778 SEER, 82, 3, 2004 did not start with Kekkonennor with Paasikivi.The proudly newlyindependent Finnishstateof the 1920Shadaspectsof this;HjalmarProcope hadtowarntheFinnish presstostopitsstrident criticism oftheSovietUnion. Anotherway of lookingat mattersis to see what else therewas in the Kekkonen era,suchasthechallengetothetraditional bureaucratic hierarchy ofthecountry whichbegantoemerge,a challenge possibly helpedbysomeof thefeatures ofFinlandization, inwhichtheenthusiasm foraforeignwould-be superstate helpedtoempower,amongasectionoftheyoung,criticism oftheir ownsociety.Letusnot,however,be carriedaway.Thisreviewstarted witha broadside againstanyreturntoFinnishself-censorship, aphenomenon much deeperthanFinlandization. It maybe hopedthatin hisnextworkLehtinen willnothaveto cometo theconclusionthatthecurrentDrang nachWesten is engendering a self-censorship ofitsown. University ofTurku, Finland GEORGE MAUDE Eberhardt,Piotr.Ethnic Groups andPopulation Changes inTwentieth-Centu?y CentralEastern Europe. TranslatedbyJan Owsinski.M. E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY and London, England, 2003. xxxii + 559 pp. Maps. Figures. Tables. Notes. Bibliography.Indexes. $I85.95. PRODUCTION of this work representsan astounding achievement on the part of Piotr Eberhardt.That this volume was compiled single-handedlyindicates that the author must have dedicated a staggering amount of time and resourcesto the project.Based upon a Polish-languageoriginalfirstproduced in I996, the author has sought to track and account for ethnographic population changes during the course of the twentieth century in a total of nineteen contemporary countries, as well as in the Kaliningrad exclave. His definition of Central-East Europe is admittedly rather broad, but given the impressivenature of the oeuvre this reviewer is not about to quibble with the author'sunderstandingof which countriesconstitutethe region. Naturally enough, given the disappearance of empire, the creation of (nation-)states,the disappearanceof some of those states,and myriadborder changes, a number of methodological issues spring to mind. The most important being, just exactly what territorial unit should be measured? ProfessorEberhardt'sdecision was to attempt to trackethnographicchanges within the boundaries of the contemporary states as they exist today. Some may disagreewith thisapproach,but giventhat,forexample, Poland'sborders in 2004 are radically different from those of I938, and countries such as Slovenia are barely into their teens, no other approach would have made sense. Another methodological issue that arisesconcerns the interpretationof the welterof officialand unofficialstatisticsthatformthe backboneof the analysis. As the author acknowledges, such data is always open to question. Census takers and national governments have their own agendas and as a result censuses do not alwaysreflect accuratelythe true ethnographicmake-up of a particularcountry. Similarly, there are issues of identity-switching,growing national awareness,and to this day ambiguity on the part of individualswith REVIEWS 779 regard to questions of identity. ProfessorEberhardtdemonstrates that he is aware of these issues, but it could be argued that they are not examined in sufficientdepth. In termsof itsorganizationalstructure,the main body of theworkis divided into geopolitical sections, on a north-southcontinuum. So we begin with the Baltic states, and end with the Balkan countries. Each section contains an overview of the region, and the ethnographic composition of each country is then assessed. The initial assessment is of the situation at the turn of the twentieth century. The second examines the situationbetween the wars, and the third and final section looks at the post-war scenario. In all instances the text is complemented by a rich mixture of figures and tables. Unfortunately the concluding chapterswhich I had hoped would contain some substantive analysisof the natureand consequencesof themassivepopulationmovements, campaigns of ethnic cleansing and outright genocide that marred the region throughout almost the entire course of the twentieth centurydo not reallydo that. Instead, more than anything else they are summaries of earlier observationsand findingswith some additionalbriefcomment. Each region receives appropriatetreatment, and in general is dealt with in an even-handed manner. Neither nations as collective entities, nor followers of given ideologies are singled out eitherfor specialpraise, or are condemned for having perpetratedparticularexcesses. Of all the geopolitical areas under consideration, only with the section on the Balkans, and in particular the former Yugoslavstates did I feel uncomfortable. It simply is not sufficientto say that 'The immediate causes of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina were ethnic conflicts' (p. 395). In addition, the author seems to be unaware of the mass conversion of the Bogomils to Islam, and of the ambiguous relationship between Christianity and Islam in southern former Yugoslavia that until recently meant that in some areas individuals could effectively practice versionsof both faithswithout any apparentcontradiction.His understanding of the pressures faced...
Read full abstract