Yugoslavia: Peace, War, and Dissolution

by Noam Chomsky, Andrej Grubačić (Preface), Davor Džalto (Editor)

The Balkans, in particular the turbulent ex-Yugoslav territory, have been among the most important world regions in Noam Chomsky’s political reflections and activism for decades. His articles, public talks, and correspondence have provided a critical voice on political and social issues crucial not only to the region but the entire international community, including “humanitarian intervention,” the relevance of international law in today’s politics, media manipulations, and economic crisis as a means of political control. This volume provides a comprehensive survey of virtually all of Chomsky’s texts and public talks that focus on the region of the former Yugoslavia, from the 1970s to the present. With numerous articles and interviews, this collection presents a wealth of materials appearing in book form for the first time along with reflections on events twenty-five years after the official end of communist Yugoslavia and the beginning of the war in Bosnia. The book opens with a personal and wide-ranging preface by Andrej Grubačić that affirms the ongoing importance of Yugoslav history and identity, providing a context for understanding Yugoslavia as an experiment in self-management, antifascism, and mutlethnic coexistence.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Essays, War, Philosophy

240 pages, Paperback

First published February 7, 2018

About the author

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.

Reviews

[Jovan Autonomašević · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not a book by Noam Chomsky about Yugoslavia. It is a collection of his writings on the subject, put together by two of his former students. Unsurprisingly, the majority focusses on the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia; there is very little on the war in Bosnia and Croatia, although there is some interesting material on pre-war student protests, and the IMF's role in the economic crisis that led to the country coming apart.
Having said that, the material is fascinating in its own right. The author deals with NATO's hypocrisy with scathing, incisive insight; and it is refreshing to see a prominent figure challenging (and demolishing) the received wisdom that NATO's invasion was a "humanitarian intervention". Sadly that lie still has mainstream currency, despite the subsequent wars in Iraq and elsewhere, and the efforts of writers like John Farebrother to portray what really happened on the ground.
That is one facet that is lacking from this work - in his description of the big, geopolitical picture, Noam Chomsky shows little concern for what actually happened. This failing is exposed in most disappointing fashion in the chapter of the book that dismisses the massacre of 8,000 POWs near Srebrenica as just "another massacre". They were deliberately and systematically liquidated because of their religious/ethnic entity, and as such the worst atrocity in Europe since WWII is rightly qualified as an act of genocide. I guess no-one gets out of the Balkans without some blood on their face.

[Niklas Pivic · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading Noam Chomsky's analyses of political power is always recommendable. Regardless of what one may think of him, his oft-piercing words penetrate the cobwebs that demagogues and kleptocracies throw out in order to maintain their own status quo.

When I was in high school, the war in Yugoslavia broke out. My dad's from Yugoslavia and our family sported a Yugoslavian surname, which lead to a bunch of kids coming up to me, asking which part of Yugoslavia I came from. Who do you side with? Even though I knew very little of the past conflicts that had affected Yugoslavia not only recently at the time, but since the start of the 20th century, it was clear to me that this was a war that was reported in disingenous ways via mainstream media. I read some things, and then heard from my cousins via ICQ and the likes; while the media gaslighted people into thinking that Serbs were basically atrocious murderers, my cousin told me of NATO missiles that precision-bombed apartments belonging to resistance leaders.

I wish I'd had this book as the war went on.

This is not a hagiography, or any kind of finger-pointer, but rather a two-pronged book:

The first part is not written by Chomsky, but mainly by Davor Džalto (Editor) and Andrej Grubacic (Preface), who have constructed a clear-cut view of Yugoslavia from before, during, and after World War II; it helps a lot to understand the complex dealings within Yugoslavia, not to mention how they differed from their (at-times) allieds, e.g. the Soviet Union.

The second part consists of a few articles written by and interviews with Noam Chomsky, most of which have appeard in the illustrious Z Magazine. Chomsky lays into NATO as he should, and he basically uses NATO statements to show how they went against the UN in every way, went against NATO member states (e.g. Greece and Italy) in attacking parts of Yugoslavia, and also what most probably lays behind the decisions of NATO; Chomsky radiates at his very best when he investigates the moral claims by the likes of Bill Clinton and NATO commanders, where they used "we couldn't very well just have stood by and watched this happen" to explain something as horrific as their 78-day-long bombing of Yugoslavia, while doing nothing in countries where NATO could have stopped sheer atrocities.

It would be hard to criticise the makers of this book for anything, really; I found this book both enlightening and uplifting, as one has to understand our history in order to do better. Still, this will probably have no impact whatsoever on US foreign policy which has only escalated and progressed since.

To those who have followed mainstream media for news on the war in Yugoslavia this book will most likely be eye-opening; to me it was, especially where finding out how both the American and British government escalated the killings and why, and also of how mainstream media chose to not be more than stenographers to government.

Examples from the book:

This is by no means the only impressive feat of doctrinal management. Another is the debate over NATO’s alleged “double standards,” revealed by its “looking away” from other humanitarian crises, or “doing too little” to prevent them. Participants in the debate must agree that NATO was guided by humanitarian principles in Kosovo—precisely the question at issue. That aside, the Clinton administration did not “look away” or “do too little” in the face of atrocities in East Timor, or Colombia, or many other places. Rather, along with its allies, it chose to escalate the atrocities, often vigorously and decisively. Perhaps the case of Turkey—within NATO and under European jurisdiction—is the most relevant in the present connection. Its ethnic cleansing operations and other crimes, enormous in scale, were carried out with a huge flow of military aid from the Clinton administration, increasing as atrocities mounted. They have also virtually disappeared from history. There was no mention of them at the fiftieth anniversary meeting of NATO in April 1999, held under the shadow of ethnic cleansing—a crime that cannot be tolerated near the borders of NATO, participants and commentators declaimed; only within its borders, where the crimes are to be expedited. With rare exceptions, the press has kept to occasional apologetics, though the participation of Turkish forces in the Kosovo campaign was highly praised. More recent debate over the problems of “humanitarian intervention” evades the crucial U.S. role in the Turkish atrocities or ignores the topic altogether.

NATO chose to reject diplomatic options that were not exhausted and to launch a military campaign that had terrible consequences for Kosovar Albanians, as anticipated. Other consequences are of little concern in the West, including the devastation of the civilian economy of Serbia by military operations that severely violate the laws of war. Though the matter was brought to the War Crimes Tribunal long ago, it is hard to imagine that it will be seriously addressed. For similar reasons, there is little likelihood that the Tribunal will pay attention to its 150-page “Indictment Operation Storm: A Prima Facie Case,” reviewing the war crimes committed by Croatian forces that drove some two hundred thousand Serbs from Krajina in August 1995, with crucial U.S. involvement that elicited “almost total lack of interest in the US press and in the US Congress,” New York Times Balkans correspondent David Binder observes.

The suffering of Kosovars did not end with the arrival of the NATO (KFOR) occupying army and the UN mission. Though billions of dollars were readily available for bombing, as of October the U.S. “has yet to pay any of the $37.9 million assessed for the start-up costs of the United Nations civilian operation in Kosovo.” By November, “the US Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance has yet to distribute any heavy-duty kits and is only now bringing lumber” for the winter shelter program in Kosovo; the UNHCR and EU humanitarian agency ECHO have also “been dogged with criticism for delays and lack of foresight.” The current shortfall for the UN mission is “the price of half a day’s bombing,” an embittered senior UN official said, and without it “this place will fail,” to the great pleasure of Milošević. A November donors’ conference of Western governments pledged only $88 million to cover the budget of the UN mission in Kosovo but pledged $1 billion in aid for reconstruction for the next year—public funds that will be transferred to the pockets of private contractors, if there is some resolution of the controversies within NATO about how the contracts are to be distributed. In mid-December the UN mission again pleaded for funds for teachers, police officers, and other civil servants, to little effect.

KFOR officers report that their orders are to disregard crimes: “Of course it’s mad,” a French commander said, “but those are the orders, from NATO, from above.” NATO forces also “seem completely indifferent” to attacks by “armed ethnic Albanian raiders” across the Serb-Kosovo border “to terrorize border settlements, steal wood or livestock, and, in some cases, to kill,” leaving towns abandoned. Current indications are that Kosovo under NATO occupation has reverted to what was developing in the early 1980s, after the death of Tito, when nationalist forces undertook to create an “ethnically clean Albanian republic,” taking over Serb lands, attacking churches, and engaging in “protracted violence” to attain the goal of an “ethnically pure” Albanian region, with “almost weekly incidents of rape, arson, pillage and industrial sabotage, most seemingly designed to drive Kosovo’s remaining indigenous Slavs … out of the province.” This “seemingly intractable” problem, another phase in an ugly history of intercommunal violence, led to Milošević’s characteristically brutal response, withdrawing Kosovo’s autonomy and the heavy federal subsidies on which it depended and imposing an “Apartheid” regime. Kosovo may also come to resemble Bosnia, “a den of thieves and tax cheats” with no functioning economy, dominated by “a wealthy criminal class that wields enormous political influence and annually diverts hundreds of millions of dollars in potential tax revenue to itself.” Much worse may be in store as independence for Kosovo becomes entangled in pressures for a “greater Albania,” with dim portents.

There are other winners. At the war’s end, the business press described “the real winners” as Western military industry, meaning high-tech industry generally. Moscow is looking forward to a “banner year for Russian weapons exports” as “the world is rearming apprehensively largely thanks to NATO’s Balkans adventure,” seeking a deterrent, as widely predicted during the war. More important, the U.S. was able to enforce its domination over the strategic Balkans region, displacing EU initiatives at least temporarily, a primary reason for the insistence that the operation be in the hands of NATO, a U.S. subsidiary. A destitute Serbia remains the last holdout, probably not for long.

Something else interesting happened after that. Yugoslavia brought the case to the World Court. The court accepted it and deliberated for a couple of years, but what is interesting is that the U.S. excused itself from the case, and the court accepted the excuse. Why? Because Yugoslavia had mentioned the Genocide Convention, and the U.S. did sign the Genocide Convention (after forty years). It ratified it, but with a reservation, saying it was “inapplicable to the United States.” In other words, the U.S. is entitled to commit genocide. That was the case that the U.S. Justice Department of President Clinton brought to the World Court, and the court had to agree. If a country does not accept World Court jurisdiction, it has to be excluded, so the U.S. was excluded from the trial on the grounds that it grants itself the right to commit genocide. Do you think this was reported here? Does any of this get reported?

All in all, a very needed book.

[Phrodrick slowed his growing backlog · Rating 4 out of 5]

Noam Chomsky’s edited together letters, essays and interviews, Yugoslavia: Peace, War, and Dissolution is a hard read. Professor Noam Chomsky is a highly degreed and respected academician but this is not the source of the difficulty factor. He uses hard words to speak plainly that which speaks his convictions. These convictions are not in accord with the western read on the war, civil war<?> that ended Yugoslavia. Unlike some modern leaders who simply say “Fake News” and walk away never having made any case, Dr. Chomsky documents and details why there should be another narrative.

Pinning down his politics is not an easy matter. Among the terms he uses or are applied to him are: anarcho-syndicalism rather left of trade unionism but not strictly communistic. There is more then a streak of libertarianism in how he would describe himself. If you cannot deal with the distance between left leaning, Christian Socialism, Communism and Stalinism, then you are going to have a lot of problems reading this book. Chomsky has enough axes to grind to level every tree in Western Canada as a warm up to the Sequoias of the Americas Pacific. Again, his having a fixed point of view is a problem you are with which you are going to have to deal.

What will follow will be some further warnings about how his politics and POV create traps for the reader. My bottom line is that for all of this there are reasons to listen and to dig for the possibility of facts many of us may never have considered.

Speaking generally about the collection pulled together in Yugoslavia: Peace, War, and Dissolution, the amount of duplication is numbing. Entire pages could be moved about or removed and there would be no net change in the content. The use of letters written as part of a campaign, interviews crafted to repeat certain points and repeat them. In the almost ¾ of the book Part III Crisis in Kosovo almost any 20 pages could serve as proxy for the other 125 .

Part I Yugoslavia is important. The nation that was Yugoslavia was never anything like what an American would think of as a nation. It was a set of borders scrawled around a collection of states, each given a quasy-independant sub national existence resulting in something that might have been a confederation. Chomsky make the case that these several nations had no common language, traditions, religions or national sense of identity. The modern State of Germany was built from something like this confederation but with enough in common to think of themselves as Germans. What Yugoslavians called themselves at home was rarely likely to be “Yugoslav’s”. As the risk of being glib, there was no melting pot. History made many of these people ancient enemies. Powers like Germany and Russia had their own agendas within their respective spheres of influence.

Moving into the war and dismemberment. A bottom line is that Chomsky feels that there was certainly evils committed by any of several sides. The west, especially the west as lead by the US promoted more evil. That left to themselves the dissolution, blood bath or not would have been the doing of the locals. And better yet if done by the locals with less foreign, including American weapon sales. His detailed condemnation of US involvement in this region is unrelenting and unforgiving.

Because of his grinding and his politics, it can be hard to separate out facts from his prejudices. Scraping from history, he involves Japanese aggression going back to the 30’s and almost any case he can promote. Most of these get tiresome, but given what he has to say about western blindness towards Turkey and its contemporary treatment of the Kurds, I have to think he is not just waving a Red Flag of Anti-Americanism. Against this he will claim that US involvement was driven by rich money interests. Who these rich interested people is not detailed. This is not an oil or even a rare earth metals region. All sides somehow had money or credit for legal and illegal arms but hardly enough money between them to motivate unnamed rich.

Chomsky falls back on the belief that a choice was to keep negotiations. No mention of how time in negotiations also means time to conduct more evil. Violence in the name of insuring a stronger hand at those same tables. He is bitter that there was not more use of UN peace Keepers. No mention of the isolation, overrunning or basic lack of the kinds of rules of engagement that might have meant actual peace in the peace keeping.

He must quote at least 50 times an admission by the US commanding general that (he is more precise in calling it NATO) bombing accelerated atrocities. Here the point becomes more difficult. If a bomb falls on a hospital, that may be inhumane. But if an army knows they are close to defeat uses the time to accelerate the killing and raping, either to insure a better negotiating stance, or to kill off the last witnesses or just because their goal was and remained killing and raping than the point becomes fast or slow, the intent was to murder and rape. Such an army should be bombed. That other armies, also engaged in murder and rape in Africa, In Iraq or elsewhere also needed bombing may be a good point or just the logic failure called deflection.

These may be solid replies to Chomsky, or quibbling or memory failures. I will accept all criticisms. What a potential reader needs to know is that one can make, or try to make a case against parts of Yugoslavia: Peace, War, and Dissolution. Behind each of these denials there remains a detailed argument that the generally accepted version in the war, the intervention and the failure of undivided Yugoslavia may itself be a failure. I am recommending Yugoslavia: Peace, War, and Dissolution, not because I am certain of its possible inaccuracy but because I am certain that another look, another set of conclusions, another narrative is something honesty demands honest consideration.

[Danilo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Čomski je uvek vrlo jasan i ima odlične primere.
Tri zvezdice samo jer ima dosta ponavljanja kada je u pitanju Kosovo, sa druge strane to je razumljivo s obzirom da je knjiga skup tekstova Čomskog za razne časopise i tekstovi su o istim temama, pa ako je za tri različita časopisa pisao o bombardovanju Jugoslavije, za očekivati je da će koristiti iste primere i činjenice.

[Bojan Džodan · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Posle rata, problem je pobednik. Misli da je upravo dokazao kako se rat i nasilje isplate. Ko će ga sada naučiti pameti?" A.J.Mastija

[emi · Rating 3 out of 5]

un pic convoluted un pic obositor amalgamul de scrisori reviste interviuri teze puse toate la un loc, nu e neaparat de noam chomsky si nici despre iugoslavia. multe surse, multe tangente

[Jon Otegi · Rating 3 out of 5]

o sea, ez da yugoslaviari buruzko lan bat. dira chomskyren iritziak yugoslaviaren inguruko gai batzuen inguruan - ia esklusiboki kosovo eta aeb buru duen otanek serbian egindako bonbardaketei buruz. hori hasteko.

gero, chomskyren testu ezberdinen bilduma bat denez, oso errepikakorra da, praktikamente testu guztiek ideia beraz jorratzen dituzte, luzeago edo laburrago.

uste nuen yugoslaviako istoriaz zeozer ikasiko nuela baina gehiena editoreak egindako azalpenengatik izan da (edizioa eta azalpenok OSO ONAK), baina bueno, espektatiba okerrak nituelako.

hala ere, chomskyren pentsaera ezagutzeko lan ona eta (bereziki) estatu batuek kosovoko krisian izan zuten esku hartzeaz eta haren hipokresiaz jabetzeko lan bikaina. zentzu honetan, Humanitarian Imperialism: The New Doctrine of Imperial Right (2008) artikulua oso oso lan ona (hori irakurtzearekin + editorearen azalpenak nahikoa liburu osoa laburbiltzeko)

[Kiril Momchev · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is not a book by Noam Chomsky and it is definitely not a book about the war in Yugoslavia. It is a collection of interviews with Noam Chomsky about his very one-sided opinion of US foreign policy. The same thing was repeated over and over in different interviews taken at different times. It was more about the US foreign policy in Africa, Latin America, Turkey, Asia, rather than saying anything about the Balkans. It is hard to read and confusing. Very disappointed by the misleading title of the book.

[Walter Schutjens · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this collection of publications on the development of the Yugoslav federation and its subsequent implosion, we get an exploration of one of Chomsky's more controversial public positions (this besides his virulent anti-capitalism, but I refer to a standpoint that even the liberal Left finds a challenge). I was travelling through Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia when I read this work hoping to clarify the issue for myself by visiting scores of museums and public testimonies to strife or socialist supremacy; although this put a light on the confusing constellation of ethnicities/nationalities/religions that constituted once a republic and subsequently a counter-revolution, the morality of significant events (invasion of Bosnia, NATO bombing of Serbia, coalition with Croatia) was for me only confused. Intuitively I feel an arbitration cannot be made a between two sets of war crimes and violence, the trappings of the dreams of a pan-slavic republic do not justify one side or incriminate the other.

[Gabriel Pitre · Rating 4 out of 5]

Decent read and interesting perspectives on the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Larger focus on the 1999 bombing of Kosovo.

Brushing up on topics like the East Timor Crisis or Turkish repression of the Kurds would help with understanding some of the discussion. Knowledge of US activities in South America would also help to better appreciate some of Chomsky’s arguments.

[Oranje · Rating 2 out of 5]

Content wise, this book is certainly insightful. Through a compilation of articles and interviews, Chomsky does manage to bring his message across, shedding light on some not so publicised elements of the Kosovo war. He does come across as a pacifist and dedicated to continuing dialogue and belief in diplomacy. He opposes that war as being avoidable, while he is calling out double standards in military interventions by the US, mentioning that “humanitarian interventions” of this kind (Kosovo war) would have been more justifiable in cases like Turkish repression of Kurds - although he does not outrightly support an intervention there either.

The book has parts referring to the times of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, however it is more targeting the recent history, 1990s conflicts and war in Kosovo.

It touches several very recent sensitive topics and presents in good extent his unconventional views (not surprising from him) about the conflicts, such as the fact that Serbian atrocities were accelerated after the start of NATO bombing thus were fuelled by it and not prevented.

Nevertheless, the book started becoming boringly repeating towards the end. While it makes sense for Chomsky to say the same things in different interviews, presentation of the same things over and over in this book, seriously deteriorates its own attractiveness.

Do I recommend it although I rate it low? Yes, but not as an entry book for Yugoslavia or its dissolution.


“Two Yugoslav policies were not necessarily in accordance to the US interests: the non-aligned movement and the economic experiment in self-management”

“Three internal factors for Yugoslavia’s dissolution: crisis of central federal authority, rise of nationalism, economic instability”

“The dominant explanations about the Yugoslav conflicts of 90s were “an ethnic and religious conflict of Balkan people who had killed each other for centuries” and “good guys vs bad guys” model. The advantage of both was that they offered an explanation of what was happening without raising the issue of external factors and their role/responsibility for the conflict. [...] It is primarily a european responsibility in this case. Germany insisted on a very rapid breakup of Yugoslavia without any preparation.”

“The way the term genocide is used strikes me as a kind of Holocaust denial. It demeans the victims of holocaust. If you kill, say, a couple of thousand men in a village, after you have allowed the women and children to escape- you have in fact trucked them out- that does not count as genocide. It is a horror story but it is not genocide”

“The Rambouillet agreement called for complete military occupation and political control of Kosovo by NATO and effective NATO military occupation of the rest of Yugoslavia at NATO’s will...it is speculated that the wording was designed so as to guarantee rejection. Serbians rejected the demand for NATO military occupation and called for OSCE and the UN to facilitate a peaceful diplomatic settlement. Diplomatic initiatives could have been pursued...”

[Erik · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not a book by Noam Chomsky,but only hist letter´s "put together".
This fact irritatet me in the begining, but to be honest, there are quite good observation´s. Most of all, the fact, how Serbia behaved in the time before war, as the Croatian aggression began.
For me personally is the book a good introduction into the whole Yugoslavian case. But it is not enough to understand the true side of the war.

[David Bisset · Rating 4 out of 5]

A useful corrective

The book has many structural weaknesses and is really a collection of articles by Chomsky plus some good historical summaries by others. There is repetition and a tendency to ritually condemn the United States - not without reason. However, important points are made concerning the destruction of a multi-ethnic state.

[Romi · Rating 4 out of 5]

A must read and was an eye-opener for me. Only downside is that, since it's a collection of previously published writings and interviews, some chapters can be a bit repetative, esp. in the Kosovo crisis part.

[Vova Mihura · Rating 3 out of 5]

Book is a collection of articles by Noam and it contains a lot of repetitions due to that.

[Harry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Obviously Chomsky is a knowledgeable and highly capable commentator on international affairs, and so the content of Yugoslavia is very worthwhile. But, good lord, the man can't write to save his life. Paragraphs run to pages long; commas splices left and right within complex lists; unnecessarily-included names and needlessly-abbreviated acronyms coagulate into a bewilderingly Kafkaesque mélange of Balkan nightmares.

The key insight is valuable: the United States, like other great powers throughout history, is very very good at convincing people the evil things it does are actually good. This is, of course, salient in light of the ongoing war in Ukraine (where the opposing great power insists that it, too, is doing the good and noble thing), as well as (for instance) the continuing enthusiastic US support for Turkish ethnic cleansing and imperial adventures in Somalia. Unfortunately, the salient points are buried deep under all that Chomskying.

[Shinabhat Maneerin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A concise and argumentative history of Yugoslavia.

The history of the rise and fall of Yugoslavia stands among the essential history of global international relations, such as the World Wars, the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The characteristic of the crisis in Yugoslavia, which leads to its dissolution, violence, violation of human rights, loss of properties and lives of millions of people regardless of ethnicity and realism aspects of conducting foreign policy of global powers and even some international organisations, is, regrettably, still similar to several areas across the globe.

Particularly for the Southeast Asians like me, the crisis in Yugoslavia could be studied comparatively to the situation of Rohingyas currently occurs in Myanmar.

[Сергей · Rating 3 out of 5]

Представената книга е по скоро сборник от статии, анализи и интервюта на Чомски, като информацията вътре се повтаря постоянно и е чак досадна от един момент насетне. Самите анализи, най-вече на Косовкия конфликт, са добре обосновани и информиращи, но се набляга почти и само на ролята на САЩ в прокарване на определена политика в световен мащаб.Като цяло читателят остава с доста повърхностна представа за случилото се в Югославия

[Alexandru Nan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Puncte tari:
> E o introducere bună, deși pealocuri simplificată, a situației din Iugoslavia și Kosovo
> Te pune față în față cu o opinie nepopulară privind conflictul din Kosovo
> E ușor de citit și înțeles

Puncte slabe:
> E foarte repetitiv pe ideile sale
> Multe dintre texte nu apartin lui Chomsky însuși, cât editorului Davor Dzalto.
> Speram să aflu în această carte ceva mai multe informații concrete (statistici, cifre) decât există deja

Aveți grijă de voi!

[Eva Fedurcova · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chomsky never disappoints. The form of several articles in a pile gives a good view on the topic in the particular time in the history, but somewhat spoils the flow of the book and also bores the reader with frequent repetition of the same facts.

[Pedro · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very educational read, but leans heavily toward the Kosovo-Serbian & Nato wars. I was hoping to read more about the Marshal. But in any case, the chapters made me rethink my position re some of the players and how western media depicted events.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Meh

[Boyan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Интересна книга за всеки, който е бил дете в годините на войната (и има интерес да научи повече) и помни само кадрите по телевизията.

[Sara G · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't know what to say. I agreed with a lot of it. Disagreed with a lot of it.

[Wyatt Stringer · Rating 1 out of 5]

Fairly usual Commie crap

[Nikola Vujasinović · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although this book is a compilation of essays rather than a single-written piece, it is cohesive and understandable.

It was interesting to read Chomsky's perspective on Yugoslav wars, most notably the part about multiple reasonings he is giving for the start of the conflict, many of which are not widely talked about.