29-06-2014, 11:56 PM
Marrrttty Oskar Jaeger
27 June 2014 4:18pm
This is exactly the simplistic narrative that dominates modern discourse. Yes , Serbia, a tiny impoverished European nation was expansionist in nature. It wanted to achieve it's goals by attacking one of the most powerful Empires of the time. Said empire was by no means occupying lands to which it was not native eh? I guess we're required to think like apologists to colonialism. Next article, Nelson Mandela ....hero or terrorist ?
Oskar Jaeger Marrrttty
27 June 2014 4:30pm
That tiny impoverished nation had just won two Balkan wars in 1912 and 1913, doubling in size and territory. It was also then that Serbia conquered Kosovo against the wishes of its majority Albanian population.
Marrrttty Oskar Jaeger
27 June 2014 4:40pm
Yes it won two Balkan wars in union with it's allies. Thus losing many men and resources. And please cite the demographics of Kosovo circa 1900. If you are willing to make outlandish statements , back them up. Your arguments are tired and fading fast
ChrisRK
27 June 2014 4:05pm
He is no hero! However you cut it. It led to the death of so many.......and they have not achieved much........let the Germans decide.....
danielaeveretta
27 June 2014 4:15pm
Idealist.
Oskar Jaeger danielaeveretta
27 June 2014 4:25pm
Idealists with guns are very dangerous people.
East Oskar Jaeger
27 June 2014 6:00pm
Idealists manipulated by ruthless nationalist politicians with territorial expansionist aims are even more dangerous.
rishav danielaeveretta
28 June 2014 7:16am
Non-idealist stupid fools who kill on other's commands are the worst.
ID9552055
27 June 2014 5:01pm
Another half-baked article in The Guardian.
1/ the author fails to point out that the Serb officials object to the term 'assassinated' in general when applied to Gavrilo Princip as well as to appearing on the Sarajevo plaque saying that he "assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne..."
2/ Princip identified himself as a Yugoslav nationalist (Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims are Yugo Slavs).
3/ Why are we still preoccupied with a bunch of d***heads still fighting over a 100 year old even.
4/ If the Serb president and PM use the ridiculous excuse of a plaque not to turn up to a regional meeting, why the blazes have they become an official candidate for membership in the EU?
CroatianRoger
27 June 2014 8:07pm
During the Jugoslavian period the Latin Bridge (because it leads to the Catholic monastery area) was named after Princip and my wife lived in the Gavilo Princip student hall of residence. To see Princip still at the centre of political rivalry is sad.
I hope you know that the dismemberment of Jugoslavia was not caused just by internal political tension but by neocon interference.
Oskar Jaeger CroatianRoger
28 June 2014 12:16am
Was Slobodan Miloschevitsch (Milosevic) a neocon?
Robert Sandlin Oskar Jaeger
28 June 2014 8:59am
He wasn't alone in causing the trouble.There where many actors in that tragedy.He's just the one the West prefers to blame it all on.
Amadeo de los Ríos Oskar Jaeger
28 June 2014 2:28pm
STOP TROLLING, OSKAR
hlapic
27 June 2014 9:15pm
Princip is terrorist
royalcourtier
27 June 2014 9:21pm
How can Serb's celebrate the assassination, or treat him as a hero? The rest of the world will be marking the outbreak of WW1 with regret - you people are celebrating the deaths of millions of people. Weird.
SandraG90 royalcourtier
27 June 2014 11:08pm
You know nothing, John Snow...
YouHaveComment royalcourtier
28 June 2014 1:04pm
It's an accident of history that he is famous. And not some other bloke in some other country.
Europe in 1914 was a tinderbox. A house of cards. Any other metaphor you can think of - WW1 was just waiting to happen cos the politics was a mess.
Fitzroy Mcclean
27 June 2014 11:33pm
Occupation by a foreign power is not easy to digest, nice roads or not. Princip was captured, tortured and died a miserable death, associates were handed over to Austria without question, as Serbia wanted to avoid conflict. The Austrians kept the pressure on serbia with numerous demands finally invading. The austrians razed serbian villages and lynched the inhabitants pregnant or not- .28th June 1914 Sarajevo was St Vitus Day for the orthodox, a prominent day of remembrance in serb history when in 1389 after defeat at the Kosovo battle it led to the subjugation of the serbian nation to 500yrs of ottoman rule. This was a dark period in Serbian history. Austria ignored these facts and sent the duke and wife on their way.
Oskar Jaeger Fitzroy Mcclean
28 June 2014 12:14am
Bosnian Serbs (Orthodox) were only 44% of population then, Bosnian Muslims and others were 56%. The majority of the population were happy enough with nice roads etc, but the Serbian minority conspired to commit murder (and it really worked out well in the end for all).
Brian Apple Oskar Jaeger
28 June 2014 2:57am
What is the point of nice roads if you have to pay taxes to a monarch a thousand miles away. Sure, the monarch will be kind enough to repay the serfs with a few nice roads but that doesn't make up for years of drudgery as one toils in farms to pay taxes to a mega-rich monarch.
royaldocks Brian Apple
28 June 2014 8:10am
Well, they ended up paying taxes to a monarch in Belgrade. It's not as if they were suddenly blessed with liberty and self-determination after 1918.
Brian Apple
28 June 2014 1:06am
It's misleading to look at the 1914 assassination through the eyes of a hundred years henceforth. You have to go back to the time to truly understand it.
The Ottoman Empire had ruled the Balkans for hundreds of years. It had just been defeated. This left the region open to invasion by the Austro-Hungarian Empire - indeed, it had annexed Bosnia. The Serbs were aghast at this sequence of takeovers. Princip stood up to this and fought back.
Oskar Jaeger Brian Apple
28 June 2014 2:19am
Serbia had no prior claim on Bosnia. Serbs were only about 44% of the population and Bosnia had never been part of Serbia. Most Bosnians did not want to be ruled by Serbia. Serbs feeling "aghast" and frustrated did not justify a double murder nor make Gavrilo Princip a hero (except for Serbia, obviously).
Brian Apple Oskar Jaeger
28 June 2014 2:56am
Only 44% of the population? Gosh, I hardly think that's a minority. In fact, the Serbs (as 44%) were the largest single cultural/ethnic/religious group in Bosnia.
OK, I agree the murder was awful and a crime. But you need to look at it through the lens THEN, and not the lens now. The "then" lens is what you should be looking through.
The murder of the Archduke and his wife was an act imbued with the spirit of Serbian independence.
Oskar Jaeger Brian Apple
28 June 2014 3:05am
Whatever, Serbia has been independent since at least 1878. You don't have to go around assassinating foreigners to demonstrate your spirit of independence.
AbsoluteCrap
28 June 2014 1:46am
Putin thinks this murderous punk is a hero.
Brian Apple
28 June 2014 2:59am
I am sincerely of the belief that Gavrilo Princip represents the everyman of Ëurope who is fed up with control and the imposition of ideas from centralist bureaucracies, such as the EU.
Oskar Jaeger Brian Apple
28 June 2014 3:01am
God help Europe then!
East Oskar Jaeger
28 June 2014 1:29pm
One hundred years from today will they be unveiling a monument to Nigel Farage? And what will we all have survived to be there?
3KOSTURA
28 June 2014 6:14am
DID YOU KNOW:
- Gavrilo Princip never identified himself as a "Serb" or sought the creation of "Greater Serbia". He consistently identified himself as a YUGOSLAVIAN (the terns preceded the creation of the country in 1918) and Panslavist and called for the unification of all Slavic lands under Austria's control (which, hypothetically, also included Bohemia [today's Czech Republic], Slovakia and parts of Poland and Ukraine.
- That his organization ("Mlada Bosnia") NEVER consisted only of Serbs, but included numerous prominent Moslems (today "Bosniaks"), and Catholics (mostly Croats, some Slovenes). The organization was truly multiethnic , all-inclusive and interdenominational and had absolutely nothing to do with the idea of "Serbian nationalism" (sic), let alone chauvinism. At the time of Austrian annexation of Bosnia (1878) Serbia was the ONLY independent South Slavic nation (tiny Montenegro notwithstanding) that could support the idea of Panslavic unity.. In fact, Princip's panslavicism flew in the face of the Serbian Army, whose Chiefs of Staff (notably Duke Zivojin Misic) DID specifically advocate Greater Serbia.
- That members of the organization included, among others, one Ivo Andric, the future Nobel laureate in Literature (1961) , who was born as a Croat, but died - of his own volition - as a Serb, a man who truly, literally, never made any distinction between these identical Slavic twin tribes (neither did Nikola Tesla, by the way).
- That Serbian Officer corps featured a number of Slavs from all over Austro-Hungarian empire. One of the most heavily decorated Serbian Army officers in the WW 1 was Pavle Jurisic Sturm, an ethnic Lausitzer Sorb from German Empire.
- That Austro-Hungarian not once in 36 years of it's occupation attempted to legitimize its conquest of Bosnia by asking the indigenous population of Bosnia & Hercegovina to endorse or support the annexation.
- That in 1500 years of Slavic presence on the Balkans Bosnia NEVER ONCE belonged to Austria prior to 1878 and that Austria had NO moral cause, legal or historical precedent or military justification to occupy Bosnia.
- That Serbian government NEVER controlled the rogue military unity called "Black Hand" and that, in fact, it executed its leaders for mutiny in 1917.
- That Black Hand ("Crna Ruka" in Serbian) was directly subordinate to and controlled by the French and British military intelligence via network of secret fraternal affiliations, and that it reported to THEM, not to the Serbian government.
- That Serbian government had learned of the plan to assassinate Archduke barely two weeks prior to the assassination, and that it did absolutely everything in its power to prevent the plot. Serbian government warned Austrian government TWICE that the visit to Sarajevo may end up in bloodshed - only to be repeatedly rebuffed and snubbed by the Vienna government.
- That Serbian prime minister (Nikola Pasic) personally ordered the plotters to be arrested at the Serbian border, should they be captured trying to cross into Bosnia, but that they managed to sneak across the Drina River by using Black Hand aides and affiliates?
- That Archduke came to visit Sarajevo on the day of Feast of Vidovdan (St. Vitus Day in the West), a most sacred day in Serbian Orthodox Calendar, which conveniently happened to coincide with the day on which Kosovo Battle took place in 1389; the day Serbs had lost their independence for the next five centuries. Did Archduke merely come to "oversee" the huge army maneuvers on the Serbian border, or did he actually come to ATTACK Serbia on that fateful day?
- That recently discovered correspondence between Oskar Potiorek, the Austrian governor of Bosnia. firmly demonstrates his determination to first alienate, then isolate, and then finally attack Serbia? (this was LONG before Archduke was killed).
- That Gavrilo Princip NEVER intended to kill Archduchess Sophie Chotek, that he repeatedly said her death was a horrific accident, that he expressed - repeatedly - his profound remorse at her death, and that he sought - and received - forgiveness from the surviving children of the royal couple?
- That Serbian government continued to pay off it's debt to German and Austrian state treasuries for the ENTIRE duration of the war, and that it NEVER ONCE defaulted on its obligations - even when the entire royal family, army and government were exiled and country occupied?
- That ALL male members of the Serbian royal family - even the very old and near-death King - saw military combat firsthand or directly participated in it.
- That Serbia lost THREE TIMES more people in the WW1 than ALL American losses in the American Civil war (1861-1865) COMBINED.
Oskar Jaeger 3KOSTURA
28 June 2014 9:09am
This is probably too much information about Serbia for one day.
Life is too short.
Petar6891 Oskar Jaeger
28 June 2014 10:25am
The man wrote you a lot of important things,for your education that you didn't have obvious. For all this your replay is" too much information ". Ungrateful man
It only shows that you already have a prejudice against Serbs, and as such you are extremely biased. I mean, you not worthy of discussion.
East Petar6891
28 June 2014 1:33pm
Education is more than a matter of submitting to didactic insistence.
singidunum69
28 June 2014 8:42am
As a rising power following the Balkan wars, Serbia was seen as a threat by Vienna and they had plans to invade Serbia prior to the assasination! A recently uncovered document written by Oskar Potierek confirms this.
Brian Apple singidunum69
28 June 2014 8:55am
I think that story has been discredited.
inkyblob Brian Apple
28 June 2014 3:24pm
But the determination of some Vienna court hardliners to expand into the Balkans using the Bosnian annexation as a model is beyond doubt.
jemimallah Brian Apple
28 June 2014 3:37pm
I think that story has been discredited.
that depends on how you want to define the very vague "had plans"
if you mean "had plans" in the sense that i "have plans" to press the post button after i finish typing this, then no (not a no to the general austrian perception of serbia, however)
if you mean "had plans" in the sense of a fire escape plan, then everything yr man said is supported unequivocally by the historical record
Brian Apple
28 June 2014 8:58am
A lot of people forget that the Serbs were the Balkan people who opposed Naziism the most. Indeed, Croatia was on the side of the Nazis.
The Serbs have this element of anti-authoritarianism to their nature. This attitude developed further in them after centuries of being ruled over by the Ottoman Empire.
Oskar Jaeger Brian Apple
28 June 2014 9:07am
Very interesting, but does this in any way justify the murder of Franz Ferdinand and his wife? They were murdered in 1914, Hitler came to power in 1933. When it comes to Serbian denialism, any port in a storm.
moncur Brian Apple
28 June 2014 9:45am
"Croatia was on the side of the Nazis".
Off topic, anyone?
Anyhow, some Croats were on the side of the Nazis, like some Finns, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians, Dutch, French, Belgians etc.
Other Croats were on the other side, starting with the later President of Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito.
Robert Sandlin moncur
28 June 2014 10:04am
Tito was half-Croat and half-Slovene.He opposed the nazis as a communist not as a Croat.And while there were Croats that opposed the nazis there were a large number that supported the nazis.And they were the ones in power.The Croats probably helped the nazis during the war more than any others,except maybe Mussolini's Italy.The Croatian Ustase were certainly as personally savage as any nazi of the day.Their cruelty even shocked German nazis working with them.
Brian Apple
28 June 2014 9:04am
There's a famous photo of Adolf Hitler viewing a plaque dedicated to the assassin Gavrilo Princip. The plaque was removed from the assassination site by the Nazis and given to Hitler in 1941 as a birthday present. Hitler did not like the Serbs but was apparently captivated by Princip.
In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler referred to the assassination as "a vengeance of inscrutable Destiny" and "a lightning bolt that hit the Earth".
Johnny Rain Brian Apple
28 June 2014 11:26am
Germany is powerful nation, but in center of Europe, which mean that the execution of their power, or imperialism, didn't have much space to spread. On one side they always had Russia on other interests of old imperialist powers.Only way was south and Serbs was only disobedient nation there.
That's the reason of collision of Serbs and Germans for centuries.
Gavrilo Princip is symbol of that disobedience.
Hitler, as we all know, was Austrian soldier on opposite side of Serbia...he didn't liked them but he had admiration....you have to know that the first two victories against Central powers in WW1 was victories of Serbian army against Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Oskar Jaeger Johnny Rain
28 June 2014 3:45pm
More rubbish. There was no "collision" between Germany and Serbia, but between Austria and Serbia.
Johnny Rain Oskar Jaeger
28 June 2014 5:03pm
Calm your tits Oskar...German speaking countries have always had close connections....I guess that's how Austrian Adolf Hitler succeed to become German leader
Johnny Rain
28 June 2014 11:14am
Gavrilo Princip is a hero.
He was a member of Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia); organization consisting of students and intellectuals nurturing ideology of liberation of south Slaves from Austro-Hungarian repression.
I have to remind you that Austo-Hungaria annexed Bosnia in 1908. They take advantage of Serbian war with Otomans and illegally annexed Bosnia . That was source of further instability in region.
Austo-Hungarian Empire was embodiment of imperialism of Hapsburgs and was tyranny for non-German or non-Hungarian population.
Freedom is a noble goal and prerequisite for emancipation of people. We all want to be treated not as resources but as equal human beings. That's the freedom.
To say that Gavrilo Princip is terrorist and that south Slavs should just keep silent and obedient, is to say that black people in America should stay silent and obedient and just peacefully participate in social and political setting called slavery
What Gavrilo Princip did is called tyrannicide.
That was common and legitimate way to fight for liberation in that historical context.You had plenty of examples in Russia and Western Europe. I have to remind you that even the emperor of Austro-Hungary, Franc Josef was targeted by Hungarian revolutionist as well...attempt failed..And his wife Empress Elisabeth was killed by Italian fighter for liberation,Luigi Lucheni.Turbulent times in Europe.
Also, when it come to cause of WW1, you have to know what the first battle was attack of German forces on France...Obviously,tension in Europe existed, first of all as result of German imperialism, and war was about to start sooner of later.
Oskar Jaeger Johnny Rain
28 June 2014 3:43pm
Rubbish. Luigi Lucheni was an anarchist, and of course not a hero but just another murderer - of an elderly woman.
royaldocks Johnny Rain
28 June 2014 4:09pm
Austo-Hungarian Empire was embodiment of imperialism of Hapsburgs and was tyranny for non-German or non-Hungarian population.
Indeed, just as the Yugoslav kingdom then became a tyranny of the Serbs over the rest of the Yugoslavs.
Johnny Rain Oskar Jaeger
28 June 2014 4:27pm
Oh don't be so emotional Oscar...that example was used to describe that Austro-Hungarian empire had a lot of problems in it's south parts...oppressed people wanted their freedom and empire was oppressor.
( It is actually really easy to defend idea that anarchism as political philosophy is ultimate form of freedom...so Luigi can be described as freedom-fighter).
But, you know that fight for liberation, and tyrannicide, was as old as concept of empires, and if we talk about that part of Europe we can always mention organisations such as Young Italia , that existed during Austrian Empire, and which which main goal was to unify Italy and liberate it from Austrians...that struggle remain in parts of Italy that continue to be part of Austro-Hungary
marsCubed
28 June 2014 12:10pm
Robert Newman, in his History of oil says that WW1 should be taught in schools as an invasion of Iraq.
Back then there were concerns about German attempts to incite jihad in Persia and Afghanistan.
Although He poses the point within a comedy, it contains a factual narrative that describes how the underlying conflict between Germany and Britain was due to the building of The Orient Express which would have given German industrialists easy access to Iraqi oil thus breaking UK's cartel.
Thus began the German drive to the East..
The first military units deployed by Britain in WW1 were to Iraq.
Robert Newman is not a Historian.. however I do urge people to see the video in the link and research this history more.. as it presents a well referenced perspective that makes more sense than, and makes more sense of, what is commonly told in UK. ATM
daveru07 marsCubed
28 June 2014 3:06pm
Turkey did not join the war until October 29 1914.
The British took Basra and the oilfields in November 1914.
By that time tens of thousands of British soldiers had died in France, where the BEF had been fighting since the outbreak of war.
Perhaps Newman is referring to the first deployment of British Indian Army soldiers which was, indeed, to Iraq.
marsCubed daveru07
28 June 2014 5:06pm
You are probably right, I am no expert on this period.
However my point still has validity in that it gives a fuller context to what is often viewed as a purely European conflict.
From The Keep Military Museum.
At the outbreak of war the 2nd Battalion of the 2nd Dorsetshire Regiment was half-way through a tour of India. Quartered in Poona, it was part of the 16th (Poona) Brigade of the 6th Indian (Poona) Division, commanded by Major-General Charles Townshend. After hostilities started in Europe on July 28th 1914, it was perhaps only a matter of time before orders came from London to mobilize and this duly occurred on August 14th. The destination for the 16th Brigade was initially going to be East Africa, but it was later switched to Europe. Then, with tension between Great Britain and Turkey growing, they were diverted instead to the Persian Gulf under the command of Brigadier-General WS Delamain. Under him, in addition to the 2nd Dorsetshires, were three divisions of Indian troops, two battery divisions and one of sappers and miners (engineers). The reason behind the deployment was partly to protect the oil refineries at Abadan
It should be noted that the troops deployed also received 2 months of training before they set out.
Please see this documentary that covers the lead up to war and describes the Mesopotamian conflict in more detail.
Blood and Oil: The Middle East in World War I
daveru07 marsCubed
28 June 2014 5:44pm
The war was certainly not a European affair - that is why it was called the World War. It spanned Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. The Germans wanted to extend it into North America (the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico.
And, of course, the Royal Navy was active in all the oceans of the world.
It was not oil that caused the war, but once Britain was at war the protection of the oil supply was absolutely vital for the operations of the Royal Navy. If Germany had gained control of the ME oil it's navy could have starved Britain into submission.
And, of course Turkey, Germany's ally, controlled Iraq.
In the first months of the war Britain had hoped to gain Turkey as an ally, but the balance was tipped when two Battleships building for Turkey in Britain were requisitioned for the Royal Navy and Germany offered Turkey two of it's own Warships.
1234Ramones
28 June 2014 12:18pm
It seems to me several nations were just looking for any excuse for a scrap, it was hardly the first assassination of a notable figure.
Brian Apple 1234Ramones
28 June 2014 2:55pm
Perhaps the assassination of the Archduke provided Austria with an excuse to invade Serbia but it was a plausible one. Plausibility is important because it adds moral weight to a cause. Austria's moral justification was aided by the seriousness of the assassination - ie being robbed of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
toofareast
28 June 2014 12:35pm
Sarajevo - 28 June 1914
EUROPA - RIP
Nedaista toofareast
28 June 2014 7:54pm
Wrong place and date.
Vienna - 28 July 1914
War begins. The war declaration is signed by the Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz Josef, The Foreign Minister Leopold Berchtold, The Empire's supreme commander of the armed forces Graf Conrad von Hoetzendorff.
We can argue as to what caused their decisions to go to war after 30 days of deliberations. But we cannot argue about the date and place for WW1 start. The above named are ultimately responsible for most of the 16 million deaths. A 19 year old student had admitted causing the deaths of 2 (TWO!) people.
Paul Wiiddeyed
28 June 2014 2:53pm
---building railways, cities and institutions---but apart from that what did the hapsburgs ever do for us? . . . .
raffine
28 June 2014 3:04pm
Serbia should pick better heroes.
Brian Apple
28 June 2014 3:11pm
Regarding the assassination and its role in "causing" WWI, something needs to be said. It needs to be said because well-respected historians tend to have differing opinions on this matter.
Consider this. If I leave the front door of my house open and go to work, and then my house gets burgled while I'm away, have I caused the burglary of my own house? In my view, no. I am not responsible for the conduct of the burglars. However, I have indeed been a catalyst for the burglary of my own house. Without me leaving the front door open, it is very likely that the burglary would not have occurred.
This is why all historians - even those who disagree on whether the assassination was the cause of WWI - agree that the assassination was the catalyst. It opened the door to everything that followed.
desconocido Brian Apple
29 June 2014 12:48am
so anyone suggesting that if Gavrilo had not shot the royals, World War I would not have happened?
indoorain
28 June 2014 3:27pm
HERO .
chrisu2012 indoorain
28 June 2014 9:30pm
CONFUSED TEENAGER ABUSED BY NATIONALISTIC IDIOTS
Nedaista
28 June 2014 3:40pm
There is no way that WW1 started, began or was somehow initiated on the 28th of June! That date is the 28th of JULY 1914!
Today’s Sarajevo event has been financed by GERMAN and AUSTRIAN institutions. In other words by powers that want to promote the 28th June as the war start. Thereby taking attention away from Vienna, where war was declared and from Berlin which immediately ignited the Vienna mega-spark on 28th JULY (!) into a Europe-wide war with wars against Russia, France and Belgium. When Britain responded to the German invasion of Belgium with its own war declaration on the 4th August 1914, all five Great European Powers were at war, a war that ended with 16 million deaths.
What happened in Sarajevo on the 28th June 1914 was the killing of two people and not more than two people. A full 30 days later there were still only the same two deaths that were caused by a young revolutionary. Then the Austro-Hungarian Empire (52 million people) declared war against Serbia (4.5 million) and the first artillery shells were to slam into the Serbian capital Belgrade. Austria got its war against Serbia, a war planned for at least 6 years earlier, but citing Sarajevo as its PRETEXT. Someone has to be responsible for the 16 million as opposed to just the 2 deaths. The principal culprits were residing in Vienna and Berlin at the time. WW1 began on 28 JULY 1914. Those who want to make it the 28th JUNE have made a 30-day calendar error and are referencing the wrong city. The proper place to commemorate WW1 start is in Vienna on 28th JULY.
Oskar Jaeger Nedaista
28 June 2014 3:47pm
History, the Serbian version.
Brian Apple Nedaista
28 June 2014 3:47pm
I can understand why you are upset but the fact is the assassination gave Austria a moral case for invading Serbia. The moral case was extremely important because it enabled Austria to obtain carte blanche from Germany to invade Serbia.
Without the assassination, there would not have been a moral case, and Germany would not have given Austria permission to invade Serbia.
Nedaista Brian Apple
28 June 2014 7:34pm
The assassination carried out by a group of Bosnians who were all Austro-Hungarian citizens is NOT a justification to transform the deaths of 2 people into the deaths of 16 million. Is there going to be a commemoration for the Vienna mega SPARK on the 28th JULY as opposed to the Sarajevo one today. I doubt it.
All participants of WW1, bar Serbia and Russia, are today in NATOLAND and dutifully orbit around Washington, sending their soldiers to fight another empire's wars on other continents. History needs to be rewritten in order to justify today's actions. It makes sense for todays Nato partners to play down past mutual conflicts. But since such conflicts led to so much death and destruction they have to be blamed on someone. It is obvious who is going to be the target for blame. A 19 year old student who killed two and only two people ends up being responsible for 16 million deaths. Only the brainwashed can accept that line of logic. But I can understand why it is needed.
killerontheroad
28 June 2014 3:58pm
Princip, the first Eurosceptic...
jemimallah
28 June 2014 3:59pm
who cares
the debate in yugoslavia is good for nothing other than illustrating how easily pragmatism becomes ignorance. the debate in this comments thread is good for nothing other than illustrating how easily ignorance becomes pragmatism
yesmaybenot
28 June 2014 4:40pm
People who glorify their oppressors and who expect their oppressors to build them a schools and railways.... do not deserve neither freedom nor prosperity. It makes perfect sense that Serbs see the history different way then bosnian Muslims. A long time ago muslims used to be a Serbs but then they sided with the oppressors.....
Oskar Jaeger yesmaybenot
29 June 2014 1:04am
So what "if they used to be Serbs"? How does that make Mr Princip a hero?
Nonbeliever2014
28 June 2014 5:27pm
Ironically Franz Ferdinand was not a proponent of (starting a) war, but his murder set off a chain reaction which started the Great War. On top of that, his murder played into the hands of the elements within the Austrian Hungarian leadership who were in favour of starting a war with Serbia. Basically the actions of Princip were right up the alley of those wanting to attack Serbia, so in that sense it was not at all what he aimed for (no pun intended).
AethebertusRotundus
28 June 2014 5:34pm
What a hate feast here today. I was in Sarajevo before the war and stood on the concrete marker where Gavrilo stood and took his shots. Locals were as divided then as now and probably always. still it is a reminder that Empires setting artificial borders has seldom gone well decades on.......
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ju...assination
Овде има добрих коментара.....али се види како неко ово све жели да контролише!
Али мени је чудно како људи немогу да покажу слике Срба што висе са конопе.... и да те слике стоје иза своје речи......
27 June 2014 4:18pm
This is exactly the simplistic narrative that dominates modern discourse. Yes , Serbia, a tiny impoverished European nation was expansionist in nature. It wanted to achieve it's goals by attacking one of the most powerful Empires of the time. Said empire was by no means occupying lands to which it was not native eh? I guess we're required to think like apologists to colonialism. Next article, Nelson Mandela ....hero or terrorist ?
Oskar Jaeger Marrrttty
27 June 2014 4:30pm
That tiny impoverished nation had just won two Balkan wars in 1912 and 1913, doubling in size and territory. It was also then that Serbia conquered Kosovo against the wishes of its majority Albanian population.
Marrrttty Oskar Jaeger
27 June 2014 4:40pm
Yes it won two Balkan wars in union with it's allies. Thus losing many men and resources. And please cite the demographics of Kosovo circa 1900. If you are willing to make outlandish statements , back them up. Your arguments are tired and fading fast
ChrisRK
27 June 2014 4:05pm
He is no hero! However you cut it. It led to the death of so many.......and they have not achieved much........let the Germans decide.....
danielaeveretta
27 June 2014 4:15pm
Idealist.
Oskar Jaeger danielaeveretta
27 June 2014 4:25pm
Idealists with guns are very dangerous people.
East Oskar Jaeger
27 June 2014 6:00pm
Idealists manipulated by ruthless nationalist politicians with territorial expansionist aims are even more dangerous.
rishav danielaeveretta
28 June 2014 7:16am
Non-idealist stupid fools who kill on other's commands are the worst.
ID9552055
27 June 2014 5:01pm
Another half-baked article in The Guardian.
1/ the author fails to point out that the Serb officials object to the term 'assassinated' in general when applied to Gavrilo Princip as well as to appearing on the Sarajevo plaque saying that he "assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne..."
2/ Princip identified himself as a Yugoslav nationalist (Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims are Yugo Slavs).
3/ Why are we still preoccupied with a bunch of d***heads still fighting over a 100 year old even.
4/ If the Serb president and PM use the ridiculous excuse of a plaque not to turn up to a regional meeting, why the blazes have they become an official candidate for membership in the EU?
CroatianRoger
27 June 2014 8:07pm
During the Jugoslavian period the Latin Bridge (because it leads to the Catholic monastery area) was named after Princip and my wife lived in the Gavilo Princip student hall of residence. To see Princip still at the centre of political rivalry is sad.
I hope you know that the dismemberment of Jugoslavia was not caused just by internal political tension but by neocon interference.
Oskar Jaeger CroatianRoger
28 June 2014 12:16am
Was Slobodan Miloschevitsch (Milosevic) a neocon?
Robert Sandlin Oskar Jaeger
28 June 2014 8:59am
He wasn't alone in causing the trouble.There where many actors in that tragedy.He's just the one the West prefers to blame it all on.
Amadeo de los Ríos Oskar Jaeger
28 June 2014 2:28pm
STOP TROLLING, OSKAR
hlapic
27 June 2014 9:15pm
Princip is terrorist
royalcourtier
27 June 2014 9:21pm
How can Serb's celebrate the assassination, or treat him as a hero? The rest of the world will be marking the outbreak of WW1 with regret - you people are celebrating the deaths of millions of people. Weird.
SandraG90 royalcourtier
27 June 2014 11:08pm
You know nothing, John Snow...
YouHaveComment royalcourtier
28 June 2014 1:04pm
It's an accident of history that he is famous. And not some other bloke in some other country.
Europe in 1914 was a tinderbox. A house of cards. Any other metaphor you can think of - WW1 was just waiting to happen cos the politics was a mess.
Fitzroy Mcclean
27 June 2014 11:33pm
Occupation by a foreign power is not easy to digest, nice roads or not. Princip was captured, tortured and died a miserable death, associates were handed over to Austria without question, as Serbia wanted to avoid conflict. The Austrians kept the pressure on serbia with numerous demands finally invading. The austrians razed serbian villages and lynched the inhabitants pregnant or not- .28th June 1914 Sarajevo was St Vitus Day for the orthodox, a prominent day of remembrance in serb history when in 1389 after defeat at the Kosovo battle it led to the subjugation of the serbian nation to 500yrs of ottoman rule. This was a dark period in Serbian history. Austria ignored these facts and sent the duke and wife on their way.
Oskar Jaeger Fitzroy Mcclean
28 June 2014 12:14am
Bosnian Serbs (Orthodox) were only 44% of population then, Bosnian Muslims and others were 56%. The majority of the population were happy enough with nice roads etc, but the Serbian minority conspired to commit murder (and it really worked out well in the end for all).
Brian Apple Oskar Jaeger
28 June 2014 2:57am
What is the point of nice roads if you have to pay taxes to a monarch a thousand miles away. Sure, the monarch will be kind enough to repay the serfs with a few nice roads but that doesn't make up for years of drudgery as one toils in farms to pay taxes to a mega-rich monarch.
royaldocks Brian Apple
28 June 2014 8:10am
Well, they ended up paying taxes to a monarch in Belgrade. It's not as if they were suddenly blessed with liberty and self-determination after 1918.
Brian Apple
28 June 2014 1:06am
It's misleading to look at the 1914 assassination through the eyes of a hundred years henceforth. You have to go back to the time to truly understand it.
The Ottoman Empire had ruled the Balkans for hundreds of years. It had just been defeated. This left the region open to invasion by the Austro-Hungarian Empire - indeed, it had annexed Bosnia. The Serbs were aghast at this sequence of takeovers. Princip stood up to this and fought back.
Oskar Jaeger Brian Apple
28 June 2014 2:19am
Serbia had no prior claim on Bosnia. Serbs were only about 44% of the population and Bosnia had never been part of Serbia. Most Bosnians did not want to be ruled by Serbia. Serbs feeling "aghast" and frustrated did not justify a double murder nor make Gavrilo Princip a hero (except for Serbia, obviously).
Brian Apple Oskar Jaeger
28 June 2014 2:56am
Only 44% of the population? Gosh, I hardly think that's a minority. In fact, the Serbs (as 44%) were the largest single cultural/ethnic/religious group in Bosnia.
OK, I agree the murder was awful and a crime. But you need to look at it through the lens THEN, and not the lens now. The "then" lens is what you should be looking through.
The murder of the Archduke and his wife was an act imbued with the spirit of Serbian independence.
Oskar Jaeger Brian Apple
28 June 2014 3:05am
Whatever, Serbia has been independent since at least 1878. You don't have to go around assassinating foreigners to demonstrate your spirit of independence.
AbsoluteCrap
28 June 2014 1:46am
Putin thinks this murderous punk is a hero.
Brian Apple
28 June 2014 2:59am
I am sincerely of the belief that Gavrilo Princip represents the everyman of Ëurope who is fed up with control and the imposition of ideas from centralist bureaucracies, such as the EU.
Oskar Jaeger Brian Apple
28 June 2014 3:01am
God help Europe then!
East Oskar Jaeger
28 June 2014 1:29pm
One hundred years from today will they be unveiling a monument to Nigel Farage? And what will we all have survived to be there?
3KOSTURA
28 June 2014 6:14am
DID YOU KNOW:
- Gavrilo Princip never identified himself as a "Serb" or sought the creation of "Greater Serbia". He consistently identified himself as a YUGOSLAVIAN (the terns preceded the creation of the country in 1918) and Panslavist and called for the unification of all Slavic lands under Austria's control (which, hypothetically, also included Bohemia [today's Czech Republic], Slovakia and parts of Poland and Ukraine.
- That his organization ("Mlada Bosnia") NEVER consisted only of Serbs, but included numerous prominent Moslems (today "Bosniaks"), and Catholics (mostly Croats, some Slovenes). The organization was truly multiethnic , all-inclusive and interdenominational and had absolutely nothing to do with the idea of "Serbian nationalism" (sic), let alone chauvinism. At the time of Austrian annexation of Bosnia (1878) Serbia was the ONLY independent South Slavic nation (tiny Montenegro notwithstanding) that could support the idea of Panslavic unity.. In fact, Princip's panslavicism flew in the face of the Serbian Army, whose Chiefs of Staff (notably Duke Zivojin Misic) DID specifically advocate Greater Serbia.
- That members of the organization included, among others, one Ivo Andric, the future Nobel laureate in Literature (1961) , who was born as a Croat, but died - of his own volition - as a Serb, a man who truly, literally, never made any distinction between these identical Slavic twin tribes (neither did Nikola Tesla, by the way).
- That Serbian Officer corps featured a number of Slavs from all over Austro-Hungarian empire. One of the most heavily decorated Serbian Army officers in the WW 1 was Pavle Jurisic Sturm, an ethnic Lausitzer Sorb from German Empire.
- That Austro-Hungarian not once in 36 years of it's occupation attempted to legitimize its conquest of Bosnia by asking the indigenous population of Bosnia & Hercegovina to endorse or support the annexation.
- That in 1500 years of Slavic presence on the Balkans Bosnia NEVER ONCE belonged to Austria prior to 1878 and that Austria had NO moral cause, legal or historical precedent or military justification to occupy Bosnia.
- That Serbian government NEVER controlled the rogue military unity called "Black Hand" and that, in fact, it executed its leaders for mutiny in 1917.
- That Black Hand ("Crna Ruka" in Serbian) was directly subordinate to and controlled by the French and British military intelligence via network of secret fraternal affiliations, and that it reported to THEM, not to the Serbian government.
- That Serbian government had learned of the plan to assassinate Archduke barely two weeks prior to the assassination, and that it did absolutely everything in its power to prevent the plot. Serbian government warned Austrian government TWICE that the visit to Sarajevo may end up in bloodshed - only to be repeatedly rebuffed and snubbed by the Vienna government.
- That Serbian prime minister (Nikola Pasic) personally ordered the plotters to be arrested at the Serbian border, should they be captured trying to cross into Bosnia, but that they managed to sneak across the Drina River by using Black Hand aides and affiliates?
- That Archduke came to visit Sarajevo on the day of Feast of Vidovdan (St. Vitus Day in the West), a most sacred day in Serbian Orthodox Calendar, which conveniently happened to coincide with the day on which Kosovo Battle took place in 1389; the day Serbs had lost their independence for the next five centuries. Did Archduke merely come to "oversee" the huge army maneuvers on the Serbian border, or did he actually come to ATTACK Serbia on that fateful day?
- That recently discovered correspondence between Oskar Potiorek, the Austrian governor of Bosnia. firmly demonstrates his determination to first alienate, then isolate, and then finally attack Serbia? (this was LONG before Archduke was killed).
- That Gavrilo Princip NEVER intended to kill Archduchess Sophie Chotek, that he repeatedly said her death was a horrific accident, that he expressed - repeatedly - his profound remorse at her death, and that he sought - and received - forgiveness from the surviving children of the royal couple?
- That Serbian government continued to pay off it's debt to German and Austrian state treasuries for the ENTIRE duration of the war, and that it NEVER ONCE defaulted on its obligations - even when the entire royal family, army and government were exiled and country occupied?
- That ALL male members of the Serbian royal family - even the very old and near-death King - saw military combat firsthand or directly participated in it.
- That Serbia lost THREE TIMES more people in the WW1 than ALL American losses in the American Civil war (1861-1865) COMBINED.
Oskar Jaeger 3KOSTURA
28 June 2014 9:09am
This is probably too much information about Serbia for one day.
Life is too short.
Petar6891 Oskar Jaeger
28 June 2014 10:25am
The man wrote you a lot of important things,for your education that you didn't have obvious. For all this your replay is" too much information ". Ungrateful man
It only shows that you already have a prejudice against Serbs, and as such you are extremely biased. I mean, you not worthy of discussion.East Petar6891
28 June 2014 1:33pm
Education is more than a matter of submitting to didactic insistence.
singidunum69
28 June 2014 8:42am
As a rising power following the Balkan wars, Serbia was seen as a threat by Vienna and they had plans to invade Serbia prior to the assasination! A recently uncovered document written by Oskar Potierek confirms this.
Brian Apple singidunum69
28 June 2014 8:55am
I think that story has been discredited.
inkyblob Brian Apple
28 June 2014 3:24pm
But the determination of some Vienna court hardliners to expand into the Balkans using the Bosnian annexation as a model is beyond doubt.
jemimallah Brian Apple
28 June 2014 3:37pm
I think that story has been discredited.
that depends on how you want to define the very vague "had plans"
if you mean "had plans" in the sense that i "have plans" to press the post button after i finish typing this, then no (not a no to the general austrian perception of serbia, however)
if you mean "had plans" in the sense of a fire escape plan, then everything yr man said is supported unequivocally by the historical record
Brian Apple
28 June 2014 8:58am
A lot of people forget that the Serbs were the Balkan people who opposed Naziism the most. Indeed, Croatia was on the side of the Nazis.
The Serbs have this element of anti-authoritarianism to their nature. This attitude developed further in them after centuries of being ruled over by the Ottoman Empire.
Oskar Jaeger Brian Apple
28 June 2014 9:07am
Very interesting, but does this in any way justify the murder of Franz Ferdinand and his wife? They were murdered in 1914, Hitler came to power in 1933. When it comes to Serbian denialism, any port in a storm.
moncur Brian Apple
28 June 2014 9:45am
"Croatia was on the side of the Nazis".
Off topic, anyone?
Anyhow, some Croats were on the side of the Nazis, like some Finns, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians, Dutch, French, Belgians etc.
Other Croats were on the other side, starting with the later President of Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito.
Robert Sandlin moncur
28 June 2014 10:04am
Tito was half-Croat and half-Slovene.He opposed the nazis as a communist not as a Croat.And while there were Croats that opposed the nazis there were a large number that supported the nazis.And they were the ones in power.The Croats probably helped the nazis during the war more than any others,except maybe Mussolini's Italy.The Croatian Ustase were certainly as personally savage as any nazi of the day.Their cruelty even shocked German nazis working with them.
Brian Apple
28 June 2014 9:04am
There's a famous photo of Adolf Hitler viewing a plaque dedicated to the assassin Gavrilo Princip. The plaque was removed from the assassination site by the Nazis and given to Hitler in 1941 as a birthday present. Hitler did not like the Serbs but was apparently captivated by Princip.
In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler referred to the assassination as "a vengeance of inscrutable Destiny" and "a lightning bolt that hit the Earth".
Johnny Rain Brian Apple
28 June 2014 11:26am
Germany is powerful nation, but in center of Europe, which mean that the execution of their power, or imperialism, didn't have much space to spread. On one side they always had Russia on other interests of old imperialist powers.Only way was south and Serbs was only disobedient nation there.
That's the reason of collision of Serbs and Germans for centuries.
Gavrilo Princip is symbol of that disobedience.
Hitler, as we all know, was Austrian soldier on opposite side of Serbia...he didn't liked them but he had admiration....you have to know that the first two victories against Central powers in WW1 was victories of Serbian army against Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Oskar Jaeger Johnny Rain
28 June 2014 3:45pm
More rubbish. There was no "collision" between Germany and Serbia, but between Austria and Serbia.
Johnny Rain Oskar Jaeger
28 June 2014 5:03pm
Calm your tits Oskar...German speaking countries have always had close connections....I guess that's how Austrian Adolf Hitler succeed to become German leader
Johnny Rain
28 June 2014 11:14am
Gavrilo Princip is a hero.
He was a member of Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia); organization consisting of students and intellectuals nurturing ideology of liberation of south Slaves from Austro-Hungarian repression.
I have to remind you that Austo-Hungaria annexed Bosnia in 1908. They take advantage of Serbian war with Otomans and illegally annexed Bosnia . That was source of further instability in region.
Austo-Hungarian Empire was embodiment of imperialism of Hapsburgs and was tyranny for non-German or non-Hungarian population.
Freedom is a noble goal and prerequisite for emancipation of people. We all want to be treated not as resources but as equal human beings. That's the freedom.
To say that Gavrilo Princip is terrorist and that south Slavs should just keep silent and obedient, is to say that black people in America should stay silent and obedient and just peacefully participate in social and political setting called slavery
What Gavrilo Princip did is called tyrannicide.
That was common and legitimate way to fight for liberation in that historical context.You had plenty of examples in Russia and Western Europe. I have to remind you that even the emperor of Austro-Hungary, Franc Josef was targeted by Hungarian revolutionist as well...attempt failed..And his wife Empress Elisabeth was killed by Italian fighter for liberation,Luigi Lucheni.Turbulent times in Europe.
Also, when it come to cause of WW1, you have to know what the first battle was attack of German forces on France...Obviously,tension in Europe existed, first of all as result of German imperialism, and war was about to start sooner of later.
Oskar Jaeger Johnny Rain
28 June 2014 3:43pm
Rubbish. Luigi Lucheni was an anarchist, and of course not a hero but just another murderer - of an elderly woman.
royaldocks Johnny Rain
28 June 2014 4:09pm
Austo-Hungarian Empire was embodiment of imperialism of Hapsburgs and was tyranny for non-German or non-Hungarian population.
Indeed, just as the Yugoslav kingdom then became a tyranny of the Serbs over the rest of the Yugoslavs.
Johnny Rain Oskar Jaeger
28 June 2014 4:27pm
Oh don't be so emotional Oscar...that example was used to describe that Austro-Hungarian empire had a lot of problems in it's south parts...oppressed people wanted their freedom and empire was oppressor.
( It is actually really easy to defend idea that anarchism as political philosophy is ultimate form of freedom...so Luigi can be described as freedom-fighter).
But, you know that fight for liberation, and tyrannicide, was as old as concept of empires, and if we talk about that part of Europe we can always mention organisations such as Young Italia , that existed during Austrian Empire, and which which main goal was to unify Italy and liberate it from Austrians...that struggle remain in parts of Italy that continue to be part of Austro-Hungary
marsCubed
28 June 2014 12:10pm
Robert Newman, in his History of oil says that WW1 should be taught in schools as an invasion of Iraq.
Back then there were concerns about German attempts to incite jihad in Persia and Afghanistan.
Although He poses the point within a comedy, it contains a factual narrative that describes how the underlying conflict between Germany and Britain was due to the building of The Orient Express which would have given German industrialists easy access to Iraqi oil thus breaking UK's cartel.
Thus began the German drive to the East..
The first military units deployed by Britain in WW1 were to Iraq.
Robert Newman is not a Historian.. however I do urge people to see the video in the link and research this history more.. as it presents a well referenced perspective that makes more sense than, and makes more sense of, what is commonly told in UK. ATM
daveru07 marsCubed
28 June 2014 3:06pm
Turkey did not join the war until October 29 1914.
The British took Basra and the oilfields in November 1914.
By that time tens of thousands of British soldiers had died in France, where the BEF had been fighting since the outbreak of war.
Perhaps Newman is referring to the first deployment of British Indian Army soldiers which was, indeed, to Iraq.
marsCubed daveru07
28 June 2014 5:06pm
You are probably right, I am no expert on this period.
However my point still has validity in that it gives a fuller context to what is often viewed as a purely European conflict.
From The Keep Military Museum.
At the outbreak of war the 2nd Battalion of the 2nd Dorsetshire Regiment was half-way through a tour of India. Quartered in Poona, it was part of the 16th (Poona) Brigade of the 6th Indian (Poona) Division, commanded by Major-General Charles Townshend. After hostilities started in Europe on July 28th 1914, it was perhaps only a matter of time before orders came from London to mobilize and this duly occurred on August 14th. The destination for the 16th Brigade was initially going to be East Africa, but it was later switched to Europe. Then, with tension between Great Britain and Turkey growing, they were diverted instead to the Persian Gulf under the command of Brigadier-General WS Delamain. Under him, in addition to the 2nd Dorsetshires, were three divisions of Indian troops, two battery divisions and one of sappers and miners (engineers). The reason behind the deployment was partly to protect the oil refineries at Abadan
It should be noted that the troops deployed also received 2 months of training before they set out.
Please see this documentary that covers the lead up to war and describes the Mesopotamian conflict in more detail.
Blood and Oil: The Middle East in World War I
daveru07 marsCubed
28 June 2014 5:44pm
The war was certainly not a European affair - that is why it was called the World War. It spanned Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. The Germans wanted to extend it into North America (the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico.
And, of course, the Royal Navy was active in all the oceans of the world.
It was not oil that caused the war, but once Britain was at war the protection of the oil supply was absolutely vital for the operations of the Royal Navy. If Germany had gained control of the ME oil it's navy could have starved Britain into submission.
And, of course Turkey, Germany's ally, controlled Iraq.
In the first months of the war Britain had hoped to gain Turkey as an ally, but the balance was tipped when two Battleships building for Turkey in Britain were requisitioned for the Royal Navy and Germany offered Turkey two of it's own Warships.
1234Ramones
28 June 2014 12:18pm
It seems to me several nations were just looking for any excuse for a scrap, it was hardly the first assassination of a notable figure.
Brian Apple 1234Ramones
28 June 2014 2:55pm
Perhaps the assassination of the Archduke provided Austria with an excuse to invade Serbia but it was a plausible one. Plausibility is important because it adds moral weight to a cause. Austria's moral justification was aided by the seriousness of the assassination - ie being robbed of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
toofareast
28 June 2014 12:35pm
Sarajevo - 28 June 1914
EUROPA - RIP
Nedaista toofareast
28 June 2014 7:54pm
Wrong place and date.
Vienna - 28 July 1914
War begins. The war declaration is signed by the Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz Josef, The Foreign Minister Leopold Berchtold, The Empire's supreme commander of the armed forces Graf Conrad von Hoetzendorff.
We can argue as to what caused their decisions to go to war after 30 days of deliberations. But we cannot argue about the date and place for WW1 start. The above named are ultimately responsible for most of the 16 million deaths. A 19 year old student had admitted causing the deaths of 2 (TWO!) people.
Paul Wiiddeyed
28 June 2014 2:53pm
---building railways, cities and institutions---but apart from that what did the hapsburgs ever do for us? . . . .
raffine
28 June 2014 3:04pm
Serbia should pick better heroes.
Brian Apple
28 June 2014 3:11pm
Regarding the assassination and its role in "causing" WWI, something needs to be said. It needs to be said because well-respected historians tend to have differing opinions on this matter.
Consider this. If I leave the front door of my house open and go to work, and then my house gets burgled while I'm away, have I caused the burglary of my own house? In my view, no. I am not responsible for the conduct of the burglars. However, I have indeed been a catalyst for the burglary of my own house. Without me leaving the front door open, it is very likely that the burglary would not have occurred.
This is why all historians - even those who disagree on whether the assassination was the cause of WWI - agree that the assassination was the catalyst. It opened the door to everything that followed.
desconocido Brian Apple
29 June 2014 12:48am
so anyone suggesting that if Gavrilo had not shot the royals, World War I would not have happened?
indoorain
28 June 2014 3:27pm
HERO .
chrisu2012 indoorain
28 June 2014 9:30pm
CONFUSED TEENAGER ABUSED BY NATIONALISTIC IDIOTS
Nedaista
28 June 2014 3:40pm
There is no way that WW1 started, began or was somehow initiated on the 28th of June! That date is the 28th of JULY 1914!
Today’s Sarajevo event has been financed by GERMAN and AUSTRIAN institutions. In other words by powers that want to promote the 28th June as the war start. Thereby taking attention away from Vienna, where war was declared and from Berlin which immediately ignited the Vienna mega-spark on 28th JULY (!) into a Europe-wide war with wars against Russia, France and Belgium. When Britain responded to the German invasion of Belgium with its own war declaration on the 4th August 1914, all five Great European Powers were at war, a war that ended with 16 million deaths.
What happened in Sarajevo on the 28th June 1914 was the killing of two people and not more than two people. A full 30 days later there were still only the same two deaths that were caused by a young revolutionary. Then the Austro-Hungarian Empire (52 million people) declared war against Serbia (4.5 million) and the first artillery shells were to slam into the Serbian capital Belgrade. Austria got its war against Serbia, a war planned for at least 6 years earlier, but citing Sarajevo as its PRETEXT. Someone has to be responsible for the 16 million as opposed to just the 2 deaths. The principal culprits were residing in Vienna and Berlin at the time. WW1 began on 28 JULY 1914. Those who want to make it the 28th JUNE have made a 30-day calendar error and are referencing the wrong city. The proper place to commemorate WW1 start is in Vienna on 28th JULY.
Oskar Jaeger Nedaista
28 June 2014 3:47pm
History, the Serbian version.
Brian Apple Nedaista
28 June 2014 3:47pm
I can understand why you are upset but the fact is the assassination gave Austria a moral case for invading Serbia. The moral case was extremely important because it enabled Austria to obtain carte blanche from Germany to invade Serbia.
Without the assassination, there would not have been a moral case, and Germany would not have given Austria permission to invade Serbia.
Nedaista Brian Apple
28 June 2014 7:34pm
The assassination carried out by a group of Bosnians who were all Austro-Hungarian citizens is NOT a justification to transform the deaths of 2 people into the deaths of 16 million. Is there going to be a commemoration for the Vienna mega SPARK on the 28th JULY as opposed to the Sarajevo one today. I doubt it.
All participants of WW1, bar Serbia and Russia, are today in NATOLAND and dutifully orbit around Washington, sending their soldiers to fight another empire's wars on other continents. History needs to be rewritten in order to justify today's actions. It makes sense for todays Nato partners to play down past mutual conflicts. But since such conflicts led to so much death and destruction they have to be blamed on someone. It is obvious who is going to be the target for blame. A 19 year old student who killed two and only two people ends up being responsible for 16 million deaths. Only the brainwashed can accept that line of logic. But I can understand why it is needed.
killerontheroad
28 June 2014 3:58pm
Princip, the first Eurosceptic...
jemimallah
28 June 2014 3:59pm
who cares
the debate in yugoslavia is good for nothing other than illustrating how easily pragmatism becomes ignorance. the debate in this comments thread is good for nothing other than illustrating how easily ignorance becomes pragmatism
yesmaybenot
28 June 2014 4:40pm
People who glorify their oppressors and who expect their oppressors to build them a schools and railways.... do not deserve neither freedom nor prosperity. It makes perfect sense that Serbs see the history different way then bosnian Muslims. A long time ago muslims used to be a Serbs but then they sided with the oppressors.....
Oskar Jaeger yesmaybenot
29 June 2014 1:04am
So what "if they used to be Serbs"? How does that make Mr Princip a hero?
Nonbeliever2014
28 June 2014 5:27pm
Ironically Franz Ferdinand was not a proponent of (starting a) war, but his murder set off a chain reaction which started the Great War. On top of that, his murder played into the hands of the elements within the Austrian Hungarian leadership who were in favour of starting a war with Serbia. Basically the actions of Princip were right up the alley of those wanting to attack Serbia, so in that sense it was not at all what he aimed for (no pun intended).
AethebertusRotundus
28 June 2014 5:34pm
What a hate feast here today. I was in Sarajevo before the war and stood on the concrete marker where Gavrilo stood and took his shots. Locals were as divided then as now and probably always. still it is a reminder that Empires setting artificial borders has seldom gone well decades on.......
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ju...assination
Овде има добрих коментара.....али се види како неко ово све жели да контролише!
Али мени је чудно како људи немогу да покажу слике Срба што висе са конопе.... и да те слике стоје иза своје речи......