366 SEER, 87, 2, APRIL 200g the approachmakesquite interesting reading.The articleby the German historian Kai Struveon thepatriotic celebrations of Polishand Ukrainian peasantsis one of thefinest in thevolume.He comparesUkrainiancommemorations of the abolitionof peasantserfdom and theirtransformation intonational festivals sincetheendofthenineteenth century and Polishpeasant pilgrimages whichfulfilled a rathersimilar- national- aim. Anna VeronikaWendland analysesthe nationalization of the public spherein interwar Lviv.The nationalization ofwar memories dividedand segregated theurbanpublicspherealong nationallinesand she stresses thatrumours playeda keyrolein their making. The volumeconcludes withthreearticles on Galicia'smorerecent history, thetimeperiodafterthecollapseof Communism in EasternEurope.The British geographer Luiza Bialasiewiczfocuseson the questionof how discourse on the Habsburg legacy has shaped discourseon the region's Europeanbelonging.She is particularly interested in the Polish-Ukrainian 'geographical imaginary' oftheregionaimedatpresenting thisborderland 'as a historical spaceofcoexistence and contentment' (p. 163).The Lvivhistorian Yaroslav Hrytsak analysesthe phenomenonof regionalism in Galicia. He tracesUkrainian nationalization oftheregion's history backtothe1860s,and pointsto selective forgetting withrespect to otherethno-confessional groups and to thedevelopment ofa rather exclusive Ukrainiannationalidentity in theregionin thetwentieth century, itself mostprobablya result oftherival Polishnationalnarrative. Contemporary Galicia is peripheral in Ukrainein manywaysand youngintellectuals from theregionhaveresponded recently to thisprocessby claiming somekindofautonomy forGalicia. The British anthropologist ChrisHann examines theentanglement oftheGreekCatholic ChurchwithUkrainian nationalism inthenineteenth and twentieth centuries in Przemys'l - whichaccording to hisanalysis alienatedsomeofthefaithful fromthechurch- and thestruggle fora new multiculturalism in thecity after 1991, whichhas stilltobe established. The volume,whichcontainsa map of Galicia and an index,convinces onlypartially: whilemostofthearticles arewellresearched, argueclearly and thusdeserve attention, thegeneralstructure ofthepublication does notmeet theexpectations whichone mighthave had on openingthebook. Paul R. Magocsi is certainly right withhis advice thattheeconomichistory of the regionshouldbe takenmoreseriously intoconsideration. Historisches Seminar G. Hausmann AlbertLudwigs Universität Freiburg Bitis,Alexander.RussiaandtheEastern Question: Army, Government, andSociety 1815-1833. A British AcademyPostdoctoral Fellowship Monograph.The British Academyand OxfordUniversity Press,Oxford, 2006.xxiii+ 542 pp. Maps. Notes.Bibliography. Index.£75.00. The EasternQuestioninRussianstudies has curiously slippedoff theagenda ofmuchmodernscholarship oflate,thelastmajorstudies in thisarea being byM. E. Yapp andM. S. Anderson inthe1960sand 1970s. Itperhaps became REVIEWS 367 a victim ofthemoregeneralfalling out offashion oftraditional diplomatic history, as wellas ofthatdelusion thatperiodically affects manyfields ofstudy - namely thatthere was nothing newtooffer on thesubject.This apathyin Western scholarship up untilnowis all themorestriking whenone considers the new possibilities forRussian archivalresearchopened up by the end oftheCold War. The present study byAlexanderBitishowevermakesup, almostsingle-handedly, forthisyawningneed fora more modern,better documented study oftheperiod.It is a richly satisfying, refreshing, immaculatelyresearched and deeplyunfashionable piece ofwork,whichalso setsa newstandard and benchmark forfuture scholars to follow. The mostimpressive aspect of Bitis'sworkis the mannerin whichit executesthepromisecontainedwithin itstitle- to thoroughly analysethe linkagesbetweenthe Russianarmy,government and societyin theperiod underreview.Thus one willfindherewholechaptersof excellent military history, in thesenseofcampaignhistory which,beingaccompaniedbyoutstandingly clearmaps,willthoroughly acquaintthecontemporary readerwith thecampaignsof1826-28and 1828-29in bothPersiaand theBalkans,in a mannernot so thoroughly well done in Englishsincethe groundbreaking worksofJohnBaddeley,W. E. D. Allenand Paul Muratoff in thefirst half ofthetwentieth century. The operational questions raisedbythesecampaigns alone makethemfascinating studies, notleastsincetheyshedvaluablelight onwhathasso often doggedandpuzzledmilitary historians inthepast - discerning thelinkages between contemporary military theory, doctrine (although thattermwas notnecessarily understood in itsmodernsensein theperiod underreview), and actualcampaigning. Duringthetimeperiodin question, theRussianarmy wasadvisedbyBaronA. H. Jomini, theforemost European military intellectual ofhisday,and a manknownforhisadvocacyofeternal principles ofwar.Jomini's fixedprinciples dictatedtheneed to concentrate rather thandivideone'sforces, alongsidetheneed to invest enemyfortresses in orderto secureone's own line of communications and also compelthe enemyto battle,and theseprinciples foundtheirway intobotha memoir he wrotein April1828on planningfora Balkancampaign,and theactual execution ofthecampaignitself. Thus we havefor Jomini and thiscampaign whatwe have alwayslackedforCarl von Clausewitz, hisnow-more-famous contemporary; a practical exampleofthescholarand military theorist having an actualdirectinputintoand impactuponcampaignplanning. Bitismakes thesepointsimpressively, butwhattruly giveshismilitary campaignstudies lifehereisthemannerinwhichhe alsoweavesinstudies oftheRussianarmy itself, and ofRussiansociety as a whole.The Russianarmyoftheperiodwas notsomemonolithic toolblindly obedientto theruling monarch;theMain Staffof the Second Armyin particular, run by futureMinisterof State Properties P. D. Kiselev,was an almostautonomousdoctrinal and tactical school,whichadvocatedexplicitempiricalstudyof thatarmy'smostlikely major opponent,the Ottoman army.With its explicitemphasison the cultural and territorial peculiarities oftheparticular theatre ofwar,overand above eternalprinciples, thisstaff advocateda nuanced approachto local conditions notdissimilar to theUS Army'scurrent rediscovery oftheutility of culturalanthropology forcampaignplanningin the Middle East. The SecondArmyStaff was also a havenforDecembrists, rendering itan object 368 SEER, 87, 2, APRIL 200g of considerablesuspicionfor the Main Staffin St Petersburg. Strategy and operational artfortheBalkancampaignof 1828-29emergedout ofa discourse betweenthesetwoalternate strategic schools. Therearemanyother joysand insights tobe gainedfrom Bitis'swork, too manyinpractice tobe coveredindepthinthisshort review. Readerswillfind withinthesepages a masterly re-examination...