It seems fairly obvious that the two authors were in a rush to get this book out before the competition, since there is not much depth here, and more than a few typographical errors. One major annoyance was the spelling of commonly-accepted place- and proper names with the Lithuanian variant: confusing if you use other sources about the war.

This is basically a blow-by-blow of the war in Chechnya from December 94 to the end of 1996. While initially, I had hope for some insights, what I found was more of a chronology of the war, basically gleaned from Lithuanian (and some Russian) newspapers. Unfortunately, the preface triumphs this achievement as one that come to us through the "native" eyes of east Europeans, who are not subject to the bias of "western sources." What I found especially disappointing was the fact that the authors did not conduct one interview for the book (contrasting with the works of some supposedly "biased" Western journalists such as Carlotta Gall, who was actually IN Chechnya, and interviewed President Dudaev twice).

I don't mean to say that you have to actually be present in the war zone to write a good history of the war, but I simply did not see how Knezys and Sedlickas' book was all that original or insightful.

On the plus side, if you do not want to search for a chronology of the war in the internet, this may be useful - however, all of the Russian-language newspapers cited can be accessed by Westerners through FBIS.

This book was touted as an objective and evenhanded analysis of the military side of the Chechen war of 1994-96. It is simply not so. In fact it often reads like a propaganda pamphlet, pro-Chechen and anti-Russian in this case.

To give it a due credit, the book has some strong points. It is sufficiently detailed and provides a complete timeline of the conflict. Its analysis of war, while very partial, contains some interesting insights (for example, on the role of military terrorism). At the same time one of the book's drawback is highly derivative description of the events. It seems the authors have never been anywhere near Chechnya or interviewed main participants of this war. Instead they rely almost exclusively on reports written elsewhere - mainly in Russian and western newspapers (and also Lithuanian ones).

The authors begin with political circumstances leading to war. Like other parts of the book the description is very biased. They hardly mention, for example, a series of terrorist acts and hostage-taking (including several instances of kidnapping buses with schoolchildren) persisting in and around Chechnya in 1994, which was a final trigger for hostilities as lawlessness and violence in Chechnya has grown to intolerable proportions. Any western government in these circumstances would be just as hard pressed to "finally get tough on terrorists" as Russian government in the late 1994. Both sides, Russian and Chechen, can be faulted for gradual escalation and eventual stumbling into the brutal war. Much more objective and substantial take on this issue can be found in A. Lieven's "Chechnya: The Tombstone of Russian Power".

In describing the military side of the war S. Knezys and R. Sedlickas use many sketches and maps, with level of details sometimes down to individual vehicles destroyed or soldiers killed. These maps, however, often feel disconnected from the story and offer fairly little help in understanding combat situations. The narrative often resembles the language of a bureaucratic report. There is no comparison, for example, to the Mark Bowden's "Black Hawk Down" in vividness of describing gritty details of military engagements in a modern war. In fact, the writing reminds of Prussian pedantry that Lev Tolstoy mocked in "War and Peace": "First battalion marches..., second battalion marches...". Authors managed to make one of the most ferocious combats in recent history simply boring.

They also use very unconventional English transliteration of names and locations (based, it appears, on Lithuanian spelling). Not that the authors make even this consistent. For example, Yeltsin spelled as traditionally in English literature, while phonetically similar first letter in other names is spelled with "J" (e.g. Jegorov, or sometimes Jagorov). The authors are fairly sloppy and occasionally spell the same name differently within a single page (for example, Dudaev's wife name is alternately called Ala, Alla or Ada). One of the authors (Knezys) was educated in Soviet Union and surely has at least a basic grasp of Russian. Yet Russian names and places mentioned in the book often sound as if they are distorted on purpose to lose original meaning. Is it a quirky excursion into Luthuanian nationalism? There is nothing wrong with presenting the point of view of smaller nations, but distorting grammar and phonetics for this purpose looks downright silly.

Describing humanitarian aspects of the war authors detail almost all Russian atrocities ever mentioned in media, of various degree of credibility, but barely mention at all the Chechen ones, including well-documented horrible tortures and mutilation of captured Russian soldiers (and often civilians). They write, for example, how Chechens allegedly protected Russian POWs in the basement of Dudaev's presidential palace in Grozny, as Russian troops were storming it. What they don't mention is that Chechens fighters tied (and even nailed) many captured soldiers to windowsills, often stripped naked in January cold, while their snipers were shooting at attacking Russian troops using these prisoners as covers.

Almost every operation by Chechen forces is described as complete success from military point of view, while on Russian side - invariable bungling and failure. This is in line of how it was often portrayed in the media, but doesn't necessarily stand the scrutiny of common sense and logic (although Chechens indeed often proved to be very capable fighters). For example, authors describe Chechen attacks on parts of Gudermes in December '95 and of Grozny in March '96 as well-planned and perfectly successful "rehearsals" of the eventual operation to take Grozny in August '96, after which Russia decided to end the war and withdraw its troops. Despite being army officers, the authors apparently can't comprehend a simple concept: there is no such thing as a "repetition" of a military operation. In case a of pre-planned decisive strike, the army unit either completes its task, or fails at it and falls back to prepare and plan anew, with modified means and tactics, while the other side makes its own conclusions and designs countermeasures. Undoubtedly, had the Chechen army attack on Grozny in August '96 been not successful, they would have called it yet another "planned rehearsal", just as previous operations in December '95 and March '96. Similarly, they call terrorist raids on civilian targets inside Russia by the bands of field commanders Shamil Basaev in June '95 and Salman Raduev in December '95 (fully justified in author's description, even as these attacks included cold-blooded killing of civilian hostages) as total successes from military point of view. This is arguably the case for the first raid (Basaev's), but less likely for Raduev's band, which lost more than half of its fighters (Raduev was recently captured by Russian special forces and is now in prison).

Overall, the book is too flawed to receive a high mark. Nevertheless, it remains the most detailed military account of Chechen war in the western media, and can be recommended to readers interested in this subject.

I think in this book will be very good for the readers who want to know about 1994-96 chechnya war. Author show why russians does not win the war. The whole war is described quite precisious (as it can be:): battles, tactics, etc... And i think this book will be ok for readers who want to study 1999-x war.It will bring some answers to emerging questions in our days.

Sharp offers several themes and interpretations in his analysis of politics in the decade following the adoption of the constitution. Sharp rightly argues that the antagonisms and political schisms of the years 1789-1801 were a crucial test of the ability of our new nation to survive sharply different conceptions of where political sovereignty would ultimately lie in the new nation. Sharp details the creation of "proto-parties" -- the Federalist led by Hamilton who favored a strong central government and executive power versus the Jefferson led Republicans who favored more state and local control of politics and a stricter construction of the federal government's powers under the constitution. The schism was also clearly and primarily sectional -- North versus South. While both of these comments are an oversimplification they were two of the obvious divisive issues splitting the two camps. Sharp maintains that the election of Jefferson in 1801 and the peaceful transfer of power from one faction to another -- the first such transfer of power in our nation's history (Adam's being generally seen as a proponent of the Federalists'position) -- was one of the two most crucial tests for the viability of the constitution (the other being the Civil War).

Sharp details the political machinations of both camps through Jefferson's election and clearly shows that civil war and disunion were indeed viable outcomes and the continuation of the union in limbo.

Overall this is a solid effort to dispel the myth that political parties, as we know them today, were not created or even perpetuated by the "proto-parties" that formed during this period, although they can be seen as precursors of modern political parties. He also dispels the myth that the perpetuation of the nation was inevitable. Instead that the United States survived this period intact was incredible.

My main quibble is that sometimes Sharp sometimes leaves out some key points. Nor do I think enough attention is paid to Adam's ability to straddle the two factions and steer a more neutral course -- for example advocating a strong national defense (building a navy), pursing peace with France, and thwarting Hamilton's attempt to maintain a standing army in peacetime. Had he been unsuccessful in doing so the story of our Republic may have been quite different.

In American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis, James Roger Sharp focuses on a time period often ignored by American historian. Caught up in the excitement of battlefields, historians delved into the American Revolution or the intrigues of the Constitutional Convention. Yet Sharp's bold study highlights the battles which raged within Washington's administration. The war which raged between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson provides the excitement of the battlefield. Sharp obviously has studied the genesis of the American political sytem and the development of party politics in America's first years under the U.S. Constitution. His thesis centers around the development of political party through the supporters of Jefferson and Hamilton. His insistence upon describing these units as "proto-parties" seems to be overkill. While the reader will understand that these groups did not have the organization of a political party as modern Americans recognize it, Sharp seems to believe a reader will not bother to consider political parties in any other form. This book, however, is a fascinating study of a period about which few have read. While the casual reader might find the book cumbersome, I recommend it for any studetn of early American history.

I am going to disagree with the previous reviewer. Why? Because the book loses it theme and goes off about the evils of nuclear war, spaceships, alien civilizations, and all sorts of other wacky stuff.
What happened at Tunguska in Russia during 1908 is what concerns me. Something really destuctive exploded above ground and blew apart several hundred square miles of forest and marshland. What I got in this book was a chapter about the evils of nuclear war. Then the book goes off about how maybe an alien spaceship hit Tunguska. Not any alien spaceship, but a probe. The author then narrows it down to the star where this spaceship came from. I thought I was reading science fiction at this point.
The reality is Tunguska was probably hit by a comet that came into the Earth's atmosphere and exploded above ground. The author does convince the reader it was not a meteorite. The rest about spaceships and nuclear war is so much filler which brought the book out to 200 pages. Hopefully some author will do a better job writing a detailed book about what really did happen at Tunguska.

There's one section of "Cauldron of Hell: Tunguska" that is among the most frightening ever written, fact or fiction...It is the destruction of London, which would have occurred if the Tunguska fireball arrived hours later...

This book gives a good account of the events surrounding the Tunguska event...Even though it was written 20 years ago, much of it is still essential reading for those interested in the threat posed by cosmic impacts...

The guide is small and conveniently sized, but the information is sparse and not entirely accurate. 5* for size, 2* for content.

Compact and easy to use. Historical sites are well done but reviews of art collections are overly generous for mediocre quality. Forget the restaurant reviews, the scene is changing fast and our most inedible meal was at U Tri Zlatych Hvesd, a restaurant they recommended. The hotel U Tri Pstrosu was a major disappointment. When they showed us to our room, a tiny fourth floor walk up attic garret for $200 a night, we checked out and went next door to Hotel Pod Vezi. There we found a large, comfortable suite three times the size for $150. Overall a handy book but out of date on hotels, restaurants and some travel information.

This is a very poorly written piece of history. I'm not an expert on the topic but I know that most English teaches would have returned this. He should have improved the writing and the editors should have intervened.

Mark Thurner's recent FROM TWO REPUBLICS TO ONE DIVIDED is a landmark contribution to Andean history and historical anthroplogy writ large--a book bound to provoke healthy controversy among scholars and students alike. This is the first book-length study to deploy insights from "post-colonial" theory to explore the complex roles of indigenous peoples in the politics and political imagination of republican Peru. Based on remarkable archival research about indigenous communities and the state in the little-studied Huaylas-Ancash region, the book begins by insightfuly tracing the paradoxical fate of the so-called colonial "Indian republics" in early republican politics. The second half of the book zeros in on the Atusparia revolt of the latter part of the century, as a sign of the widening gulf between Creole nationhood and indigenous politics as Peru approached the 20th century. All in all, Thurner offers a complex and thoughtful alternative to both "integrationist" and "resistance" visions of the role of Indians in the liberal-republican world, and in its theoretical sections new ways of thinking about ethnicity and the "national problem" across Latin American history. The American Historical Review already hails this work as "an important book" that provides a "pathbreaking analysis of peasants'use of republican discourse." The Hispanic American Historical Review proclaims it a "sophisticated study" with "impressive" "intellectual and analytical power". Whatever, FROM TWO REPUBLICS TO ONE DIVIDED ought be on the shelf of every serious (and not-so-serious) student of the region.

I thought this book was very out of date! I would not recomend this book to people that want to travel to Georgia.

I read through this book with delight. Finally, I thought, the West can learn the true origin, history and present about Georgia. I am Georgian. I have been living in the US for over six years.

The most important thing to remember about the "Macedonian conflict" is that the Greek position has changed dramatically over the past decade. Official Greek government policy was that Macedonia did not exist. When Greece took over Aegean Macedonia in 1913, they killed, tortured and ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Macedonians. They changed the names of people, villages, and landmarks from Macedonian to Greek in their attempts to eradicate the Macedonian name. Two things to remember:

1. It is ironic that Greeks now "love Macedonia" when they tried to eradicate its very existence.

2. If Macedonia has always been Greek, why did the Greek government deny its existence until the 1980's?

This is an excellent, factual source concerning the issue of the creation of FYROM. The reader will get a clearer understanding of the controversy surrounding this new state and the tension it created with neighboring Greece.
This is not some history-revisionist babble one finds within other writings but a clear representation of the issues, both political and legal, which the Balkans are now facing.

The judge of the series noted that this book was the best FIRST book of poetry he's read in several years. In my opinion, the material in this book is derivative, and the judge's comments only reinforce my view on the state of poetry in america in general...i.e. [its bad].

Can't compare to any of the greats: Pound, Bishop, cummings. Save your $$ and buy something from someone who can actually write...instead of buying the "best first book of poetry" some hayseed has read.

I would rate it 0 stars but amazon.com doesn't give us that option.

I picked this up at the advice of a friend and I find that I read a little of it at a time because it is deep. I'm not finished with it yet. I'm not as well read as my friend so I've had to go and look up a few of the people who are referenced in this book (JM Synge?), but the work is amazingly moving and I find myself thinking about the poems, or an image or line from a poem, during the day. I'm haunted by it. I highly recommend it.

Once again, reading Charles Bernstein is a wasted intellectual exercise. Berbstein's theories about language are old hat, too. Jackson MacLow and many others beat him out for originality long ago. It is a pity to see that people like Marjorie Perloff, coming from the "Gertrude Stein School," so to speak, can be so fooled by Berstein's nonsense. He wastes paper with his over done, old hat experiments. Stein beat him to the things he attempts, too, and in a more interesting whimsical fashion. If one really wants to read about language and its implications, one does better to read Noam Chomsky. The thing is that Chomsky at least never pretends to be a poet, and at best, tops Bernstein for true intellectual power. Charles Bernstein would do well to attempt to really communicate some experience of life on THIS planet, not just his bookish attitudes. His claim to any originality is arrogant. We poets were all doing these sort of experiments all through the 1960's and 1970's before we decided to really write in order to communicate. Gertrude Stein and Jackson MacLow were our leaders, along with the French Dadaists and Symbolists, like Rimbaud. American poetry simply does not need Bernstein's influence or theories at this juncture. He sets things back, not forward. This silly emperor really has not clothes and it doesn't take a child to see it. We grown up poets know it two. And, we must tell the truth from the rooftops to save other younger poets from this foolery with l-a-n-g-u-a-g-e.

look how angry te fool above me got that's why you should read chuck-also he's funny 'nuff said

Because that is what Kokh did in Russia. As privatization chief he participated in the most massive looting of publicly-owned property in history. The only fitting tribute to this uber-thief is to steal his book and deny him any royalties of any kind.

After all, Kokh received $90,000 as an "advance royalty" in 1996 for a book that he, Maxim Boiko, and Anatoly Chubais supposedly promised to write. Of course, they never wrote the book. But they still deserved the "royalties" as payoff for fixing privatization auctions of Russian state-owned companies, ensuring that the "right" people won every auction.

Incidentally, Kokh is now (October 2000) in charge of Gazprom's efforts to stifle the only major independent television and radio network in Russia. He is almost certainly responsible for the imprisonment of Gusinsky in the TB ward of Butyrka prison for the three days that Gusinsky was being persuaded to "voluntarily" sell off his network to Gazprom.

This book explains in great detail a unique situation, the economic restructering of an entire country. The book is insightful and will appeal to anyone interested in finance.