.

I thought this book was well-researched and scholarly. The reading was a bit dry and boring at times but is a great reference source. I would recommend it to anyone interested in Eastern European studies.

[Chris Jaffe · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars, but I'm willing to round up.

There's a lot in here, but I think Connelly may have bitten off more than he can chew. He's tracing eastern Europe's history over the last 200 years with special attention paid to the rise and role of nationalism in the region. But it often gets so focused on the details, that it's often hard to see a bigger picture or remember that this is supposed to be something other than a narrative history.

Connelly's main point is to contend that the prominent theories of nationalism put out by Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawn don't work in eastern Europe. OK, so he's against the modernist theory of nationalism. But......about 20 years ago I read a book about the various theories on nationalism by Anthony D. Smith. In it, Smith noted several schools of thought on nationalism. Connelly is opposed to the most prominent school, but does that mean he's more aligned with the others? From my own vague memory of Smith's book, this book aligns more with the primordialist school of nationalism (where nationalism isn't primordial, but takes it's power from association with pre-modern fetaures). There's no talk of anything other than Hobsbawn & Anderson, though. It's like those are the only guys to ever write on nationalism and Connelly is the first guy to ever criticize their theories.

Also, there's too much on the Cold War and not enough on post-Cold War. Almost a third of this book covers 1945-89 (mind you: the overall book covers 200 years). That isn't a problem in and of itself. It's a little odd, given that nationalism isn't usually the main feature of that era, but to give Connelly credit he does bring up the role nationalism played during this era. But there's so much on the Cold War that it's easy to lose sight of the main thrust of the book. Also, you then get a chapter & a half on post-Cold War. Given that one of the most important features of eastern Europe in the 21st century, you'd think a book on nationalism in eastern Europe would want to focus more on that. The combination of intensive coverage of the Cold War combined with scant attention paid to modern times really undercuts the main thematic interest of this book.

There is some good info. Some semi-random notes on that regard: Connelly notes how Holy Roman Emperor Joseph's determination to switch from Latin to German in record-keeping sparked a backlash among much of his subject people. Language became a big stumbling block for Hapsburg reforms. Patriotism was later promoted in schools and theaters in eastern Europe. The Serbs based much of theirs on epic poetry and the Orthodox church - then later a dictionary. Some movements (like Hungarian and Czech movements) were supported by liberalism while others weren't. The Congress of Berlin made self-determination central to a nation-state. Fascism's rise was caused by liberal neglect of lower-down people, Connelly argues (in a part of the book I found frankly muddled). Late 19th century liberals had a break up over their original notions of the people. Political anti-Semitism rose up. He argues that Serbia's genocide shows how an ethnicity can be fabricated.

I noted at the start that this is a 3.5 star book but I'm willing to round up. The more I write of this review, the more I find myself questioning that. Ah, since I ain't sure, I'll keep the star rating where it is. But it's a really unenthusiastic four stars.

[Liviu · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disappointing as tendentious and with factual mistakes; 2 stars for the work put into it

[Zach Hollifield · Rating 4 out of 5]

Officially the longest book I’ve read. 800 pages of text. Excellent writing and incredibly informative about a very complex part of the world.

I went on a binge-read of Eastern Europe and particularly former Yugoslavia. This is the most comprehensive and immersive book I read. Connelly covers an incredible amount of ground and it is a tad overwhelming for a newcomer to the area, but you leave understanding better the region and it’s centuries-long struggle for nationhood that has its roots in peoples. Particularly relevant for our world-wide moment.

I don’t believe he gives enough time to abject horror of living under Communist rule in the mid 20th century. I also think his condemnation of Serbia for their part of the break up of Yugoslavia was underwhelming and weak. But worthwhile nonetheless.

[Andrew Morin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very wide-reaching and insightful. Overall a very well told narrative of the national stories and aspirations of the peoples of East-Central Europe. Felt generally well-balanced in its treatment, both geographically and temporally. Also seemed like a good mix between local agency and the power exerted by foreign actors. The book starts especially compellingly, with a very good narrative of the first risings of nationalism in response to enlightenment Habsburg centralization.

Some aspects felt skipped over, especially in light of modern issues. Very little on NATO expansion, for instance and the two forces of illiberalism and europeanism, while a theme in the closing pages, feel a little under covered.

[Hans Luiten · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zo, dat was hard werken. 800 pagina’s met een overload aan informatie over het “andere dan Europese” nationalisme in Centraal-Europa. Interessante observaties over de tegenstellingen Magyaren/Duitsers versus Slaven.
Moet het allemaal nog even verwerken 😀met oog op mijn boek. Maar voor de liefhebber: mooi boek #begrijpjijcentraaleuropanog

[Igor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Хороша книжка, яка добре поєднує власне оповідь про події та аналіз цих подій і довготривалих тенденцій. Вона покриває історію Центрально-Східної Європи (від Польщі до Македонії, без колишнього СРСР) умовно з 1780 року до сьогодні, але особливо детально і цікаво висвітлено соціалістичний період (1945-1989). Було б все добре, якби не одруки і самоповтори автора, на видалення яких чомусь не знайшлось редактора.

[Monika Schrock · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good overall summary but missed something in the postwar analysis especially in regards to Poland. To say there were no immediate designs on making Poland a communist buffer state ignores everything from the Katyn Massacre to the imprisonment and murder of virtually every political, military or educational leader of any stature who wasn’t communist and the active involvement of Russian collaborators and Russia itself in postwar elections. For much of Poland the terror didn’t stop when the Nazi regime was replaced by the Russian Communist regime. It does do a nice job of covering up English and American government leaders’ betrayal of the Free Poles and the promise to protect the rebuilding of an independent Polish government.

[Chris Fluit · Rating 5 out of 5]

A tremendous book. I learned so much and was kept engaged throughout. The author did a great job of rotating through the multiple ethnic groups and emerging nations, spending enough time on each to help the reader feel immersed in their part of the story, while keeping things lively by moving on to the next group. Could have used a better proof-reader for the second half of the book as some typographical errors slipped through. But that doesn't take away from this incredibly informative and engaging story.

[Songlin He · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book couldn't have been bought at a better timing.

I bought this book early 2024 but never had a chance to read it. Then I met a Ukrainian guy who has lived in Czechia for the past 12 years, we talked a lot about politics, culture and how society works in different parts of the world. One thing he complained quite frequently was how suffocated he had felt living in Prague, it's a place he has been struggling to blend in, and xenophobia can be found in every corner. He's also frustrated by working for a German-owned corporate, where some management feel better about themselves and earn more only because they are lucky to have been born in a more privileged country. As much as I would like to understand his pain, I was not able to relate. And reading this book really helped me bridge the gap, giving me a better understanding of the struggle and pain he feels on a daily basis.

The introduction of this book quoted many examples of German attitudes towards Czechs throughout the history, some of them almost too blunt and cruel to read. "(Czechs) have been absorbed into the irresistible German culture" "They Germanised" "Other German democrats see Czechs as a slave people, destined to work in the fields and kitchen" "Any Czech of substance would naturally become a German" To this day, I'm afraid this attitude has not changed much.

This book is also focused on how nationalism shapes the Eastern Europe. I've always believed that nationalism is one of the most toxic and narrow-minded ideologies, which is not unlike religion. Nationalism is about alienating others, excluding others, and uniting those who are also extreme and narrow-minded, to fight for the unjust cause. But it is so powerful, and so unstoppable that politicians keep exploiting nationalism, without fail. Because human beings are so easily manipulated and exploited.

It's sad to see that small nations never had a chance to prosper and be equal to the great powers, no matter how they fight. Eastern Europeans will always be subject to great powers' control, either by Russia or Germany, but can never be fully independent. For example, Czechia has one of the lowest unemployment rates because this country's labour are "on sale", for they are considered cheap labours to Germany corporates.

It is also sad to see anti-semitism has never disappear throughout the centuries. The discrimination has been as strong as it was during WW II, and human beings will never learn to embrace other culture, and find peace with each other.

[César · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sem dúvida um livro que nos dá na prática a diferença entre povo e nação. Toda aquela confusão nos Balcãs, que ainda hoje se regista. Parte da Idade Média até aos nossos dias. Conseguimos ver que as nações chamadas de leste pertencem a uma Europa em pleno. Difícil conhecer a Europa de hoje sem perceber o passado. Recomendo, Embora sendo um livro grande, recomendo ler devagar e perceber tudo o que estava em jogo.

[Aaron · Rating 3 out of 5]

I continue to be disappointed by the fact supposedly reputable historians can't bring themselves to actually honestly talk about religion. Not mentioning Jan Hus outside of one sentence in a chapter on the development of Czech nationalism is criminal. Only having a single paragraph about Pope John Paul II in a chapter on the collapse of communism in Poland and the Solidarity movement is insane.

[Frank Stein · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a wonderful and impressive book that allows me, for the first time, to get a handle on the seemingly intractable issue of nationalism in a region where nationalism has been one of the defining attributes of its history.

Unlike many contemporary books on nationalism, a book on Eastern Europe cannot take nationalism as an unalloyed good or bad. After all, it was nationalism that led groups like the Czechs and the Hungarians to fight for modern democracy during the Hapsburg empire, just like it was nationalism that caused many of those same groups to mistreat minority nationalities after they achieved independence in the 1920s. It was German nationalism that led to the conquest and suppression of much of Eastern Europe, and, most horrifyingly, the elimination of much of the region's Jews. But it was also nationalism that led much of the Slavic opposition to German imperialism and also led Jews to organize emigration to Israel. It was nationalism that led to the expulsion of many Germans and other ethnic minorities from Eastern European nations after World War II, but it was also nationalism that motivated much of opposition to Soviet tyranny. This book, appropriately, treats nationalism just as a fact of modern life that needs to be explained and dealt with.

Connelly points out that despite the seeming complexity, Eastern European nationalism had some clear and continuing issues. The first is that Eastern Europe was basically divided between Northern Slavs (ie Poles, Czechs, etc.) and Southern Slavs (Croats, Serbians, etc.), with the dividing line going through the two odd groups out, Magyars in Hungary and semi-Latins in Romania. The Eastern Europeans also had to deal with German nationalism on their West and Russian/Slavic nationalism on their East. For much of the 19th century that meant the German Hapsburg's tried to make alliance with the Magyars to keep down the Slavic/Russian threat, but at the same time many Slavs, such as the Croatians, saw the Hapsburgs as a defense against excessive Magyar nationalism in their semi-independent territory. Yet, even at the outbreak of the First World War, almost all groups just wanted autonomy within the Hapsburg world, not the collapse of the empire itself.

World War I and Versailles created a farrago of new states, most of which did fall into a kind of authoritarianism (with Czechoslovakia under T.G. Masaryk and Edward Benes being the exception), but, as Connelly points out, outright fascism was almost nonexistent in Eastern Europe until the Nazis imposed or encouraged it. And although Stalinism at first tried to emphasize internationalism, after Stalin's death every Eastern European country turned to a form of national communism as part of it's justifying ideology. Nonetheless, the people in these nations, especially after the Soviet crackdown in Prague in 1968, understood their system as a foreign imposition, and this motivated much of the opposition to it.

As Connelly points out, early nationalism was a parlor-room affair, where, as one scholar said, the collapse of a single-room would have eliminated the Czech nationalist movement. But they had a big impact. Slovak Jan Kollar created the basis for Czechoslovakia, and Croat Ljudevit Gaj, an acquittance, created the basis for the "Illyrians" or "Yugoslavs" or South Slavs. These academics created dictionaries, formulated inchoate grammars out of competing dialects, and created clubs to propagate their ideas. By the end of the 19th century, however, especially due to the rise of schooling and literacy, nationalism, especially around language, became a mass movement that defined much of politics. One of the reasons the Hapsburg empire was troubled was simply because every region formed it's own national party whose demands centered on language and decentralization rather than issues common to the empire.

This book will forever color how I see Eastern Europe, but also nationalism more broadly. As Connelly shows, nationalism in Eastern Europe always had to deal with the problem of extinction, which for small nations was real, and that gave nationalism a heft it didn't have in other, Western European nations. But in a region with lots of competing nations, both on the border and inside the existing nations, nationalism just had to be part of any discussion, since issues of language, culture, and even economic dominance (in Czech lands it was Germans who economically dominated the Czechs, but in much of Hungary existing elites used nationalism to keep down Slavs) always intersected with political issues. It's an important reminder.

[Wayne Guiney]

This book left me with the impression that the author thinks that "democracy" and "freemakets" are attributes of the best of all possible worlds. Why inverted commas? Well our democracies are not real democracies and, fortunately, the market isn't purely free. The failings of Communism are made clear by the author and people have benefited from its overthrow. However, people are not living happy, peaceful, fulfilling lives in capitalist states in Europe and America or anywhere else. Communism failed to liberate people from capitalism but the problems of "free markets" continue. Those problems are only too obvious: business corruption, media manipulation, drugs, suicide, racism, crime, unemployment, financial insecurity, domestic violence, international tension, homelessness, arms races, and environmental damage etc. Sadly, because of the failure of communism, no one seems able to recognise that their problems still reside directly and indirectly in the economic system. People might be born equal but the economic system makes them very unequal very quickly. The rich continue to run the system for their own benefit, come what may. Of course, the system can continues as long as there is a middle class of consumers who are willing to live with or ignore the negative consequences and an idiology that obfuscates the failings of so called democracy. One could say sarcastically, that the difference between democracies and dictatorships is that dictatorships bash up their own people while democracies bash up other people, generally those in poor countries. (Of course, democracies used to bash up their own people! e.g. France 1871) It is in failing to draw attention to these problems that the author unwittingly leaves us with the impression that there are only two alternative: democratic capitalism or communist one-party rule. Thus the book does not inspire much hope for the future. As a history of the last two centuries in Eastern Europe, however, this book invoked in me admiration for the
sholarship that the author has devoted to this admirable and very readable text.

[John Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Author John Connelly put forward incredibly detailed information in his big book on the history of Eastern Nations. The book is written in a chronological order, missing the ability to clearly show themes and makes the general learning tougher to absorb. Too often, the author hoses the reader with considerable information that is hard to follow, that goes from theme to theme, and country to country. To the defense of Connelly, the shifting lines of nations and alliances further the confusion.

One general theme that is covered repeatedly is the anti-Semitism that played out repeatedly in similar ways in various Eastern European countries before Nazi Germany displayed world known hatred. Connelley also shares how Gentiles were not welcoming after WWII, despite the horrify treatment their former neighbors suffered. In some cases, Jews were killed even after WWII when they returned to their former homes.

The book contains many good stories, and even better lessons, including ones that can be applied to today’s politics throughout the world. Sadly, the way this book is written, makes it much harder to understand no less appreciate this incredible portion of the world. While it has some good stories in this big book, they are not written in a manner that makes the reader feel they are living out one's experience instead of just reading a text book. It was a missed opportunity.

From the start of the book – and throughout – the author reminds his reader that land mass, and the people on the land, were controlled by various elements. He speaks about language and nationalism. AS one who has traveled to many of these countries, mentioning these cities and sharing more about the country is interesting and will make the next visit to Eastern Europe more rewarding.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

In From Peoples Into Nations: A History of Eastern Europe, John Connelly charts the development of Eastern Europe from a region dominated by aristocratic, titled elites who squabbled over borders and treasure for their own self interest to a region in which the previously subservient peoples demanded borders, government, and treasure based on national identity. It's a complicated history because over the centuries people speaking different languages or worshiping in different religions or following different political ideologies settled together in a mishmash of communities across the region we now call Eastern Europe. This mishmash created complications both as the empires and estates ruled by elites disintegrated and as the people tried to sort themselves into identifiable, sustainable nation-states.

Connelly's well documented history incorporates a great deal of detail about the political and social movements that formed the tidal forces under the more obvious events and people that were the manifestations of this historical period. Readers do not need to read the whole work in one go, nor do the chapters need to be read in order. While this is a comprehensive work, it is probably best (as with all good histories) to read it in pieces along with other works that address related (or the same) social and political movements.

[Grant Bowser · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic read detailing the birth and evolution of ethnic nationalism among Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Croats, Serbs, Romanians, and other Central and Eastern European groups. Despite the semi-legendary status of the former nations of the Habsburg Empire and its periphery, I personally didn’t know a particular amount about its history, despite having people I considered friends who lived there. Connelly’s exceptionally long work (956 pages, with around 100 of which being just cited sources and the like) provided in-depth analysis on the genesis of nationhood of these interesting countries, all the way into the modern day, which helped spark really interesting conversation with said friends.

[Ionut Iamandi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pe la începutul acestui veac, Tony Judt le reproşa istoricilor occidentali - şi îl menţiona pe Eric Hobsbawm - că exclud Europa de Est din istoria Europei. Pentru ei, argumenta profesorul britanic, istoriografia se opreşte la Viena; dincolo de Slovacia începe Asia, după cum spunea Metternich. La aproape treizeci de ani distanţă, profesorul John Connelly vine să infirme observaţia lui Judt şi în aproape 1.000 de pagini dense, el propune o istorie completă a Europei de Est din ultimele două secole - o istorie care a influențat profund istoria universală recentă.

[Will O’Neil · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite comprehensive, which works both for and against the book. I would agree with several reviews that the narrative becomes lost in great (excessive?) detail at several points. This would be more passable if the book weren’t so long (800 pages, not including notes or references).

However, the author should be credited for the intensity of the research, particularly for the linguistic details and anecdotes which are sprinked through the book.

In a sentence: a well-researched book with plenty of insight, but one that could have been condensed to half the length.

[Nikos Nikopoulos]

I read the book whenever I have time and I've reached to Chapter 4. So far it's a JOURNEY, explaining with the best and catchiest of ways how the national awakening of Slavs and other peoples differed from region to region and from empire to empire, and also real relevant stories that really make you catch the drift of the time. I definitely continue reading it and I hope it's going to be as immersive or even more in the process.

[Ernest Spoon · Rating 4 out of 5]

A monster volume on a monster topic, the history of East Central Europe from Habsburg time to the present, and still a primer. Well-written.

[Kevin Moynihan · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you can get past the anti-Nationalism and flat out Leftism (the guy has great animosity towards Hungary’s Orban), it’s a great book covering vast amounts of time and locations. I learned a lot.

[Jakub Ferencik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb. I will be revisiting this volume throughout my life. It really doesn't get better than this. A once in a lifetime achievement.

[Dave Hunt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably on of the most important book that you'll never read.

[Damien A. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jam packed with information. Well written and fascinating

[Magdalena · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely amazing, thorough, and historically as accurate as possible! The sociological approach makes this book easy to read, understand, and relate to. A real treasure.

[Olivia Andersen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This history is so important.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Starting in the 1780s up to the present day (2019), the book looks at the development of nationalism in Eastern Europe (here meaning Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia (itself mainly meaning Croatia and Serbia), with a brief look at East Germany), and how the concept of a national identity was first developed and then expanded to help form the modern states. As Connelly notes in the conclusion, "nationalism was not contingent, but rather situational: its strength depending above all on the level of perceived threat to a particular ethnicity." (p. 790). By this he shows that there were several key moments and actions that led to the events where distinct national identities were formed, and that the Eastern Europe states all followed similar trajectories to reach that. It is an ambitious and long read, but well worth going through.

[Iñaki Tofiño · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting approach to the contemporary history of Eastern Europe, the remnants of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, and how nationalism has shaped the course of the different countries that emerged there. The book is long, but it is well researched and quite easy to read.

[John M · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lots of information but keeps the line moving. Wowie zowie is it long though.

Lots of maps!