[Closed] Was it wrong for Gavrilo Princip to shoot Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

The war would have happened anyway. Germany was determined to bring about a war to control Europe before Russia could reach military parity with her, because of the Franco/Russian/UK defence treaty they knew they needed to take Russia out in order to take France and the Low Countries.
Germany was instrumental in pushing the Hapsburg Empire into war as they thought the Austrians would hold the Russians (who would inevitably come in to defend Serbia) whilst Germany defeated France.
Even the Hapsburg Emperor didn't much like Franz Ferdinand, by many accounts he was an unpleasant person & no one really mourned him. If not him then another excuse would have been manufactured as Germany was determined to create a war.

It was the catalyst yes but not the motivation of WW1.

But if Russia and Serbia hadn't successfully provoked Austria that summer, the conduct of the war could have been completely different. If the conflict had erupted in November, it wiuld have been impossible to mobilize and escalate so quickly.

Well he did ask to be taken out.

[url= http://www.ae.metu.edu.tr/~evren/history/texts/taylor1.htm ]train time tables[/url]

😀 drac

I'd shoot Franz Ferdinand (the bad talking heads tribute band) right now. they could possibly start world war 3.

Stop talking about ze war!

is he responsible for World War I?

Well since it has been repeatedly established on here that all conflicts/wars are the result of religion, then as an atheist it is unlikely that Gavrilo Princip is responsible for World War I.

You need to explore the religious angle more to establish the real causes of World War I. I'm sure someone will come along and help you if you're struggling. Maybe Woppit ? 🙂

Austria was incapable of being provoked, Their military was so inept even the tiny Serbian forces managed to inflict a series of humiliating defeats on the Imperial forces. Without Germany pulling the strings and demanding the Empire act according to Moltke's timetable Austria would have done nothing.

I don't agree that Austria was incapable of being provoked.
Austria thought they had a good army, and in addition Germany had given them carte blanche by saying they would support them no matter what.
Unfortunately for austria was that they grossly overestimated the ability of their army, and as a result ended up being responsible for the start yet featured as a bit player in the conflict.

Ultimately the first world way could not have been prevented, without major declaration of intent by the british. It was the British goverments vagueness that allowed the Axis powers to assume they wouldn't intervene.

Germany completely disregarded the British army though - as well they might considering the pre-war army was only six divisions large. The Navy took 25% of the UK GDP but as the Kaiser said "dreadnaughts have no wheels'.
Austria could not nor would not act without Germany pulling the strings so if Ferdinand's death was inconvenient then Germany would have kept Austria on a tight leash. Even the Germans over estimated how inept the Austrian forces were though & they thought the Austrian forces were only capable of stalling the Serbo-Russian forces, not of defeating them.

Agreed, but they had to have been aware of the risk of blockade.
To be fair if the Navy hadn't messed up a few times in the early years of the war the blockade and destruction of the germany navy would have been achieved much sooner.
In the end they resorted to trying to lure the german navy out of their ports, and after one bloody nose that didn't work anymore either.
No question that Germany, Austria and Russia wanted war in europe though. All sides felt they were stronger than they actually were.

I still feel that Germany played more of a passive role in allowing it to happen rather than directing.

The British prime minister, Disraeli, could and should, shoulder some of the blame for maintaining and bolstering the Turkish Empire at the Congress of Berlin in 1878. By preserving the Ottoman Empire and using it as a bulwark against Russian aggression and expansion he inadvertently 'bottled' up the problem. The Ottoman Empire should've been dissected and nation states such as Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia etc should have been granted their independence at this juncture in Euorpean history.

Instead, the Balkans were a problem for the next 50 years and even today land disputes/religious differences have brought war to the region.

Furthermore, it was agreed at the Congress of Berlin that the Austrian-Hungarian empire could, at a point of their choosing annexe Bosnia- this they duly did in 1908. The Balkan wars of 1912/1913 were a direct consequence of the failings of Disraeli at Berlin in 1878. The Balkan Wars sere simply an attempt by the above nations to finally wrestle themselves away from the 'sick man of Europe'. This desire for independence also led to the Serbs assisting the Bosnians by acts of terror in an attempt to break away from Austria. It should be remembered that the Balkan wars had always remained localised wars but the assassination of Ferdinand brought in Germany and Russia who also both had intentions to land grab in the Balkans. The kaiser for his Berlin-Baghdad railway and the Russians access to the mediterranean via the Black Sea.

Whilst the above did not CAUSE the war, the agreements made at Berlin in 1878 by, most notably, Disraeli maintained a volatile situation in the Balkans. The boil should have been lanced by Disraeli rather than bottling up the problem. As AJP Talyor has said the 'Congress of Berlin contained the seeds of future disaster.' Without wanting to mangle Taylor's metaphor too much it is quite clear that the Kaiser was willing and, did indeed water, the seeds though!

According to the recent book Catastrophe by Max Hastings Germany were basically calling the shots with regards to Austrian action, urging them to act immediately, publically because of the Kaisers close friendship with Ferdinand but in reality because Germany wanted war soon before the winter set in.
Germany feared Russian military parity and wanted to strike before that was gained, they feared such parity was less than a year away & a sudden strike would disconcert Russia considering how long they believed it would take Russia (and France) to arm. In the event, Austria dithered for weeks allowing the Detente forces time to mobilise and the advantage was lost. Max Hastings makes a compelling case for Germany's hand being on the tiller in Austria, directing behind the scenes to create the war they truly believed they could win quickly.

Definitely, the German military were leaning on the Austrians and no nation wants a long drawn out war. The Russians were percieved as being especially weak, if numerically significant.

The Sclieffen plan was drawn up in 1908 to avoid encirclement by knocking the French out of the war. It obvousily didn't work though. I think that a more interesting question would be, if the Germans hadn't executed the Sclieffen plan then would the British have entered the war at all. Hastings again goes onto say that the atrocities in Belgium were so horrific that it did 'help' the British cabinet make up their delayed decision to enter the conflict and protect the Belgians. Perhaps, more crucially could the British allow Belgium to be annexed by their economic rival, Germany? Could the British allow German economic hegemony of the continent? Ironically a Jun(c)ker threatens us still today!

Personally I think the war was inevitable as all sides had treaties, all sides were arming , all sides were arguing in Europe and elsewhere [ about empires] and all sides were afraid of the others attacking them

IMHO this was just the catalyst bu tit could have been any other number of things

It is simplistic to suggest it was all germanys fault - the Kaiser tried to stop the war but it was too late- but they were probably the main aggressor during this event [ by agreeing to support Austria no matter what]

So was Princip wrong to do it?

What tyres for invading Poland?

Der Kaiser?

Maybe conti should bring out their supertacky one-run tyre that lasts 1.2% of it's intended lifespan:

Der Fuhrer.

Or maybe not.

On the subject of the start of the First World War I can recommend Peter Hopkirk's book 'On secret service east of Constantinople' for all the skulduggery Germany was up to in the near east. We get very wrapped up with what was happening on the western front as this was the focus of the war in terms of the actual fighting and casualties, but the more fluid and snide stuff was happening around the Balkans, but especially in the Turkey/Iraq region where the kaiser was trying to forge an unlikely alliance with Islamic rulers to ignite a rebellion against the British empire. To this end they were also sponsoring Hindu insurgents in British India. There was a geo-political game of 'Risk' going on at the same time as the slaughter in Flanders.

Viewed from this angle I would say the war was inevitable no matter what happened in Sarajevo.

Viewed from this angle I would say the war was inevitable no matter what happened in Sarajevo.

1) the assassination led to the confrontation, which led to WW1, the Sykes-Picot letters, the Russian Revolution, Ataturk, Stalinism, the Nazis, the Holocaust, the anti colonial movement, the establishment of the State of Israel, the Vietnam war, the Baader-Meinhof Complex, Mel Gibson's relocation to Australia, the Ethiopian famine, Mad Max, Lockerbie, the collapse of the Soviet Union, David Hasselhoff singing on the Berlin Wall, Slovenia's Declaration of Independence and the Yugoslav Wars...among other things. But the improbability of that contingent chain of events shows that even if [b]some sort [/b]of conflict was inevitable, it wouldn't necessarily have been war and wouldn't necessarily have been that war. We can't say that Celebrity Big Brother with Knight Rider was historically inevitable, so why any of the other events in the historical chain of events that led to it?

2) if an assassin had killed Kennedy, Khrushchev or Castro in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis (aka the Turkish missile provocation), then it would be a truism that war between the US and the Soviet Union was inevitable at the time - just look at the conditions in place. Yet no-one did shoot anyone, and there was no war between the US and USSR (directly, at least).

IMHO whenever anyone is willing to do any act of terrorism you live in a **** up world of oppression and non representation.

I don't think that's true. Some people are just bell ends. Look at the Scottish National Liberation Army (one arsehole in a bedsit in Dublin).

IME the people of that region from say the Adriatic to the Caspian and south to Athens (possibly further East too but I haven't been there) are extremely argumentative and could start a war by themselves in an empty room.

On the contrary ime, all that shouting and arm-waving by those who live on the shores of the Adriatic and Athens peninsula releases tension and aggression, so when they've finished their little performance they just go home to Mama who will give them a big special hug and a big plate of pasta/moussaka.

In contrast your northern Teutonic types suppress their emotions and just quietly seethe with anger until it explodes as war. Just look at Germany after the Versailles Treaty - they should have said that they were that upset about it instead of starting another world war 20 years later.

2) if an assassin had killed Kennedy, Khrushchev or Castro in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis (aka the Turkish missile provocation), then it would be a truism that war between the US and the Soviet Union was inevitable at the time - just look at the conditions in place. Yet no-one did shoot anyone, and there was no war between the US and USSR (directly, at least).

I think the advent of nuclear weapons had changed geopolitics in this case, so I have to say that is a daft example. Even Kennedy's predecessor Eisenhower had grasped the Clausewitzian implications of the h-bomb.

It is fair to say that Khrushchev was a far more worrying character than Stalin when it came to unpredictability, but I don't regard this example as a truism that would necessarily have come true. There may well have been wiser heads in the wings of both sides who would have de-escalated had either leader been knocked off.

Stop talking about ze war!

I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

IME the people of that region from say the Adriatic to the Caspian and south to Athens (possibly further East too but I haven't been there) are extremely argumentative and could start a war by themselves in an empty room.

Number of wars fought by the UK between 1945 and 1991: 16, plus ongoing insurgency/civil or dirty war on own territory.

And [i]they're[/i] the argumentative ones?

When it comes to war, the UK prefers to be a bit of a nimby.

Was it wrong for Gavrilo Princip to shoot Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

Yes, its wrong to shoot people.

I don't think that's true. Some people are just bell ends. Look at the Scottish National Liberation Army (one arsehole in a bedsit in Dublin).

And they're the argumentative ones?

is the wink needed?

"Yes, its wrong to shoot people."

Always?

One interesting point for me was what would have happened if the Archdukes driver hadn't got lost? He was a reformer who had married a commoner,and favoured political and social reform of the A/H empire. Mind you, he needed to because the industrial revolution had passes A/H by,putting them at a serious disadvantage in the development on military technology. I teach it as war being a certainty,Princip lit the fuse.

Enjoying this thread, but nothing intelligent to add.
So…

[img] [/img]