What do you think?
Rate this book
The Fall of Yugoslavia
Misha Glenny's acclaimed account of the war in former Yugoslavia contains substantial new material that discusses the end of the five-year conflict and looks ahead to an uneasy future in this turbulent region.
314 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1992
105 people are currently reading
3539 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 124 reviews
September 21, 2014
This book on the breakup of yugoslavia and the subsequent mass violence all across the balkans was neither illuminating nor educating. The author frequently insults the intelligence of those he interacts with, particular insulting attention given to serbs. He also uses repetitive hyperbole in the phrase "one of the most..." or "probably the most..." - is it or isn't it? The conflict was horrible and traumatizing for many people, and this author is saying how the worst tragedies of the conflict occured in actually quite small interactions before the war even started. His hyperbole detracts from the needed realistic and balanced perspective a good journalist requires.
According to him, almost everyone he meets is subhuman and an example of yugoslavian insanity. According to him, each and every event of threat (whether anyone died or not), is an example of the worst events to ever happen during the fall. His exaggerations and insults are an insult to journalistic and historic integrity he claims to represent.
Also frustrating was how frequently he repetitiously described police border checks. I get it, he had guns aimed at him and his car was searched, and then through luck and lying, he survived. He goes through this pattern about a dozen times. There's more to this conflict then security-wannabes with guns stopping cars and killing or threatening to, the people who are in these cars.
I had hoped this book would be highly illuminating on an very complex concept riddled with confusion caused by the imperial and hyper-nationalist powers deceiving the public. Instead, I get an arrogant journal by a man with a lot of repetition and little unique thought and analysis, a man who insults those around him rather than relating to the material conditions of the time, and one who would while stating and understanding west-european expansionism, ignores the imperial inciting of ethnic-violence by the various super- and regional-powers. The author fixates on pointing out the body-types, physical traits, eye colour, of the people he interacts with, rather than giving us meaningful information.
The author seems apart from the conflict. Which is surprising considering the best journalists tend to be directly involved in the conflict they're writing about. But, he is not even a good journalist. By the end, I was considering how I might find a book with good coverage on this topic, when I remembered Chomsky wrote a far more illuminating analysis of jugoslavia than this author, and in a fraction of the words and pages. I may reread it again sometime, but I'd prefer to find another author who covers even more of the history and socio-economic politics which led up to the violence in former yugoslavia.
The only good thing he said in this story is a description of violence and irresponsibility which I finally have the words to describe: "The tendency to justify atrocities by pointing to those committed by the opposing side will merely ensure that the pattern of reciprocal massacre remains unbroken."
According to him, almost everyone he meets is subhuman and an example of yugoslavian insanity. According to him, each and every event of threat (whether anyone died or not), is an example of the worst events to ever happen during the fall. His exaggerations and insults are an insult to journalistic and historic integrity he claims to represent.
Also frustrating was how frequently he repetitiously described police border checks. I get it, he had guns aimed at him and his car was searched, and then through luck and lying, he survived. He goes through this pattern about a dozen times. There's more to this conflict then security-wannabes with guns stopping cars and killing or threatening to, the people who are in these cars.
I had hoped this book would be highly illuminating on an very complex concept riddled with confusion caused by the imperial and hyper-nationalist powers deceiving the public. Instead, I get an arrogant journal by a man with a lot of repetition and little unique thought and analysis, a man who insults those around him rather than relating to the material conditions of the time, and one who would while stating and understanding west-european expansionism, ignores the imperial inciting of ethnic-violence by the various super- and regional-powers. The author fixates on pointing out the body-types, physical traits, eye colour, of the people he interacts with, rather than giving us meaningful information.
The author seems apart from the conflict. Which is surprising considering the best journalists tend to be directly involved in the conflict they're writing about. But, he is not even a good journalist. By the end, I was considering how I might find a book with good coverage on this topic, when I remembered Chomsky wrote a far more illuminating analysis of jugoslavia than this author, and in a fraction of the words and pages. I may reread it again sometime, but I'd prefer to find another author who covers even more of the history and socio-economic politics which led up to the violence in former yugoslavia.
The only good thing he said in this story is a description of violence and irresponsibility which I finally have the words to describe: "The tendency to justify atrocities by pointing to those committed by the opposing side will merely ensure that the pattern of reciprocal massacre remains unbroken."
July 5, 2020
This is an okay book - 3.5 stars.
I've read several works by Misha, including the The Balkans and The Battle for Rio, both later and more complete works. I was quite impressed by what he wrote, so I decided to give this one a look, too.
In a way, The Fall of Yugoslavia is a precursor to The Balkans, which was written a good decade later, and provides a wider and less confused look at the region and its recent wars. The Fall is a sort of memoir, written primarily during 1991-1993, with some extras added in 1995 and 1996. Thus, it doesn't cover the entire conflict, and isn't a comprehensive view of the story. Misha also seems to have developed his understanding of the Balkan Boogaloo while writing, so it's mostly work in progress, and feels rough at times.
Now, that said, this is still a good book. What makes up for gaps in the political and historical narrative, and the fact there's no closure, is more than made up for by excellent writing style, tons of anecdotes, and rather unforgiving descriptions of the different Balkan politicians and military figures. Ample derogatives are used liberally, and Misha doesn't shy away from a direct, and rather quite emotional condemnation of persons, which is atypical for history works. But then, for someone who had lived in the region, his is a personal, emotional book.
Misha tries to give some sense to the utter confusion that led to the war, the reasons and not-reasons, and the great mishaps of the international community. I think he sheds light on some rather intriguing phenomena, and some of his stories offer a unique insight I've not read elsewhere. On the other hand, some of the leap-to-conclusions feel a little far fetched, but this could just be that lack of closure and 20,000-feet view after the conflict.
Anyway, despite its flaws, The Fall of Yugoslavia is still a very good book. It's a bit short, and, as I wrote, incomplete, but the "gonzo" style is quite compelling. Entertaining, sad, tragic, absurb, and revealing. It also sheds light on Macedonia and Albania, which are often overlooked as side players. It talks about politicians who didn't make the headlines but whose work and influence still shaped the region and its wars regardless.
Recommended, but you may be left with an itchy sense once done reading - which is why you ought to grab Misha's full history work on the region next, as that one really does cover the wider story and gives a better overall picture of the Balkans in the late 20th century. However, you should read this one too, because it has such silly intimate stories that are not included in the more somber and aloof 200-year thesis. There.
Igor
I've read several works by Misha, including the The Balkans and The Battle for Rio, both later and more complete works. I was quite impressed by what he wrote, so I decided to give this one a look, too.
In a way, The Fall of Yugoslavia is a precursor to The Balkans, which was written a good decade later, and provides a wider and less confused look at the region and its recent wars. The Fall is a sort of memoir, written primarily during 1991-1993, with some extras added in 1995 and 1996. Thus, it doesn't cover the entire conflict, and isn't a comprehensive view of the story. Misha also seems to have developed his understanding of the Balkan Boogaloo while writing, so it's mostly work in progress, and feels rough at times.
Now, that said, this is still a good book. What makes up for gaps in the political and historical narrative, and the fact there's no closure, is more than made up for by excellent writing style, tons of anecdotes, and rather unforgiving descriptions of the different Balkan politicians and military figures. Ample derogatives are used liberally, and Misha doesn't shy away from a direct, and rather quite emotional condemnation of persons, which is atypical for history works. But then, for someone who had lived in the region, his is a personal, emotional book.
Misha tries to give some sense to the utter confusion that led to the war, the reasons and not-reasons, and the great mishaps of the international community. I think he sheds light on some rather intriguing phenomena, and some of his stories offer a unique insight I've not read elsewhere. On the other hand, some of the leap-to-conclusions feel a little far fetched, but this could just be that lack of closure and 20,000-feet view after the conflict.
Anyway, despite its flaws, The Fall of Yugoslavia is still a very good book. It's a bit short, and, as I wrote, incomplete, but the "gonzo" style is quite compelling. Entertaining, sad, tragic, absurb, and revealing. It also sheds light on Macedonia and Albania, which are often overlooked as side players. It talks about politicians who didn't make the headlines but whose work and influence still shaped the region and its wars regardless.
Recommended, but you may be left with an itchy sense once done reading - which is why you ought to grab Misha's full history work on the region next, as that one really does cover the wider story and gives a better overall picture of the Balkans in the late 20th century. However, you should read this one too, because it has such silly intimate stories that are not included in the more somber and aloof 200-year thesis. There.
Igor
February 8, 2008
Glenny deftly sheds light on this all too often ignored and oversimplified conflict. In the form of journalistic narrative he describes in detail the competing interests that again ignited the dormant Balkan powder keg.
As he witnessed many of these developments first-hand while working on the ground for the BBC, his writing vividly captures the mood of the people and places this war scorched. At times his attention to detail in a style that borders on rambling makes it difficult to keep the events he's describing in sequence -- a simple time line would have been clutch.
What the book lacks in generic clarity it more than makes up for in its description of root causes and competing political interests. By the end of the book, for example, I felt I had truly learned about the history of ethnic unrest that lead to the war, and that I could comment meaningfully on the differences between Serbs, Croatian-Serbs, Bosnian Serbs, etc. This book stops off in 1996, though, so the story of the war wasn't quite finished by the end of the book.
As he witnessed many of these developments first-hand while working on the ground for the BBC, his writing vividly captures the mood of the people and places this war scorched. At times his attention to detail in a style that borders on rambling makes it difficult to keep the events he's describing in sequence -- a simple time line would have been clutch.
What the book lacks in generic clarity it more than makes up for in its description of root causes and competing political interests. By the end of the book, for example, I felt I had truly learned about the history of ethnic unrest that lead to the war, and that I could comment meaningfully on the differences between Serbs, Croatian-Serbs, Bosnian Serbs, etc. This book stops off in 1996, though, so the story of the war wasn't quite finished by the end of the book.
November 11, 2016
First the warnings: "The Fall of Yugoslavia" is not a history book. It came out during the war. It predates the Srebrenica massacre. As it went to print the bridge of Mostar still stood. It does not come with a long list of notes, a bibliography or anything of the sort. It's not a primer on Balkan history (though author Misha Glenny has written one and I found it comprehensive, thoughful and fair) and it's not even a primer on the "Third Balkan War." So the title of the book is misleading. This is, its title notwithstanding, a journal and it does not try to be anything more than a journal.
What we're looking at here is an unbelievably good "source" in other words. A source that deserves all the prizes and accolades it was awarded.
The author personally knows or knew all the main actors of this tragedy and hundreds more besides. He knows the past history, he brings it alive and he applies it to the present, but only when it's relevant. He brings perspective, local knowledge and an uncanny ability to see the situation from absolutely everybody's point of view. Most importantly, this knowledge, ability and perspective resolutely does not prevent him from having a go at saying who's wrong and who's right on absolutely every incident he describes.
The narrative is a blend between the author's itinerary as he ploughs the former Yugoslavia to report on the war, the necessary background to understand each day's events, the interviews he conducted, the profiles of every day's events' protagonists and how he thinks it all fits in. Also, he's not at all shy about making predictions.
Absolutely everything I happen to know about the conflict (and I have two good friends, one a Serb who had to flee, another my lawyer who spent months locked up in Sarajevo before escaping with a plastic bag for her law degree and a one-way ticket to the UK) checks 100% with what's mentioned in the book, but even that is not such a big deal, as the author does not pretend to be writing history, he's merely hoping to be a reliable source.
What we have here is not history and was never meant to be. It is journalism at its very best.
Regardless, history has been extremely kind to the views expressed here. Twenty years after the events took place, there can be little doubt that Misha Glenny was right to identify the Serbo-Croat rivalry as the main underlying cause of the war, the German-sponsored European recognition of Croatian statehood as the blunder that set it off and the declaration of Bosnian independence as the death sentence of thousands of Muslims.
What we're looking at here is an unbelievably good "source" in other words. A source that deserves all the prizes and accolades it was awarded.
The author personally knows or knew all the main actors of this tragedy and hundreds more besides. He knows the past history, he brings it alive and he applies it to the present, but only when it's relevant. He brings perspective, local knowledge and an uncanny ability to see the situation from absolutely everybody's point of view. Most importantly, this knowledge, ability and perspective resolutely does not prevent him from having a go at saying who's wrong and who's right on absolutely every incident he describes.
The narrative is a blend between the author's itinerary as he ploughs the former Yugoslavia to report on the war, the necessary background to understand each day's events, the interviews he conducted, the profiles of every day's events' protagonists and how he thinks it all fits in. Also, he's not at all shy about making predictions.
Absolutely everything I happen to know about the conflict (and I have two good friends, one a Serb who had to flee, another my lawyer who spent months locked up in Sarajevo before escaping with a plastic bag for her law degree and a one-way ticket to the UK) checks 100% with what's mentioned in the book, but even that is not such a big deal, as the author does not pretend to be writing history, he's merely hoping to be a reliable source.
What we have here is not history and was never meant to be. It is journalism at its very best.
Regardless, history has been extremely kind to the views expressed here. Twenty years after the events took place, there can be little doubt that Misha Glenny was right to identify the Serbo-Croat rivalry as the main underlying cause of the war, the German-sponsored European recognition of Croatian statehood as the blunder that set it off and the declaration of Bosnian independence as the death sentence of thousands of Muslims.
April 6, 2013
Far and away the best book I've read on the breakup of Yugoslavia -- and it really is about the actual *breakup*. Save for an epilogue, the book ends in 1993. This means that much of the focus is on what most of the world ignores, the war between Serbia and Croatia. It also means that, when the focus turns to Bosnia, there's less about Sarajevo and, again except for the epilogue, nothing about Srebrenica. Glenny puts events in their historical AND political context, pointing out the failings of the international system and the way international actors were manipulated. Finally, although he's not a Serb apologist, he avoids repeating the accepted story, that of the Serbs being evil, the Muslims being innocent victims, and the Croats not even playing the part.
February 19, 2008
Misha Glenny is the worst possible writer to turn to if you want to understand anything about the Balkans. As wiser man than me once said: "Glenny is representative of all the good partisans of civil rights who find resistance to national inequality more distasteful than the causes."
April 12, 2015
I read this book in the first half of the nineties, precisely when the Balkan Wars were at their peak. I thought the book was very illustrating about the Yugoslavian problem and provided lots of detail about the cultures in that Balkan country. Very interesting indeed.
September 15, 2020
Intense and extremely hard to read at times. Nevertheless an important overview of the Balkan conflict during the ‘90s. Hard not to see the parallels between the Nationalism of that conflict and the one unfortunately simmering in our country today.
April 29, 2023
This was happening when I was younger so I didn't understand or care what was going on. As an adult I thought I'd read and educate myself on the conflict, but this is not the right book to do that. It is a blow by blow account of every detail of everything that happened, and there's just too much to comprehend it all. You know the chinese proverb of the blind men not knowing that they're all feeling different parts of one elephant? That's this book. It's all too close to the action to get anywhere near a broader picture and understand the war in a broader context.
If you're wondering "what was that Balkans business all about?" Read something else. If you want to know what the prime Minister of Croatia was thinking on December 3 1992 at exactly 11:32 AM, this is your book.
If you're wondering "what was that Balkans business all about?" Read something else. If you want to know what the prime Minister of Croatia was thinking on December 3 1992 at exactly 11:32 AM, this is your book.
August 9, 2022
The beginning is frustrating, repetitive and very arrogant, however the last chapter and the Epilogue really make up for it.
I would still not recommend this book for people looking for a historical overview of the Fall of Yugoslavia. It's rather just an account by someone who hates everyone involved in the conflict. Take it with a grain of salt.
I would still not recommend this book for people looking for a historical overview of the Fall of Yugoslavia. It's rather just an account by someone who hates everyone involved in the conflict. Take it with a grain of salt.
July 1, 2019
Clear and objective. A great read for people wanting to try and understand a part of Balkan's history
March 13, 2021
A pretty disappointing book, to be frank. It was informative and I now know more than I did before but it felt like a chore every time I read it. I wish I could explain why it didn't click; it's about the country I was born in (Serbia) and I am a student of history. Never at any point did the book take off for me and getting to the end was a mission.
I can't not recommend it when I can't even place what I didn't like about it. So I'll leave it at that.
I can't not recommend it when I can't even place what I didn't like about it. So I'll leave it at that.
March 27, 2017
Excellent writing and insight into the collapse of Yugoslavia and the problems presented within. Misha does a great job of unraveling the knots that are associated with this area and explaining them. The fact he was there and witnessed most of it for himself helps tremendously.
November 13, 2014
Ceci est une excellent histoire de la chute de Yugoslavie The Fall Yugoslavia portent toutes les marques d'un journalist qui connaissaient bien le terrain et qui parlaient bien les langues et dialectes des gens qui participaient au drame.
June 16, 2024
"I hate the Balkans. I hate Europe. But we have nowhere to go."
Published first in 1992, in the midst of the Yugoslav breakup wars, with a large afterworded added in 1996, The Fall of Yugoslavia is a war correspondant's memoirs, across Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and North Macedonia, in a very short time frame of 1990 to 1992, with the afterword covering 1992 to 1996.
This book is not an history book or an academic reference. It was written as a primary source and that heavily influences the way you should read it. Misha Glenny will report testimonials, make comments, and give his own impression without historical hindsight. While he does give context and a good explanation of how we "got there", he does not source it explicitly, and remains at the level of well-meaning journalist - not an historian. As the book was written in the heat of the moment, Glenny frequently engages in speculation, lays blame, gives praises. Depressingly, in many cases, history would prove him right; in others, he would be rebutted.
The book's structure can be confusing, as different chapters narrate different regions of Yugoslavia and different war theatres, sometimes in a way that is confusing chronologically, as Glenny frequently uses flashbacks as a litterary device. Glenny describes the reality of war in sometimes banal and boring ways: many times, he describes the (frightening) experience of having to through a checkpoint, or the brutality of soldiers, or the despondancy of civilians. This works well as a book of testimonials; it does impact the structure, with a heavy use of superlatives to qualify the various Yugoslav commanders or massacres. Glenny blames all Yugoslavs (except Macedonians) equally, which raises eyebrows when international tribunals have laid the blame on Serbian and (to a lesser extent) Croatian commanders, and much less on Bosnians, which have been qualified as victims.
The first chapter of the book serves as background for the catalyst of the war: the "Serbian question" in Croatia; it offers us a tour of Knin, capital of the Serbian Krajina. Glenny explains how people who had, seemingly, lived together for decades could turn on themselves: the fear of Ustashas on one hand, and of Chetniks on the other. Glenny firmly qualifies the conflict not as a religious one, not as an ideological one, but rather as a territorial one: the Serbs hold a large chunk of Croatia and don't want to give it to Croats. The Serbs were, by the statute of Yugoslavia, intentionally weakened as a community, but where nevertheless immensely powerful in a nominally Croat polity. This was the recipe for disaster.
The second chapter covers the internal dissent to the Milosevic presidency of RS Serbia. It is perhaps a lesser known aspect of those wars. It highlights what Glenny sees as the major contradiction of the nationalistic wars: the total lack of unity, even within the nationalistic sides. Many Serbians in Serbia proper did not care about Kosovo, and much less the Krajina, but rather about their own lives and freedom. Krajina Serbs did not care about Kosovo Serbs... Glenny is rather prescient about the ethnic tensions in the Albanian-populated Kosovo, mythologised by the Serbs as a holy land. Written in 1992, the book seems to correctly predict the Kosovo war, although Glenny feels the need to say that: "The Serbian authorities in Kosovo are in absolute control of Kosov and therefore have no motivation for provoking an armed conflict there." Hindsight would prove him right: when Albanian partisans took control of a seizable fraction of the province, Milosevic had no choice but provoke war.
The chapter attempts to give us a portrait of Slobodan Milosevic. It lacks historical hindsight to do so effectively. All that it can say is that Milosevic was an opportunist: he used Serbian nationalism to get elected, to gain power, and when it became inconvient, would abandon separatists. One interesting anecdote: when Glenny offered to interview him in Serbo-Croatian, Milosevic became suspicious, and asked to be talked to in English.
The third and fourth chapter describes the outbreak of the war proper, with the failures of negociations, showing the deep resentment within the Yugoslav republic, and culminating with the secession of Slovenia, and then Croatia. Here, Glenny takes sides: although, he argues, Slovenia had reasonable grounds for independance (being by far the most prosperous state of the Union, ethnically homegenous, and feeling no kinship with the rest of the Federation), he quickly points out that the Serbian hinterland served as a useful outlet for Slovenian goods, making their claim of being overexploited by the rest of the union hypocritical. Worse, the secession of Slovenia - and the short ten day war that followed, interrupted by heavy diplomatic pressure from the EU and Germany - proved one thing: the idea of Yugoslavia as an entity was dead. Any war would be a war of conquest by a Serb-led state against Croats, Moslems, or Albanians; any pretense of ideological justification, or of "Yugoslavism" died when Milosevic and Kadijevic (Yugoslavia federal president) got rid of Slovenia. Here, Glenny describes the chaotic nature of the conflict, its sometimes improvised character, with Serb irregulars and Croat policemen fighting in small towns, villages, while the JNA (Yugoslav Army), officially a neutral arbiter, aids the Serbs in estblashing a parastate. The war in Croatia was a brutal affair of brother against brother, of peace militants being assassinated. But it would pale in comparison of what followed.
The fifth and the sixth (last) chapter cover the epicentre of the Yugoslav wars: Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosnia is described in vivid detail in the fifth chapter as the "Paradise of the Damned": an example of somewhat succesful Yugoslav identity, a deeply mulicultural region, with a vibrant culture, and rich history; Glenny explains the peculliar case of the "Moslem" identity, neither Serb nor Croat, but defined almost entirely by religion. The multiculturalism of Bosnia made its beauty during peace. It would cause bloodshed and suffering during the war. Bosnia was, Glenny argues, of vital interest for both Belgrade (as it held most of the heavy weapon industry of Yugoslavia, and a seizable Serb community) and Zagreb (to link up its territory, and for the Croat community). Glenny places a lot of blame on Germany: he insists its policy of recognising Slovenia and Croatia, but not Bosnia, gave free reign for both states to try to partition it, leaving the Moslem Bosnian community with nobody to protect it, and no choice but declare independance - causing the outbreak of the war.
The complexity of the Bosnian wars is staggering. Croats fought Serbs; Croats fought other Croats; Moslems fought Serbs, with Croat assistance; except when Moslems fought Croats, and the Serbs stood by and watch. Glenny argues that ideological purity and nationalist ideas quickly faded as it became a power struggle between captains and statelets. Zagreb and Belgrade had, as it turned out, not an absolute control over their own armies.
Glenny makes the (in my opinion, regrettable) choice of carefully "both-siding" the war when a clear victim emerges: the Bosnian Moslems. Seen by Serbs as vanguards of a Caliphate, dropped by their Croat allies for nationalistic reasons, the Bosnians were the ones victims of a genocide, they were the ones put in camps. Glenny also points out the very milquetoast support of the international community for them, even though public opinion in the Middle East and the USA were strongly in favour. The chapter - "Beyond Hades" - is a rather depressing read, written very close to the publication of the book. It lists atrocities, it highlights the highly chaotic and irregular warfare in Bosnia, the beginning of the siege in Sarajevo - but it lacks perspective. Here, more than elsewhere in the book, the weaknesses of a journalist's memoir is shown.
A first, short, conclusion acts a summary of the book and a pathetic cry for despair at the senseless war. Glenny compares the situation with Nagorny-Karabath, with Moldova's Transnistria.
In a more elaborate afterword written in 1996, Glenny describes the outbreak of the Bosnian-Croat open war, with the tragic shelling of Mostar, and how a peace was negociated. Here again, Glenny distributes blame: in his analysis, the international commmunity decided to abandon the Moslem community to support the Croats, with the heavy lobbying of the Germans. This, in his opinion, killed all hope of a unity Bosnian state, and created a 'federation' of Bosnians and Croats, freezing the problem in place.
Moreover, the clear favouritism of the international community for the Croats, as well as Milosevic' increasingly untenable position, resulting in the complete ethnic cleansing of the Serbian Krajina, much less known than other in the West. It included many civilians which were not at all part of the war. In total, 450 000 Serbs left Croatia, ending a multi-secular presence. The isolation of Serbia on the international stage also forced Milosevic to cut ties with the statelet of Republika Srspka - under blockade, under bombs, the Pale government was forced to delegate its power to Milosevic and sign the Dayton agreements.
Glenny titles this chapter "Return to Purgatory", and makes his opinion clear: Dayton does not solve the problems of Bosnia, it merely freezes them in place. He argues that the NATO bombing specifically left out Banja Luka and other RS key areas to force Bosnian Moslems to accept it as an entity. He points out how a state with two independant armies is an absurdity (the RS independant army was merged into the federal one in 2006). While his prediction that armed conflict would return did not occur, he correctly pointed out the unworkability of the de facto partition: today, the Republika Srspka seeks to completly withdraw from the Federation.
Glenny does mention Srebrenica, but lacks the evidence to properly qualify it as it was - a genocide. In other strange case of speculation, he spends a lot of time to discuss the fate of the Macedonian Albanian, fearing an open war. As it happened, Albanian in Macedonia did clash with the state, but the real war was fought in Kosovo. I suspect that Milosevic newfound popularity at the time - for having dropped the RS - led Glenny to believe the danger would not come from Serbia.
Glenny's book tells a very vivid story, sometimes lacking hindsight, sometimes making the wrong calls, but also very prescient in most of its analysis. It goes to great lengths to point out what a waste the wars were. But in some way, it gives the wrong impression of pre-war Yugoslavia as a lost paradise, which it certainly was, compared to the war-torn rump states that came after. But it also neglects some of the bad aspect of Titoist federation, in particular in Kosovo. It briefly alludes to the economic crisis prior to the war, but without fully committing to it.
I recommend the book as a way to learn about the topic. But it certainly cannot be a full academic reference.
Published first in 1992, in the midst of the Yugoslav breakup wars, with a large afterworded added in 1996, The Fall of Yugoslavia is a war correspondant's memoirs, across Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and North Macedonia, in a very short time frame of 1990 to 1992, with the afterword covering 1992 to 1996.
This book is not an history book or an academic reference. It was written as a primary source and that heavily influences the way you should read it. Misha Glenny will report testimonials, make comments, and give his own impression without historical hindsight. While he does give context and a good explanation of how we "got there", he does not source it explicitly, and remains at the level of well-meaning journalist - not an historian. As the book was written in the heat of the moment, Glenny frequently engages in speculation, lays blame, gives praises. Depressingly, in many cases, history would prove him right; in others, he would be rebutted.
The book's structure can be confusing, as different chapters narrate different regions of Yugoslavia and different war theatres, sometimes in a way that is confusing chronologically, as Glenny frequently uses flashbacks as a litterary device. Glenny describes the reality of war in sometimes banal and boring ways: many times, he describes the (frightening) experience of having to through a checkpoint, or the brutality of soldiers, or the despondancy of civilians. This works well as a book of testimonials; it does impact the structure, with a heavy use of superlatives to qualify the various Yugoslav commanders or massacres. Glenny blames all Yugoslavs (except Macedonians) equally, which raises eyebrows when international tribunals have laid the blame on Serbian and (to a lesser extent) Croatian commanders, and much less on Bosnians, which have been qualified as victims.
The first chapter of the book serves as background for the catalyst of the war: the "Serbian question" in Croatia; it offers us a tour of Knin, capital of the Serbian Krajina. Glenny explains how people who had, seemingly, lived together for decades could turn on themselves: the fear of Ustashas on one hand, and of Chetniks on the other. Glenny firmly qualifies the conflict not as a religious one, not as an ideological one, but rather as a territorial one: the Serbs hold a large chunk of Croatia and don't want to give it to Croats. The Serbs were, by the statute of Yugoslavia, intentionally weakened as a community, but where nevertheless immensely powerful in a nominally Croat polity. This was the recipe for disaster.
The second chapter covers the internal dissent to the Milosevic presidency of RS Serbia. It is perhaps a lesser known aspect of those wars. It highlights what Glenny sees as the major contradiction of the nationalistic wars: the total lack of unity, even within the nationalistic sides. Many Serbians in Serbia proper did not care about Kosovo, and much less the Krajina, but rather about their own lives and freedom. Krajina Serbs did not care about Kosovo Serbs... Glenny is rather prescient about the ethnic tensions in the Albanian-populated Kosovo, mythologised by the Serbs as a holy land. Written in 1992, the book seems to correctly predict the Kosovo war, although Glenny feels the need to say that: "The Serbian authorities in Kosovo are in absolute control of Kosov and therefore have no motivation for provoking an armed conflict there." Hindsight would prove him right: when Albanian partisans took control of a seizable fraction of the province, Milosevic had no choice but provoke war.
The chapter attempts to give us a portrait of Slobodan Milosevic. It lacks historical hindsight to do so effectively. All that it can say is that Milosevic was an opportunist: he used Serbian nationalism to get elected, to gain power, and when it became inconvient, would abandon separatists. One interesting anecdote: when Glenny offered to interview him in Serbo-Croatian, Milosevic became suspicious, and asked to be talked to in English.
The third and fourth chapter describes the outbreak of the war proper, with the failures of negociations, showing the deep resentment within the Yugoslav republic, and culminating with the secession of Slovenia, and then Croatia. Here, Glenny takes sides: although, he argues, Slovenia had reasonable grounds for independance (being by far the most prosperous state of the Union, ethnically homegenous, and feeling no kinship with the rest of the Federation), he quickly points out that the Serbian hinterland served as a useful outlet for Slovenian goods, making their claim of being overexploited by the rest of the union hypocritical. Worse, the secession of Slovenia - and the short ten day war that followed, interrupted by heavy diplomatic pressure from the EU and Germany - proved one thing: the idea of Yugoslavia as an entity was dead. Any war would be a war of conquest by a Serb-led state against Croats, Moslems, or Albanians; any pretense of ideological justification, or of "Yugoslavism" died when Milosevic and Kadijevic (Yugoslavia federal president) got rid of Slovenia. Here, Glenny describes the chaotic nature of the conflict, its sometimes improvised character, with Serb irregulars and Croat policemen fighting in small towns, villages, while the JNA (Yugoslav Army), officially a neutral arbiter, aids the Serbs in estblashing a parastate. The war in Croatia was a brutal affair of brother against brother, of peace militants being assassinated. But it would pale in comparison of what followed.
The fifth and the sixth (last) chapter cover the epicentre of the Yugoslav wars: Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosnia is described in vivid detail in the fifth chapter as the "Paradise of the Damned": an example of somewhat succesful Yugoslav identity, a deeply mulicultural region, with a vibrant culture, and rich history; Glenny explains the peculliar case of the "Moslem" identity, neither Serb nor Croat, but defined almost entirely by religion. The multiculturalism of Bosnia made its beauty during peace. It would cause bloodshed and suffering during the war. Bosnia was, Glenny argues, of vital interest for both Belgrade (as it held most of the heavy weapon industry of Yugoslavia, and a seizable Serb community) and Zagreb (to link up its territory, and for the Croat community). Glenny places a lot of blame on Germany: he insists its policy of recognising Slovenia and Croatia, but not Bosnia, gave free reign for both states to try to partition it, leaving the Moslem Bosnian community with nobody to protect it, and no choice but declare independance - causing the outbreak of the war.
The complexity of the Bosnian wars is staggering. Croats fought Serbs; Croats fought other Croats; Moslems fought Serbs, with Croat assistance; except when Moslems fought Croats, and the Serbs stood by and watch. Glenny argues that ideological purity and nationalist ideas quickly faded as it became a power struggle between captains and statelets. Zagreb and Belgrade had, as it turned out, not an absolute control over their own armies.
Glenny makes the (in my opinion, regrettable) choice of carefully "both-siding" the war when a clear victim emerges: the Bosnian Moslems. Seen by Serbs as vanguards of a Caliphate, dropped by their Croat allies for nationalistic reasons, the Bosnians were the ones victims of a genocide, they were the ones put in camps. Glenny also points out the very milquetoast support of the international community for them, even though public opinion in the Middle East and the USA were strongly in favour. The chapter - "Beyond Hades" - is a rather depressing read, written very close to the publication of the book. It lists atrocities, it highlights the highly chaotic and irregular warfare in Bosnia, the beginning of the siege in Sarajevo - but it lacks perspective. Here, more than elsewhere in the book, the weaknesses of a journalist's memoir is shown.
A first, short, conclusion acts a summary of the book and a pathetic cry for despair at the senseless war. Glenny compares the situation with Nagorny-Karabath, with Moldova's Transnistria.
In a more elaborate afterword written in 1996, Glenny describes the outbreak of the Bosnian-Croat open war, with the tragic shelling of Mostar, and how a peace was negociated. Here again, Glenny distributes blame: in his analysis, the international commmunity decided to abandon the Moslem community to support the Croats, with the heavy lobbying of the Germans. This, in his opinion, killed all hope of a unity Bosnian state, and created a 'federation' of Bosnians and Croats, freezing the problem in place.
Moreover, the clear favouritism of the international community for the Croats, as well as Milosevic' increasingly untenable position, resulting in the complete ethnic cleansing of the Serbian Krajina, much less known than other in the West. It included many civilians which were not at all part of the war. In total, 450 000 Serbs left Croatia, ending a multi-secular presence. The isolation of Serbia on the international stage also forced Milosevic to cut ties with the statelet of Republika Srspka - under blockade, under bombs, the Pale government was forced to delegate its power to Milosevic and sign the Dayton agreements.
Glenny titles this chapter "Return to Purgatory", and makes his opinion clear: Dayton does not solve the problems of Bosnia, it merely freezes them in place. He argues that the NATO bombing specifically left out Banja Luka and other RS key areas to force Bosnian Moslems to accept it as an entity. He points out how a state with two independant armies is an absurdity (the RS independant army was merged into the federal one in 2006). While his prediction that armed conflict would return did not occur, he correctly pointed out the unworkability of the de facto partition: today, the Republika Srspka seeks to completly withdraw from the Federation.
Glenny does mention Srebrenica, but lacks the evidence to properly qualify it as it was - a genocide. In other strange case of speculation, he spends a lot of time to discuss the fate of the Macedonian Albanian, fearing an open war. As it happened, Albanian in Macedonia did clash with the state, but the real war was fought in Kosovo. I suspect that Milosevic newfound popularity at the time - for having dropped the RS - led Glenny to believe the danger would not come from Serbia.
Glenny's book tells a very vivid story, sometimes lacking hindsight, sometimes making the wrong calls, but also very prescient in most of its analysis. It goes to great lengths to point out what a waste the wars were. But in some way, it gives the wrong impression of pre-war Yugoslavia as a lost paradise, which it certainly was, compared to the war-torn rump states that came after. But it also neglects some of the bad aspect of Titoist federation, in particular in Kosovo. It briefly alludes to the economic crisis prior to the war, but without fully committing to it.
I recommend the book as a way to learn about the topic. But it certainly cannot be a full academic reference.
December 2, 2024
Provides some valuable insight on those dubious actors that fanned the flames of nationalist tensions in aid of their own political aspirations. It's the first book I've read on a region I know little about and was useful in helping me build a chronology of events. But really, it's a collection of personal anecdotal experiences in the Balkans that Glenny uses to support liberal interventionalist narratives of the conflict.
Glenny characterises Serbs as animalistic brutes throughout the book, and he showcases a refusal to seriously reckon with the mentality of the Serbian people. There is also a disproportionate focus on Serbian nationalism as an instigating factor.
This accompanies a lack of willingness to seriously engage with the role of fascism in the creation of the Croatian national consciousness and state. And as such, the extent to which Serbian nationalism developed in opposition to this.
His contention that this was a purely nationalistic conflict, not an ideological one, leads him to negate the role of foreign powers and their desired outcomes for Yugoslav state territories. He tends to highlight the nationalistic vector of the conflict as it manifested itself amongst ordinary communities as all encompassing of the Serb-Croat conflict's character yet also acknowledges the crucial role of state actors in exacerbating such tensions. This oversight is compounded by Glenny's failure to situate such actors and institutions in an international context by examining their relationship to western powers whose desired outcomes provide only a contextual backdrop to the causes of fighting at a systemic level. The motivations of Germany in recognising Croatian independence are probably the most acknowledged as either beauracratic miscalculation or machaevellian self-interest. And all of the interventions of Western powers are at most presented as diplomatic misteps in a necessary process of democratisation. But why the countries of the NORTH ATLANTIC treaty organisation should be afforded such influence in moulding a distant region in a transparent attempt to fracture Yugoslavia and impose compliant governance on it's constituent parts is never addressed. How are you gonna ignore the motivations of Western Imperialist NGOs such as the UN and NATO in this conflict when they have such a history of collaborating with fascists throughout Europe, especially when this is so pertinent in the case of Croatian nationalism?
All of this combined with his obvious admiration for the 'great liberals' of Europe make me suspicious of the fucka tbh
Glenny characterises Serbs as animalistic brutes throughout the book, and he showcases a refusal to seriously reckon with the mentality of the Serbian people. There is also a disproportionate focus on Serbian nationalism as an instigating factor.
This accompanies a lack of willingness to seriously engage with the role of fascism in the creation of the Croatian national consciousness and state. And as such, the extent to which Serbian nationalism developed in opposition to this.
His contention that this was a purely nationalistic conflict, not an ideological one, leads him to negate the role of foreign powers and their desired outcomes for Yugoslav state territories. He tends to highlight the nationalistic vector of the conflict as it manifested itself amongst ordinary communities as all encompassing of the Serb-Croat conflict's character yet also acknowledges the crucial role of state actors in exacerbating such tensions. This oversight is compounded by Glenny's failure to situate such actors and institutions in an international context by examining their relationship to western powers whose desired outcomes provide only a contextual backdrop to the causes of fighting at a systemic level. The motivations of Germany in recognising Croatian independence are probably the most acknowledged as either beauracratic miscalculation or machaevellian self-interest. And all of the interventions of Western powers are at most presented as diplomatic misteps in a necessary process of democratisation. But why the countries of the NORTH ATLANTIC treaty organisation should be afforded such influence in moulding a distant region in a transparent attempt to fracture Yugoslavia and impose compliant governance on it's constituent parts is never addressed. How are you gonna ignore the motivations of Western Imperialist NGOs such as the UN and NATO in this conflict when they have such a history of collaborating with fascists throughout Europe, especially when this is so pertinent in the case of Croatian nationalism?
All of this combined with his obvious admiration for the 'great liberals' of Europe make me suspicious of the fucka tbh
July 20, 2024
Prezint editia din 1992, scrisa de un jurnalist prezent acolo, pe strazile din Sarajevo, Zagreb, discutand cu sârbii din Krajina sau ascultand rock macedonean in Skopje. Cartea te face sa simti balcanii - poate are legatura cu faptul ca si eu sunt balcanez - chiar sa ii vezi. Imagini ca hotelurile de pe coasta Croatiei in flacari, rezervisti ai Armatei Populare Iugoslave cu mitraliere in mana dar beți turtă, croati veniti din strainatate doar ca sa aiba sansa sa omoare niste sârbi, te fac sa simti brutalitatea si presiunea unui razboi in toata regula. Autorul prezinta ambele parti ca pe niste barbari - oameni de multe ori simpli, spalati pe creier fie de o parte, fie de alta, inconjurati de o Europa ce are treburi mai bune de facut. Cartea se termina pe o nota expectativa - nu se stie soarta Bosniei, a Kosovo-ului sau a Macedoniei - dar probabil asta e problema cu editia mea din 92, editiile mai noi sunt mai updatate. Daca ar fi sa aleg, cred ca asta e editia cea mai buna, cea care creeaza cele mai puternice emotii, dar voi faceti ce vreti.
out.
out.
August 31, 2025
From the unrepentant viewpoint of a journalist with his nose so high in the air I'm surprised he got a good look at anyone he interviewed. But he did get a good look as we are treated to to either the most grotesque figures to walk the Earth (all of whom are morally bad from his viewpoint) or stunning flowers on the battlefield (all of whom are morally good from his viewpoint).
I don't doubt his bravery in wanting to get the scoop for whatever rag he was working for, that isn't in question. It's his concentrated ego and half-hearted care for the people he's working among. The only people I think he mourned were the ones he knew personally, for everyone else it's just business and a chance to pad his paragraphs.
That said, the information he gives, both firsthand and overarching, tracks. Decent historical overview for the conflict, though the Macedonian non-conflict could have been left out entirely.
If you're looking for a book on the Yugoslav Wars, you can skip this for something better.
I don't doubt his bravery in wanting to get the scoop for whatever rag he was working for, that isn't in question. It's his concentrated ego and half-hearted care for the people he's working among. The only people I think he mourned were the ones he knew personally, for everyone else it's just business and a chance to pad his paragraphs.
That said, the information he gives, both firsthand and overarching, tracks. Decent historical overview for the conflict, though the Macedonian non-conflict could have been left out entirely.
If you're looking for a book on the Yugoslav Wars, you can skip this for something better.
June 1, 2024
an insightful read, although it is by no means a history (more of a piece of journalism written during the conflict). as a result, some of the narrative feels a bit jumbled and it tellingly lacks the benefit of hindsight that we have three decades on (eg it does not cover the war in kosovo so the end felt a little incomplete and abrupt, and certain events (eg at srebrenica) are yet to develop their harrowing historic weight). on another note, some of the reviews here point out an anti-serbian bias here, but i actually found it far more balanced than practically anything else i've read on the subject (which tbf isn't much) and appreciated that aspect.
June 8, 2024
Solid written journalistic story having in mind complex developments prior and during the fall of Yugoslavia, target readers being foreigners who want to gain some basic knowledge und understanding on the matter. The book needs editing in terms of some toponyms and names of important players during the nineteens of the last century.
November 6, 2021
Do not read this book of you want to get an insight into the complexity of Yugoslavia back then.
Maybe unavoidable, since he wrote the book during and immediately after the atrocities, but he's permeated with the rhetoric used in that time (and even until today). Speaking only of "Muslems" referring in fact to the people who call themselves Bosnians or Bosniaks. While Serbs for him are directly related to rurality and lack of intelligence, only referring to physical traits (see: review of 2014 by Elagabalus). He failed to grasp the reality behind these empty rhetorics.
Maybe unavoidable, since he wrote the book during and immediately after the atrocities, but he's permeated with the rhetoric used in that time (and even until today). Speaking only of "Muslems" referring in fact to the people who call themselves Bosnians or Bosniaks. While Serbs for him are directly related to rurality and lack of intelligence, only referring to physical traits (see: review of 2014 by Elagabalus). He failed to grasp the reality behind these empty rhetorics.
April 2, 2025
This was a very easy read, surprisingly so, given the nature of the topic. One cannot imagine a more damning condemnation of Nationalist ideology than the simple facts underwriting one of the most recent nationalist conflicts. The author does an excellent job of reporting the tensions and general nonsense that precipitated the conflict.
The author is unceasingly, brutally, honest about the miserable characters who he describes in control of respective politics and units.
This would benefit enormously from an updated version, as the book was published before the war’s outcome was decided. The author correctly predicted the strife in Kosovo, Armenia v Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova’s issues with Russians.
The author is unceasingly, brutally, honest about the miserable characters who he describes in control of respective politics and units.
This would benefit enormously from an updated version, as the book was published before the war’s outcome was decided. The author correctly predicted the strife in Kosovo, Armenia v Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova’s issues with Russians.
September 20, 2025
Sometimes overwhelming in its nitty-gritty, sometimes too political/legal for the average reader and, to my taste, there was a little too much Western European condescendence and a little too many missed opportunities to empathise with the average human victims. But all in all: an un-missable read on the European human tragedy that was the murder of Yugoslavia. Objective to a fault, no one has analyzed the moral responsibility the International Community (especially Germany) bears for it; or some of the most purposefully obscured-into-oblivion facts of this conflict like Misha Glenny in this book.
November 15, 2025
«The Fall of Yugoslavia» by Misha Glenny is supposed to be a neutral commentary on the collapse of Yugoslavia during the events which took place, with epilogues written in 1992 and 1996. Unfortunately, the epilogues were written too early to actually have count as an ending to the book or serve as any kind of consistent summary of events. Due to the timeline of the book, it is unable to even mention the Kosovo War starting 1998 which despite being post Yugoslavian collapse is still part of the picture I would imagine Glenny wanted to describe. On top of that, as mentioned by many before me, the bridge of Mostar was still standing when the book hit the shelves (Pre-epilogue). Though this might not be Glenny’s fault entirely, it still leaves me as the reader quite confused as it feels like the book finishes before it is really ever finished. Glenny does seem to gloss over big parts of Kosovos history, and downplays their importance which might have been a choice Glenny took along the way, possibly due to lack of interest or knowledge on his own part. Either way, it is a shame since many parts of the history are quite well described and established in the book.
One of the biggest things I found troubling about Misha Glennys work about the fall of Yugoslavia was his inability to ever really explain the events that took place, he mainly describes what happened and what his inner thoughts were during the conflicts. What I disagree the most with is this lack of moral understanding of what the conflict actually meant for not only the institutions or the political figures involved, but more so the people that it affected and the people who had to do the hard jobs during a political and international crash.
Glenny explains numerous meetings with countless border control officers throughout the book, but he refuses time and time again to exercise empathy and understanding towards these people despite himself demanding their empathy. Glenny talks of the people involved as subhuman and completely lacks any moral understanding of what they were going through. It seems to me that Glenny experienced more distaste towards the oppressed, than the oppressors simply just from inconveniencing him. Glenny expects slaves to stay enslaved. While reading this book you get very tired of listening to Glenny describing people as animals or criminals. I completely understands the discomfort Glenny felt during his travels in informer Yugoslavia but as a journalist, he should be able to have the empathy to understand the situations that these people are put in. People do not wave guns around for no reason.
As a journalist, Glenny also seems surprisingly distant from the events of which he describes which I think attributes to the lack of morality. One would imagine that a good journalist would be part of the events that they are illuminating, but unfortunately not Glenny. This is quite surprising especially considering the book is explaining events as they are happening in real time, it is not written in the aftermath of it as an overview. It is explaining the events as if it was happening right now, this second. Glenny does not come off as a good journalist because of this distance.
I would like to evaluate this book higher because it is suprisingly comprehensive, easy to read and well described, but because me and Glenny have such wildly different norms and morals I feel myself unable to do so. I cannot imagine walking around the world with my nose so high up I cannot view the people struggling below as human beings, and i certainly do not want to start. Read “The Fall of Yugoslavia” for the overview of it, but take what Glenny says with a pinch of salt, and make sure this is not the only book you read on the subject.
One of the biggest things I found troubling about Misha Glennys work about the fall of Yugoslavia was his inability to ever really explain the events that took place, he mainly describes what happened and what his inner thoughts were during the conflicts. What I disagree the most with is this lack of moral understanding of what the conflict actually meant for not only the institutions or the political figures involved, but more so the people that it affected and the people who had to do the hard jobs during a political and international crash.
Glenny explains numerous meetings with countless border control officers throughout the book, but he refuses time and time again to exercise empathy and understanding towards these people despite himself demanding their empathy. Glenny talks of the people involved as subhuman and completely lacks any moral understanding of what they were going through. It seems to me that Glenny experienced more distaste towards the oppressed, than the oppressors simply just from inconveniencing him. Glenny expects slaves to stay enslaved. While reading this book you get very tired of listening to Glenny describing people as animals or criminals. I completely understands the discomfort Glenny felt during his travels in informer Yugoslavia but as a journalist, he should be able to have the empathy to understand the situations that these people are put in. People do not wave guns around for no reason.
As a journalist, Glenny also seems surprisingly distant from the events of which he describes which I think attributes to the lack of morality. One would imagine that a good journalist would be part of the events that they are illuminating, but unfortunately not Glenny. This is quite surprising especially considering the book is explaining events as they are happening in real time, it is not written in the aftermath of it as an overview. It is explaining the events as if it was happening right now, this second. Glenny does not come off as a good journalist because of this distance.
I would like to evaluate this book higher because it is suprisingly comprehensive, easy to read and well described, but because me and Glenny have such wildly different norms and morals I feel myself unable to do so. I cannot imagine walking around the world with my nose so high up I cannot view the people struggling below as human beings, and i certainly do not want to start. Read “The Fall of Yugoslavia” for the overview of it, but take what Glenny says with a pinch of salt, and make sure this is not the only book you read on the subject.
August 12, 2011
The contemporary accounts of Misha Glenny and his travels through the conflicts that consumed the former Yugoslavia make for intelligent and incisive reading. Though some of his darker fears were not realised, reading this book nearly two decades after the first storms gathered does not detract from the account he shares with us. What shines through is his passion for the innocent civilians caught between the collision of the violent nationalist policies of Tuđman, Milošević and Karadžić. The accounts of Yugoslavs who desire peace with all their neighbours take on extra poignancy when Glenny (and we the reader) later learn they have fallen foul of the illogical hatreds stirred by the abuse of culture and identity at the hands of politicians. Glenny has a rich account of the Yugoslav wars, strengthened by his unity of clear and clever prose alongside a genuine passion for the people and countries that he visits.
As an introduction to the topic, there are however, obvious downfalls for this work. Firstly, it is written as an ongoing account so much of the speculation or uncertainty has been settled. You may also struggle to keep up with the book if you aren't au fait with some geography and history of the region - although it is hard to imagine anyone who falls into such a category would entertain reading Glenny. Take into your heart as a piece of high quality journalism - some of the anecdotes also highlight key historical problems for anyone who is reading the book as a student of the area. What is certain for me though is that I am now eager to read more by Glenny who has since lent his sharp and humanitarian mind to tackling other big issues of our times.
As an introduction to the topic, there are however, obvious downfalls for this work. Firstly, it is written as an ongoing account so much of the speculation or uncertainty has been settled. You may also struggle to keep up with the book if you aren't au fait with some geography and history of the region - although it is hard to imagine anyone who falls into such a category would entertain reading Glenny. Take into your heart as a piece of high quality journalism - some of the anecdotes also highlight key historical problems for anyone who is reading the book as a student of the area. What is certain for me though is that I am now eager to read more by Glenny who has since lent his sharp and humanitarian mind to tackling other big issues of our times.
February 17, 2017
still sobbing from recent tales of horror during the Nigerian, civil war, Misha Glenny now literally picks me up and drops me in the Balkans, not just to experience the war of 1991, but to experience wholly, a century of lessons from the ottoman conquests to the session wars, I am reading, but I am not here, I am there, down in the krajina in the same cafe as the author, I can smell the air there I can hear the noise, the descriptions are too vivid to ignore, my dreams have been about 20th century Balkans till i finished the book. the past the present and the future were made one in some odd ways.
I literally stood by and watched as Yugoslavia crumbled. There was a country!
my favorite paragraphs include
"The climax of the demonstration movement was the celebration planned for the 600th anniversary of the battle of Kosovo on 28 June 1989, on this day in 1389 the forces of Serbia's medieval kingdom were defeated by the ottoman empire, thus opening the long chapter of servitude in Serbian history, but also the long struggle for national statehood. Why the Serbs celebrate this as the greatest day in their history is a mystery to the rest of humanity, but celebrate it they do."
"As a politician, there is nobody who can compete with milosevic in the Balkans. As the events of the next few years would show, when on his home territory, milosevic could dance in circles around some of the world's most senior diplomats and statesmen, his success lay in the shameless exploitation of the most effective tools of Balkan politics: deception, corruption, blackmail, demagoguery and violence."
I literally stood by and watched as Yugoslavia crumbled. There was a country!
my favorite paragraphs include
"The climax of the demonstration movement was the celebration planned for the 600th anniversary of the battle of Kosovo on 28 June 1989, on this day in 1389 the forces of Serbia's medieval kingdom were defeated by the ottoman empire, thus opening the long chapter of servitude in Serbian history, but also the long struggle for national statehood. Why the Serbs celebrate this as the greatest day in their history is a mystery to the rest of humanity, but celebrate it they do."
"As a politician, there is nobody who can compete with milosevic in the Balkans. As the events of the next few years would show, when on his home territory, milosevic could dance in circles around some of the world's most senior diplomats and statesmen, his success lay in the shameless exploitation of the most effective tools of Balkan politics: deception, corruption, blackmail, demagoguery and violence."
November 15, 2012
An interesting account of the lead-up to the War in Croatia, and a harbinger of the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. Glenny gives you the basic cast of characters who would come to shape the Balkans throughout the 90s while making their stories easy to digest, despite the surplus of names, places, and acronyms that are presented. He doesn't bother to hide his contempt for post-Communist politics in Yugoslavia, saving some of the most fervent criticism for Milosevic and Tudjman, the respective leaders of Serbia and Croatia at the time, but he does give a generally fair portrayal of the social and political climate in the tense pre-war months. This book is not one to read if you are unfamiliar with the players and locales of the Former Yugoslavia as it doesn't give you a full picture but rather it covers a two year period within a conflict that lasted close to a decade and was building for a century beforehand, but it is worth coming back to once you have a better understanding.
January 18, 2014
This was quite the informative and interesting book, albeit showing quite the journalist's bias. It was written interestingly, not dry at all. I did, in fact, enjoy reading it. I understand, at the very least, the politics and roots of the conflict much better than I did before reading it, and I do think it's a very good book.
My only complaint is that it's very much the account of one person. This is not necessarily a bad thing, it just means that I don't feel I really got a totally full picture. I'd read chapters and understand the root causes for events I didn't really learn about or understand. I'd suggest reading more as supplemental reading to study on the war in the Balkans, rather than depending on it to be your only information on the matter.
I did really enjoy the dry wit and humor that Glenny sometimes infused into the writing, and like I said, it was a very good book. It just shouldn't be your introduction to this subject.
My only complaint is that it's very much the account of one person. This is not necessarily a bad thing, it just means that I don't feel I really got a totally full picture. I'd read chapters and understand the root causes for events I didn't really learn about or understand. I'd suggest reading more as supplemental reading to study on the war in the Balkans, rather than depending on it to be your only information on the matter.
I did really enjoy the dry wit and humor that Glenny sometimes infused into the writing, and like I said, it was a very good book. It just shouldn't be your introduction to this subject.
March 25, 2008
One of the best books on Balkan politics that I have read. This book gives a blow-by-blow account of how Yugoslavia slowly unwound and eventually erupted into civil wars that tore the country apart. The explanations are layered, taking in cultural, economic, political and external factors.
Though the point is not laboured, Misha obviously has extensive local knowledge of the communities that make up the Balkans. This is a particular strength of the book, as few english-language writers are comfortable describing the bewildering diversity that underpins the conflict.
His record of how the Yugoslav state broke up is chronological, but with frequent detours into significant background material. It's involved, but not partisan.
Though the point is not laboured, Misha obviously has extensive local knowledge of the communities that make up the Balkans. This is a particular strength of the book, as few english-language writers are comfortable describing the bewildering diversity that underpins the conflict.
His record of how the Yugoslav state broke up is chronological, but with frequent detours into significant background material. It's involved, but not partisan.
April 4, 2008
I was in Eastern Europe in the 1990s during the Yugoslav War and now need a better understanding of what happened. My mother actually bought me this book in the 90s but I was still to traumatized to read it. Turns out, it is one of the most well-regarded book on the topic! Written by a BBC journalist who was there, some say there is a pro-Serb bias to this book. Not true. He does spend time on atrocities by the Croats, but it is a balanced report.
On a side note, I've been reading it with YouTube and Wiki handy to check out videos and profiles of the events and people in the book.
On a side note, I've been reading it with YouTube and Wiki handy to check out videos and profiles of the events and people in the book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 124 reviews