Одговори 
 
Оцена Теме:
  • 0 Гласова - 0 Просечно
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
МЛАДА БОСНА
09-01-2014, 05:37 PM
Порука: #1
МЛАДА БОСНА
Хероји или терористи, поставити питање, мада је за већину људи јасно. Група интелектуалца и идеалиста, који су сањали ослобођење Босне од Аустријске анексије и окупације и њено уједињење са Србијом и осталим јужнословенским државама.

[Слика: _Гаћиновић.jpg]
Зачетник и идеолог Младе Босне, Владимир Гаћиновић.

[Слика: Bogdan_Zerajic.jpg]
Богдан Жерајић, припадник Младе Босне, избршио атентат на поглавара Босне, генерала Маријана Варешанина. Атентат није успео, 5 метака је испалио у генерала Варешанина а 6-ти у себе. Над његовим гробом су припадници Младе Босне извршили заклетву дан пред атентат на надвојводу Франца Фердинанда. Гаврило Принцип је тада изговорио:
„Тромо се време вуче,
И ничег новог нема,
Данас све као јуче,
Сутра се исто спрема.

Право је рекао Жерајић,
тај српски соко сиви:
Ко хоће да живи нек мре,
ко хоће да мре нек живи!“


[Слика: Nedeljko_Cabrinovic.jpg]
Недељко Чабриновић, један од истакнутијих припадника Младе Босне, 28. јуна 1914. је бацио бомбу на кола надвојводе Франца Фердинанда али није успео да га убије.

[Слика: Vaso_Cubrilovic.jpg]
Васа Чубриловић, поживео најдуже од свих припадника Младе Босне, умро 1990.

„Тромо се време вуче,
И ничег новог нема,
Данас све као јуче,
Сутра се исто спрема.

Право је рекао Жерајић,
тај српски соко сиви:
Ко хоће да живи нек мре,
ко хоће да мре нек живи!“
(Гаврило Принцип)
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
29-01-2014, 11:00 PM (Последња измена: 05-05-2014 02:09 PM од Романија.)
Порука: #2
RE: МЛАДА БОСНА
[Слика: 1551651_609344279115480_258906531_n.jpg]
windows 7 print screen
Споменик Гаврилу Принципу у селу Прибинић код Теслића.
"Oд Теслића па до Прибинића, све је брале земља Немањића" Кез

https://www.srbizasrbe.org/
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
01-02-2014, 08:04 PM
Порука: #3
RE: МЛАДА БОСНА
(29-01-2014 11:00 PM)Романија1 Пише:  [Слика: 1551651_609344279115480_258906531_n.jpg]
windows 7 print screen
Споменик Гаврилу Принципу у селу Прибинић код Теслића.

Имам питање везано за овај споменик - како се тачно зове село у ком је рођен Гаврило Принцип - Обљај или Обаљ? На више места на интернету, па и на слици испод, прочитао сам да се село зове Обљај па ме занима зашто на спомен-плочи пише другачије.

[Слика: 53e55e5deafa.png]
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
01-02-2014, 08:28 PM (Последња измена: 03-05-2014 10:09 PM од Романија.)
Порука: #4
RE: МЛАДА БОСНА
Обљај.Грешка је на споменику.Као и на споменику Дражи у Дражевини код Вишеграда. Пише Михајловић а не Михаиловић. Обаљ је село код Фоче (Србиња).

https://www.srbizasrbe.org/
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
02-02-2014, 12:40 AM
Порука: #5
RE: МЛАДА БОСНА
[Слика: bog.jpg]

Споменик Богдану Жерајићу испред касарне у Невесињу.
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
26-02-2014, 01:37 AM
Порука: #6
RE: МЛАДА БОСНА
The First World War
1 - To Arms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zViwCUtQ5o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I36lH89gtw
2 - Under The Eagle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LSQuUUP9B4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAT-40R_-q4
3- Global War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R9LsUQiqPQ
4 - Jihad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaHdS4lZz10
5 - Shackled To A Corpse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5FNtwiwZY0
6 - Breaking The Deadlock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVrULXaxWz0
7 - Blokade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy8cNX42Vp8
8 - Revolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cbl16t4WlJ4
9 - Germany's Last Gamble
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8PX9Qmu2cE
10 - War Without End
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCedctHdh3g
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
03-05-2014, 08:57 PM
Порука: #7
RE: МЛАДА БОСНА
Млада Босна је ништа друго било него инструмент за извршавање.....

А има прич да на суду да је Француска Масонска група Велики Оријент организовалих атентат.....кажу да је Франз Фердинанд је био осуђен на мсрт још у 1912 години у штаб Велики Оријент у Париз 16 Rue Cadets.....то су сазналих од Жигановић ко је дао Пиштољу Принцип.
Alfred Mousset's "L'Attentat de Sarajevo", Paris, 1930.

Е ово је занимљиво да има прич да у истом временом било је покушај на атентат на Распутин у Прокосвоја у Сибир
Colin Wilson "The Occult", London, 1971, p. 500
Принц Јусипоф ко је исто био масон га убио.... и радио за енглеза.....ко су стајалих из целе
организације.....
Масон и Болшевик Карл Радек (Tobiach Sobel-sohn) је знао за ово.

Радек је знао Жигановић приватно из време у Паризу.
(Molodaya Gvardiya, No. 2, 1991, p. 121).

Шта су биле мотиве Великих Оријент?
Peiewische Vordle 13th of January 1919:
Британски часопис Israel Truth 1906
Jevrejski Hammer две недеље пред Фебруарски пуч
Litman Rosenthal у American Jews' News 19th of September 1919, да су Јевреји планирали великих рат у Базел још 1903 године!
Rabbi Reichhorn у Le Contemporain да су планове били шинијих још у 1st July 1880
"We shall force the goyim into a war by exploiting their pride, arrogance and stupidity. They will tear each other into pieces. They will force each other out of their countries, which we shall then be able to give to our people."

At the same time, the plan was that the world war would diminish the success of the Germans on the international market, according to the historian Gary Allen.

Karl Heise published the British freemasons' map of Europe from 1888. The map presented the new national borders of Europe, which became reality after the First World War. (Pekka Ervast, "Vapaamuurareiden kadonnut sana" / "The Freemasons' Lost Word", Helsinki, 1965, p. 78.)

His interesting book "Entente - Freimaurerei und Weltkrieg", an analysis of the treacherous role of the freemasons in causing the First World War, was published in Basel in 1919.

In the newspaper Truth, December 1890, a map was published that depicted the borders of Europe, which became reality in 1919. Three empires were gone. This was published as a satire:
"Look what the opponents of the freemasons have come up with!"

As I have related earlier, Parvus also found the money for the coup attempts in 1905. Now he took good care of Lenin. He made him editor of the newspaper Iskra as early as 1901, from his home in a Munich suburb, and also organized a printing office in Leipzig. Parvus made sure that the newspaper reached Russia. Parvus even let Lenin live in his flat in Zurich. (Lenin lived in Switzerland between 1914 and 1917.)

Parvus had explained to Lenin that the organisation of the revolution needed money and that even more money was needed to stay in power. Parvus knew what he was talking about, since he acted as a financial adviser to both the Turks and the Bulgarians during the Balkan wars, 1912-13. At the same time he became immensely rich through his own arms deals. Parvus had worked from Salonica in Greece, where he got into contact with the powerful local Masonic organization.

The most important force behind him was Prince Volpi di Misurata -perhaps the most powerful man in Venice - who helped Parvus with finance, deals and Masonic contacts. It was this Volpi who, in October 1922, brought the socialist-fascist Benito Mussolini into power, making the King appoint him prime minister.

He was also behind the founding of Libya in 1934. Mussolini had been especially pleased with the murder of the Russian Prime Minister Stolypin, whom he called "the tyrant by the Neva" in an article. Volpi became minister of finance in Mussolini's government. Volpi had been in the centre of the financial circles that provoked the Balkan War in 1912-13. (The New Federalist, 11th of September 1987.)

In 1916, Alexander Parvus suggested that the German government should finance Lenin and his Party still more intensively. They would be able to make a separate peace with Germany if they reached power in Petrograd. It was also clear to the Germans that the Bolsheviks would be able to efficiently weaken Russia.

The Kaiser's Zionist adviser Walter Rathenau (1867-1922), who was a rich industrialist, also recommended financing the Bolsheviks. Germany's ambassador in Copenhagen, Count Ulrich von Brockdorff-Rantzau, who was a well-known 33rd degree freemason and Illuminatus, was of the same opinion. (Nesta Webster and Kurt Kerlen, "Boche and Bolshevik", New York, 1923, pp. 33-34.) Parvus was close to him and had great influence over him. Parvus himself made 20 million marks from this suggestion.

It was Ulrich Brockdorff-Rantzau's letter on the 14th of August 1915 which finally decided the question of financial support to the Bolsheviks. This letter, addressed to the German vice-state secretary, summarized a discussion between Brockdorff-Rantzau and Helphand-Parvus. The ambassador strongly recommended employing Helphand to undermine Russia since "he is an exceedingly important man, whose unusual power we should be able to utilize during the war".

But the ambassador added a warning:
"It is probably dangerous to use the forces which are behind Helphand, but if we should refuse to use their services, since we fear that we may not be able to control them, it will surely only demonstrate our weakness."
(Professor Z. A. B. Zeman, "Germany and the Revolution in Russia, 1915-1918. Documents from the Archives of the German Foreign Ministry", London, 1958, p. 4, Document 5.)
Actually, the first transfer of five million marks from the German Foreign Ministry to the Bolsheviks for "revolutionary propaganda" had already occurred on the 7th of June 1915. The Germans' Estonian agent Aleksander Keskula acted as one of the go-betweens in the transfer. His co-operation with the Germans began on the 12th of September 1914. Keskula met Lenin for the first time on October 6, 1914. Lenin also had demands to make on the Germans. He demanded, among other things, the chance to occupy India.

Some powerful American forces had exactly the same interest in using the "revolutionaries".

It was primarily the American International Corporation, with John Pierpoint Morgan Jr. (1867-1943) at the head, who tried to gain control of those international speculants and adventurers, according to Antony Sutton (doctor in economics). (Antony Sutton, "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution", Morley, 1981, p. 41.) It was above all Jacob and Mortimer Schiff, Felix Warburg, Otto H. Kahn, Max Warburg, Jerome J. Hanauer, Alfred Milner and the copper family Guggenheim who financed the Bolsheviks, according to the Jewish historian David Shub.

A document (861.00/5339) in the archives of the U.S. State Department confirms this. Two further names are mentioned in this document: Max Breitung and Isaac Seligman. All those people were Jews and freemasons. According to the same document, plans to depose the Tsar were made in February 1916. There are always some people who make money out of wars and revolutions.

We must not forget this when we seek to understand history.

The Zionist banker and freemason Max Warburg played an important role in funding the Communist propaganda in Russia. He saw to it that the industrialist Hugo Stinnes agreed to give two million rubles to the Bolsheviks' publishing activity on the 12th of August 1916. (Zeman, "Germany and the Revolution in Russia, 1915-18. Documents from the Archives of the German Foreign Ministry", London, 1958, p. 92.)

Thus there are documents extant which show that Max Warburg and other super-wealthy Jews supported Communism. These statements are not just made up, as certain know-it-alls have claimed. Max Warburg was the richest and most powerful banker in Germany. The periodical Hammer (No. 502, on the 15th of May 1923) called him "the secret emperor".

Max Warburg's brother, Paul, was married to Nina Loeb, daughter of the Jewish banker Salomon Loeb. Kuhn, Loeb & Co. were the most powerful United States bank syndicate. Another of Max Warburg's brothers, Felix, married Frieda Schiff, who was the daughter of Jacob Schiff. The latter was one of the most important men within Kuhn, Loeb & Co.

The Schiff family and the Rothschild family owned a twin company in Frankfurt am Main as early as in the 18th century. Jacob H. Schiff was descended from a distinguished rabbinical family. He came to New York in the 1860s. It was Rothschild who trained him. Schiff began buying himself into Kuhn, Loeb & Co. with Rothschild's money. Both Paul and Felix Warburg became part owners of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.

Even Alexander Parvus began preparing the Bolsheviks' take-over of power in 1916. He made sure that Lenin had all the money he needed. (Igor Bunich, "The Party's Gold", St. Petersburg, 1992, p. 34.) In this way, Lenin and Parvus received a total of six million dollars in gold. (Karl Steinhauser, "EG - Die Super UdSSR von Morgen", Vienna, 1992, p.167.)

Meanwhile, as many extremist Jews as possible were recruited into the "revolutionary" movement. The German Jew Karl Kautsky (1854-1938) emphasized that "the Jews in Russia had only one true friend - the revolutionary movement". The Jews then comprised 30-55 per cent of the Bolshevik Party.

Dostoyevsky predicted that the Jews would enslave the Russians so that these would become pack-mules and that the Jews would drink the people's blood.
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
04-05-2014, 12:42 AM
Порука: #8
RE: МЛАДА БОСНА
"A UN SOLO DISPARO / НА ПУЦАЊ ОДАВДЕ" 1 parte/део
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6fjYa0zyRQ

Балканский капкан. Тайна сараевского покушения
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BOw5je_Umc
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
05-05-2014, 01:17 PM
Порука: #9
RE: МЛАДА БОСНА
Врло занимљиво да један Васа Казимировић шише од Црне Руке?

http://www.amazon.com/Crna-ruka-licnosti...455&sr=1-1

А ни траг од један Др Радослав Казимировић......?

Занимљиво
Што је је још ЧУДНИЈЕ је нестанак за року 24 часова артикал из 1995 године Executive Intelligence од овог преметак....чак и машинерије око раст Млади Турака.....и њихове последице по Арменци!
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
05-05-2014, 04:21 PM
Порука: #10
RE: МЛАДА БОСНА
Zagreb: Gavrilo Princip nije bio terorista, već hrabri idealista
Gavrilo Princip i njegovi pomoćnici nisu bili teroristi, već hrabri, posvećeni i bogati idealima, ali siromašni iskustvom, kazao je istaknuti istoričar Kristofer Klark sa Kembridža na Međunarodnom simpozijumu o Prvom svetskom ratu održanom u Zagrebu.

Klark kaže i da današnje vreme sve više liči na ono koje je prethodilo Prvom svetskom ratu. Tada se govorilo o "umornom divu", a i danas postoji zamor više velikih sila i postoji puno regionalnih kriza, rekao je on, ocenivši da se tada radilo o krizi koje je verovatno bila "najsloženiji događaj nove istorije".

"Bilo je vrlo privlačno pojednostaviti stvari i prebaciti krivicu samo na jednu državu, ali problem je kada se danas toj temi pristupa na isti način", naglasio je i dodao da nije bilo "dobrih" i "loših" momaka, već se radilo o sukobu različitih interesa.

Hrvatska ministarka kulture Andrea Zlatar Violić rekla je da bi se "s obzirom na istorijska iskustva u ovoj regiji moglo postaviti neugodno pitanje o tome kako to da je na ovim prostorima počeo, a ratovima devedesetih i završio vek rata".

Ipak, francuska ambasadorka Mišel Bočoz je ukazala da simpozijum nije samo prilika da se, povodom stote godišnjice Prvog svetskog rata, razumeju istorijski okviri i sporovi koji su podelili nacije, nego i da se govori o pomirenju koje je osnov izgradnje nove Evrope.

Prvi svetski rat uobličio je hrvatsku sudbinu kao i sudbinu svih evropskih nacija, a ovo je jedinstveni trenutak da bolje razumemo naš zajednički evropski identitet, poručila je.

Na simpozijumu će danas i sutra učestvovati 25 stručnjaka iz više zemalja, objavila je agencija Hina.

"Кристофер ивер не иде далеко од кладе"
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
06-05-2014, 01:41 AM (Последња измена: 06-05-2014 02:41 AM од Захумље.)
Порука: #11
RE: МЛАДА БОСНА
Nationalism or Patriotism? Gavrilo Princip: In His Own Words

by Carl Savich

Introduction: Nationalism or Patriotism?

“National hero?” “Criminal terrorist?” “Anarchist?” “Antichrist?” “Liberator?” “Nationalist?” “Patriot?” Who really was Gavrilo Princip? What is nationalism? What is patriotism? Are nationalism and patriotism the same? Different? Are they good or bad? Much has been written about the 1914 Sarajevo assassination, but what did Gavrilo Princip himself think and say?
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on Kosovo Day or Vidov Dan, St. Vitus Day, June 28, 1914, by Gavrilo Princip was one of the major events of the 20th century. It would lead to two World Wars. It was the spark or first shot of those two global conflicts. David DeVoss stated: “The ensuing Great War cost the lives of 8.6 million combatants and 6.5 million civilians.” The assassination led to the collapse of the old order and ushered in a new era. The assassination was a historical watershed, a defining moment, an act with far-reaching repercussions and ramifications. It represented the culmination, crystallization, and resolution of opposition to Austro-Hungarian occupation of Bosnia-Hercegovina. What motivated the assassination? The motives behind the assassination were a microcosm of the wider motivations for the two world wars: Nationalism and patriotism, independence and sovereignty. In essence, what motivated Gavrilo Princip was in a nutshell what motivated the political leaders of Germany, Great Britain, the United States, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, Turkey, Serbia, Montenegro. The underlying motives were the same. But what is nationalism? What is patriotism? Are they good or bad?

Nationalism is the goal to identify collectively and as a group into a modern nation-state. Nationalism consists of the aggregation of ethnic groups and nationalities into political bodies or associations, the modern nation-state. Collective or group identification is required as well as an ideology that unifies the mass. Collective behavioral traits are necessary to form an organized group. To understand nationalism, then, political psychology must be examined. What drives the individual to form groups? What impels a single person to identify with others and to submerge his identity into a larger whole, the nation, state, ethnic group, religion, movement, party, association, club?


Nationalism requires empathy and the ability to sublimate one’s identity into a larger, all-encompassing entity or conglomeration. Gavrilo Princip was said to have had this ability to identify with the Serbian people as a whole. Princip spoke of “My Serbian people”. Princip made the sufferings of the Serbian population of Bosnia-Hercegovina his own, demonstrating an empathy and sublimation. DeVoss grudgingly admitted that the Serbian Orthodox population of Bosnia-Hercegovina suffered impoverishment/starvation and the denial of basic human and civil rights and freedoms during the Turkish Ottoman Empire and under the Austro-Hungarian Empire:

For decades the mountains of Bosnia had been a breeding ground for discontent. Serb peasants there were bound by a feudal system that forced them to surrender one-third of their harvest to Bosnian Muslim landlords. Abandoned to their poverty, Bosnia’s embittered Serbs turned inward, seeking inspiration from the heroic songs of wandering balladeers called guslas and instruction from nationalistic Orthodox priests.
Princip was regarded as a “national hero” of Bosnia and Yugoslavia after World War I because of “Gavrilo’s anticolonialism”. The Latin or Lateiner Bridge in Sarajevo near where the assassination took place was renamed Princip’s Bridge (Pricipov Most) and a Museum devoted to Gavrilo Princip and the Young Bosnia Movement (Mlade Bosne) was established in Sarajevo and opened in 1953. The Gavrilo Princip Grahovo Valley home in Hercegovina was declared a “national landmark” after World War II. In 1920, the remains of Gavrilo Princip and the other conspirators were disinterred from Austrian graves and reburied in Sarajevo, at the St. Mark Cemetery, where the Serbian Orthodox community built an Orthodox chapel and monument “to commemorate for eternity our Serb Heroes”, the “Heroes of Vidovdan”. But why then is there controversy?

Following the outbreak of the 1992 Bosnian Civil War and the break-up of Yugoslavia, Gavrilo Princip was transformed from Bosnian/Yugoslavian “national hero” to “criminal terrorist” and according to David DeVoss in “Searching for Gavrilo Princip”, he was “all but forgotten by Bosnia.” The Princip Bridge was renamed yet again the Latin Bridge (Latinski Most) back to what it was known as before the 1914 assassination. The Princip Museum was closed and “all traces of its name had been sandblasted from the exterior. “ The concrete footprints that marked the location where Princip fired his two shots from a .38 Browning have also been removed. The contents of the museum have been stolen, bashed to pieces, or looted. All traces of the event have been erased and cleansed by the Bosnian Muslim faction that now controls the city. The Princip family house in Grahovo was destroyed by US/NATO-backed Croatian troops in 1995. Much of the historical artifacts in the Princip/Young Bosnia Museum in Sarajevo were destroyed or plundered by Bosnian Muslim/Croat troops and civilians.

What Gavrilo Princip represented, the Yugoslav idea, South Slav unity and independence/sovereignty, were repudiated. Gavrilo Princip himself was repudiated. Princip was symbolic of everything that was antagonistic to the New World Order policy of Balkanization and secession. Inevitably his legacy was rebuked and his role was reinterpreted negatively and pejoratively. Princip no longer served a purpose. His legacy was therefore debunked. From “national hero” he was changed into “criminal terrorist”. But which was he?

Was Gavrilo Princip a freedom fighter or was he a criminal terrorist? Was he a national hero or a scoundrel, a villain? Was he a nationalist or a patriot? What did he espouse? Is there such a thing as bad and good nationalisms? Are all nationalisms the same or are they different? This is really the crucial question. The answer is that all nationalisms are exactly the same and follow the same dynamics and patterns in essential respects. Whether they are good or bad nationalisms depends on the conclusion or judgment of the individual making that decision. For example, Saudi Arabian businessman and volunteer Ossama Bin Laden was regarded as a freedom fighter, mujahedeen, in Afghanistan by the US media/government/historians when he was armed, trained, and supplied by the US to kill Soviet/Russian troops in the 1980s, when his role advanced US interests. But when Bin Laden turned on the US and supported mujahedeen attacks on US military and civilian targets, he became a “terrorist”. So from “freedom fighter” (mujahedeen) he became a “terrorist”. During the Bosnian Civil War, 1992-1995, the US/NATO allowed Bin Laden to infiltrate Bosnia and to participate in the war against the Bosnian Serbs as a member of the Bosnian Muslim Army. So during the Bosnian civil war, Bin Laden was a US ally. So how did he go from freedom fighter to terrorist? How did his nationalism change from good nationalism to bad nationalism? The choice is totally arbitrary. We decide based on our own self-interest and our own agenda. The choice is based on moral hypocrisy and is an arbitrary and subjective decision. History can be desultory, ambiguous, and ambivalent, always a function of whose agenda or interests it is advancing, depending on who is writing the history. In Bosnia, history has come full circle. According to DeVoss, “downtown Sarajevo still has the look of a small Austrian town. The bond between Vienna and its former colony remains strong…There even is talk of restoring the monument to Franz Ferdinand and Sophie that was demolished at the end of World War I… Austrian ambassador Valentin Insko …had inquired about restoring the Franz Ferdinand memorial.” The UN administrator for Bosnia, Wolfgang Petritsch, the modern-day Oskar Potiorek, who was the Austro-Hungarian Governor of Bosnia in 1914, is himself Austrian. So even Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s historical role can be revised and changed. DeVoss noted that the main street in Sarajevo has changed names repeatedly. During the Ottoman Empire, the main street in Sarajevo was named after a Muslim Turkish feudal landlord, Cemalusa. After World War I, the street was renamed King Alexander Street. When Bosnia was incorporated in the Ustasha NDH from 1941 to 1945, the street was renamed Adolf Hitler Street. After World War II, the street was yet again renamed, to Marsala Tita, after Josip Broz Tito. In the Balkans, history can be desultorily ambivalent and in flux. Can history get more absurd and ridiculous than this? Similarly, Gavrilo Princip went from the greatest “national hero” in Bosnian history to “criminal terrorist”. But had his role in history actually changed based on new evidence or based upon new knowledge? What changed was our subjective and arbitrary evaluation of his role based upon his usefulness in advancing our own agenda/interests, that is, depending on how we could exploit and manipulate it to advance our interests. But the underlying factors, nationalism and patriotism and sovereignty, remain constant.

What is nationalism? In a 1945 essay “Notes on Nationalism”, George Orwell defined nationalism as “first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labeled ‘good’ or ‘bad’”. Nationalism necessitates an ideological identification with a greater entity and an arbitrary division into “us” and “them”, between “allies” and “enemies”. Sigmund Freud stated that the “narcissism of minor differences” leads to a dichotomy between us and them. We choose some peculiar traits to distinguish ourselves from others to create a group identity alien or antagonistic to others. But this group identification is meant to reassure our ego, our sense of self, and to reinforce our solidarity with the clan, tribe, group, or ethnicity. Group identification is primordial and an elemental component of the human psyche. We have a need to create “enemies” to ensure our solidarity and cohesion and to instill motivation and to mobilize resources against an outside threat. At the center of nationalism is the human need to be part of the tribe, the clan, the group that has always been part of the human psychological make-up. Gustave LeBon analyzed this phenomenon in The Psychology of the Crowd (1895), an examination of collective group behavior and the “mind” of the mob or the group or the “crowd”. Freud examined group psychology in Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921). Nationalism and patriotism are psychological manifestations of group or collective behavior common to all ethnic, religious, national groups which are constant throughout history. Politicians and propagandists/PR firms/spin doctors seek to obscure this obvious fact for economic, political, or military advantage or gain, but nationalism and patriotism cannot be understood without a suspension of moral judgment.

Nationalism is group behavior organized around the nation-state, sublimating one’s individuality and individual freedom on behalf of the nation/state/government. Nationalism is “the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests” according to Orwell’s definition. Orwell makes the distinction between “nationalism” and “patriotism”. Nationalism is bad while patriotism is good. Patriotism is defined as “devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force upon other people” and which is “of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally”. Nationalism on the other hand is “power hunger tempered by self-deception” whose goal is to “secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.” This distinction between nationalism and patriotism is arbitrary and subjective. Patriotism and nationalism are the exact same things, patriotism is only a milder and weaker form of nationalism, a politically correct form of nationalism if you will. The fact remains that there is no fundamental difference between patriotism and nationalism, one being only a more virulent and strident form of the other. In actual reality, there is only nationalism, by whichever name we call it, patriotism, ethnicity, tribalism. We define nationalism as good or bad solely on subjective and arbitrary criteria based on self-interest, our own agenda, and even whim. All nationalisms are created equal but some are more equal than others to paraphrase Orwell. Moral judgments are inappropriate in the critical analysis of nationalism. There is nothing either good or bad about nationalism. Our own biased and subjective and arbitrary judgment/conclusion makes it so, either good or bad, depending solely upon us. We decide. Nothing is learned and no useful intellectual purpose achieved when arbitrary judgments are substituted for objective analyses.

Who was Gavrilo Princip? What motivated his actions? Immediately after the assassination, Princip was dismissed as an insignificant and trivial actor in the assassination. Austria-Hungary sought to prove that the assassination was planned and organized by the Serbian government. The Sarajevo Trial was organized as a “show trial” to prove that Serbia was behind the assassination, that the Serbian government planned the assassination and was responsible for it. Why was this necessary? Only by showing Serbian state responsibility/complicity could war be declared against Serbia. The assassination became a pretext for a declaration of war by Austria against Serbia. Moreover, various conspiracy theories emerged. Gavrilo Princip was said to be part of a world-wide plot by the Freemasons. Erich von Ludendorff, the Chief of the German Staff, called Princip a “Jew” and alleged that he was part of a Freemason plot in collusion with Austrian, German, and Hungarian Freemasons. Julius Streicher’s official Nazi Party periodical Volkischer Beobachter in a January 8, 1936 article stated that Princip was “a Jew and a Freemason”. On April 6, 1941, on the occasion of the German invasion of Yugoslavia, Adolf Hitler, Austrian by birth, alleged that Gavrilo Princip was part of a plot organized by the British Intelligence Service and held Serbia responsible for the assassination. Most mainstream historians claimed that Princip was part of a conspiracy planned and organized by Colonel Dragutin Dimitrejevic-Apis, a key figure in Ujedinjenje ili Srmt (Union or Death), known as the Black Hand. Princip was thus seen as an instrument of the Black Hand in Bosnia, recruited by Apis to do his dirty work. Princip was thus seen as just a warm body, a cog, a foot soldier, a worthless pawn, a misguided youth manipulated by the Black Hand and Apis, a tool of Serbian Military Intelligence, the Serbian Government, and the Black Hand. Princip was seen as part of a plan organized by Major Vojislav Tankosic (whom Princip referred to as “a naïve man”) also a member of Union or Death. Princip was alleged to have been part of a conspiracy planned by the organization Narodna Odbrana (People’s Defense). He was said to be part of an “anarchist” plot. Princip was even referred to as “the antichrist”. Gavrilo Princip was described as “a Bosnian student”, “a Bosnian youth”, a “Bosnian Serb”, a “Bosnian”, a “Serbian nationalist”, a “19-year-old Serb nationalist”, a “Serbian teenager”, a “revolutionary”, a “national hero”, a “romantic teenage nationalist”, “an idealist”, “the liberator of the Slav people”, a “criminal terrorist”, a “national icon”, a “Jew”, a “Freemason”, an “anarchist”, a “socialist”, “the antichrist”, an agent of the Serbian government, an agent of the Black Hand, an agent of Serbian Intelligence, an agent of British Intelligence. Princip and the other conspirators, who included Nedeljko Cabrinovic, who was the first to attempt the assassination by throwing a bomb, Trifko Grabez, Danilo Ilic, Cvjetko Popovic, Vaso Cubrilovic, Veljko Cubrilovic, Nedjo Kerovic, Misko Jovanovic, Jakov Milovic, Croat Roman Catholic Ivo Kranjcevic, and a Bosnian Muslim, Mehmet Mehmetbasic, who eluded arrest, were termed “revolutionaries”, “Heroes of Vidovdan”, “idealistic schoolboys”. Hamilton Fish Armstrong, the managing editor of Foreign Affairs, described Princip as follows in 1927:

Who was Gavrilo Princip?…What were the ideas and motives of a man whose act so profoundly changed the course of our lives?…He was a patriot and an anarchist. He was an idealist and an assassin. He was a weak neurotic; he was a daring bravo….In describing himself Princip describes a whole generation---nationalist and revolutionary Young Bosnia….

Thousands upon thousands of books, analyses, studies, and treatises emerged following the assassination. Conspiracy theories flourished. Many differing explanations and scenarios were offered. But they all had one thing in common. Gavrilo Princip and his role and motives for the assassination were trivialized or minimized to the point of exclusion. Indeed, Princip was dismissed entirely. He did not matter. He was just an actor, a pawn, a cog in the bigger scheme of things. He was merely an insignificant detail in the bigger picture. What he said or thought was dismissed as unnecessary and superfluous. It did not matter.

Princip wrote poetic verses and corresponded. His testimony at the Sarajevo trial and his conversations with Dr. Martin Pappenheim, preserved as stenographic notes, in 1916 while Princip was in prison in Austria are extant. Pappenheim was a doctor in the Austro-Hungarian Army who worked at military hospitals and prisons, treating and studying shell-shock cases. While on duty at the Theresienstadt Prison, he conducted interviews and conversations with Gavrilo Princip, from February to June, 1916. Theresienstadt would be a Nazi concentration camp during the World War II Holocaust. Hamilton Fish Armstrong said about these conversations: “Here is the psychology of revolution revealed.” Princip revealed that the origin of the assassination was with him: “It was his idea.” Princip stated at the trial that he decided on the assassination or “attentat”, the political murder, even when he was still in Sarajevo: “Even when I was still at Sarajevo I had decided on an attentat. I often went at night to Zerajitch’s grave. I managed to stay there all night and thought over our affairs and our wretched condition, and then I made up my mind.” Moreover, Princip was convinced that the World War was inevitable and was independent of his act: “The World War would not have failed to come, independent of it.” According to Armstrong, Princip regarded the assassination “as an act of patriotism.” Princip spoke openly about the assassination and his role in it. In attempting to understand the 1914 assassination, the words of Gavrilo Princip are important and cannot be so easily dismissed. His words tell us what motivated his actions. We can better understand the event in Sarajevo by letting Gavrilo Princip tell the story himself, in his own words.

Gavrilo Princip: In His Own Words

Motives

I am a Yugoslav nationalist and I believe in the unification of all South Slavs in whatever form of state and that it be free of Austria….I was not for the dynasty. We didn’t think that far, but we thought: unification, by whatever means….By means of terror….That means in general to destroy from above, to do away with those who obstruct and do evil, who stand in the way of the idea of unification…. I did not think of the Karadjeordjevic dynasty. I never thought that after the assassination there would be a war. I thought that it would have an impact on the youth and that they would spread these ideas further…It is the moral duty of Serbia to free the South Slavs from Austria. We heard that from every honest Serb and Croat….Still another principal motive was revenge for all torments which Austria imposed upon the people…. Revenge is bloody and sweet….

The plan was to unite all South Slavs. It was understood that Serbia as the free part of the South Slavs had the moral duty to help with the unification, to be to the South Slavs as the Piedmont was to Italy…The political union of the Yugoslavs was always before my eyes, and that was my basic idea. Therefore it was necessary in the first place to free the Yugoslavs from the Svabe and from Austria; for every misfortune which hits the Yugoslavs stems from Austria. This spirit was especially developed among the youth in the Yugoslav lands and was a consequence of the embitterment of the people. This and all the rest moved me to carry out the assassination of the Heir Apparent, for I considered him, in regard to his activity, as very dangerous for Yugoslavia.

Not all exactly like myself. It was not necessary for all to be of the same opinions in the carrying out of his own ideas, nor was it necessary that everyone employ the same means….It was the opinion that Austria behaved badly to our people, which is true, and certainly that she is not necessary.

Hail to Zerajic! Hail and nothing else! He was my first model. At night I used to go to his grave and vow that I would do the same as he…The grave was neglected and we put it in order…I accept the ruling and warning, but I retain my opinions!

I had little to do with people at all. Wherever I went, people took me for a weakling---indeed, for a man who would be completely ruined by immoderate study of literature. And I pretended that I was a weak person, even though I was not.

Once, while we were talking about the plot at the Café Sturgeon, Ciganovic told us that on such and such a year the Freemasons sentenced Franz Ferdinand to death…As far as I am concerned, Ciganovic did not wish to give us weapons when we asked him the first time; he did this only at our second meeting. He said that he wanted to talk about the whole thing in detail with one man.

I have crossed so many times from Serbia to Bosnia and vice versa, and this time I could have done the same, but I wished to make a crossing this time as safe as possible.

The June 28, 1914 Sarajevo Assassination

I said, “How about arranging an assassination?”---after which he showed me some newspaper clippings….They confirmed the news that the Heir Apparent was coming to Bosnia. At that we definitely decided to carry out the assassination…. When I came to Belgrade in the month of March I read it in the newspapers. I think the German ones….The final decision fell at the time when we received the newspaper clipping. Before that I thought of the assassination for myself… We thought about how to obtain them. If there were no means at all, we might at least manage to buy a revolver….We spoke about the Narodna Odbrana, but we knew that they would not give us the means because we were not known there. Then I tried to turn to someone in order to become acquainted with Ciganovic. I had known him earlier, but not well enough to speak of the assassination. Thus Bukovac introduced me, and I told Ciganovic what I wished to do, but that I did not have the means. I asked him to give us bombs because I knew he had them, and that we would take care of the revolvers ourselves. He was quiet for a while and then he said, “We’ll see.” In the main he agreed at once to give them to me….He agreed completely…He was a Serb….A railway clerk….He was a refugee from Bosnia, and visited those cafes….The Pozorisna Kafana (Theater Café), Zirovni Venac, Amerika….There were Bosnians….For the most part they were nationalists….In my opinion, every Serb, Croat and Slovene should be an enemy of Austria….I had never discussed an assassination, but I had talked about the situation of the people and on the conditions in Bosnia and in general in Austria. I had never been intimate enough with him to make it possible for me to talk about carrying out an assassination….After some time Ciganovic said to me that he would give me bombs. Because those bombs exploded after several seconds, success with them was not certain. I told him that we needed revolvers. He told me to take care of that ourselves, but because I am poor he would see to supplying arms. He told me that he would see to it later. I don’t know how he came to that. I don’t know what he said to Tankosic…A naïve man…He has absolutely nothing to do with the Narodna Odbrana; on the contrary he is in conflict with the secretary and with the executive committee in general….He was a volunteer. Otherwise he is nothing in the Narodna Odbrana….Cabrinovic had money, and Grabez is well off….Just in a conversation I mentioned, “How about contacting the Narodna Odbrana, which gives support to impoverished students.”….I talked with Ilic earlier about the means to found an organization which would act so that we could get money, as revolutionaries do. But in this case it wasn’t necessary…

I don’t know. I think Ciganovic talked with him….Ciganovic said that Tankosic summoned him….He said that he was interested but that Tankosic made a bad impression on him. Tankosic sent for one of us, and we decided that Grabez would go….To see whether we were capable. For the rest, I have told all before. It is inconvenient for me to talk when I am standing here. He was of the same opinion as we. We studied together and so on, and we knew each other….Before our departure…I examined them when I was at Ciganovic’s….He had about twelve pieces before the Bulgarian war…I had in Prokuplje and Belgrade. I had trained with Brownings on the Drina frontier and at Topcider….On Ascension Day…Two days before…I got 150 dinars from Ciganovic…From Sarajevo I went to Hadzici. I was at my brother’s one day and I went back to Sarajevo to attend a festival of the Omladina. I took a room at Ilic’s and I talked with him about the assassination…Because I said to him to find reliable people, he said, “Good.” Because I believed that he was reliable, I believed that he would also find trustworthy companions….He was a nationalist like me. A Yugoslav….He was. That all the Yugoslavs had to be unified….We decided that one of us would go. Because I had already gone once we decided that he should go. He went several days later. I told him how to meet with Jovanovic and what to say to him and he left…Yes, a box of Stefanija cigarettes….Then he came back to Sarajevo. He didn’t tell me who he saw. I stayed with him until the assassination and we talked the whole time. On the last day he did not wish to carry out the assassination. He wanted to dissuade me, but I insisted that we had to carry it out. Because he saw that it would be useless to talk to me, he stopped. I only said to him to see to it that the people to whom we gave arms to perform the assassination were reliable….I took them from the house about eight o’clock and took a walk. He also took some and I don’t know who he gave them to or where they had agreed to meet. Some got them a day or so earlier….On the day of the assassination I wanted to find someone who would not be conspicuous, and I found the son of the prosecutor, Svara, and one Spiric. First I walked with Spiric. Then we invited Svara and we walked and talked about ordinary things. At first we were in the park and I wanted to stay there, but they wanted to go to the Korso. I didn’t want to stay there because I had to go to my place. So I returned there and I walked on the quay and I was at my assigned place…In any case Ilic had in the last ten days repeatedly expressed the opinion that we should not attempt this assassination because the present time was not favorably chosen and we should have no profit from this assassination. But I was not in agreement with the postponement of the assassination because a certain morbid yearning for it had been awakened in me….He said that now was not the time for an assassination and that it could have bad consequences, that there would be persecution of the people. I that that it would not be of such dimensions as happened after the assassination and I did not let him influence me…

I said that I had Ilic and that I could count on him…Only Sarac knew him, not Ciganovic.

If you want to know, they are. We are going to Sarajevo to assassinate the Heir Apparent. Now you know about it, you have to keep it quiet….. If I could force the whole of carsija in a box, I would set it alight….Bosnia is a tear in the eye of Serbia…

I acknowledge it and do not complain, but I am sorry that I have killed the Duchess of Hohenberg, because I had no intention of killing her…

The automobile arrived and I heard the blast of a bomb. I knew that that was one of ours, but I didn’t know which one. The mob started to run, and I ran a little too and the automobile stopped. I thought that it was over and I saw that they had Cabrinovic. I thought that I would kill him so that no one would know anything further, and then kill myself, too. I abandoned that idea, because I saw that the automobiles passed by. Up to then I had not seen the Archduke. I went to the Latin Bridge and then I heard that the assassination had not succeeded. Then I took thought as to where to stand, because I knew where he would pass from having read it in the Bosanska Posta and the Tagblatt. Then I saw that a lady was sitting with him, but because they passed so fast I did not know whether she was sitting. Then I stood and one Pusar came up to me and talked with me and said, “Do you see how dumb they are?” I was silent. He called me aside and because I thought he was a spy I thought that he wanted to get something out of me. A relative of his is a spy, so I thought that he was too. I don’t know whether or not he was near me, but then the automobile came and I took out the revolver and I shot at Ferdinand twice from the distance of four or five paces.

I saw that someone else sat there; I wanted to kill Potiorek….Because he was with them, I thought also of him and I am not sorry about that, because I believe that I did away with one evil and I thought that was good. In general he did evil to all things. He is the initiator of the “exceptional measures” and of the high treason trial….Those are all consequences from which the people suffer….That they are completely impoverished; that they are treated like cattle. The peasant is impoverished. They destroy him completely. I am a villager’s son and I know how it is in the villages. Therefore I wanted to take revenge, and I am not sorry. …They especially affected the Serbs. Thus all that influenced me. I knew that he is an enemy of the Slavs. As the prosecutor said, I did not think that he is a genius, but I thought that he would interfere with and harm the Slavs….As the future ruler, with our unification. He would introduce certain reforms, which, you understand, would be harmful to us…I did not know whether I had struck home. At that time I didn’t even know how many shots I had fired. Because I wanted to kill myself I raised my arm but the policemen and some officers grabbed me and beat me. Then, bloody as I was, they took me to the police station. Then they beat me again in order not to be unrevenged.

After Cabrinovic was caught, I went to the corner of the Appel Quay and Franz Josef Street, just at Schiller’s shop, when Mihajlo Pusara came to me, saying: “Look what has happened!” I replied: “I have seen it. What nonsense to commit such a thing at this time!” He then said that this had not been a good thing to do, and he invited me to go to the Sloga society, because there was a celebration. I was very much afraid of Mihajlo Pusara, because he was often in our company. I thought he was a spy, because he used to dine at his relative Simon Pusara’s, who is an innkeeper and a detective, and therefore I thought that when Pusara took me by the arm he wanted to take me to somewhere and search me. Therefore, I did not let myself be taken by the arm and when a moment later “Long Live” was heard, I succeeded in getting through the crowd to the corner of Schiller’s shop.

When the second car arrived, I recognized the Heir Apparent. But as I saw that a lady was sitting next to him I reflected for a moment whether I should shoot or not. At the same moment I was filled with a peculiar feeling and I aimed at the Heir Apparent from the pavement---which was made easier because the car was proceeding slower at that moment. Where I aimed I do not know. But I know that I aimed at the Heir Apparent. I believe that I fired twice, perhaps more, because I was so excited. Whether I hit the victims or not, I cannot tell, because instantly people started to hit me….

At the first moment I intended to throw the bomb, which I had in my belt on the left side. But because the bomb was screwed closed it would not have been easy for me to open. Also, in so great a crowd it would have been difficult to take it out and throw it. Therefore I drew the revolver instead and raised it against the automobile without aiming. I even turned my head as I shot. I let go two shots one after the other, but I am not certain whether I shot twice or more often, because I was very excited. That is also why I did not want to throw the bomb, because the strength for this failed me. Thereupon the people began to lynch me. Somebody took the revolver away from me, and the bomb fell out of my belt.

I had the firm intention to kill myself and therefore had the opinion that no one would know after the completed assassination why it was done. My thought was therefore only on the success of the assassination; of some unfavorable consequence or other I had not thought at all.

What do you think I am, a beast?

I do not feel like a criminal because I put away the one who was doing evil…..Austria represents the evil for our people, as it is, and therefore it should not exist….Do not pay any attention to my defense, concentrate all your efforts on the defense of the other three; try to save their necks and study their cases more thoroughly. If you waste your time on my defense, this will be at the expense of the other three. You could help them, because they are innocent, while I, in any case, am ready to face the worst.

I will explain everything in detail and name the guilty, but only so that innocent people do not suffer. For we guilty ones were in any case ready to go to our deaths. I nevertheless request that you confront me briefly before the hearing with Danilo Ilic and Trifko Grabez, to whom I want to say only two or three words. Then I will tell everything. Otherwise I will confess nothing at all, even if you beat me to death….Confess everything, how we got the bombs, how we traveled and in what society we were, so that just people do not come to harm….Since the court has already learned much and so that we can save the innocent it is necessary that you tell everything, among whom you divided the weapons and where the weapons are.

Serbia may be invaded but not conquered. Serbia will one day create Yugoslavia, mother of all South Slavs.

Letters and Journals

The wet logs on the open fire gave the only light to the closely packed kmets and their wives, wrapped in thick smoke. If I tried to penetrate the curtain of smoke, the most that I could see were the eyes of the human beings., numerous, sad and glaring with some kind of fluid light coming from nowhere. Some kind of reproach, even threat, radiated from them, and many times since then they have awakened me from my dreams.

I flunked, Gavro….Look up on the map where Prokuplje is. We are now here, and where we shall go further we do not know. (“For freedom and fatherland.”)

Regards from yours,

Gavro

Gone are the days of annoyance and boredom behind the dirty scribbled desks---holidays are here. After three days of celebration at home, we decided to enliven these hot and boring days---and travel somewhere---let us go to the Bjelasnica Mountain and beyond; no sooner said than done. We left Hadzici at sunset when the western sun was blazing in purple splendor, when the numberless rays of the blood-red sun filled the whole sky and when the whole of nature was preparing to sleep through the beautiful, dreamy summer evening in the magic peace----that beloved, ideal night of the poet. Walking briskly, we reached the foot of the Bjelasnica Mountain, boasting of our speed and wiping large beads of sweat from our brows. After a short rest and a bite at the edge of the forest, we started to climb…Without a word we progressed hesitantly through the forest, entranced by the magic, deep silence, listening to the whisperings of the sweet-smelling flowers and motionless trees. Following our noses, we struggled upward through the thick forest; we looked at each other despairingly when we were surrounded by hellish darkness, which seemed like the laughter of ugly monsters. A light, faint shudder went to out rather weary limbs, and we continued to march upward in silence, lumbering over fallen trunks and scattered branches. Heavens, how many times the thought went through my mind that I would be hurled into some bottomless precipice. We could go no further. We ate our frugal supper. We built a fire---the best sight I ever saw. No poet has ever described it well enough. Oh, if you could have seen what beautiful and ever-changing scenes were made by the lively red fire and black …. Hellish darkness, the whispering of the tall, black fir trees, and this hideous Night, the protector of hell and its sons; it seemed to me like the whisperings of bedeviled giants and nymphs, as if we were hearing the song of the four sirens and the sad Aeolian harp or divine Orpheus. My companions fell asleep around the fire. I could not. I was sleepy, I dozed, but how could one sleep in this empire of brooding illusions. A little storm---the wild winds howled sadly through the silent giant trees. My friends woke up - with regret - my heartache, my sorrow, my life---my visions and my illusions. We started to sing a sad song, and my own heart whispered and trembled more strongly than my bedeviled monsters. My companions burrowed into the leaves, and I sang, dreamed and prayed to my secret; oh, what sweet and painful moments in the beautiful time before the dawn, sweeter than sleep, more beautiful and ideal than any European poet has described it - this heavenly flash and blood-red-coral sun could only be described by a son of the glorious and imaginative east. Look at it and you will see it. After a happy and pleasant halt at Mr. Setnik’s, we continued our journey…

Bjelasnica Mountain, June 25, 1911.

Gavrilo Princip,

Fifth Grade,

The Sarajevo High School

I feel a deep, sincere pain reading your letter, as if I were looking at the grief of a girl abandoned by everyone and forgotten. Do not suffer and do not let bloodshot eyes reveal your sorrow. Think and work. One needs a lot of strength in order to live, and action creates this. Physical labor also strengthens the character and firmness of will. Be individualistic, never altruistic. My life also is full of bitterness and gall, my wreath has more thorns than others. I go from nothingness to nothingness, from day to day, and in me there is less and less of myself. Do read, you must read: this is the best way to forget the tragic side of reality. How beautiful Wilde’s The Happy Prince is….Is the rose I gave you on our departure still alive? I know that it withered a long time ago, but perhaps the memory is enough to make it blush. I would like so much to be with you again in the first warm days of autumn somewhere under the leafy branches, and to hear you reciting to me:

In the black knot of the pine tree

The cricket chirps away

With the stifling trochee and strident black iambus.

It is noon. The sun’s dithyramb is dispersed like the becalmed sea.

Poetic Verses

Time goes slowly and

There is nothing new---
Today everything is like yesterday,
And tomorrow will bring the same---
But I will always remember
The just words of the fallen falcon Zerajic:
“He who wants to live, has to die.

He who is ready to die, will live for ever.”
Instead of being on the battlefields,

Where the war trumpets are blown;
Here we are in the dungeons,
Listening to the jingling of chains.

Our ghosts will walk through Vienna

And roam through the Palace, frightening the lords.


Dr. Martin Pappenheim’s Conversations With Gavrilo Princip

Prison

19 II 1916

27 VII 1894. Here since 5 XII 1914. The whole time in solitary confinement. Three days ago, chains off. Father a peasant, but occupies himself with enterprises. Father a quiet man, does not drink. Father lives at Grahovo, Bosnia. No diseases in the family. School at Sarajevo 5 classes, then 3 classes at Belgrade without matura.

Always has been healthy. Knew nothing of serious injuries before the assassination. At that time injuries on the head and all over. At that time senseless. Scarlet fever. No bed-wetting. In the Gymnasium, sleepwalking. Walking about the room. Only during one year. Was waked up. In the third class. Never had attacks of unconsciousness.

Always “excellent student” up to the fifth class. Then fell in love. Began to have ideals. Left the school in Sarajevo in 1911. At that time nationalistic demonstrations were taking place against Tisza. Was in the first lines of the students. Was badly treated by the professors. Read many anarchistic, socialistic, nationalistic pamphlets, belles letters and everything. Bought books himself; did not speak about these things. Father not occupied with political matters. Was not much with other schoolboys, always alone. Was always quiet, sentimental child. Always earnest, with books, pictures, etc. Even as a child was not particularly religious.

Designates the year 1911 as critical. Went alone to Belgrade. Told nobody about it. Father and brother would not send any money. Promised to be a good student. Then they agreed with his remaining in Belgrade.

Father 54 years old, mother 45 years. Two other brothers, one 26, one 18 years. Six others died as small children before 10 years. Himself the fourth child. Of his brothers, one a student in the Real-schule and the other a merchant. Brothers quite ordinary men. The love for the girl did not vanish, but he never wrote her. Relates that he knew her in the fourth class; ideal love, never kissed; in this connection will reveal no more of himself. Study as a private student. Intercourse with nobody’ solitary, always in libraries. Wanted to go into the Balkan War, but was found too weak. Was every year for some months as a brother’s in the neighborhood of Sarajevo.

Only in May, 1914, took examinations for the eighth class. At the time of the assassination was injured on the head and back and all over. Took cyanide of potassium, but was weak and vomited.

It is very hard in solitary confinement, without books, with absolutely nothing to read and intercourse with nobody. Always accustomed to read, suffering most from not having anything to read. Sleeps usually only four hours in the night. Dreams a great deal. Beautiful dreams. About life, about love, not uneasy. Thinks about everything, particularly about conditions in his country. He had heard something about the war. Had heard a tragic thing, that Serbia no longer exists. His life is in general painful, now that Serbia does not exist. It goes hard with my people. The World War would not have failed to come, independent of it. Was a man of ideals wanted to revenge the people. The motives---revenge and love. All the young men were in the same sort of revolutionary temper. Spoke of anarchistic pamphlets which incited to murder.

Thinks differently today, thinks a social revolution is possible in all Europe, as things are changing. Will say no more in the presence of the guard. Is not badly treated. All behave properly toward him.

Admits attempt at suicide a month ago. Wanted to hang himself with the towel. It would be stupid to have a hope. Has a wound on the breast and on the arm….A life like mine, that’s impossible. At that time, about 12 o’clock, he could not eat, was in bad spirits, and on a sudden came the idea to hang himself. If he had opportunity he would do it. Thinks of his parents and all, but hears nothing of them. Confesses longing. That must exist in everybody.

Prison Hospital

12 V 1916

He recognizes me immediately and shows pleasure at seeing me. Since 7 IV here in hospital. Always nervous. Is hungry, does not get enough to eat. Loneliness. Gets no air and sun here; in the fortress took walks. Has no longer any hope for his life. There is nothing for him to hope for. Life is lost. In former days was a student, had ideals. Everything that was bound up with his ideals is all destroyed. My Serbian people. Hopes that something may turn for the better, but is skeptical. The ideal of the young people was the unity of the South Slav peoples, Serbs and Croats, Slovenes, but not under Austria. In a kind of state, republic or something of the sort. Thought that if Austria were thrown into difficulties then a revolution would come. But for such a revolution one must prepare the ground, work up feeling. Nothing happened. By assassination this spirit might be prepared. There already had been attempts at assassination before. The perpetrators were like heroes to our young people. He had no thought of becoming a hero. He wanted merely to die for his idea. Before the assassination he had read an article of Kropotkin about what we can do in case of a world-wide social revolution. Studied, talked about it. Was convinced it was possible…

For two months has heard nothing more of events. But it all is indifferent to him, on account of his illness and the misfortune of his people. Has sacrificed his life for the people. Could not believe that such a World War could break out as a result of an act like his. They did indeed think that such a World War might break out, but not at that moment.

On being requested to write something on the social revolution, he writes on a sheet of paper the following, saying that for two years he has not had a pen in hand. Translates: “On a certain occasion we spoke among comrades on a question which Kropotkin had put in Welfare for All---What will the anarchists do in case of a social revolution? We all took this more for a phrase of an old revolutionist than that he had seriously thought such a revolution possible at this time. But we nevertheless all debated over this revolution and nearly all admitted that such a revolution was possible, but according to our conviction that previously in all Europe there must be created between peoples….”

Broke off here, feeling ill. My thoughts are already---I am very nervous.

…Cannot believe that the World War was a consequence of the assassination; cannot feel himself responsible for the catastrophe; therefore, cannot say if it was a service. But fears he did it in vain. Thought that Serbia and Montenegro should help in case of a revolution of the national States in Austria.

Our old generation was mostly conservative, but in the people as a whole existed the wish for national liberation. The older generation was of a different opinion from the younger as to how to bring it about. In the year ’78 many Serb leaders and generals prayed for liberation from the Turks. The older generation wanted to secure liberty from Austria in a legal way; we do not believe in such a liberty.

It naturally goes hard with our co-nationals in Austria. Also does not believe it goes well with the Czechs and Poles. Has heard and read that the Slav peoples in Austria are badly off. Are persecuted. In Bosnia high treason trials and Iznimne mjere---exceptional law. That often existed in Bosnia. In Bosnia too few schools. In Serbia more, ten times more. In Belgrade six Gymnasia, in all Bosnia four. One million, nine hundred thousand people of all faiths.

The time before he wrote ten lines and one word. Now after this talk he continues writing again. Stops often and reflects. Complains himself that it is difficult for him. Ceases writing again after fifteen lines. Again translates: “… there must be created a relation where all differences equalize…, are equalized, between European peoples. But we as nationalists, although we had read socialistic and anarchistic writings, did not occupy ourselves much with this question, thinking that each of us had another duty---a national duty.”…

18 V 1916

Wound worse, discharging very freely. Looking miserable. Suicide by any sure means is impossible. “Wait to the end.” Resigned, but not really very sad.

…Sometimes in a philosophical mood, sometimes poetical, sometimes quite prosaic. Thinks about the human soul. What is the essential in human life, instinct or will, or spirit---what moves man?

Many who have spoken with him think he is a child, think that he was inspired by others, only because he cannot express himself sufficiently, is not in general gifted as a talker. Always a reader and always alone, not often engaging in debates.

Cabrinovic and Grabez were with him in Serbia. The three had resolved to carry out the assassination. It was his idea. Thought first of an attempt on Potiorek. Had come from Belgrade to Sarajevo, to his brother’s. Was always in company of Ilic, who has since died; was his best friend. Resolved that one of them should make an attempt on Potiorek. That was in October or November, 1913. He was in the hospital. Ilic was a little lightheaded, spoke of pan-Slavist ideas, said they should first create an organization. In all Bosnia and Croatia. Then, when all was ready, they should make the attempt. Therefore the plan was given up. Wanted first to study further himself, at Belgrade in a library. Thought he was not yet ripe and independent enough to be able to think about it.

Went in February to Belgrade. Heard in March that the Heir Apparent comes to Sarajevo. Thought it would be a chance. Spoke with Cabrinovic on this matter, who was of the same opinion. Cabrinovic said he ought to leave the attempt to him. But he was a type-setter, not of sufficient intelligence. Thought he was not sufficiently nationalist because previously and anarchist and socialist. Said they would both do it.

…Read much in Sarajevo. In Sarajevo used to dream every night he was a political murderer, struggling with gendarmes and policemen. Read much about the Russian revolution, about the fightings. This idea had taken hold of him. Admits that the earlier constraints had vanished…

Knows Grabez from boyhood, was also with him at Belgrade. Knew that he had similar thoughts. In March Grabez takes examination in the eighth class and returns to Sarajevo to prepare for matura. Said to him to tell Ilic. This one agreed. But he had no energy. Reading had---he confessed---made him quite slack. Ilic was under his influence, though he was five years older and already a teacher. Wrote he himself would also take part. Said he should procure five or six weapons. In cipher writing.

Grabez came back again to Belgrade a fortnight later, resolved on participation. First Princip told him to save himself for another occasion. But then we he came back to Belgrade, he said he would participate. Major Tankosic knew at the last moment, when they were already mentally ready.

Ciganovic, a Bosnian Serb, was there as deserter. Princip told him about it because he had bombs, he was komitadji. When he was ready to go back to Sarajevo he told him who it was that the attempt was to be made against. Ciganovic promised him also to procure revolvers from Tankosic, who was chief of komitadjis. Then got the revolvers. Went then, at the end of May, the 26th of May, to Sarajevo.

In the following month he was still able to read and study quietly. Had a nice library, because always was buying books. Books for me signify life. Therefore now so hard without books.

Thought that as a result of repeated attempts at assassination there could be built up an organization such as Ilic desired, and that then there would be general revolution among the people. Now comprehends that a revolution, especially in the military state of Austria, is of no use. What he now thinks the right thing he would not say. Has no desire to speak on the matter. It makes him unquiet to speak about it. When he thinks by himself, then everything is clear, but when he speaks with anybody, then he becomes uncertain.

If he had something to read for only 2-3 days, he could then think more clearly and express himself better. Does not speak to anybody for a month. Then when I come he wants to speak about ideas, about dominating thoughts. He considered that if he prepared the atmosphere the idea of revolution and liberation would spread first among men of intelligence and then later in the masses. Thought that thereby attention of the intelligentsia would be directed upon it. As for instance Mazzini did in Italy at the time of the Italian liberation. Thought that the Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro should be united.

5 VI

When permission comes, arm is to be amputated. His usual resigned disposition.

Conclusion

There is no need to carry me to another prison. My life is already ebbing away. I suggest that you nail me to a cross and burn me alive. My flaming body will be a torch to light my people on their path to freedom.

Even when I was still at Sarajevo I had decided on an attentat. I often went at night to Zerajitch’s grave. I managed to stay there all night and thought over our affairs and our wretched condition, and then I made up my mind.”

In trying to insinuate that someone else has instigated the assassination, one strays from the truth. The idea arose in our own minds, and we ourselves executed it. We have loved the people. I have nothing to say in my defense.

Sources:

Armstrong, Hamilton Fish. “Confessions of the Assassin Whose Deed Led to the World War”. Current History, Vol. XXVI, Number 5, August, 1927, pp. 699-707.

Dedijer, Vladimir. The Road to Sarajevo. NY: Simon and Schuster, 1966.

DeVoss, David. “Searching for Gavrilo Princip.” Smithsonian, August, 2000, Volume 31, Number 5, pp. 43-53.

Jevdjevic, Dobrosav. Sarajevski Atentatori. Zagreb: Binoza, 1934.

Owings, W.A. Dolph. The Sarajevo Trial. Cherry Hill, NC: Documentary Publications, 1984.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...enary.html


My great uncle started World War One: Relative of the man who assassinated Franz Ferdinand caught in the middle of diplomatic row as Bosnia plans to mark centenary of his act
Gavrilo Princip shot and killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914
Tensions run deep as city of Sarajevo prepares to mark the centenary
Many see Princip as a hero who liberated a nation after years of oppression
But to others he was terrorist who plunged Europe into years of war
Two rival sets of events are being planned, amid accusations of 'revisionism'
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
PUBLISHED: 10:00, 11 March 2014 | UPDATED: 19:40, 11 March 2014
127 shares 30View
comments
To some he is hero, a selfless freedom fighter who liberated his nation after years of oppression.
But to others he is a ruthless terrorist who lit the fuse for World War One, plunging Europe into years of darkness and despair.
Now, 100 years after 19-year-old Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, as they rode through Sarajevo, the act continues to create bitter divisions in a deeply fractured country.
Scroll Down for Video

+11
Miljkan Princip, the grandson of Gavrilo Princip's brother, poses with a photo of the assassin's old house as he stands in front of it in Bosansko Grahovo
Among those caught in the middle of the row is Princip's great nephew who was given his name and still resides in East Sarajevo, where he runs a hotel.
Serbs who fled the region are collecting money to rebuild the family home in time for the centenary on June 28.

More...
MAX HASTINGS: Yes, slavery was evil. But it would be insane to force us to pay damages for age-old wrongs
Winston Churchill's country estate gets its sixth marmalade kitten named Jock in honour of dying request
Newsnight host Jeremy Paxman claims modern society is too 'self obsessed' with no concept of 'duty' to fight a World War Three
Princip's house is one of hundreds of gutted homes scarring the bleak plateau, untouched since they were sacked by Croat forces on the heels of fleeing Serbs at the end of the Bosnian war. The Sarajevo footprints have gone.
The house was razed three times, during the two world wars and again in 1995. They're wasting their time, said Gavrilo.
'It will be burned down and destroyed again,' he said. 'We build and then we destroy. That's how things are in Bosnia.'
An assassin who sparked WWI divides his native Bosnia


+11
Fateful day: Archduke Ferdinand and his wife Sophie ride through Sarajevo one hour before they were shot and killed by Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip
+11
This is an artist's impression of the moment when Archduke Ferdinand and his wife were shot by Gavril Princip
Bosnian Serb forces under Ratko Mladic attempted just that eight decades later.
Sarajevo mayor Ivo Komsic, a Bosnian Croat, noted the city's role in the two wars that framed the last century when unveiling plans for the centenary last month.
'The eyes of the world will be focused on Sarajevo once more and it is important that we send messages completely different from the messages of war sent in 1914 and 1992,' he said.
Such comparisons have riled Serbs in Bosnia and neighbouring Serbia, for whom Princip is a pan-Slavic hero, the shot he fired marking the death knell for centuries of foreign occupation over Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks alike.
THE ASSASSINATION OF ARCHDUKE FRANZ FERDINAND AND HIS WIFE
Archduke Ferdinand was killed in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, alongside his wife, Sophie on June 28 1914.
Eventually killed by 19-year-old Gavrilo Princip, the couple had earlier that day been attacked by another man who threw a grenade at their car.
Archduke Ferdinand was shot in the neck, while his wife was hit in the abdomen.
The assassination is believed to have started a domino effect which led to the break out of the First World War a month later.
Princip and others wanted Bosnia to become part of Serbia.
This action led to Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia.
After that Serbia's ally Russia, and Russia's allies France and Britain, were pulled into conflict with Austria-Hungary and its treaty partner, Germany.
Two rival sets of events are being planned, and accusations of 'revisionism' are flying at a time of renewed Cold War-style tensions between East and West.
The row goes to the heart of Bosnia today, a country still affected by big-power divisions and still arguing about the past, divided by the present and uncertain about the future.
'We haven't moved on,' said Bosnian historian Vera Katz. 'It's like we're 100 years before 1914, not 100 years after.'
Sarajevo bookended the 20th century, opening with Princip's Browning revolver and closing with the sniper rifles and mortars of his ethnic kin besieging the city from the hills during Bosnia's 1992-95 war.
To some, like the woman at the museum, the two events were part of the same arc of Serb nationalism.
According to that narrative, Princip was a 'terrorist' bent on uniting Orthodox Serb lands at the expense of Bosnia's Muslim Bosniaks and Catholic Croats.
This was the official narrative for decades in socialist Yugoslavia, when Princip was venerated as a freedom fighter for all the nations and faiths gathered together by Josip Broz Tito.
Schools and roads took the assassin's name. His footprints were enshrined in the pavement at the spot from which he fired.
In his native mountain region of Bosansko Grahovo, a plaque erected in 1949 still stands above the doors to the local school, hailing Princip's 'fearless' fight for the 'national freedom of our peoples'.
Today, the plaque is blackened, licked by the flames that razed the school in 1995 as Yugoslavia crumbled.
Sarajevo, now inhabited largely by Bosniaks, plans to mark the centenary of the assassination with a series of cultural events sponsored in large part by France and also with the help of Austria and possibly the European Union.

+11
The grandson of Gavrilo Princip's brother, Miljkan Princip poses with an old photograph of Princip's house as he stands in front of the ruined building in Bosansko Grahovo

+11
Mayor of Bosansko Grahovo stands in the house which once belonged to Gavrilo Princip whose assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is widely believed to have lit the fuse for World War One
It will take place at a sensitive time in international relations, with Western nations accusing Serb big power backer Russia of preparing to annex Crimea from Ukraine and Moscow arguing it is defending Russians from Western stooges in Kiev.
Organisers of the Sarajevo commemoration, who are hoping to get funding from the EU, say it will steer clear of the issue of whether Princip was terrorist or hero.
The centrepiece will be a concert of the Vienna Philharmonic in the city's much-loved Vijecnica, Sarajevo's city hall-turned-National Library that burned down at the start of the 43-month Bosnian Serb siege of the city. The concert will mark its reopening.
On June 27, French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy, who supported the Bosniak call for Western intervention to halt the war in Bosnia, will premiere his latest play in Sarajevo, which deals specifically with the 1992-95 conflict.
Bosnia's autonomous Serb Republic has refused to participate, except in a leg of the Tour de France cycling race in the capital on June 20-23.

+11
A political poster in Gavrilo Princip's hometown of Bosansko Grahovo is pictured above graffiti bearing the assassin's name

+11
Destroyed buildings in Gavrilo Princip's hometown Bosansko Grahovo. His house was one of hundreds sacked by Croat forces on the heels of fleeing Serbs at the end of the Bosnian war

+11
Gavrilo Princip's house was razed three times, during the two world wars and again in 1995
Instead, the Serbs plan their own ceremony in Visegrad, a town made famous by Ivo Andric's 1945 novel 'Bridge on the Drina', and infamous by Serb paramilitaries who tossed their victims from the Ottoman bridge in 1992 as the first waves of the war washed through eastern Bosnia.
The Serb events will be choreographed by filmmaker Emir Kusturica, a Sarajevan born into a Bosniak family but who later took on the Serbian Orthodox faith, who plans to stage an opera about the assasination and show a documentary about Princip.
Authorities in Serb-controlled East Sarajevo say plans are in the pipeline for a statue of the assassin.
'We once all lived in one state (Yugoslavia), and we never looked on it as any kind of terrorist act, as some historians try to present it today,' said Nenad Samardzija, the Serb mayor of East Sarajevo.
'We looked on it as a movement of young people who wanted to liberate themselves from colonial slavery.'
The contradictions are inevitable, said sociology professor Slavo Kukic.
'Through no fault of his own, Gavrilo Princip is the result of all those political conflicts and differences on the territory of the former Yugoslavia ... over the past quarter of a century,' he said. 'We've had many Gavrilo Princips in our recent past.'

+11
Hotel manager Emela Burdzovic points to a portrait of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on the ceiling at the Franz Ferdinand hostel in Sarajevo. Two rival sets of events are being planned to mark the centenary of the assassination amid accusations of 'revisionism'

+11
Hotel manager Emela Burdzovic arranges a room bearing pictures of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand, at the Franz Ferdinand hostel in Sarajevo

+11
A worker opens the door at the Franz Ferdinand hostel in Sarajevo. 100 years after 19-year-old Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, as they rode through Sarajevo the act continues to di
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
09-05-2014, 07:36 PM
Порука: #12
RE: МЛАДА БОСНА
Gavrilo Princip: hero or villain?
As Balkan countries prepare to mark the start of the first world war, history books show widely different interpretations
Share 441


inShare
3
Email
Denis Dzidic, Marija Ristic, Milka Domanovic, Josip Ivanovic, Edona Peci and Sinisa Jakov Marusic in Sarajevo, Belgrade, Zagreb, Pristina and Skopje
theguardian.com, Tuesday 6 May 2014 11.16 BST
Jump to comments (167)

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife, Sophie, moments before they were shot by Gavrilo Princip In Sarajevo in June 1914 – triggering the first world war. Photograph: Universal History Archive/UIG via Getty Images
"Those people were terrorists – Gavrilo Princip and the rest of them," said Salih Mehmedovic, standing at the spot by the Latin Bridge in central Sarajevo where the young Bosnian Serb shot dead Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary 100 years ago.

Mehmedovic, a Bosniak, said he had no doubt that Serbia was responsible for the murder. "They did what they did on the orders of Serbia. We should blame Serbia for the war," he insisted.

As Balkan countries prepare to mark the centenary of the outbreak of the first world war this summer, each is teaching its children a different interpretation of the killing that triggered the conflict.

Princip is portrayed in the history books of the various countries of former Yugoslavia either as a terrorist or as a rebel with a cause – refecting contemporary divisions in a region still recovering from the more recent conflicts of the 1990s.

While they were part of Yugoslavia, children in all these countries were taught the same history. Now they all have their own versions of the truth, shaped by the more recent wars, and are passing it on to the next generation.

"There used to be only one discourse about World War I while the country was still Yugoslavia," said Nenad Sebek, executive director of the Centre for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe, which has analysed school textbooks in the region. "That country disappeared 23 years ago and the discourse disappeared with it, because the new countries that came out of the former Yugoslavia had different perceptions of the past. Now the past is being adjusted to fit whatever discourse the ruling elites in these countries want at the present moment."

In ethnically divided Bosnia and Herzegovina, there is no commonly held view either about Princip or about the origins of the first world war.

Different interpretation

Bosnian Serb children are taught a different interpretation than Bosniaks and Croats, for whom Princip was a Belgrade-backed political assassin. For Bosnian Serbs, the murder was merely a pretext for Austria-Hungary and Germany to attack Serbia.

These divisions are also reflected in the rival commemorations that will be held in Bosnia. A series of events will be held in Sarajevo, including exhibitions, concerts and a meeting of young peace activists from around the world.

Bosnian Serbs will hold their own events in the eastern town of Visegrad, organised by film director Emir Kusturica, while a statue of Princip is due to be erected in Serb-run eastern Sarajevo.

In mainly Bosniak areas, such as Sarajevo, the Bihac region in the north-west and the central Zenica-Doboj area, school textbooks highlight Princip's links to Serbia. The Sarajevo textbook says that Princip's group, Young Bosnia, was "supported by secret organisations from Serbia", while the Bihac textbook states more directly that the plotters were "supported by Serbia". The textbook for Zenica describes Young Bosnia as a "terrorist organisation".

The history book used by Bosnian Croat pupils also describes Young Bosnia as a "terrorist" group. But in the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska entity, Young Bosnia is simply described as an "organisation" and textbooks stress that Austria-Hungary "used" Franz Ferdinand's assassination "to blame Serbia" and declare war on the country.

Unsurprisingly, this description of the war's outbreak is similar to the one contained in textbooks used in Serbia itself.

Zeljko Vujadinovic, a history professor from Banja Luka in Republika Srpska, said that in Bosnia, "what we are looking at is the current political mind-set transferred to the past".

Suggestions that Young Bosnia was a "pre-WWI al-Qaida" were a result of the 1990s conflict, he insisted.

Worldwide events

"The characterisation of Young Bosnia and Princip as terrorists is an attempt to place the blame for huge worldwide events on 'Serbian territorial expansion policies', which is evidently flawed," Vujadinovic said.

Zijad Sehic, a Sarajevo history professor, agreed that the past had been redrawn in the aftermath of the 1992-95 conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

It was only since the fall of Yugoslavia that Princip has been described as a Serbian nationalist rather than as a fighter for Yugoslav unity, he said. "Now that there is no more Yugoslavia, his actions are being viewed more narrowly and he has been reborn as a Serbian hero."

A new monument to Princip is also due to go up in the Serbian capital, Belgrade, where children are taught that he was struggling for a just cause. Serbia will be minting a silver coin with his face on it to mark the centenary, and the government will stage exhibitions.

The Serbian Orthodox church meanwhile has proclaimed the assassin a national hero. "Gavrilo Princip was just defending his freedom and his people," a leading cleric, Metropolitan Amfilohije, said recently. "In Serbia, there is still the old narrative from the former Yugoslavia, which says that the first world war happened because there was this great hero called Gavrilo Princip," Sebek said.

"He assassinated the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was the personification of the occupying forces of Austria-Hungary, and then Austria-Hungary and the German empire invaded Serbia, and the brave Serbs struggled and suffered during the war but were on the right side."

On Gavrilo Princip Street in Belgrade, many people insisted that Serbia did not cause the 1914-18 war.

"Serbia was exhausted after two Balkan wars [in 1912-13] and didn't want war in 1914. The Great War was a result of the imperial aspirations of Austria-Hungary and Germany," said Aleksandar Dasic, a web editor.

Jelena Cebic, a salesperson, said: "The blame for World War I should be on Austria-Hungary and its imperial desire to capture the whole of the Balkans for its empire. Serbia should not take any blame for Princip."

Serbian school textbooks maintain that the overall cause of World War I was "the fight between the big powers for economic control and domination of Europe".

The seventh-grade textbook says that Austria-Hungary "used" the Sarajevo assassination as an excuse for a "long-desired" war against Serbia, "even though the Serbian government was not responsible for the assassination".

The Sarajevo assassin is described simply as "a young Serb from Bosnia".

"Princip was part of the Young Bosnia movement and he believed that assassinations and personal sacrifices could change Austro-Hungarian policies towards the Serbs and other South Slavs," the book says.

A chapter is devoted to Serbia and Montenegro's heroic victories during the conflict, while Austria-Hungary's alleged war crimes against Serbs are given prominence.

"The Austrian army committed horrific war crimes against Serbian civilians," the textbook says, detailing mass detentions in camps, the burning of villages, the torture of civilians and the banning of Serbian national symbols and the Cyrillic script.

But Dubravka Stojanovic, a professor at Belgrade University, argued that the history of the war is taught in Serbia "in the context of national myth and the interpretation of Serbia as a nation that sacrificed itself".

Princip had been used as a tool to promote the ruling ideology, Stojanovic said.

"During the era of [former leader Slobodan] Milosevic, the caption under Princip's image [in textbooks] said 'Serbian hero'," she said.

"It is not like that anymore - but it is written that he was a Serbian nationalist, although he said himself that he was a Yugoslav nationalist," she concluded.Schools in Croatia teach that Serbia was to blame for helping to spark the 1914-18 conflict, by seeking to expand its territory and supporting a terrorist. Croatian history textbooks maintain that Serbia was one of the countries responsible for the outbreak of first world war.

Territorial expansion

While acknowledging that Austro-Hungary wanted to secure control over south-eastern Europe, the fourth-grade secondary-school textbook says that Serbia "sought territorial expansion over areas that were under Ottoman rule up until the [1912-1913] Balkan wars, and was unsettled with the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, due to Serbian territorial pretentions towards Bosnia and Herzegovina".

It describes Young Bosnia as a group that carried out "illegal terrorist actions" and favoured Serbia taking control of Bosnia and Herzegovina with a view to creating a "Greater Serbia".

"A secret organisation named 'Unification or Death' [also known under the name of the Black Hand] was formed in Serbia in 1911, with the mission of achieving Greater Serbian aims through terrorist activities," it says.

"The aim of the organisation, defined in its constitution, was the 'unification of Serbs'," it adds.

Historian Martin Previsic argued that the idea of a plan to create a Greater Serbia is a theme that runs through Croatian textbooks, beginning in the 19th century, stretching through both world wars and on into the history of the former Yugoslavia. "That line leads also to 1991 and the 'Homeland war' [against Serb forces in 1991-95]," he said.

Some parents in King Tomislav Square in Zagreb were not so sure Serbia was to blame. "The idea of liberation from the Austro-Hungarian empire was legitimate, although it is still hard to see Gavrilo Princip as a hero," said one, Drazenka Kosic.

Parents in the capital Pristina, with recent memories of Belgrade's violent repression of Kosovo Albanians, insisted that Serbian aggression was definitely a factor behind the outbreak of World War I.

"The whole world has suffered because of Serbia," said one Pristina local, Ajvaz Abazi.

"Serbia has harmed many people, as well as those from Kosovo, so naturally they give high importance to their own criminals [like Princip]," said another, Xhevdet Hoxha.

But Kosovo's schoolchildren are actually taught a version of history that still closely resembles the narrative in the old Yugoslav textbooks, in which Serbia is treated relatively sympathetically as a country trying to avoid a war.

The passages on WWI, written after the 1998-99 conflict between the Kosovo Liberation Army and Belgrade's forces, describe Princip as a "Serbian nationalist" rather than a Yugoslav one – but they do not accuse Serbia of responsibility for the conflict.

Austrian ultimatum

Describing the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia after Franz Ferdinand's murder, the textbook suggests that Belgrade had legitimate reasons for rejecting it.

"For Serbia, accepting such a request would mean losing its independence," it says.

Arben Arifi of the Kosovo Institute of History said there was a practical reason for the relatively benign interpretation of Serbia's role.

"The authors who wrote the history schoolbooks before and after independence are, more or less, the same," Arifi said.

But Shkelzen Gashi, a political scientist who specialises in history, argued that Kosovo schoolbooks are full of "inaccuracies, lies and falsifications, which very much increase suspicions amongst schoolchildren regarding Serbia".

"Serbia is not directly accused [of starting the war], but indirectly, by saying the war began because of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand committed by a member of this nationalistic Serbian organisation, Gavrilo Princip," Gashi said.

Macedonia accuses 'imperialist' great powers

Macedonian school textbooks describe the conflict as "the first world imperialist war" and focus on the division of Macedonian territory that followed. However, Macedonians blame neighbouring Bulgaria in particular for aggressive expansionism, not Serbia.

Macedonian historian Novica Veljanovski was also keen to exonerate Serbia. "It has been proven that the Serbian state had no intention or plan to kill the Archduke Franz Ferdinand," he explained. "Serbia cannot be blamed for the start of the war."

The Macedonian school textbook says Austria, Italy and Germany were the instigators, using the assassination by Princip's "secret revolutionary organisation" as a pretext.

"Austria-Hungary used this event to accuse Serbia of organising the assassination, sending an ultimatum to Belgrade with almost unacceptable terms," it says.

Bulgaria is accused of conducting an "expansionist policy" and of joining the war to "take the whole of Macedonia".

Many people in the capital Skopje also did not blame Belgrade for WWI.

"Why Serbia? No. Everyone knows that the assassination that [Princip] carried out was only used as an excuse to start the war," said one Skopje resident, Slavjan Radenski. "An entire country cannot be blamed for the actions of one man," said another, Milanka Malinova.

At the spot in Sarajevo where Franz Ferdinand was assassinated 100 years ago, some locals said they were not concerned about what pupils were taught about the first world war. "I don't know and I don't care," said Adnan Tepic. "We should just forget such a distant past."

Others argued that only the facts should be taught, without any bias. "We should teach children the fact that the assassination happened, but we should leave it to each individual to find their own interpretations for themselves," said Atija Masic.

As the centenary approaches, there is little hope that rival ethnic and political groups in the Balkans will find a shared view, said history professor Zijad Sehic. "We will never have agreement on this issue. The views are too far apart. There will never be a common truth."

This article was produced by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network's Balkan Transitional Justice programme

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ma...an-history

Колико су саде ових навалили.........занимљиво!
Занимљиво су коментари.....
Поготово рај из Университет Абедина
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
27-06-2014, 04:51 PM (Последња измена: 27-06-2014 04:55 PM од Захумље.)
Порука: #13
RE: МЛАДА БОСНА
ОТКРИЋЕ ИЗ ЧЕШКЕ ИЛИ КАКО ЈЕ ПАШИЋ ПОКУШАО ДА ИЗБЕГНЕ ПРВИ СВЕТСКИ РАТ
PasicMasarikAleksandar slika O 1023675

МИЛАН ЛАЗАРЕВИЋ

Био је то још један узалудни покушај да се спречи рат који је био припреман на све стране

Историчар балканолог из Брна Вацлав Штјепанек (на слици доле) нашао је недавно у архиви аустријског Министарства спољних послова, докумнет с краја 1912. о досад потпуно непознатој мировној понуди Бечу тадашњег председника Владе Србије Николе Пашића. Аустроугарској је „национални Баја“ прагматски предлагао да се, ради потврде престижа Хабзбуршке монархије, то учини ако треба и јавно у форми молбе. Укратко, предлагао је да се направи комплетни, може се рећи, историјски споразум о свим спорним питањима и неусаглашеним интересима две државе како једна другој не би стајала на путу и како би се спречио рат, који је убрзо, већ 1914, заиста и избио и прерастао у светски сукоб, дотад најтежи у историји.

VaclavStepanekТАЈНА ПОНУДА АРОГАНТНОЈ ЦАРЕВИНИ

Та понуда је била тајна, и Пашић ју је послао преко Томаша Масарика (на заједничкој слици горе са Александром Првим), тада угледног чешког професора политичара и посланика у аустријском парламенту који је у децембру 1912. боравио у Београду у јеку Првог балканског рата, када се кројила нова политичка мапа Балкана. Односи између ове двојице политичара, како је изнео Штјепанек, „никад нису били врели“. Заступали су различита политичка уверења и њихова сарадња је била више ствар рационалног уважавања него узајамне наклоности.

Узгред, Штјепанек констатује да Пашић, „неспорни лидер Радикалне странке, није био велики политички мислилац, није готово ништа написао, није био ни сјајан говорник, али је зато био изузетно вешт политички преговарач, такође, интригант и калкулант“.

У Пашићевој заоставштини нема помена имена Масарика, који је, међутим, више пута наводио разговоре с овим кључним српским лидером у својим белешкама, посебно у делу Светска револуција, где наводи да је са Пашићем имао дуги и веома важан разговор крајем 1912. током посете победничкој Србији. Масарик пише да га је по том разговору Пашић сутрадан накнадно позвао и формулисао услове под којима би се Србија нагодила са Аустроугарском.

„Као доказ своје мирољубивости, исказао је спремност да дође у Беч и да се поклони Лепополду фон Берхтолду (министру спољних послова Аустроугарске; прим. МЛ; на слици сасвим доле) како би се тиме утолила бечка глад за престижом. План сам пренео Бертхолду, и то, али он те ствари није разумео и није се приволео миру“.

Масарик се потом жалио моћном министру Билинском (министар финансија, задужен и за Босну и Херцеговину), Баренрајтереру и другим министрима, они су сви били очајни, покушали су да исправе грешку Бертхолда, али им није успело.

„Инцидент с Берхтолдом вероватно је Масарика утврдио у очекивању рата, па га касније није напад на Србију ни изненадио“, оцењује Штјепанек.

bertholdПАШИЋЕВ ЗАХТЕВ

Читава ствар са Масариковим посредовањем остала би даље доста нејасна да овај историчар није, како сам признаје, случајно наишао у архиви аустријског Министарства спољних послова на потписани записник разговора Берхтолда с Масариком 12. децембра 1912. У уводу се помиње да је Масарик боравио у Београду на молбу колега немачких посланика (из Чешке) јер се боље сналазио у „словенским питањима“. Са Пашићем је имао један званичан доста формалан сусрет, на коме се домаћин држао уздржано.

На дан кад је требало да се врати натраг, кратко пред полазак воза, поново је био позван код Пашића и тамо му је овај рекао да хоће да му као приватној особи повери нешто што официјелним путем не би могао послати Бечу. Пашићеве предлоге је Масарик пренео Берхтолду детаљно, а Штјепанек их је сумирао у неколико тачака.

Укратко, Србија жели да живи са Аустроугарском у миру и пријатељству, при чему жели да сачува своју економску и политичку независност. Српска држава је заинтересована за развој живе трговине с двојном монархијом и нуди повољне концесије, од године 1917. године трговински режим са уграђеном клаузулом највећих погодности, обезбедиће Аустрији предност у односу на Немачку. Србија нуди и могућност коришћења својих постојећих железничких пруга као и да се граде нове. За све то тражи, ради обезбеђивање своје економске независности, једну јадранску луку, до које би водила пруга у уском појасу који би био под српским суверенитетом. Лука би била искључиво трговинска и Краљевина Србија би се обавезала да је неће користити као ратну и неће је давати за базу других сила. У случају да Беч не изађе у сусрет овим захтевима Србије, она ће се морати много тешње повезати са другим балканским државама, а евентуално створити царинску унију с Бугарском.

БЕРТХОЛД НИЈЕ БИ ПРАВА АДРЕСА

Масарик је Пашићу сугерисао да ће Беч због свог престижа тешко изаћи усусрет овом захтеву Србије у замену за трговинске повољности. На то је српски премијер одговорио да је спреман да лично пође у Беч и предложи ове захтеве Министарству спољних послова Аустроугарске у форми молбе.

На крају белешке стоји да је Берхтолд „захвалио професору Масарику за његов извештај, уз напомену да, „без обзира на дилеме које би српске аспирације на јадранску обалу овде пробудиле, није могуће ову понуду г. Пашића примити, јер смо већ нека овде поменута питања договорили с другим великим силама, као и да ће се њима бавити заједничка комисија“.

Масарикове жалбе против Берхтолда нису ипак остале сасвим узалудне. Билински је забележио у својим мемоарима да се познати научник и ексцентрични посланик Масарик жалио на Бертхолда да није прихватио посету Пашића.

„Несретник Берхтолд је одбио да прими Пашића у уверењу да то Масарик форсира да би добио провизију“. То Масарик не помиње у Светској револуцији, као ни сам Берхтолд, али не заобилази ни најбољи Масариков пријатељ међу Србима професор Божидар Марковић, који цитира Бертхолда да „аустријска министарства не служе за то да сиромашни професори добију провизије“. Нарочито се на својеглавог и арогантног Бехртолда жестио Билински, који је прогласио за велику несрећу што му се овај није обратио за консултацију у овој важној ствари.

Ко зна – да јесте, можда се заиста не би ни догодио сарајевски атентат. Но о томе шта би било кад би било сада се може само нагађати и стварати хипотезе, у чему, наравно, могу учествовати и историчари.

Балканмагазин

http://standard.rs/istorija/29439-%D0%BE...0%B0%D1%82

Милош • 2 hours ago
Ако из неког рата сагледамо само економско ратовање ( на жалост увек се сагледа из ретроспективног угла. . . ) учесник који излази са своје територије нема намеру да часно тргује . Привид "шта би било кад би било" је непотребно бајковито сагледавање историје , нарочито унутар III светског економског рата . Ако сагледам модалитете суровости у прва два светска рата , не видим да је агресор улазио на туђе територије неспреман и без бруталних намера . Могу да прећутим Бизмарка и његове достојне наследнике као концентичне таласе који у правилним интервалима се шире , мењају модалитете , могу да приметим да таласи имају неминовност и једносмерну оправданост али не могу да ћутим о њиховим провидним политичко - економским деструкцијама .

БОГДАН ЖЕРАЈИЋ ИЛИ МЕТАК КОЈИ НИЈЕ ИСПАЉЕН НА ЦАРА
bogdan zerajic - copy

ДРАГА МАСТИЛОВИЋ

Да ли је узор претеча младобосанаца прекинуо општу резигнацију и апатију међу српском омладином у Босни и Херцеговини

У плејади знаменитих ђака мостарске гимназије који су почетком 20. вијека уносили једну нову, скоро горштачку енергију у српски национални покрет у Босни и Херцеговини, као и сасвим нову, нимало калкулантску, па с тога и потпуно нетактичну, скоро „пречишћену“ мржњу према аустроугарском окупатору и, што је најзанимљивије, показивали ријетко виђену спремност на жртву, посебно мјесто припада Богдану Жерајићу. Рођен у невесињском селу Миљевац фебруара 1886. године, Жерајић је социјалном средином у којој је рођен и васпитањем у родитељској кући, како каже његов савременик и близак друг Владимир Гаћиновић, већ „био предодређен за високу националну концепцију и припремљен за националну жртву“.

У мостарској гимназији, у коју се уписао 1900. године, основао је чисто политичку омладинску организацију Слобода, чији је циљ био борба за ослобођење од аустроугарске окупације и национално уједињење српског народа. У жучним расправама мостарских гимназијалаца о методу и начину борбе против окупаторског режима, Жерајић је „смелом отвореношћу износио проблеме који стоје пред омладином и народом, проповедајући не мали рад него борбу, не мир но рат и победу, рад у жучној борби и мир у великој победи“, наводи Гаћиновић.

Случај је хтио да проглас о анексији Босне и Херцеговине 1908. године Богдана Жерајића затекне у родном селу, гдје се вратио послије кратког боравка у Србији, пошто је био напустио Загребачки универзитет због недостатка финансија. Као и већина својих колега омладинаца, и он је успио да се послије проглашења анексије пребаци у Србију и прикључи комитама. Обучавао се, заједно са Гаћиновићем и неколицином Босанаца, у комитском кампу у Врању. Међутим, убрзо је био разочаран признањем анексије од европских сила и Србије, поготово прилично пасивним ставом Срба у Босни и Херцеговини, од којих је у свом националном и револуционарном заносу очекивао да подигну устанак.

franjojosif0

НАПУШТАЊЕ МАСАРИКОВИХ ИДЕЈА

У каквом је душевном стању Жерајић преживљавао период анексионе кризе Гаћиновић описује на сљедећи начин: „Био је сав мутан, потресен. Лице му је, увек без маске, било пуно мрачних боја, иза којих је био бол, мука, разочарење. Док се у његових другова будио притајени инстинкт, он је у мртвим самоћама преживљавао једну од најдубљих криза. У стању српства тих дана видео је много срамоте. Осећао је да се ломи срце српске расе, и да то пропадање бива пред бруталном силом. Сањао је о једном великом догађају који ће прикупити сву нашу крв и поставити темеље новом животу.“

Жерајић је имао довољно храбрости и спремности на жртву да сам изазове тај догађај о коме је сањао. Понекад чак и помирен са Масариковим идејама ситног свакодневног рада и просвјећивања народа као најбољег облика борбе против окупатора, он је ипак све више сазријевао у идеји „тираноубиства“ и свјесне жртве за велике националне идеале. Јануара 1910. године, очигледно у стању посебног душевног немира, он је послао писмо Гаћиновићу, у коме је прилично јасно најављивао да је у њему сазрела ријешеност за један одлучан корак. Том приликом он пише: „Ја сам силно душевно потиштен, страшни су ми осјећаји и ја немам снаге другом да кажем... Само ме једно тјеши, а то је што имам снаге и што ћу је имати, како ми се чини, да устрајем до краја. Осјећам сву тегобу положаја у коме се налазим. Биједно је наше стање. Дух је окован у окове опће воље. Све што је велико и свето, право и истинито, све је умукло... То мора да боли човјека који истински осјећа, уз то још долазе и личне патње, тјелесне и душевне...“

У таквој ситуацији опште резигнације и апатије међу српском омладином у Босни и Херцеговини, сасвим неочекивано и потпуно индивидуално, без најава и претходно јасно формулисаних програмских начела и циљева, засијала је револуционарна звијезда Богдана Жерајића. Када је сазнао да ће почетком јуна 1910. године у посјету Босни и Херцеговини доћи цар Фрањо Јосиф, Жерајић је планирао да изврши атентат на аустроугарског монарха. Због тога је дошао из Загреба у Босну, а непосредно пред полазак послао је писмо Шпиру Солду, у коме му је између осталог рекао: „Идем у Босну да видим срамоту земље, салте ми фале бомбите“. Жерајић је данима непримјетно пратио цара на његовом путу, вребајући прилику да га убије. У два наврата, 2. јуна на Илиџи и 3. јуна у Мостару, Жерајић је успио да приђе веома близу цару, али ни до данас није познато зашто није тада пуцао.

vidovdanskiheroji0

ЗАШТО НИЈЕ УБИО ФРАЊУ ЈОСИФА

Многи аутори нагађали су зашто Жерајић није пуцао у цара ако је већ могао, а најчешће је сматрано да је царева старост била разлог његовог одустајања од атентата. Међутим, годинама касније, тачније 1933. године, бивши аустроугарски полицијски чиновник у Сарајеву, Владислав Глик у пољском часопису Przeglad Wspolczesny објавио је своја сјећања из периода 1911-1916, када је службовао у Босни и Херцеговини и у њима изнио занимљив детаљ, који би могао расвијетлити тајну зашто је Жерајић одустао од атентата на цара. Наиме, Глик наводи да му је децембра 1915. године тадашњи окружни начелник у Сарајеву Линдес причао да је он лично приликом преметачине Жерајићевог стана међу чистим хартијама пронашао један листић на коме је обичном оловком и на брзу руку било написано: „Хтио сам... Нисам могао... Сувише су га чували.“ Те ријечи су и аустроугарски истражни органи повезали са његовим планираним атентатом на цара Фрању Јосифа, али је то држано у строгој тајности.

Остаје непознаница да ли Жерајић случајно или намјерно није спалио и тај листић хартије, као што је спалио сву своју преписку, да полиција не би никога могла довести у везу са њим и његовим атентатом или је хтио да свјесно остави свједочанство о планираном атентату на цара? Иначе, Жерајић се Линдесу учинио сумњивим већ приликом његове пријаве у Сарајеву, јер су се у циљу цареве безбједности сва лица која дођу у град морала пријавити полицији у року од шест сати, па је на његовој пријавној листи записао да се, као сумњив, мора налазити под сталним надзором полиције. Дакле, исто као што је он пратио у стопу цара, тако су и Жерајића у стопу пратили аустроугарски полицијски агенти. Није искључено да је Жерајић примијетио да аустроугарски агенти будно мотре на њега и да због тога није био сигуран у успјех атентата уколико покуша да га изведе.

ОДЕСЕЦАЊЕ ЖЕРАЈИЋЕВЕ ГЛАВЕ

У сваком случају, Жерајић је био веома потиштен и незадовољан што атентат на цара није спровео у дјело, па је већ 4. јуна писао: „Можда и они које на вјешала воде немају горег расположења од мене“. У таквом расположењу пронашао је Жерајића и Васиљ Грђић непосредно послије тога у једној гостионици у Сарајеву и тај сусрет описао на сљедећи начин: „Не свршивши вечеру до краја, Жерајић се диже, пође мени устегнутим кораком, полако, готово нечујно – били смо сами – стаде поред мене и нешто прошапта: Овако ми је био надохват, а десном руком показа као да на некога нишани из пиштоља. Разумједох све, претрнух и запитах само: Ђе? – У Мостару, на станици – рече... Отвори се срце, а ријечи потекоше. Готово вриснух: нема у нас тих људи. Сагласисмо се: ми смо робље. Можда и има код нас јунаштва. Али колективног. Ха на главе јунаци. И тада чопором појуришамо на го нож... Али ми немамо индивидуалног јунаштва. За то треба већа култура, јачи осјећај – национални – него је племенски понос. Немамо јунака који ће заметнути кавгу. Немамо човјека који ће, сам, не питајући никога, записати један велики датум. Племена имају своје јунаке, али нација чека своје хероје – којих нема. Нема – понављао сам узбуђено, тврдо, неколико пута. Били смо у екстази. Жерајић, сав устрептао, са запаљеним, лијепим, дубоким, црним очима. При задњим ријечима нијемо је гледао у ме и растао се готово без поздрава. Вјеровао сам да може много – али, ја биједник, нијесам вјеровао да може све.“

Можда су и ове ријечи Васиља Грђића допринијеле да неколико дана послије Жерајић докаже да ипак код Срба још увијек „има таквих људи“! Он је 15. јуна на Царевој ћуприји у Сарајеву сачекао барона Маријана Варешанина, аустроугарског земаљског поглавара Босне и Херцеговине који је непосредно прије тога у име цара отворио прво засједање босанског Сабора. Пуцао је пет пута у кочију у којој се налазио Варешанин, али је невјероватна срећа хтјела да ниједан метак не погоди барона у затвореној кочији.

Последњи метак Жерајић је испалио себи у главу. Жерајићеву главу аустроугарски окупатори су одсјекли и она се као експонат налазила у Криминалистичком музеју у Сарајеву. Тек 1919. године глава Богдана Жерајића је пронађена и сахрањена са тијелом. Иако су аустроугарски полицијски чиновници тајно сахранили Жерајићево тијело, младобосанци су га ипак пронашли и на њега доносили цвијеће, које су аустроугарски полицијски службеници уредно уклањали. Гроб Богдана Жерајића постао је мјесто ходочашћа младобосанаца, а његова жртва примјер осталим. На Жерајићевом гробу још 1912. године Гаврило Принцип се зарекао да ће га осветити, а ноћ уочи Видовдана 1914. године ту заклетву је опет поновио у друштву са Данилом Илићем и Трифком Грабежом. Сутрадан, 28. јуна 1914. године, Гаврило Принцип је испунио своју заклетву.

Фонд стратешке културе

http://standard.rs/istorija/29438-%D0%B1...1%80%D0%B0
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
28-06-2014, 12:55 PM
Порука: #14
RE: МЛАДА БОСНА
Ово исцрташе мој син и екипа из краја.Лепо изгледа.

[Слика: 10517620_10152948755272119_2078523891003942058_o.jpg]
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
Одговори 


[-]
Podeli (Prikazi sve)
Facebook Linkedin Twitter Digg

Скочи на Форум:


Корисник(а) прегледа ову тему: 1 Гост(а)