Southeastern Europe 34 (2010) 135–141

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI 10.1163/187633309X12563839997026

brill.nl/seeu

Book Reviews

Sundhaussen, H., Geschichte Serbiens. 19.-21. Jahrhundert (Serbians’ History. 19 th – 21 st cen-tury) (Wien: 2007: Böhlau Verlag). ISBN: 978-3-205-7760-4.

Geschichte Serbiens. 19.-21. Jahrhundert is a massive study of a history of Serbia that eff ectively and comprehensively discusses the country’s historical development since the start of the 19 th century. Together with Stevan Pawlowitch’s Serbia: Th e History Behind the Name , this book off ers the most useful and nuanced discussion of Serbia’s history in a Western language.

When the book was published in early 2009 in Serbia with the publishing house Clio , it cre-ated a storm of controversy among historians. It was the subject of numerous interviews and commentaries in the daily Politika and of public debates amongst the most prominent Serbian historians. So what makes this history so controversial in the country it is discussing?

Prominent Serbian historian and ambassador to France, Dušan Bataković has called the book a “paradigmatic example of projecting the contemporary and recent reality into the distant past” ( Politika , 01/02/2009). Bataković thus views the book as the latest example of an ‘Austrian-German’ anti-Serb reading of history. He also accuses the book of relying excessively on com-munist historiography and of taking a Manichean perspective on Serbia. Other historians accuse Sundhaussen of drawing a straight line between the nationa list ideas of Karadžić and Garašanin and the violence of the late 20 th century, and for taking too benign a view of the Communist period ( Politika , 27/01/2009).

So, does this criticism stand? Some of the critique is directed against a critical outsiders’ per-spective and at times appears not to be based on a reading of the book. Th e discomfort of some Serbian historians, in particular of Dušan Bataković, is understandable, considering Sundhaussen’s book is not only a factographic history of Serbia, but also a book about the history of Serbia. It engages and challenges ethnocentric conceptions of parts of Serbian historiography (which can be found in national historiography elsewhere as well), which see the past in the service of the nation. It is unsurprising that some historians of Serbia, such as Latinka Perović, welcomed the book thus highlighting the divide between national and critical historiography in Serbia itself.

As a history of Serbia in the 19 th and 20 th centuries, the book is inevitably also a history of the Serbian nation and nationalism, as these are the concepts which essentially allow for the focus on a territory which only existed as a distinct unit for half of the period the book covers.

Th e book does not establish any overstretched lines of continuity between the fi rst ideas of national identity in the 19 th century and those of the late 20 th century. In fact, it discusses of the nationalist ideas of Vuk Stefanović Karadžić and the emphasizes the fact that Garašanin’s Načertanje was kept secret for decades rather than touted as a tool for nationalist mobilization, underlining the author’s care in discussing the complexity and evolution of nationalism.

In choosing to focus on one nation, Serbia, the book’s thoroughness in other aspects is inevi-tably reduced. It thus does not discuss the dynamic relations with other nationalisms, nor does the role of outside actors, in particular the Great Powers, always get the weight it might deserve.

136 Book Reviews / Southeastern Europe 34 (2010) 135–141

In tracing the evolution of nationalist ideas, the book also at times gives too much weight to the nationalist musings of some intellectuals whose weight is overstated, such as regarding Vasa Čubrilović’s plan for the expulsion of Albanians (pp. 298-300).

Th e book has some weaknesses, which would be desirable to correct in any future editions. Th ere are a number of factual mistakes; i.e. on pp. 278-9 the author claims that there were 150,000 unemployed university graduates in 1933, an impossibly high number considering that according to Sundhaussen only 30,000 students graduated university in the interwar period. He also claims that the mausoleum for Prince Njegoš on Mount Lovćen in Montenegro, designed by Meštrović, was never built (p. 296), though the 1970s construction of the monument, accord-ing to Meštrovićs plans, was quite controversial. Th e book also suggests that Milošević cancelled the local election results in November 1996, though his party actually tried to falsify them, which was the trigger for mass protests (p. 434). Th ese and similar glitches are minor, yet at times frustrating for such an otherwise excellent work. Furthermore, at times, the quotations are too long, which stands out particularly when they are not in German (i.e. p. 248) and not all sources are always reliable (i.e. Philip Cohen and references to a Wikipedia entry).

It is commendable that the book does not shy away from Serbia’s most recent history and includes an extensive discussion of the wars and the Milošević regime. Its writings about this period become more of a discussion of Serbia as an idea and of Serb war aims in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, rather than a history of Serbia itself. One thus learns less about the domestic political dynamics inside Serbia during the 1990s and the cultural and social develop-ments after the end of Communism, and more about the controversies in the interpretations of Serb responsibility during the wars.

A book of such a scope and focus on a topic as controversial as the history of Serbia is inevita-bly going to elicit some objections and be contested. Th is book is a real contribution to the understanding of the past and present in Serbia and the Balkans, as it is the work of a historian who neither seeks to polemicize nor shies away form historical controversies. Th e accusation of Dušan Bataković that the book understands the past through the perspective of the present could also be understood as one of the book’s strengths. It constitutes not an attempt at writing a time-less ‘objective’ history of Serbia, but rather a self-conscious and level-headed eff ort to write the history of country and nation from today’s perspective.

Florian Bieber, Department of Politics and International Relations,

University of Kent

Bibliography

Politika 27 January 2009, “Garašanin nije začetnik nacionalizma” (interview with Vojislav Pavlović).

— 1 February 2009, “Tito je umro prekasno”.