The Balkans, 1804-2012: Nationalism, War and the Great Powers

I spent about 2 years in Bosnia and Kosovo in the late 90s and early 2000s, and this book was outstanding and connected a lot of dots.

Great book, nice overview of the Balkan history over the last 200 years. Very well researched. I highly recommend it.

Reminds me a bit of reading the Illiad. Page after page of: "Another small alliance sprang up. Its spear shone in the sun. Then it died." An amazing read, though, that explains nearly everything about the Balkan peninsula's place in the world, right now. I recommend reading it with Colin McEvedy's "The New Penguin Atlas of Recent History: Europe Since 1815" nearby.

Comprehensive and readable history of a complex region, written by an expert foreign correspondent.

This is updated edition of a fascinating analysis of the so-called cockpit of Europe. Detailed and thorough, but eminently readable!

Overall I was a bit disappointed with this book. I would have liked more space to be devoted to the 19th century and I thought it ended rather abruptly and without sufficient resolution.

Satisfied

The first 100 pages of this book were a little frustrating as the early to mid 1800s were a head spin of names I had never heard before, and at times it was a little difficult to tell who, or what was important.The book really came to life during and after the Congress of Berlin - the overall theme of Misha Glennys book is one of continued interference by the western powers in the Balkans and how this has mostly made the infighting worse rather than better. When the book gets going, it is at times on par with some of the best history writing I have read, up there with personal favourites like Anthony Beevors Second World War book or Piers Brandon The Dark Valley. A book that is so wide in scope yet able to keep major themes of the story together.The book of course has to draw in the intertwining stories the main powers of Russia, Germany, Austro-Hungary, U.K., France etc and we also chop and change between the individual stories if Slovenia, Croatia, BiH, Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, Greece, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Romania and Turkey. Each chapter is around 100 pages with a mini 5-10 pages on each country. The structure is probably the best way to tell the story but can get a little repetitive and chronologically jumpy.As one other reviewer mentioned there is probably too much space given to the interwar years (which are often brief) at times probably more should have been said on events during WW1, WW2 and the wars of the 90s. There are only a few sentences here and there on the siege of Sarajevo for example and Srebenica. Then again he has a whole separate book for that.Before I criticise the book too much I have to say I am overawed by the research and undertaking gone into this book. To cover so much ground and package it up understandably is an enormous feat. The book is superbly written. It wholly deserves 5 stars.If you feel, like I did, a lot of ignorance about the Balkan region, then this book and a short trip there will massively elevate your understanding of the importance of this region to Europe - past, present and future.

One of the best books for the history students

A brilliant overview of the Balkans and its relationship to the great powers over the last two centuries. Never a dull read, engaging, well-organized, balanced and highly informative, not to mention it having taken Glenny four years to write, this book is a tour de force of academic scholarship.--THE POSITIVES--Having also read Misha Glenny's "McMafia" and "Dark Market", I can honesty say that Glenny can be relied upon as an expert of the troublesome South-Eastern European regions. At 700 pages thick, this isn't an easy read. However, the huge wealth of information one digests by the end of the book makes up for its relatively massive length. This would be a great first read for anyone who wants to truly understand the intricate socio-political web of the Balkan regions.If I could rate this book out of 10, I would give it a 8.5 because I wish Glenny would have gone into more detail about the global debt crisis in the final chapter, which is part of the reason why the book feels like it ends somewhat abruptly.--THE NEGATIVES: POTENTIAL PROBLEMS OF HISTORIOGRAPHY--Most significantly, I also thought he could have done a better job of answering questions of historiography, i.e. different scholarly interpretations of history, especially regarding his usage of somewhat vague expressions such as "Greater Serbia", "Greater Italy", "Greater Albania", "Greater Bulgaria, "Greater Germany"- perhaps a little too much emphasis on the term "greater" without sufficient explanation. Now admittedly I am kind of cherry-picking weaknesses here because Glenny's excellent research in the book doesn't at all rely on using the term "greater" (he only mentions "greater _" a dozen or so times in the 700 page book); still, it is a potential FALSE ASSUMPTION that risks muddying one's understanding of the entire region, which is why I focus on "greater" below.--"GREATER [insert name]"---Did all of these countries REALLY aspire to be "greater"? What is meant by "greater"? When one says "Greater Germany" and "Greater Albania" or "Greater Serbia", does one mean the exact same thing? It just seems too EASY for me to refer to the complex policies of all of these countries using the exact same terminology - So you're saying all of these countries wanted to be "greater" in some way in the region? If so, why? Why did all these countries want to be "greater?" What forces could have been pushing/ pulling/ influencing them to be "greater"? What motivated "greater" aspirations? Are you always equating "greater" with "imperialist ambitions"? If so, why? Why did Germany have "imperialist ambitions" to begin with? Perhaps "greater" doesn't refer so much to "imperialist ambitions" (as Glenny says of Germany) as it does to "self-preservation" and "survival" in a hotly contested and volatile region? Perhaps Balkan/Central European countries are COMPELLED to "imperialist ambitions" MAINLY because of the circumstances of an unforgiving, crowded, competitive geography? Look at the relatively condensed size of Europe and then compare that to the enormous sizes of Canada, America, Russia, and China, and one begins to wonder WHY.Claiming that a country wanted "greater" influence in the region (at the potential expense of others countries) places instant blame of tyranny upon that country, a kind of "guilty until proven innocent" approach to history. There is danger to that kind of thinking - It is especially easy to fall into the trap of painting every single country in the Balkans under the same brush, and that HAS to be a mistake because it's just TOO EASY, TOO much of a generalization, too great of an assumption, uncritical to say the least.Now I'm not suggesting that Glenny holds this mistaken view of history, not in the least; he does a marvelous job explaining the Balkans. I am only suggesting that his unclear usage of "greater" can potentially be misinterpreted and misunderstood because it is not clarified in the book."What's that, Germany is rising in power? Oh that's because it has imperialist ambitions, a greater Germany! What's that, Serbia is rising in power? Oh that's because it has imperialist ambitions, a greater Serbia! Italy rising in power? Right, right, imperialist ambitions, a greater Italy! Bulgaria rising in power? Imperialist ambitions, dictatorships, a greater Bulgaria!" Do you see what I mean, dear reader? Do you see the slippery slope? That kind of approach to Balkan history is just WAY. TOO. EASY. Not the mention it fails to explain the lingering WHY question - WHY did these countries want more power? WHY did they want to be "greater"? And understanding the hardships of the larger Balkan region as a whole, can we really blame these countries for wanting "more"?If an explanation is too easy, too simple, IT'S PROBABLY MISTAKEN.Glenny could have better explained the complexities of the Balkans by referring to different scholars' interpretations of various countries' perspectives, but because he does not at all go into historiography, he unfortunately leaves me with some lingering questions by the end of the book.Of course, had he added historiography, the book may well have been over 1000 pages long, but it also would have been close to perfect. I also understand that Misha Glenny is NOT a professional historian; he is a popular writer and journalist, so I can forgive these relatively minor shortcomings, especially since this book doesn't claim to be a "historiography" to begin with, but more so a well-told "narrative story" type of book. Still, entirely omitting discussions of historiography in an ambitious book such as this, which attempts to summarize 200 years of history, will undoubtedly leave something to be desired.I just can't shake the feeling that perhaps there may be some other explanations as to why many of the Balkan countries appear to have wanted at some point in their histories to hold "GREATER" influence in the region; "imperialistic ambitions" / playing the "greater this, that" naming game just seems too simplistic/ naive of an explanation for the history of ANY country there.Excellent overview overall. Highly recommended.

Mandatory reading for anyone who wants to understand more about the dynamics in the region. Very detailed and thorough - the part on the 1990s wars is a bit shorter than what one might expect though.