Mostly interesting (if sometimes dry) story of various failed states and how they failed.

The states under study were mainly torn apart by the Great Depression and ethnic diversity. For instance, in Czechoslovakia, there was a rivalry between ethnic Germans and Czechs, and in Yugoslavia, there was a rivalry between Serbs and Croats.

It should be noted that these countries (most of which were either overrun by Germany or forced to ally with Germany during WW II) were in a no-win situation. They were small, poor nations caught between Germany and Russia, and not strong enough to resist either.

If nothing else, this book shows how the Treaty of Versailles failed. It broke up the Austro-Hungarian Empire into numerous small countries, but did not break up the larger powers that threatened those countries. This led to a situation where the small countries were vulnerable and unable to protect themselves.

In conclusion, the story of these failed states is a complex one, influenced by a variety of factors such as the Great Depression, ethnic diversity, and the failure of the Treaty of Versailles. Understanding these factors can help us better understand the history and politics of the region.

In the context of World War I, those who are eager to explore the rise and development or the political landscapes of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, and the Baltic states will find this book extremely suitable.

This book, published in 1974, arranges the various political and constitutional provisions of these countries in such a way that the complex equation of the then world politics becomes relatively easy to understand. However, I don't have the courage to call the book simple because, personally, it seems quite complex to me. Admittedly, even after reading the whole book twice and some specific chapters several more times, I have had to make a great effort to master it. Of course, it is also true that not everyone is as empty-headed as I am.

Joseph Rothschild has created a literal blueprint for the development of each nation from an anthropological perspective in the book - there is conflict, there is aggression, and there are various types of authoritarian complexities. The book has a one-sided view of each country. There is the economic and social picture of the World War I era and the subsequent period, the political culture, and the responses of all the powerful countries in the world. Along with that, he has also clearly identified the areas of weakness of the new countries.

This book is rather dry.

It is filled with a plethora of statistics and mind-numbing descriptions of political parties in various elections in each country in Eastern Europe.

It seems to be more of an academic reference than an easily accessible history.

The detailed information about the political parties and their electoral performances in different countries can be quite overwhelming for the average reader.

However, for those who are deeply interested in the political history of Eastern Europe and are willing to invest the time and effort to study the statistics and descriptions, this book can provide valuable insights.

It offers a comprehensive overview of the political landscape in the region and can serve as a useful resource for academic research.

Nevertheless, it may not be the best choice for those who are looking for a more engaging and entertaining history book.

An interesting overview of the interwar history of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe, although in some places it is overloaded with statistical data and a kaleidoscopic description of electoral and government crises.

The book is interesting primarily not as a story about the history of individual countries, but as an attempt to point out the hopes, problems, concerns, and fears that were common to the entire region. In my opinion, the author does this quite well. The countries that emerged on the ruins of empires suffered from the problems generated by the Versaille system's contradictions from the very beginning: revisionism, chauvinism, the mismatch between political and ethnic borders due to the inconsistent implementation of the principle of national self-determination, the buffer location between two aggressive powers, etc. - problems that hindered their normal development and ultimately determined their sad fate in the geopolitical struggle on the eve and during World War II.

I cannot help but comment on the quality of the translation. It is terrible here. The text is already complex, and the Ukrainian reader has to not so much understand it as struggle through the thicket of translator's blunders and mistakes - all these "Partisan politics of Pilsudski", "Jews of a higher species", "peasantism", "Ocherki", the name Legion for them. The translator also, for some reason, uses certain historical names without any notes, which are incomprehensible to the reader: for example, "Regat" (one has to go to the Romanian Wikipedia to find out that this is the historical name of the Romanian Kingdom) or "Sporzum" ("agreement", "understanding" in Serbian and Croatian). A big minus for the translation.