Gavrilo Princip and the Archduke

[eschereal]

As next Saturday is the Centenniversary of the thing that precipitated a lot of ugliness, I thought it might be a good thing to make note of it and see if anyone has any thoughts on the subject.

Cobbled together and abridged from parts of Wikipedia, here is a description of what happened that day. Apparently, it was almost Keystone-Kops-Komikal, a bizarre collection of misadventures that barely played out.

*At 10:10 am, as Franz Ferdinand’s car approached, Nedeljko Čabrinović threw his bomb. The bomb bounced off the folded back convertible cover into the street. The bomb’s timed detonator caused it to explode under the next car, putting that car out of action, leaving a 1-foot-diameter, 6.5-inch-deep crater, and wounding 16–20 people.

Čabrinović swallowed his cyanide pill and jumped into the Miljacka river. Čabrinović’s suicide attempt failed, as the cyanide only induced vomiting, and the Miljacka was only 5 inches deep due to the hot, dry summer. Police dragged Čabrinović out of the river, and he was severely beaten by the crowd before being taken into custody.

After a scheduled reception at the town hall, Franz Ferdinand and Sophie gave up their planned program in favor of visiting the wounded from the bombing at the hospital. Count Harrach took up a protective position on the left-hand running board of Franz Ferdinand’s car. In order to avoid the city center, General Oskar Potiorek decided that the royal car should travel straight along the Appel Quay to the Sarajevo Hospital. However, the driver, Leopold Lojka, took a right turn into Franz Josef Street, because Potiorek’s aide was in the hospital, unable to tell Lojka about the change in plans and route.

After learning that the first assassination attempt had been unsuccessful, Gavrilo Princip decided to move to a position in front of Mortiz Schiller’s delicatessen, near the Latin Bridge. At this point the Archdukes’ motorcade turned off the Appel Quay, mistakenly following the original route which would have taken them to the National Museum. Governor Potiorek, who was sharing the second vehicle with the Imperial couple, called out to the driver to reverse and take the Quay to the hospital.

Lojka put his foot on the brake, and began to reverse the car, but the engine stalled and the gears locked, giving Princip his opportunity. He stepped forward, drew his pistol, and from about five feet away, fired twice into the car, hitting the Archduke in the neck, as well as Sophie, who instinctively covered Franz’s body with her own after the first shot.

Princip attempted suicide first with cyanide, then with his pistol, but he vomited the past-date poison (Black Hand had apparently been deceived about the strength of the poison), and the pistol was wrested from his hand before he had a chance to fire another shot.*

So the nation of Serbia was blamed for the death of Franz Ferdinand – seems to me that would be like blaming Saudi Arabia for 9/11. Where were the diplomats who might have been able to fend off the Great War that this caused? Or was the Austria-Hungarian empire just too big and unstable, was the war inevitable, one way or another?

And, of course, perhaps the most important question is whether we have learned anything in a hundred years. The US is starting to fade on the world scene, which could be a good thing, for the world scene at least. We could be facing a major oil-related conflict in the next decade or so, but does the world itself have the spirit and resources to carry that out?

Oh, and does anyone have a party/commemoration planned for the 28th?

[silenus]

With the assassination of Jean Jaurès in July 1914, Europe lost its most vocal opponent to the war. Everybody else seemed to think it was a “good thing.”

[Batistuta]

Interesting idea for a thread.

@eschereal

Where were the diplomats who might have been able to fend off the Great War that this caused? Or was the Austria-Hungarian empire just too big and unstable, was the war inevitable, one way or another?

As I understand it, the war was bound to happen one way or another. The system of alliances, conflicting nationalism throughout Europe, militarisation… all that was needed was a spark to ignite the fire. Better diplomacy could perhaps have delayed the outbreak of the war, but many of the causes can be traced back to the late 19th century and were therefore harder to eliminate.

@eschereal

And, of course, perhaps the most important question is whether we have learned anything in a hundred years. The US is starting to fade on the world scene, which could be a good thing, for the world scene at least. We could be facing a major oil-related conflict in the next decade or so, but does the world itself have the spirit and resources to carry that out?

It depends on the scope of your question. Speaking as a European citizen born in the late 20th century, we have learnt an awful lot. War between European countries is simply not a possibility any more, and what we have instead of that old system of alliances is multipolar community that works beautifully given the circumstances.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Batistuta

It depends on the scope of your question. Speaking as a European citizen born in the late 20th century, we have learnt an awful lot. War between European countries is simply not a possibility any more, and what we have instead of that old system of alliances is multipolar community that works beautifully given the circumstances.

You realize that you’re making this statement about 4 months after Russian troops moved into the Crimea and annexed it to Russia, that right now, there’s a Serbian rebellion in Kosovo, that the Serbian, Albanian and Macedonian governments are all influencing, that about 6 years ago, there was war between Russia and Georgia, etc. So, I don’t know that war in Europe has become an impossibility yet.

As for book suggestions, I recommend July 1914: Countdown to War by Sean McMeekin for a look at just what happened that July and how the incident spiraled to war.

[Batistuta]

@Captain_Amazing

You realize that you’re making this statement about 4 months after Russian troops moved into the Crimea and annexed it to Russia, that right now, there’s a Serbian rebellion in Kosovo, that the Serbian, Albanian and Macedonian governments are all influencing, that about 6 years ago, there was war between Russia and Georgia, etc. So, I don’t know that war in Europe has become an impossibility yet.

Perhaps my vision of Europe is too limited to Western and Central Europe. But my finer point stands: we’ve gone from more or less regular wars involving France, Germany, Britain, Austria, Belgium to a world in which all these countries happily co-operate. So yes, we have learnt our lesson

[Claverhouse]

The Reich wasn’t particularly unstable: the Hapsburgs had been around for most of the previous 1000 years — which is a longer run than most countries will have. The rising nationalisms threatened as ever, but if adroit and generally benevolent the imperial system wasn’t really ruthless enough to satisfy the world’s growing longing for more ruthlessness as evidenced in the 20th century, and at that time, diplomacy was mainly geared to getting one up on the main rivals. The Archduke may have been a force for modernization, and personally was most sympathetic to the South Slavs’ desire for greater autonomy — more so than General Conrad, in particular.
The demand for Serbia to punish those terrorists who had murdered the heir to the throne was neither unexpected, nor unreasonable. Their failure to do anything — generally ascribed to the influence of government officials sympathetic to the deed, and unwholesome ultra-nationalists such as Col. Apis — made war inevitable.
That disn’t mean the rest of the world had to pile on, particularly Russia kicking off, but rivalties felt between European races were much stronger back then, and if it hadn’t been that, it would have been another.

[BrainGlutton]

@eschereal

As next Saturday is the Centenniversary . . .

Nitpick: Centennial.

[Tamerlane]

@Claverhouse

The demand for Serbia to punish those terrorists who had murdered the heir to the throne was neither unexpected, nor unreasonable.

True. But the conditions Austria piled on were designed to make it very difficult to agree to those demands. As it happened Serbia loosely agreed to most of the conditions of the July Ultimatum ( which they only had been given two days to respond to ), but were unwilling to surrender sovereignty over internal investigations. Much to the joy of the pro-war parties in Austria and Germany that were itching for a fight.

[Little_Nemo]

@eschereal

So the nation of Serbia was blamed for the death of Franz Ferdinand – seems to me that would be like blaming Saudi Arabia for 9/11. Where were the diplomats who might have been able to fend off the Great War that this caused? Or was the Austria-Hungarian empire just too big and unstable, was the war inevitable, one way or another?

Serbia’s culpability in Franz Ferdinand’s death went significantly further than Saudi Arabia’s culpability in the 9/11 attacks. Princip was literally getting orders from a Serbian government agent (although he didn’t know it).

As for the diplomats, you have to remember that not everyone was trying to avoid a war. Germany and Austria-Hungary were looking for a war (albeit not the war they ended up getting). It takes all sides to make a peace but only one side to make a war.

[Claverhouse]

And the pro-war parties in every other European country. After the Long 19th Century with only intermittent satisfactory-to-one-side-only short wars majorities everywhere were longing to mix it, and teach those [insert here] a lesson.
One of my direct ancestors tried to join in the first few days. He was aged about 14.

[Little_Nemo]

@Claverhouse

And the pro-war parties in every other European country. After the Long 19th Century with only intermittent satisfactory-to-one-side-only short wars majorities everywhere were longing to mix it, and teach those [insert here] a lesson.

No, that’s not true. There was a time when it was fashionable to say everyone was equally to blame so nobody was really to blame. But the records exist. You can see the minutes of meetings being held in the different capitals. And while the British and the French and the Russians and the Italians were trying to figure out how to avoid a war, the Germans and the Austrians were trying to figure out how to start a war.

[LawMonkey]

@Batistuta

.
It depends on the scope of your question. Speaking as a European citizen born in the late 20th century, we have learnt an awful lot. War between European countries is simply not a possibility any more, and what we have instead of that old system of alliances is multipolar community that works beautifully given the circumstances.

Curiously, this was something like the prevailing view in pre-war Europe as well.

[Jackmannii]

@Little_Nemo

There was a time when it was fashionable to say everyone was equally to blame so nobody was really to blame. But the records exist. You can see the minutes of meetings being held in the different capitals. And while the British and the French and the Russians and the Italians were trying to figure out how to avoid a war, the Germans and the Austrians were trying to figure out how to start a war.

The overwhelming onus has to fall on Austria-Hungary (for doing everything it could to precipitate a war to crush the Serbs once and for all) and Germany (also kicking off the war by invading a neutral country on the way to a conflict it thought would strengthen its dominance of Europe). Any blame attaching to Allied nations is small by comparison.

The everybody-was-to-blame meme has resurfaced lately due to the 100th anniversary of the start of WWI, along with the-Allies-were-to-blame-for-too-harshly-punishing-Germany-after-the-war garbage. Trouble was, they weren’t harsh enough (Germany was never occupied and fooled itself into thinking it hadn’t been defeated on the battlefield). And the monetary reparations demanded of Germany for laying waste to a big chunk of France (but never fully paid) shouldn’t have caused any more trouble than the reparations Germany collected from France after the war of 1870. France got on with life, Germany couldn’t get over losing.

Revisionist history is an ass.

[Frank]

My understanding is that if Austria-Hungary had simply invaded Serbia as a direct response to the assassination, nobody would have got overly excited about it, including Serbia’s allies. It was the extra time involved, and Austria-Hungary’s reliance on the German Empire (who was itching to fight anybody) to back them up, and the Allies worries about that German attitude that led to war.

[Little_Nemo]

@Jackmannii

And the monetary reparations demanded of Germany for laying waste to a big chunk of France (but never fully paid) shouldn’t have caused any more trouble than the reparations Germany collected from France after the war of 1870.

I generally agree but I have one nitpick. Germany did eventually pay off its reparations from World War I. It just took a while. The final payment was made on October 3, 2010.

[eschereal]

Of course, one cannot overlook the impact the war had on Russia. If Nicholas had listened to the crazy mystic guy and somehow not got involved, perhaps he could have held off the Bolsheviks a little longer.

[Slithy_Tove]

It had its appeal: the Socialists would be undercut by the call to national defense, and let the industrialists and militarists run things as is natural during wartime. The squabbling sub-nationalities would rally to the cause, and irritants such as women’s sufferage and the Irish Question could be set aside. In the US, the boom and bust from an economy that produced more than it paid its workers to consume would have a voracious foreign market.

Consider the last time your corporation announced an idiotic decision, and all your coworkers, as if clapping for Tinkerbell, went along with it. It was like that.

[Little_Nemo]

@eschereal

Of course, one cannot overlook the impact the war had on Russia. If Nicholas had listened to the crazy mystic guy and somehow not got involved, perhaps he could have held off the Bolsheviks a little longer.

The problem for Russia is that the consequences of not going to war would have been almost as bad as the consequences of going to war ended up being. The Romanov regime was even more precarious than the Habsburgs were. They had already been kicked in the metaphorical balls by several diplomatic fiascos and abandoning Serbia would have been another huge disaster. Going to war actually seemed like the less risky alternative.

But that said, there’s a huge gap between going to war and fighting a war well. The Russian command was about as horrible as you can imagine. Everyone’s heard the stories about how terrible the British and French World War I generals were - but they were geniuses in comparison to their Russian counterparts. And Nicholas up at the top was no Lloyd George or Clemenceau - he wasn’t even an Asquith or Briand.

[Little_Nemo]

One interesting historical tidbit I read a couple of weeks ago: if you divided the total amount of money the United States spent on World War I by the amount of time the United States was in the war, it comes out to over a million dollars an hour. And that’s in contemporary dollars not dollars adjusted to today’s value.

[handsomeharry]

@Batistuta

Interesting idea for a thread.
As I understand it, the war was bound to happen one way or another. The system of alliances, conflicting nationalism throughout Europe, militarisation… all that was needed was a spark to ignite the fire. Better diplomacy could perhaps have delayed the outbreak of the war, but many of the causes can be traced back to the late 19th century and were therefore harder to eliminate.
It depends on the scope of your question. Speaking as a European citizen born in the late 20th century, we have learnt an awful lot. War between European countries is simply not a possibility any more, and what we have instead of that old system of alliances is multipolar community that works beautifully given the circumstances.

You/We haven’t learned squat. The old system of alliances wasn’t changed because wars were caused, but, because other interests (read $) superseded them, for the present. As pointed out, the Russia/Crimea/Ukraine thing tips us off that all nations will resort to war to get/maintain power, which is what the First World War was about. The US is still trying to keep the Cold War going, or else to restart it, and NATO is still backing the US up.