790 SEER, 87, 4, OCTOBER 200g identity whichhad ensured theprovision ofHungarian-language teaching and exposedittoerosion from within thenewstructure. Andthaterosion wasnot slowto takeplace. A similardilutiontookplace in theadministrative role playedbyHungarians in theuniversity. Atthetimeofthemerger therector wasRomanianbuttwoofthethree pro-rectors wereHungarian.By1967,the numberofpro-rectorships had been increasedto five,ofwhomthreewere Romanian,sevenoftheeight deanswereRomanianas was 61percentofthe teaching staff. In theDr PetruGroza agricultural institute, separatelanguage instruction in Hungarianwas dropped. Gheorghiu-Dej's integrationist policywas a concomitant ofhisassertion of autonomy from theSovietUnion.NationalCommunism demandednational cohesion,hence the stepsdesignedto obscurethe distinct identity of the HungarianAutonomous Region.They wereparalleledby a seriesof antiRussianmeasuresin 1963,whichinvolvedclosingthe RussianInstitute in Bucharest, eliminating Russianas a compulsory schoolsubject, and replacing the Russian names of streetsand public buildingswithRomanian ones. Romanian economic and foreignpolicy became more independentof Moscowand withthesechangescamea notableshift in theseverity ofpolice rule.Gheorghiu-Dej authorized theopeningofthepoliticalprisonsin 1962 and according to official figures some4,500prisoners werereleasedoverthe nexttwoyears. Gheorghiu-Dej's policywascontinued byNicolaeCeauçescu.Some impartialobservers detected an initial improvement intheposition oftheminorities, noting a wideruseoftheHungarianlanguageinTransylvania, butstill pointing out restrictions on culturalexchanges.Periodicalsand newspapers from Hungary wereonlyavailablein limited numbers although a publishing house in Bucharest specifically dedicatedto thepublication ofliterature in Hungarianand Germancontinued toproducegenerous print-runs oforiginal worksbyTransylvanian Hungarianand Germanwriters, as wellas editions of novelsand poetrywritten by nationalHungarianand Germanauthors. A measureoftheprudenceaccordedbyCeau§escuto theminorities was the factthathisfirst domestic visits after becomingPartyleaderin March 1965 were to areas withlarge Hungarianpopulationsand his speechesset the limits ofhisminority policies.On theone hand he recognized theright of theHungarians to theirown culture and to use theirownlanguage,buton theother hewasfirm inhiscondemnation of'nationalism and nationalchauvinism '.Withina shorttimehispreference forintegration became clearin theproposalsforadministrative reform of 1967,but as his ruledeveloped, integration turned intoassimilation. UCL SSEES DennisDeletant Fischer, Bernd J. (ed.). Balkan Strongmen: Dictatorsand Authoritarian Rulersof South Eastern Europe. C. Hurst& Company,London,2007.ix + 478 pp. Illustrations. Notes.Index.€16.95(paperback). As episodic violence brokeoutacrosstheBalkansintheearly1990s, a number of Western journalists and policyactivists arguedthatthe Peninsulawas REVIEWS 79I witnessing a resurrection ofthesame conflicts and institutional frailties that had first plagued the Balkans at the beginningof the twentieth century. Although thevalidity ofthatclaimwas questionable, itdid serveto generate unprecedented popularinterest inpost-Ottoman Balkanhistory. It is surprising ,therefore, thattherehave been veryfewattempts to producea truly comparative politicalhistory oftheBalkansin thetwentieth century. Bernd J. Fischer'seditedvolume,BalkanStrongmen, is an attempt to counterthat trend. To facilitate cross-national comparison, Fischerasksan impressive line-up ofauthors toexaminetherolethatlocaldictators playedinshaping socialand economicdevelopments acrosstheBalkans- bothpriortoand following the SecondWorldWar. The deviceis a noveland interesting wayforFischerto compelhisauthorsto addressa setofcommonthemesacrossdiversecases. Specifically, Fischer'scall foran interweaving of biography withpolitical history leadseach ofthecontributing authors toconfront issuessuchas: what is a 'dictator'; shouldtheCommunist dictatorships oftheBalkansbe seenas aberrations, or as continuations of earlierinstitutional trends;and, was the persistence of dictatorial rulein theBalkanstheproductofdecisionstaken by local politicalelites,or a by-product of the post-Ottoman institutional environment inwhichthoseelitesfoundthemselves? In addressing thesequestions, thecontributing authors treatthirteen separateperiodsofrule ,drawnfromsevenseparatestates.The book is divided intotwobroadsections. The first halfincludesaccountsoftheregaldictators thatoperatedininternar Albania,Yugoslavia,Romaniaand Bulgaria.There are also treatments of thevariousforms of dictatorship thattookshape in pre-warand wartimeGreece,Turkeyand Croatia.The secondhalfofthe book features accountsof Communist dictatorships in Albania,Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Romania.Thereare also treatments ofGeorgePapadopoulos's military dictatorship in Greeceand Milosevic'sruleofSerbia/ Yugoslavia. Unsurprisingly, givenhis role in conceiving thevolume,Fischerhimself delivers twoofthemostwell-constructed chapters, whichmanageto weave thecuriousbiographies ofAhmetZogu (King Zog) and EnverHoxha into excellent overviews ofpre-and post-war Albania.Ratherthandemonizing Zog and Hoxha, or belabouring themanyabsurdaspectsof each of their regimes, Fischer'makessense'oftheir periodsofrulebysetting their leadershipwithin thecontext ofan Albaniathatemerged from bothOttomanrule andtheSecondWorldWarwithfewoftherequisite institutions ofgovernance in place. Fischeris willingto give creditto both leadersforsignificantly modernizing theirstate.However,he also recognizes thatcreating stateand governmental institutions arounda leader- rather thanhavinga leaderrule overexisting institutions - is a fundamentally flawedarrangement thatcan push a dictatortowardsthe kindof costlyand paranoidisolationism that characterized Hoxha's Albania. Beyondstateweakness, whichappearsas a commonunderlying cause of dictatorship in the post-Ottoman Balkans,the volume'sdiversenarratives highlight theextentto whichnationalism was a dominant, albeitmodular, 792 SEER, 87, 4, OCTOBER 2OO9 force in the Balkans right across the twentiethcentury. For some of the region's 'strongmen,'such as Turkey's Mustafa Kemal (Atatiirk), the creation and disseminationof a secular, civic,national identity was centralto the process ofmodernization.For others,such as Carol II ofRomania (whose period of rule receives an excellenttreatmentby Maria Bucur), the leader's incapacity to counter the growing popularity of radical nationalist movements was decisive in the decision to shiftto dictatorialrule. For othersstill- the...