What do you guys think about Gavrilo Princip?

[Biggus Splenus]

Killing a monarch in our present day would only serve to make the monarchy more popular, so no, don't kill your queen.

ok fine, I won't

[Smeel]

>He cannot be blamed in any way for the first world war. He was just a young and angry man...
Yep, got angry and shot Ferdinand which lead to WW1. There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt and he was responsible for his actions.

This exactly the sentiment that I disagree with. Princip murdered two people. That was his crime. The political leaders of Austria, Germany, Russia, France, UK, US etc sent their conscripted young men to die in the millions for vain glory and offended honour. That was their crime.

[Hobbes]

...so....being a monarch is justification to be killed?

Sure.

[YuriVII]

...so....being a monarch is justification to be killed?

I live in Australia. We have a monarch (that british one), who I honestly don't care about; she does nothing for Australia, and I think the idea of being born into power through family lines is stupid... but I don't think she should die, that's a retarded conclusion.

She also doesn't do anything TO Australia. The Hapsburg system was very repressive (like most monarchies of that era) towards other nationalities. Gavrilo Princip had some serious balls to go and kill the heir to the throne of one of the most powerful empires in Europe...say what you will about him.

As for WWI, how could he have known anyone have known that assassination would lead to that catastrophe. Crisis happens, its up to the leaders of empires and nations to find a way to not send all their young men into the meat grinder. Gavrilo Princip had no clue his actions would lead to deaths of millions and the collapse of everything. Since it happened so quickly it kinda feels it was inevitable.

[BosnianKnight]

So killing a man and his wife as they drive past in a car isn't wrong... ok...

Exactly. It's like saying WW2 wouldn't have started if the Allies didn't intervene against Hitler's invasion of Poland... of course WW2 was going to happen, but peoples' decisions would decide on when. The moment Hitler became Führer it was certain.

[BosnianKnight]

Not if that man is part of a monarchy and state which is oppressing your people.

I mean, being a monarch is justification enough, but these monarchs deserved it.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
For a system that is know to be the most opressive you fight to free from imaginary opression to install real opression.
And what proof do you have that he was oppressing my people? And how did he deserve it?

[Stavroforos]

HAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
For a system that is know to be the most opressive you fight to free from imaginary opression to install real opression.
And what proof do you have that he was oppressing my people? And how did he deserve it?

He was oppressing Serbs. I couldn't care less what he did to Bosniaks.

[BosnianKnight]

He was oppressing Serbs. I couldn't care less what he did to Bosniaks.

Ok, how the hell did he opress Serbs?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The Serbs deserved it, they are not glorious Magyar.

[BosnianKnight]

I leld.

[Cyclops]

I think Gavrilo Princep was a hot-blooded killer, stirred to violence for a cause rather than killing for personal gain or pleasure. I can imagine in his time and place I might attempt something like that, because the political and social environment would make me a different man to what I am.

As for broader guilt, I think Smeel is right: if European peace depends on the actions of a single student then the bomb is already primed and the fuse set. In fact a general war nearly kicked off in 1911 over Morrocco.

The Hungarian portion of the dual monarchy did engage in harsh oppression of their subject peoples, but any political projects Franz Ferdinand had for reform were only incidentally for the benefit of th the slav minorities. His objective was the perpetuation of Lorraine-Hapsburg rule. I also believe he used a machine gun when hunting. This is a man so alien to me that I barely recognise him as a human.

HellHeaven makes a fair point about religion in this system of rule, Poles were treated better than Orthodox slavs (although I think the Slovenes, Slovaks and Czechs were not).

His comparison to the Ottomans is entirely apposite. Both the Ottoman and Hapsburg-Lorrainer states were forged in the early modern period as they mobilised effective administration of minorities. Both claimed religious mandates and pretended to vestiges of Roman rule. Both were torn apart by nationalism after ther exhaustion of WW1 but the strength of their systems of rule had carried them well past their use-by date.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was a relict held together by the army and was a vehicle for institutional oppression. It had the largest secret police force in 19th century Europe IIRC, and its no coinidence the sort of mystical pseudoscientific racism that inspired Hitler spawned there.

Napoleon ripped up Northern Germany and Italy, allowing new states to grow once the thorns were cleared away. He failed to burn the Hapsburg or Holstein-Gottorp weeds out of the ground though.

Was Russia as racist a place as Austria? I have a dim recolection of Russian tolerance of central asian muslims and shamaists, once they bent the knee. I know they were brutal in the Caucases though, that place is still bleeding.

[Geronimo2006]

I think he was a terrorist who brought the Serb cause into disrepute like the IRA did for the Irish cause. He admitted he did this because Franz Ferdinand planned on reforms that would make Yugoslavia an impossibility i.e. federalisation. The fact his wife was pregnant when she died no doubt increased revulsion at the crime.

Bear in mind he didn't have long to wait for Franz Joseph to die. He was in his 80s. So if he was an oppressive ruler (which he sometimes was but not always) it wouldn't be too long before a relative liberal in Franz Ferdinand took power.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The Russians were wiling to tolerate Muslims because they were already there, something like half of their territory was made up of Muslims or former Muslims. Jews on the other hand were a definite minority and there was no reason to do anything with or for them. I think that might have been the same line of thought with many of the Austro-Hungarian policies. Actually Austria-Hungary was very similar to the Russian state in my opinion with the secret police as referenced by Cyclops but serfdom in Prussia and Austria-Hungary also existed until pretty late in these country's histories. An actual enforcement of the anti-serfdom laws not being committed to by the government until quite some time after the Napoleonic Wars (unlike Russia which didn't even do it until after the Crimean War).

With the Austro-Hungarian Empire being made up of multi-ethnic territories that presented some trouble in the past and the really good areas being just Austria and Bohemia-Moravia I think it's fair to say that the Hapsburgs would have collapsed eventually. Actually I'm surprised that the Hapsburgs were able to hold onto Hungary as long as they did and even then they had to enlist the help of Russia to put down those revolts in the 1800s. If the Hapsburgs were looking for a large empire then they should have either concentrated on a German Empire or a Hungarian/Balkan Empire, not both. Especially Serbia of all places where they already had some good experience fighting Turks and Bulgarians as opposed to the Hapsburg military which had experienced defeat after defeat since 1859 (I realize they started their war against Italy somewhat well off in 1866 but they still lost).

[Time Commander Bob]

Princip was a fool used by the Black Hand and part of one of the most hilariously incompetent yet successful assassinations in history.

However, making him fully culpable for the start of WW1 is foolish. By the assassination alone, it does not seem reasonable that Austria-Hungary reacted the way it did. Let's not forget that Franz Ferdinand and especially his wife Sophie were detested by the Austrian aristocracy. Rather his death was used as an excuse for Austria-Hungary to reassert itself in the Balkans with the encouragement of the infamous "blank cheque" from Germany. I fully agree with the quote attributed to Princip that "If I had not done it, the Germans would have found another excuse."

[nce_wht_guy]

He was an idiot who, while not really responsible for the Great War, was responsible for the deaths of about a quarter of the Serbian population by 1918.

[hellheaven1987]

Rather his death was used as an excuse for Austria-Hungary to reassert itself in the Balkans with the encouragement of the infamous "blank cheque" from Germany.

Ya, except everyone knew AH was looking for excuse and Princip gave them one volunteerly.

Hence he was a retard that nearly doomed his race, and funny his race still think he is a "hero".

[Cyclops]

...
Hence he was a retard that nearly doomed his race, and funny his race still think he is a "hero".

He died for an idea of Serbia. So you can always say "he died for us, so we could survive! And it was against the imperial oppressors!" however skewed that is. Relatively young countries (and modern Serbia was born in the 1830's) need heroes, and he was handy.

In Australia we have heroes like a rather snarky Englishman who used a donkey to ferry wounded to the rear at Gallipoli. Oh and a horse thief/cop killer in a tin hat. The Irish have deified the foolish boys of the 1916 uprising. The History machine chews up its fodder and spits out its stories. We have to tinker with it to make it spit out Truth, or truths at least.

[hellheaven1987]

He died for an idea of Serbia. So you can always say "he died for us, so we could survive! And it was against the imperial oppressors!" however skewed that is. Relatively young countries (and modern Serbia was born in the 1830's) need heroes, and he was handy.

Serbia lived on only because because millions lives of Russian, British, French and American be sacrifice, not because of Gavrilo Princip; and to put a side note, if same thing happens today not just Austria would demand joint investigation, but UN would force Serbia to accept an international investigation team composed by all major powers today - if Serbia refuses, sorry Serbs the whole world would punish you guys.

Hence you probably can argue Austria's demands in 1914 were justified, since we would do the same thing today if not ask for more.

[Geronimo2006]

The Russians were wiling to tolerate Muslims because they were already there, something like half of their territory was made up of Muslims or former Muslims. Jews on the other hand were a definite minority and there was no reason to do anything with or for them. I think that might have been the same line of thought with many of the Austro-Hungarian policies. Actually Austria-Hungary was very similar to the Russian state in my opinion with the secret police as referenced by Cyclops but serfdom in Prussia and Austria-Hungary also existed until pretty late in these country's histories. An actual enforcement of the anti-serfdom laws not being committed to by the government until quite some time after the Napoleonic Wars (unlike Russia which didn't even do it until after the Crimean War).

With the Austro-Hungarian Empire being made up of multi-ethnic territories that presented some trouble in the past and the really good areas being just Austria and Bohemia-Moravia I think it's fair to say that the Hapsburgs would have collapsed eventually. Actually I'm surprised that the Hapsburgs were able to hold onto Hungary as long as they did and even then they had to enlist the help of Russia to put down those revolts in the 1800s. If the Hapsburgs were looking for a large empire then they should have either concentrated on a German Empire or a Hungarian/Balkan Empire, not both. Especially Serbia of all places where they already had some good experience fighting Turks and Bulgarians as opposed to the Hapsburg military which had experienced defeat after defeat since 1859 (I realize they started their war against Italy somewhat well off in 1866 but they still lost).

You have to remember that a crucial reason they held onto Hungary after 1848 was that they granted it internal self-government in the dual-monarchy in 1867 (known as the Augsliech).

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Pretty much as a result of Prussia and Italy double teaming Austria and kicking their dicks in during the Bohemia campaign and the Triento campaign. Obviously those defeats (among the tonnes of others since 1859) were not very good for publicity and I suppose they wouldn't have wanted a repeat of what happened in 1848.