My War Criminal: Personal Encounters with an Architect of Genocide

by Jessica Stern

An investigation into the nature of violence, terror, and trauma through conversations with a notorious war criminal by Jessica Stern, one of the world's foremost experts on terrorism.
Between October 2014 and November 2016, global terrorism expert Jessica Stern held a series of conversations in a prison cell in The Hague with Radovan Karadzic, a Bosnian Serb former politician who had been indicted for genocide and other war crimes during the Bosnian War and who became an inspiration for white nationalists. Though Stern was used to interviewing terrorists in the field in an effort to understand their hidden motives, the conversations she had with Karadzic would profoundly alter her understanding of the mechanics of fear, the motivations of violence, and the psychology of those who perpetrate mass atrocities at a state level and who—like the terrorists she had previously studied—target noncombatants, in violation of ethical norms and international law. How do leaders persuade ordinary people to kill their neighbors? What is the “ecosystem” that creates and nurtures genocidal leaders? Could anything about their personal histories, personalities, or exposure to historical trauma shed light on the formation of a war criminal’s identity in opposition to a targeted Other? In My War Criminal , Jessica Stern brings to bear her incisive analysis and her own deeply considered reactions to her interactions with Karadzic, a brilliant and often shockingly charming psychiatrist and poet who spent twelve years in hiding, disguising himself as an energy healer, while also offering a deeply insightful and sometimes chilling account of the complex and even seductive powers of a magnetic leader—and what can happen when you spend many, many hours with that person.  

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Politics, Memoir, Biography, True Crime, War

352 pages, Hardcover

First published January 28, 2020

About the author

Jessica Stern is a Lecturer in Public Policy and a faculty affiliate of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. From 1994-95, she served as Director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council, where she was responsible for national security policy toward Russia and the former Soviet states and for policies to reduce the threat of nuclear smuggling and terrorism. In 1998-99, she was the superterrorism Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and in 1995-96, she was a national Fellow at Hoover Institution at Stanford University. She also worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Stern received a bachelor's degree from Barnard College in chemistry, a master of science degree from MIT, and a doctorate in public policy from Harvard. She is the author of the New York Times Notable Book, Terror in the Name of God and The Ultimate Terrorists, as well as numerous articles on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. She lives in Cambridge, MA.

Reviews

[Brett C · Rating 5 out of 5]

"He felt it was his sacred duty to defend his people from harm. He said we have to figure out whether the snake [Muslim creation of a sharia-based state in Europe] we believe we see is real or imaginary. If its not real, you're neurotic. If it is real, you have to do something about it." pg 10

This was an excellent glimpse into the mind of the man who thought he was doing the right thing. This may not be the case, the whole thing could be lies and attempts to retain credibility. But once I got past the first two chapters, the book really took off. Most bad reviews of this highlight the author's personal views, opinions, and injections about Radovan Karadžić. This could be perceived as transference, distorted therapeutic alliance, and an overall ethical dilemma at obtaining a non-biased publication.

Jessica Stern did an outstanding job of showing the recent post-WW1 history of Yugoslavia, the rule under Tito, and the fallout that lead to interethnic violence. Atrocities were committed by all three Serb, Croat, and Muslim aggressors. Karadžić gave information on his role as a politician, his view of Serb nationalism and his view on Serb nationalist history, the war within Bosnia, and his fugitive life as a spiritual-healer and mystic under the name Dragan Dabić.

Furthermore Karadžić explained the political tensions within Yugoslavia that came to a flashpoint by the 1990s, ethnically-motivated division and mutual distrust, fear, Pan-Islamic and Islamicization of the region, pro-Serb nationalism, and escalation to war. The narrative explored the atrocities of concentration camps, systematic rapes, and extralethal violence (more violence than required to kill the enemy, such as dismemberment of bodies).

Overall a great narrative on the recent violence in the Balkans. I would highly recommend this and Ratko Mladić: Tragic Hero by Milo Yelesiyevich. Thanks!

[Panasko · Rating 1 out of 5]

Usually I do not write reviews, especially of books I will never read. Reason I am writing this is that some excerpts from NYT written by author I find most disturbing. This book is written about Radovan Karadźić, Bosnian Serbs warlord and a man convicted of genocide, first time in Europe since WWII. Even tough the main protagonist of her book is convicted of genocide, in whole book you do not hear victims point of view, but at the end the Author bought this monsters statement and conclude that he believed his people were threatened which was grotesque excuse. She even wrote

"opening herself up to Karadzic’s odious insistence that he and his fellow Serbian nationalists did “perceive a real threat” before beginning their campaign of extermination".

Sound like genocide apologist to me. Definitely not a book I will read and/or buying.

[Susan Paxton · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a potentially valuable book with lessons and warnings for the present, but it is wretchedly poorly executed. Many reviewers have complained that Stern appears to find Karadzic fascinating, even attractive; this in itself is not the problem with the book, as there is a model for this kind of thing, namely the late Gitta Sereny's biography of Albert Speer. Sereny clearly liked Speer a great deal; that did not prevent her from taking a cold-eyed look at what Speer could never come to admit, that he had known a lot more about the holocaust than he was ever able to confess. Stern is not as psychologically acute as Sereny was, and her format here is just horrid, in particular the endless, interminable chapter endnotes that break the text up and wreck the continuity. Evidently there was no editor to tell her that not every single note required a prolix explanation. All that said, there are clearly moments here - and the last chapter stands by itself. We have our own monster now, after all. But it takes a lot of digging, and I suspect most readers will lose interest quickly.

[Tea Sefer · Rating 1 out of 5]

I really gave this book a shot after all the uproar over the NY Times article about it, but it is absolutely offensive. Stern idolizes Karadzic - a convicted war criminal, and continuously explains how mesmerized she is by his demeanor and stature. She "wants an A" from him - actual language she uses. She spent 48 hours interviewing Karadzic which was enough time for her to learn and regurgitate genocide denial propaganda throughout the book. My dad was interned in a concentration camp in Bosanski Novi for a lot longer than 48 hours and this supposed "insight" into a war criminal's mind is nothing more than fodder for white supremacists and fascists.

There is much better writing out there about the Bosnian Genocide and Karadzic and I recommend you spend your time reading about survivors' stories instead of a genocide sympathizer take from an academic.

[Alisson F.w. Burgher · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dissapointed.

I love to read about loose minds of persons from the now and past. About war criminals/convicts/killers. If you would ask me why? The answer is simple:

They all have something twisted in their mind in a sick way.

This book shows a completely different view on a war criminal:

He gave orders that killed and slaughtered lots of people, BUT NOT ON PURPOSE.

The Serbs were attacked first. The Serbs think they are becoming a minority. The Serbs think Yugoslavia limited them from becoming the superior nation they are.

Kind of reminds me to the Germans from 1918 and their Dolchstoß legende:

We could have won the war, we were the strongest. We did not lost, the enemy won becuase we got tricked.

We all know what that thought led to (and to which person).

There is no forgiveness for killing (fellow) human beings. There is no forgiveness for taking rights into your own hands. There is no explanation why Mladic, Karadzic, Milosevic, Amin, Hussein, Stalin or Hitler did what they did.

They are sick and twisted. Do not humanize them, or you will humanize modern lonewolfs for killing your own close ones. Simply because they ought their actions lawfull:

The biggest jew/muslim killer was also a human.

[Akira Watts · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is an incredibly frustrating book because, though it is an embarrassing failure in pretty much every way possible, there are occasional hints of something far more interesting and relevant. In some ways, it aims in the same direction as Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem (which, though mostly based on Eichmann lying about every goddamned thing possible, introduced the useful concept of the banality of evil), and a more contemporary take on the topic would be a nice thing to have. And too, though Stern introduces it clumsily, nationalism has been on the upswing in the years since the Yugoslav Wars, and the events in Bosnia look less like an outlier than a prophecy. And that thread extends from Europe to America though, again, Stern's discussion of it is artless.

Yes, there is much potential here, but Stern utterly squanders it, apparently because she just found Karadžić to be a super charming guy. And even there, the book still might have worked - that tension between an intelligent and charismatic old man, and the unrepentant architect of ethnic cleansing and genocide? That tension is exactly what a text like this needs to explore, and if it is rigorously honest and objective, it can succeed.

Except Stern lets her - admiration? affection? sympathy? not sure of the right word here - color her writing. And she does this to the point of making excuses for Karadžić and the Bosnian Serbs. She seems unable to mention a Serbian atrocity without a quick aside to the effect that such things happened on all sides and that Bosniak statements justified Serbian paranoia and that the common understanding of evil Serbs and hapless Bosniaks is an oversimplification. And, yes, there is perhaps some small truth there - nothing is ever as simple as the conventional wisdom - and there is room for a text that takes a long and objective look at all sides of the Yugoslav Wars.

But that text cannot run in parallel with a sympathetic portrait of a genocidal fuck as an old man. Perhaps the worst moment is when she takes Karadžić's stark admisson of culpability for the Srebenica genocide, and chalks it up to an exaggeration coming out of his power struggle with Mladic and Mikošević. Again, there may be some truth in that claim. But when it sits next to statements about Karadžić's Pierce Brosnan-esque good looks and quick intelligence, eyebrows are going to be raised.

In the end, I suspect this book gave Karadžić everything he could have hoped for - a sympathetic portrait of a man who, in his opinion, sacrificed himself for his people; combined with just enough muddying of the waters to make the horrors of Bosnia seem, if not excusable, at least understandable. Which is kind of a fucking disgrace.

[Fran Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Global terrorism expert Jessica Stern interviewed Radovan Karadzic in a prison cell in The Hague beginning in Oct., 2014 to Nov.,2016. Karadzic is a former Bosnian Serb politician who was indicted for genocide and other war crimes during the Bosnian War. Stern was used to interviewing terrorists and was attempting to gain insight into people who perpetrate mass atrocities who target non-combatants. How does a leader convince ordinary people to kill their neighbors?
Karadzic was a brilliant and shockingly charming psychiatrist and poet who managed to escape capture for 12 years, hiding as a faith healer. He was arrested on July 21, 2008 in Be3lgrade, Serbia. He was jubilant the day he learned that Trump had beat Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. One expert on Bosnia called Trump America's first Balkan president.
The author's endnotes were often as interesting as her interviews with the prisoner. The psychiatrists who interviewed Nazi war criminals found they were not in anyway remarkable. They had three characteristics in common as well as the opportunity to seize power. These characteristics were overweening ambition, low ethical standards, and a strongly developed nationalism which justified anything done in the name of their country.
During WWII, the Ustasha (A violent racist terrorist organization that had been banned throughout Europe before the war.) carried out atrocities so extreme that even the SS found them objectionable.
In March of 2010 the trial of Karadzic begins. Closing arguments were September through Oct. 24, 2013. Trial judgement where he was found guilty of most counts and was sentenced to 40 years took place on March 24, 2016. He files an appeal in 2018 and in 2019 his sentence of 40 years is set aside and he is sentenced to life in prison.

[Jeff Samuelson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well balanced and worth a read.

[Corin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is as much about the author's reaction to Karadzic as it about Karadzic himself. Not quite what I signed up for.

[Star Gater · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author chooses to interject her thoughts and feelings at certain times when she is meeting Radovan Karadzic. I appreciated this aspect of the book. Imagine walking down a prison hallway to meet and talk to a modern day monster. It's the little things. He puts their sandwiches on the table, and she notices he had taken a bite out of one, in the middle. I could see her lifting the bread and trying to compose herself. There were points that I was reminded of the song by Queen Play the Game. Then I started wondering what drew me to the book (more than less than $2 at Book Outlet. I do only buy what I'm interested in).

I gave this 3 stars: There are distracting ramblings that I couldn't connect with the synopses of the book. There is profanity, the filth that is not French, and it was so out of place. My suggestion is to read this like a textbook, not a novel. I had the audio on while trying to read along and listen while I did things a round the house. This is a focus only book.

[Crystal]

Even the title is cringe.

I was unaware of the NYT article until today but there's no denying Stern bizarrely romanticizes Radovan Karadzic and relates his genocide denial to us though she does also dismantle it later in the text.

Even though she writes romantic descriptions of his figure she also writes of how disturbed she was by some of his behavior towards herself such as calling her on her cellphone and instances where she thinks he's being threatening, attempting to manipulate, or trying to assert dominance. This whole book feels like it's about their power struggle in between the historical bits.

While this text ends up being more about Stern than anyone but she does shows how his genocide denial (and that of other believers) is in fact made up of multiple falsehoods that might seem credible to some people at first but history and sources show that Karadzic is a chameleon who was responsible for the deaths of nearly 10,000 people. He signed his name to the law/ordinance that led to it, made no move to stop it once it began, basked in the praise of those supporting it until he got scared he'd be held responsible, etc., etc.

This book needed an author not in love with the idea of winning over Karadzic and somehow having him admit his responsibility, or with Dr. Douglas Kelley's study and liking of Goering, the Nazi war criminal, as person (which led to Dr. Kelley's eventual suicide).

[BookWaffle :3 · Rating 2 out of 5]

"He felt it was his sacred duty to defend his people from harm. He said we have to figure out whether the snake [Muslim creation of a sharia-based state in Europe] we believe we see is real or imaginary. If it's not real, you're neurotic. If it is real, you have to do something about it."

Gotta love the level of hypocrisy *sob*

[John McDonald · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an extraordinary book in many ways and provides some insight into the thinking, aspirations, and manipulations that war criminals and dictators engage in to seek and retain political power. Not least of these manipulations are those measures the leader takes to appeal to a nationalist and racist base of support, and the analogy to Donald Trump, in many aspects of his character, is neither misplaced nor too distant from Karadzic'. At their essences, both Karadzic and Trump are con men and rose to and maintained power by creating division and fear from nationalist strains evident in nations where one ethnic group sees and feels the loss of influence over the culture. This fear and division are cultivated today as it was by dictators from Caesar and Constantine.

This work is unusual in that the author, an intellectual and academic, places her notes and annotations of her interview at the conclusion of each chapter. These notes and annotations are not simply identifications of sources, either. They are detailed summaries of other historians, political scientists and researchers who have studied Karadzic, his genocide of the Bosnian Muslims, and his rise to office. I became engrossed in reading the footnotes in their entireties because they offered what I think was a very detailed context for the crimes Karadzic committed both in and out of office. The author, a descendant of a Holocaust survivor, has experienced violence herself and has made a career of studying evil. In her interviews, she tries to put herself in the mindset of the person she interviews and, although there are unintended consequences of this method, the result is one of integrity providing the clearest possible picture of the manipulative and fraudulent mind of the evildoer, here Karadctz'.

[Milena · Rating 5 out of 5]

After reading some of the reviews, I didn't know what to expect from this book. As I started reading, some of the comments made in earlier reviews were quickly dispelled. Yes, the title is cringe worthy but Jessica Stern explains this in the preface. Stern may have fallen under Karadzic's spell, and she does seem to struggle with this at times, but overall, she presents a generally balanced look at Karadzic and his role throughout the conflict in Bosnia. Hannah Arendt, who wrote about Adolf Eichmann's role in the Holocaust also faced criticism for her approach and the conclusions she drew, but is now generally celebrated for her attempts to understand Eichmann's mindset and motivations. Stern essentially tries to do the same thing in this book. For me, this book provided fascinating insight into a man indicted for war crimes and how he saw his own role and legacy. Highly recommended.

[Nikola Todorić · Rating 3 out of 5]

I listened to the author on the Lawfare Podcast and decided to read the book. My first impression is that the majority of reviewers had overblown expectations. The title clearly says "personal encounters", and that is exactly what the book is about. It's not a biography nor a historical book, but a record of personal encounters. Yes, some sort of weird attraction is definitely present within the book, but the author is honest about it.
On the other hand, the author is not an academic historian nor a political scientist, so her clumsy use of literature and frequent jumping to conclusions in semi-rhetorical, dramatic questions are the weakest points of this book. Nevertheless, the majority of negative reviews seem to come from imputing some hidden political agenda to the author, which, in my opinion, is just not there.

[Frederique Courard-Hauri · Rating 4 out of 5]

An eye-opening read about the Bosnian War. In short: there were no good guys, just a whole lot of bad guys with civilians of all stripes caught in the cross-fire.

I did feel at times that in making parallels between Karadzic and Trump, or Bosnia-then and the USA-now, Stern is trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. Yes, there are similarities in the broad strokes, and yes, the same fears resulting from a loss of power of one group (Serbs/white Americans) are visible, but I don't think we are there ... yet.

I did flag many points in the book, and I now have lots of things I want to look into in more detail (e.g., the Ustashe, Dr. Douglas Kelley's writings post-Nuremberg), and I'm glad I read this.

[NonFiction 24/7 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not quite what I expected but an interesting read. I respect the amount of fact checking the author put into the book. The story was a little hard to follow because I knew nothing about the events in the book. I don't think we will truly understand these events.

[Eimear O’Donoghue · Rating 2 out of 5]

Stern did not confront Karadžić nearly as much as I expected, this was a wasted opportunity to go beyond what he would be comfortable with. Hardly constitutes groundbreaking journalism allowing him to indulge in proving his healing powers etc.

[Hotbookgirl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book

[Narkkipiispa · Rating 2 out of 5]

The parts with Karadzic were good. The parts about Stern and Trump seemed out of place.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book captures the chilling nature of Karadzic's crimes against humanity. You can't help but feel somewhat traumatized just but reading this account.

[Jared · Rating 4 out of 5]

I see the vision. About a third of the way through, I was extremely frustrated by what felt like an author more interested in telling her personal story than a story more consequential to society abroad. More personal journal than investigative journalist. However, this is a criticism more of the reader being unwilling to engage with the material than the material itself.

While this may be an unfair criticism, I do feel like the self-insertion of the author dilutes the narrative in a way that makes it less accessible to readers.

Having said that, this book should have a higher overall rating on here than it does. The work itself if fine, and at times, quite good. The chapter reckoning with the fact that Karadžić is still here and celebrated among certain groups, how his ideology of ethno-nationalism is prospering; how Americans are falling prey to a master manipulator obsessed with using fear as a wedge to divide. It’s well constructed and extremely prescient.

After the first few chapters, I found myself wanting to hate the book as much as a book rated 2.94 on Goodreads would suggest it deserves. Give it a 1 Star and laugh sneeringly along with everyone else. It simply doesn’t deserve that.

Much of the criticism in the reviews are not valid or sound criticisms of the work itself. If you have moral objections to “humanizing” a war criminal to the point you can’t even engage with the idea that most war criminals don’t stick out as psychopaths, please by all means, reveal yourself to the world. A person incapable of questioning their instincts is a person who finds certainty in themselves. Certainty that what they do is right and just and good. The only differences between most war criminals and the “average person” is circumstance, opportunity, and certainty.

Belief otherwise is a misguided fear born from the naive idea that humanizing monsters will sanitize their beliefs and their followers. This misunderstanding contributes more than any puff piece ever could to the sanitization of odious beliefs. It creates a vacuum. If you won’t engage with the evil a person can perpetrate while maintaining their right mind, malicious actors will swoop in to sanitize the history and retell it in a way normalizes their radical ideology.

By no means is this a perfect book, but the message is one America has never had to reckon with more than in this moment: it can happen here. It can always happen here. And if you think it can’t, it will happen here.

[Laurel Wirtanen-Siloy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I pick the best vacation destinations for me. And the best reads for me. But this one comes as my first thumbs down and I do not recommend it.

We need to know alternative viewpoints, perspectives, and focus on the facts of the situation. Pursue multiple legitimate news outlets. We all have our biases, and having gone to Bosnia and Herzegovina, having met their survivors, I acknowledge that I have mine when it comes to the genocide of Muslims during the Balkan War of 1991-1995. But I know I need to always learn more!

"My War Criminal" was written by a psychologist, from her interviews with Radovan Karadžić, the mastermind behind the Bosnian genocide. I expected a psychological understanding of a monster. What it seemed to be was borderline gross fascination of a genocidaire. Some facts were incorrect. Some of the writing was inflammatory, as she alludes to the Bosnians and Croatians had war criminals and r*****ts too." Well of course they did, war is terrible and even the good side has bad people. Yet, she overemphasized this then says, of "that only accounted for 5 percent of crimes against humanity." It almost seemed like she was justifying the savage cruelty of this war.

Aside from that, descriptions of his physique eeked of a romance novel. His hair, his body. For those unaware, Karadžić devised psychological torture, committed to outdoing Hitler (too efficient and clean), and concocted medical torture experiments to prolong death. I do not believe for a minute he did not know. He would do it all over again. The book ended with, "I didn't kiss him." Gross. There is more to it than that, but why would you even think that might be a possibility?

In addition, there was way too much info on Nazis and the USA nationalism. We need to know about that too. I wanted a focus on Bosnia, not Himmler, Hitler, or President 45. It wasn't a compare and contrast. Pass go, do not recommend.

[Malachy · Rating 2 out of 5]

The best version of this book would probably be amazing, but there are many directions it could go that lead it to mediocrity. The thrust behind My War Criminal is terrorism expert Jessica Stern's desire to understand the psychology behind "evil" men like terrorists and war criminals combined with her belief that sitting down with them one-on-one will achieve that. She (miraculously, given the apparently ironclad rules against interviews with war criminals) was able to convince the Hague to allow a handful of hours-long interviews with Radovan Karadzic, one of the Bosnian Serbs charged with crimes against humanity for the Siege of Sarajevo and the genocide of Bosniaks in Srebrenica. But the book provided little to no insight in Karadzic's psychology. Stern was practically uninterested in the crimes he committed, instead allowing many of the sessions to focus on his (pretty straightforward) poetry or the time he spent on the run from the ICTY as a new age healer. When the book does steer back toward his misdeeds, Stern expresses her shock that there are some potential grains of truth in various claims he makes about timelines or agreements, as though she expected him to tell very easily disprovable lies to someone who was fact-checking him. It sets the bar bizarrely low. Even then, I got the impression (not knowing much about the details myself) that there were exaggerations or embellishments that she let slide. According to people who have studied the history, there were in fact several inaccuracies throughout the book. I feel bad trashing the book since the subject material is so difficult and since Stern clearly did try to do it justice, but it really felt shoddily done. Even the scattering of photos throughout were captionless and blurry. I wouldn't recommend.

[Sean · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm not sure that I can say enough bad things about this one. Sure, there are plenty of worse books out there, but this is a special kind of abomination. An ostensibly serious war crimes investigator tries to repackage herself as some sort of series-ready TV profiler with an international twist—and fails at every turn. You'll find every cliche of the genre here—the mild-mannered investigator with a preternatural ability to connect with criminals, which inevitably hints at a shadowy past; the genius villain that she draws too close to in the pursuit of justice; the manipulations she fails to avoid; the darkness she grapples with; the reluctant realization that maybe they aren't so different after all—and it's all pure cringe, only made worse by the fact that the subject here is a real genocide, a real racist demagogue, real suffering and death. A better writer might have been able to pull this off, but as it is not even established facts seem convincing in Stern's hands, and her insights as she conveys them—that war creates an atmosphere of fear, that terror can be used a weapon, that people try to find commonalities with others in order to be more appealing—are laughable. Throw in some ineffectual handwringing about the 2016 election and you've got something truly exasperating on your hands. There's a very compelling story to be told here, but it's not in this book.

[Reader · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eye opener for all those not being already and totally manipulated by media coverage and terrible reporting, believing that the bosnian history of war and suffering has only one side and that everything was black and white. And yes, analogy with Trump is sooo spot on... so, dear american readers, so conscious and aware of rights and wrongs in bosnian war, people, politics and history, you should read this book and understand that the world is mainly grey, not black, not white. And the only correct outcome of the war in bosnia that we witnessed (or you did not witness it per se... you watched the televised version and listened to completely misinformed and not the least objective reporters) would have been three prison cells... three representatives of the involved religions... sentenced in exactly same way. If that had been the outcome that country and poor people living there would have SOME future, maybe... Now, when the "objective" public (mainly american, even if the most of them cannot even point bosnia on a map) see all historical wrongdoings through a picture of dr. Karadzic... do not be surprised if another war breaks out soon.

Book itself was pretty clumsy written. She should have dictated it to a real writer, would be much better. But content-vise... spot on!

[Lesa · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was interesting , especially since I had just finished readying CASTE and much of the book was about the power of instilling fear into a group of people who believe their status and way of life is being challenged. " to work up a freny for way or terrorism , the leader or prograpandist must persuade people of this: our people and our culture are under imminent threat".

The author relates Karadzic's ability to command an audience in some ways to our most recent President and his impact on the White movement in the US.

Unfortunately I did not feel like it was particularly well writen --- is is very academic in nature -- lots of notes after each chapter and I had to spent time reminding myself of the background of the Bosian war.
In light of recent events in the US I think it is interesing to revisit some of the psychology of "war Criminals" and how leaders can awaken some underlaying nationalism .

[Relstuart · Rating 2 out of 5]

I felt like I needed more information about this conflict to help set this book in proper context. For what it was, an effort to understand someone who greenlit genocidal efforts as a politician, it was merely ok in that it offered a brief biography and some analysis of the politician and the context of the conflict. But in the end I felt like this book touched the surface of all of these issues and I finished feeling like I needed more to really understand the story.

This book fits in the same genre of The Meaning of Hitler by Sebastian Haffner, but isn't as well put together. If you are interested in reading something in the genre, expanding your understanding of how someone could be the type of person to superintend over genocide, I recommend the book on Hitler versus this volume.

[Jillian Terrell · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5
This book is a character study, of the author as much as of her subject- it does not delve into the perspectives of victims of genocide. It also does not glorify the perpetrators, and some say by it simply existing it does that, but in order to understand men that carry out these deeds they must be studied. It examines the notion that we can all be depraved to some extent by what we choose to believe and by how we choose to defend those beliefs.

As we are in an age of populist government in multiple nations it offers a perspective I found valuable in understanding my own countryman’s obsession with Trump- I never thought about it from the globalist argument. While I understand globalizations ties to white supremacy due to colonialism I feel it has equipped me to better converse with modern day Republican voters.

[Brandon · Rating 1 out of 5]

Terribly formatted. It claims to set out to break down or reveal what a war criminal is through her interviews and instead gives us almost no insight. It's no wonder in the introduction her assistant seemed so confused that she would want to call the book "My War Criminal". Almost every stylized decision made in this book is bewildering. The long list of citations with some of them fleshed out to tell the history of the Bosnian conflict, while others are just websites or title listings and still others are so unrelated to really anything is ridiculous. The idea of telling the story of the Bosnian war and genocide while also telling the story of one of its worst actors is a great book idea. Unfortunately it was done as poorly and unsatisfying as any non-fiction I have ever read.