Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It is 2014. a century after the First World War broke out.

Did everyone remember an incident that leads to the First World War? (and even the second world war). A lil teen named Gavrillo Prinzip . Member of serbian 'Black Hand' scion, assassinated Archduke of Austria and his spouse. what followed was a power play of Austria Empire against Serbia. which later followed by the Invasion of Serbia by Austria ... and Imperial Russian reactions that dragged an entire string of alliances to war that lasted for five years. Before the war. Europe (or ... the world) consisted of a handful of big empires. By the end of the war. the continent is filled with many many small , unstable, and warring nations of tribesmen (And the fall of many big empires). The end of the war also ended monarchy systems of many nations and created republics modelled after France (or maybe the United States of America). again the war itself brought Europe to its decline, and the United States of America to the dawn of its golden age... again the second world war completely dissolved European supremacy over the world. Ironically a century later. these little nations decided to join the bigger polity called the E. U. .... (completion of cycle??)

For you.
1. What do you think about Gavrillo Prinzip? Is he Hero or Villain? and alternatively did the Habsbourg Monarchy a clan of tyrant or a saint of Orderly Europa? Is the Archduke in question a victim or a vicious being of continental politics?
2. Will Europe be better without Gavrillo Prinzip or The Black Hand? Will the war broke out if The Archduke in question made it out of Sarajevo alive? Do you like modern Europa or the alternate timeline where these big empires still exists?
3. What do modern serbians think of him? Is he an idol to the likes of Tito and Milosevic? what did the two think of him? did they remark him positively or negatively?
4. Did he 'inspire' violences in the post-Tito Yugoslavia?
5. And will America ever rise as a new power without the first world war?
6. What is the best practices to deal with the 'incident' comemmoratives ... particularly the spot where Prinzip shot the Archduke in Sarajevo? for now as I known. the plate that marked where Prinzip stood is gone after the Kosovo war. but the artefacts relating the the fate of Archduke is still in display.. including Browning pistol Prinzip used. Did the 'footprint' has psychological impact to the folks around there? and to serbians and is it large enough to instigate violences there?

Just a guy. Neither hero or villain.

^ a lil guy with gun stood in a right moment and with the big target of opportunity creates history. this is why he is so important. If he was comprehended, or Archduke escaped through correct routes in Sarajevo. the incident may be forgotten. AND if the foiled plot didn't anger Austria to the point of waging war. Gavrillo Prinzip will be 'just a guy' and nothing much...

At that point the war would have happened anyway, shooting or no shooting.

As for his role when it comes to more recent violence in the Balkan region, I think he's of very little importance.

You're asking to play 'what if' history on a single isolated incident.

Austria-Hungary was looking for excuse to lay the smackdown on Serbia. It's why she sent Serbia a list of highly unreasonable demands on the expectation they would be turned down (and thus provide a pretext for conflict). Franz was a large advocate for peace, but even had he survived, I doubt he could have offset the conflict to come.

However, there was no guarantee that it needed to be a 'World' war. Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Germany were almost guaranteed to mix it up, but France and Britain could have stayed out of it. Germany initially proposed that if Britain could guarantee France's neutrality, they wouldn't attack France (although they subsequently also demanded the surrender of a few key French fortresses as surety). Britain also offered to not get involved if Germany abstained from invading Belgium. In other words, it could have stayed purely a Franco/Russo - Austro Hungarian/German conflict, or less.

I think the odds of France staying out of the conflict were pretty slim (they were treaty bound to aid Russia, and had a complex after losing the Franco-Prussian War of 1870), but Britain's involvement was by no means a foregone conclusion. Had Germany abstained from invading Belgium, we would have seen Germany throwing itself against the French defences. Germany would also have been unfettered by the British blockade (although the British would most likely have blocked any side of the German High Seas Fleet against Northern France, in light of their unspoken naval deployment understanding with France).

The most likely result would have been the collapse of France within two years, and the subsequent Bolshevik revolution in Russia. France would have been humbled by Germany and forced to cede it's overseas colonies (which Britain would most likely have permitted as a bargaining chip with Germany in exchange for the reduction of the High seas Fleet). France would also have had to bear minor war reparation costs, but would not have been absorbed in the same way as WW2. Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire would have continued to exist. (at least until the next Austro-Italian war, which would most likely be on the books shortly afterwards).

You would however, have seen the continued dominance of Prussian militarism in Germany, which wouldn't have made a comfortable neighbour for a newly ascending Soviet Union. By 1930, you'd see Germany and the Soviets squaring off, with Britain continuing it's age old policy of playing one off against the other. America, not having gotten involved, would still be isolationist.

Europe at the time was a powder keg and something was eventually going to ignite it. If it hadn’t been for Gavrillo Princip’s actions that day it would have almost certainly been something else.

Despite the wrongs of Austrian treatment of Serbs I still believe Princip to be a villain though and the Black Hand to be a bunch of murderous thugs.

So the Black Hand believed that the whole Europe in flame. and Serbia will survive and thrive so they sent a team of hitmen. including Gavrillo Prinzip. With the big empires still around. Serbia will be annexxed to either Austria or Ottomans (... And Russia won't help them unless Serbian goons did something that impress its protector I think)

So the real casus beli was a four decades old feud between France and Prussia/Germany and the mess that either Napoleon III or Bismarc did not resolve properly. but what will happen if Bismarc decided to annex France entirely and give a big (but trivial) positions to any remaining Bourbons? (the sworn enemy to the Bonarpartes) instead of taking some few provinces but leaving much of France to its own political mess after the fall of Bonarparte Dynasty.

He is a murderer and his actions eventually lead to WWI and, ultimatively, WWII. Not sure how that qualifies for being a hero.

 Sigvatr wrote:
He is a murderer and his actions eventually lead to WWI and, ultimatively, WWII. Not sure how that qualifies for being a hero.

You have to understand that Lone Cat uses Dakka as his/her way of getting help with their history homework.

He murdered people.
That makes him a villain.

Besides that, he was as others have said 'just a guy'. Princip was just a pawn of the Black Hand who by coincidence happened to be in exactly the right place at exactly the right moment.
But even without the Black Hand and the Archduke's assassination war had already become almost inevitable at that point. Austria would have attacked Serbia anyways. The assassination only served as a convenient casus belli.

Lone Cat wrote:
So the real casus beli was a four decades old feud between France and Prussia/Germany and the mess that either Napoleon III or Bismarc did not resolve properly. but what will happen if Bismarc decided to annex France entirely and give a big (but trivial) positions to any remaining Bourbons? .

I'm assuming you're talking about the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, as Bismarck was long since dead before WW1. And the answer is that no, Bismarck couldn't have just 'annexed' France, because Germany didn't even exist yet. Bismarck hadn't even solidified his hold on his own country at that stage (having to deal with the Prussian monarchy and the Landstag at the same time), and Prussia was in a precarious position where it was surrounded by many potential enemies.

Prussia/Bismarck never even began to have the resources or capabilities to do what you're suggesting.

Kanluwen wrote:
You have to understand that Lone Cat uses Dakka as his/her way of getting help with their history homework.

Eh. I'm going to be educating undergrads in this stuff in a year or so, I might as well make a start on this 'teaching' sort of thing now.

I'd say it depends on the people you ask. His actions only caused WWI in the fact that practically anything would cause it. The big powers just wanted an excuse. He was a her to some, a villain to others. In the sceme of thing, WWI would have happened if he had done the deed or not. It may have been slightly delayed, but it still would have happened.

Its a *travesty* because his actions directly led to our modern shortaige of pickelhaubes

He's also the name of a cover band.

In Scotland, a cover band formed after "Franz Ferdinand" got famous. Gavrilo Princip was it.

And the world prior to WW1 was a tinderbox. Any one of a dozen different things could have kicked off that war.

 Ketara wrote:
You're asking to play 'what if' history on a single isolated incident.

Austria-Hungary was looking for excuse to lay the smackdown on Serbia. It's why she sent Serbia a list of highly unreasonable demands on the expectation they would be turned down (and thus provide a pretext for conflict). Franz was a large advocate for peace, but even had he survived, I doubt he could have offset the conflict to come.

However, there was no guarantee that it needed to be a 'World' war. Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Germany were almost guaranteed to mix it up, but France and Britain could have stayed out of it. Germany initially proposed that if Britain could guarantee France's neutrality, they wouldn't attack France (although they subsequently also demanded the surrender of a few key French fortresses as surety). Britain also offered to not get involved if Germany abstained from invading Belgium. In other words, it could have stayed purely a Franco/Russo - Austro Hungarian/German conflict, or less.

I think the odds of France staying out of the conflict were pretty slim (they were treaty bound to aid Russia, and had a complex after losing the Franco-Prussian War of 1870), but Britain's involvement was by no means a foregone conclusion. Had Germany abstained from invading Belgium, we would have seen Germany throwing itself against the French defences. Germany would also have been unfettered by the British blockade (although the British would most likely have blocked any side of the German High Seas Fleet against Northern France, in light of their unspoken naval deployment understanding with France).

The most likely result would have been the collapse of France within two years, and the subsequent Bolshevik revolution in Russia. France would have been humbled by Germany and forced to cede it's overseas colonies (which Britain would most likely have permitted as a bargaining chip with Germany in exchange for the reduction of the High seas Fleet). France would also have had to bear minor war reparation costs, but would not have been absorbed in the same way as WW2. Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire would have continued to exist. (at least until the next Austro-Italian war, which would most likely be on the books shortly afterwards).

You would however, have seen the continued dominance of Prussian militarism in Germany, which wouldn't have made a comfortable neighbour for a newly ascending Soviet Union. By 1930, you'd see Germany and the Soviets squaring off, with Britain continuing it's age old policy of playing one off against the other. America, not having gotten involved, would still be isolationist.

Not a bad assessment at all.


OP - a couple Serbs I know consider him a hero. The majority, I have never had any reason for this to come up in conversation, so no idea. As for later events, the woman I know who's father ended up in a mass grave in Krajina probably can think of other reasons for the recent wars than Mr. Princip. There's also that whole WWII thing where the Croats, Bozniaks, and their Nazi allies killed a bunch that has them a little peeved. The former priest of my Church stayed a spell in Dachau between his service with the Chetniks and moving to the US after the Communists took over.

 Ketara wrote:

Austria-Hungary was looking for excuse to lay the smackdown on Serbia. It's why she sent Serbia a list of highly unreasonable demands on the expectation they would be turned down (and thus provide a pretext for conflict). Franz was a large advocate for peace, but even had he survived, I doubt he could have offset the conflict to come.

The theorized great irony of the whole situation though, was that, if he'd never been shot, he would have come to power, and he was already sending ripples which would have eventually become waves of a much more inclusive and "liberal" society. Ferdinand's great idea was that if you treated the minorities "equitably" they would come to support and cherish being part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.


Tin Foil Hatters could seriously have a field day with the "what ifs" regarding Princip, the Black Hand, and just about any other behind the scenes player in that whole ordeal.

I think the talk about his reformist nature are overplayed. It is easy to think and say such things before you come to the throne. Once there, it is much harder to carry them out.

The Hungarians in the Austro-Hungarian Empire were not eager to give up their special status, and neither were the Germans for that matter.

Secondly, once he started uncapping the the bottle of nationalism, would he have been able to keep it in? I would wager no, and the Empire would have been torn apart internally anyway. Especially with the Pan-slav ideas that Russia had been pushing.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Austria-Hungary was looking for excuse to lay the smackdown on Serbia. It's why she sent Serbia a list of highly unreasonable demands on the expectation they would be turned down (and thus provide a pretext for conflict). Franz was a large advocate for peace, but even had he survived, I doubt he could have offset the conflict to come.

The theorized great irony of the whole situation though, was that, if he'd never been shot, he would have come to power, and he was already sending ripples which would have eventually become waves of a much more inclusive and "liberal" society. Ferdinand's great idea was that if you treated the minorities "equitably" they would come to support and cherish being part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

You can be as liberal and inclusive a society as you like. It wasn't oppression of ethnic minorities that brought Austria-Hungary into conflict with Imperial Russia or Italy, it was geopolitics. Those would have remained the same regardless of who sat on the throne.

The Germans had also been looking for an excuse to stomp the Russians for the entire previous decade to boot. It's possible Austria-Hungary could have been the least most enlightened society ever to exist, they still quite possibly would have been dragged into war alongside Germany instead of the other way around.

 Ketara wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Austria-Hungary was looking for excuse to lay the smackdown on Serbia. It's why she sent Serbia a list of highly unreasonable demands on the expectation they would be turned down (and thus provide a pretext for conflict). Franz was a large advocate for peace, but even had he survived, I doubt he could have offset the conflict to come.

The theorized great irony of the whole situation though, was that, if he'd never been shot, he would have come to power, and he was already sending ripples which would have eventually become waves of a much more inclusive and "liberal" society. Ferdinand's great idea was that if you treated the minorities "equitably" they would come to support and cherish being part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

You can be as liberal and inclusive a society as you like. It wasn't oppression of ethnic minorities that brought Austria-Hungary into conflict with Imperial Russia or Italy, it was geopolitics. Those would have remained the same regardless of who sat on the throne.

The Germans had also been looking for an excuse to stomp the Russians for the entire previous decade to boot. It's possible Austria-Hungary could have been the least most enlightened society ever to exist, they still quite possibly would have been dragged into war alongside Germany instead of the other way around.

What I'm saying is that, if you remove even the appearance of "oppression" towards the slavs and other groups, then you take some of the ammo away from the extreme groups. Guys like the Black Hand were playing on the "oppression" card, a lot, so if you trump that it's going to relieve some of that pressure.

Beyond that, I agree that in actuality, the saber rattling had been going on for some time, and the Kaiser had some new toys, and like any kid, he wanted to play with them. Or at least most of them (looking at you German Navy)

 Easy E wrote:
I think the talk about his reformist nature are overplayed. It is easy to think and say such things before you come to the throne. Once there, it is much harder to carry them out.

The Hungarians in the Austro-Hungarian Empire were not eager to give up their special status, and neither were the Germans for that matter.

Secondly, once he started uncapping the the bottle of nationalism, would he have been able to keep it in? I would wager no, and the Empire would have been torn apart internally anyway. Especially with the Pan-slav ideas that Russia had been pushing.

Especially when the big 'Amatyas (nobles and bureaucrats)' were still around the throne. And other princes who will turn to military or anyone to oust Ferdinant if he survived the incident and live long enough to ascend the throne.
Basically... Austro - Hungary 'name' came from the results of the war between Austria and Prussia (With the alliances of Napoleon III of France and a big Macchiavellian Vittorio Immanuelle III of the Savoy, .. In fact, the modern Italy was actually made by the conquest of other italian states and not a 'ground up' unification movement... many states were either allied with, or protected by Austria. The Two-pronged war the Austria had been fighting is quite a hard fight, while it is easy against Italians, Against more determined foe like the Prussia, it's a different story....). What remains of the once mighty empire of europe was a small swath of land where the racial dominance by number no longer exists. The Magyars (whom spoke different language, and (maybe) considered to be Slavic people rather than germanic like Austrians, formed half a population of the empire so the name Austria didn't draw loyalty from the Magyars (whom sought the ways to free themselves from the Habsburg yokes)...

1. So does it means the Black Hand was fully sponsorized by the Imperial Russia?
2. So when did Balkans nationalism movement begins? was it when the Greek revolted against the Ottoman empire? and before Serbia and other slavic countries come to exists (before Yugoslavia... of course!). Which empires did these nations belong?
3. And among Balkans nationalism movements. Why macedonian movements chose to tag themselves along with Slavic movements rather than greeks? or did the greeks reject them despite the classical history that said the Macedonians were once welcomed to the ancient Olympics.? or did the Macedonians consider themselves NOT Greek (despite that Alexander the Great was Macedonian)

 Lone Cat wrote:
1. So does it means the Black Hand was fully sponsorized by the Imperial Russia?

No.

2. So when did Balkans nationalism movement begins?

There was no such movement. The thing to understand about the Balkans is that its one of a number of regions in the world that exchanges hands practically every decade and was for centuries. It's a huge mishmash of ethnic and culture groups and most nationalism in the Balkans is based on ethnicity and religion. Serbs, Albanians, Turks, Croats, Slavs, Macedonians, Hungarian, Romanian, Greeks, Orthodox, Catholic, Muslim. And they all hate each other. Even more confusing is that a lot of these groups just grab a name and go "we're Serbs now" and they can totally do that because the groups are so mixed in there that they can legitimately call themselves whatever they want.

Most of the movements have their root in proxy wars against the Ottomans funded by European powers in the mid and late 19th century and the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire itself.

3. And among Balkans nationalism movements. Why macedonian movements chose to tag themselves along with Slavic movements rather than greeks?

This is a modern conflict. See, the modern Republic of Macedon didn't exist until the collapse of Yugoslavia. Because they named themselves "Macedon" they got into a bit of a tussle with Greece. Greece has a province called Macedon. The Republic of Macedonia doesn't like this and wants the name changed, and naturally Greece things the Republic of Macedonia are a bunch of posers and demand they change their name (and that they stop stealing their culture) <- Yes it's this silly.

Most ethnic Macedonians (the historical ones) do live in Greece, and what was once the ancient kingdom of Macedonia, is for the most part also in Greece. The ancient Macedonian capital Thessaloniki is in Greece.

The Republic of Macedonia (as in the State), is kind of a complicated story. Short version;

Building a national identity in a giant melting pot where people have been mixing back and forth under the control hundreds of different kingdoms and empires, is really hard. To start with, this is the problem that really crushed the Ottoman Empire and Yugoslavia; an inability to get everyone within their borders on board with being part of the same state because they all wanted to have their own.

The modern Republic of Macedonia began in WWII after the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was conquered by the Axis (in the Kingdom the region was called Vardar Banovia). The Republic of Yugoslavia was constituted after the end of WWII, and immediate had a territorial dispute with Greece over what would become the Greek province of Macedonia (not the Republic!). This conflict resulting in a cooption of the Macedonian identity by a large number of people within the region (the Republic not the province). Throw in that the eventual Republic backed the Communist party in the Greek civil war, and that name Greek Communists fled there after the war ended, and you have a huge influx of Greek culture, into a place that wants to be more Greek, but that also hates the Greeks for being big meanie poo poo heads.

Then we have the complete chaos that was the constant internal fighting within Yugoslavia by various nationalist movements it's completely confusing and I've never been able to keep it straight good luck trying we're moving on!

In 1991, what became the Republic of Macedonia separated from Yugoslavia. Greece threw a giant hissy fit because the Republic of Macedonia isn't even close to where Ancient Macedon is (well it's close as in they're both in the Balkans but beyond that it's like pointing your fingers at Texas and Alabama). Greece refused to recognize the Republic as a state, which caused a fuss with the Republic and now we've got a giant feud going on between them that includes all kinds of insanity.

 Lone Cat wrote:
. The Magyars (whom spoke different language, and (maybe) considered to be Slavic people rather than germanic like Austrians

Magyars are NOT one of the slavic peoples. (Half Hungarian, here). The language has ZERO in common with any of them, and shares only barest of commonality with the only other tongue in its group - Finnish. Culturally, it's harder to tell, as they had assimilated stuff from areas they moved through.

 LordofHats wrote:

2. So when did Balkans nationalism movement begins?

There was no such movement. The thing to understand about the Balkans is that its one of a number of regions in the world that exchanges hands practically every decade and was for centuries. It's a huge mishmash of ethnic and culture groups and most nationalism in the Balkans is based on ethnicity and religion. Serbs, Albanians, Turks, Croats, Slavs, Macedonians, Hungarian, Romanian, Greeks, Orthodox, Catholic, Muslim. And they all hate each other. Even more confusing is that a lot of these groups just grab a name and go "we're Serbs now" and they can totally do that because the groups are so mixed in there that they can legitimately call themselves whatever they want.

Most of the movements have their root in proxy wars against the Ottomans funded by European powers in the mid and late 19th century and the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire itself.

All this... With the added caveat that the particular movement that the Black Hand and Princips were a part of were really kicked off around 1899, or 1900 or so. With successful Coups around the 1904/5 time frame (where they lost power again, and tried taking it again.... military coup seems to be a temporary thing in this time period, ESPECIALLY if you don't actually kill the previous leader)

He was a douche.