8 ms·

"Everybody knows how the World War One started. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and his wife Sophie were assassinated

"Everybody knows how the World War One started. Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and his wife Sophie were assassinated in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 by Gavrilo Princip, one of several young fanatics involved in the plot." And what the article doesn't mention: The country of these assassins was invaded (without provocation) by Austria just before the assassination. No one would have tried to assassinate Austrian government officials in Bosnia if Austria didn't occupy Bosnia at that time.

afterburner 11y ago
What? Bosnia was ceded to Austria-Hungary by the Ottoman Empire in 1878. Or is that what you're referring to?
- threesixandnine 11y ago
  It was not ceded. It was annexed by Austria-Hungary. Annexation was not covered by the Treaty of Berlin (1878).
  - phillc73 11y ago
    The 1878 Treaty of Berlin only covered occupation and administration of the Ottoman Vilayet of Bosnia by Austria-Hungary.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Fran...
    - threesixandnine 11y ago
      Exactly.
- morsch 11y ago
  Presumably, this is what he is referring to: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/austria-hungary-annexes-bosnia-herzegovina http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/austria-hungary-a...
- DominikR 11y ago
  "The Bosnian crisis of 1908–09, also known as the Annexation crisis or the First Balkan Crisis, erupted when on 6 October 1908, Austria-Hungary announced the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, territories formally within the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. This unilateral action—timed to coincide with Bulgaria's declaration of independence (5 October) from the Ottoman Empire—sparked protestations from all the Great Powers and Austria-Hungary's Balkan neighbours, Serbia and Montenegro. In April 1909 the Treaty of Berlin was amended to reflect the fait accompli and bring the crisis to an end." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_crisis There is no way you can honestly argue, after reviewing the facts, that Bosnia was NOT annexed by Austria. Btw I am from Austria and here we are taught the same thing in public schools. Austria unilaterally annexed Bosnia. Bosnian nationalists then assassinated crown prince Franz Ferdinand which then was followed by the first World War. That is why Austrian Empire was torn into pieces after the first World War and why it was deemed the aggressor and had to pay crippling reparations.
  - dotemacs 11y ago
    Thank you DominikR for trying to be a voice of reason, despite this being HN :)
  - douche 11y ago
    The Austro-Hungarian empire was well on its merry way to disintegration before the war. I was recently reading a book about this, A Mad Catastrophe[1], that was very interesting. I hadn't really realized the extent to which the Hapsburgs were challenging the Ottomans for the title of sick man of Europe. Not a good era for polyglot states. Coming from the United States, we tend to think of WW1 exclusively in terms of the war on the Western Front, with maybe TE Lawrence and Gallipoli thrown in. The Balkan wars of the preceding decades that primed the whole powder keg are almost completely unknown. [1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00GL9TQ2C/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00GL9TQ2C/ref=dp-kindle-re...
  - afterburner 11y ago
    This is what you wrote: "The country of these assassins was invaded (without provocation) by Austria just before the assassination" I don't know what "just before" means to you, but I don't think "5 years earlier" when I read that. If you mean the troop maneuvers just before the Archduke's visit, it's odd to say Bosnia was "invaded" by simply moving troops in annexed territory, 5 years after it was annexed. It's just an unnecessarily misleading sentence. Note that I'm not diminishing Princip's or the Black Hand or Serbian nationalists' motives.
threesixandnine 11y ago
The article also doesn't mention that WW1 practically started way earlier and would probably happen even without annexation of Bosnia and assassination of Archduke which was just casus belli. Nice write up here : http://historylists.org/events/10-events-that-led-to-world-war-i.html http://historylists.org/events/10-events-that-led-to-world-w... What worries me is that today it all looks very similar. Heck, even in Bosnia there is a guy from Austria with absolute power. Then we have crisis in Africa and some countries trying to assert themselves as powers.
- Svip 11y ago
  There is one significant difference between then and now: The world powers wanted a war back then. Emperor Wilhelm II's push for a 'small war' between Austria and Serbia was just the sign of how things were. But Austria's hesitation to act, allowed France and Russia to 'mobilise' their positions. Imagine if Austria had attacked Serbia straight away? Then perhaps it would not have escalated to a great war. Today, the powers that be are not interested in a war. Remember, the powers that were were rather equal in terms of military strength. Today, they team up to beat on weaker powers.
  - DominikR 11y ago
    > Today, the powers that be are not interested in a war. And I'm glad this is the case. A war between any of the great powers could potentially have catastrophic consequences for almost everyone. > Remember, the powers that were were rather equal in terms of military strength. Today, they team up to beat on weaker powers. Maybe this seemed like a acceptable strategy back in the 90ties, but today we see it backfiring on everyone. Refugees flooding the EU causing EU members to block each other which in turn threatens the EU itself, radicalised Muslims threatening the territorial integrity of China, North Korea going nuts, possibly a bloody civil war awaiting Turkey. My point is that you can gang up and beat on weak players only for so long until the masses radicalise and become a major threat to your own existence.
    - Svip 11y ago
B1FF_PSUVM 11y ago
Who was it that quipped that the Balkans produce more history than they consume?
Svip 11y ago
While Bosnia was definitely occupied by Austria, it should be noted that the assassins were Serbian nationalists. This makes sense, though, because Serbia was interested in annexing Bosnia (Austrian held or not). As the Second Balkans War proved, the Balkan states and peoples weren't exactly the best of friends. The assassination was not purely against Austrian oppression. Ending Austrian occupation was basically a means to an end; if Serbia were to control Bosnia, Bosnia could not be part of Austria. You are not wrong, there would be no need to assassinate Ferdinand had Bosnia not been Austrian held. But had Bosnia not been under Austrian control, it would just have given Serbia a larger opening for an occupation of Bosnia and possibly a third Balkans War.
- acqq 11y ago
  > Serbia was interested in annexing Bosnia The annexation by the Austro-Hungarian empire is what actually happened. Serbia wasn't interested in any "annexation." To claim that you'd have to cite something relevant. And to set the record straight, Austro-Hungarian empire was present in Bosnia since 1878 (Congress of Berlin in 1878) but they annexed it in 1908: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Austro-Hungarian_rule_.281878.E2.80.931918.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Austro-... Even that presence since 1878 was the result of Empire's goals to keep the Slavic people separated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Convention_of_1877 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Convention_of_1877 "For Austria, it was important that Russia did not attempt to create a large Slavic state (großen, kompakten, slawischen Staat) in the Balkans that would create problems with the Slavic nations within the monarchy.[3]" Expansion was an additional benefit. Keeping the Slavic people divided was important as almost 40% of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy were Slavic people(!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary It wasn't a simple situation but Austria actually annexed Bosnia in 1908 and Austria was very eager to fight Serbia in war. Austrian historians actually discussed this in 2014, and at least some of them claim "Austria surely didn't want the World War, but really wanted the war with Serbia."
  - Svip 11y ago
    Serbs across the Balkans sought to create a Pan-Serbian state, which would have included Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and Southern Hungary. I'll concede that Narodna Orbrana was a reaction to Austria's annexation of Bosnia in 1908 to create an affective vehicle to support this vision. And Black Hand was specifically supported in part to further this goal. But I don't think these thinkings were exactly new by 1908. But you are right, it may not have been Serbian policy until then. And while not official, it was a known secret by the time of the Balkan Wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodna_Odbrana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodna_Odbrana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_%28Serbia%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_%28Serbia%29
m0nty 11y ago
> And what the article doesn't mention: The country of these assassins was invaded (without provocation) Because it isn't relevant to the narrative in this case. It's not an attempt to justify or even explain the circumstances of WWI, it's a story about a story which triggered those events (which would probably have happened anyway). He is careful to say "started" WWI, not "caused".
wobbleblob 11y ago
A Bosnian Serb once tried to explain to me that the Emperor's decision to have this parade on St. Vitus Day was a deliberate insult so great they had no choice but to respond with violence. On that day, they commemorate the start of half a millennium of Turkish occupation.
pmarreck 11y ago
> The country of these assassins was invaded (without provocation) by Austria just before the assassination I was wondering why there was no motivation indicated for why this assassination was done

afterburner 11y ago

What? Bosnia was ceded to Austria-Hungary by the Ottoman Empire in 1878. Or is that what you're referring to?

threesixandnine 11y ago
It was not ceded. It was annexed by Austria-Hungary. Annexation was not covered by the Treaty of Berlin (1878).
- phillc73 11y ago
  The 1878 Treaty of Berlin only covered occupation and administration of the Ottoman Vilayet of Bosnia by Austria-Hungary.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Fran...
  - threesixandnine 11y ago
    Exactly.
morsch 11y ago
Presumably, this is what he is referring to: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/austria-hungary-annexes-bosnia-herzegovina http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/austria-hungary-a...
DominikR 11y ago
"The Bosnian crisis of 1908–09, also known as the Annexation crisis or the First Balkan Crisis, erupted when on 6 October 1908, Austria-Hungary announced the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, territories formally within the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. This unilateral action—timed to coincide with Bulgaria's declaration of independence (5 October) from the Ottoman Empire—sparked protestations from all the Great Powers and Austria-Hungary's Balkan neighbours, Serbia and Montenegro. In April 1909 the Treaty of Berlin was amended to reflect the fait accompli and bring the crisis to an end." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_crisis There is no way you can honestly argue, after reviewing the facts, that Bosnia was NOT annexed by Austria. Btw I am from Austria and here we are taught the same thing in public schools. Austria unilaterally annexed Bosnia. Bosnian nationalists then assassinated crown prince Franz Ferdinand which then was followed by the first World War. That is why Austrian Empire was torn into pieces after the first World War and why it was deemed the aggressor and had to pay crippling reparations.
- dotemacs 11y ago
  Thank you DominikR for trying to be a voice of reason, despite this being HN :)
- douche 11y ago
  The Austro-Hungarian empire was well on its merry way to disintegration before the war. I was recently reading a book about this, A Mad Catastrophe[1], that was very interesting. I hadn't really realized the extent to which the Hapsburgs were challenging the Ottomans for the title of sick man of Europe. Not a good era for polyglot states. Coming from the United States, we tend to think of WW1 exclusively in terms of the war on the Western Front, with maybe TE Lawrence and Gallipoli thrown in. The Balkan wars of the preceding decades that primed the whole powder keg are almost completely unknown. [1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00GL9TQ2C/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00GL9TQ2C/ref=dp-kindle-re...
- afterburner 11y ago
  This is what you wrote: "The country of these assassins was invaded (without provocation) by Austria just before the assassination" I don't know what "just before" means to you, but I don't think "5 years earlier" when I read that. If you mean the troop maneuvers just before the Archduke's visit, it's odd to say Bosnia was "invaded" by simply moving troops in annexed territory, 5 years after it was annexed. It's just an unnecessarily misleading sentence. Note that I'm not diminishing Princip's or the Black Hand or Serbian nationalists' motives.

threesixandnine 11y ago

The article also doesn't mention that WW1 practically started way earlier and would probably happen even without annexation of Bosnia and assassination of Archduke which was just casus belli. Nice write up here : http://historylists.org/events/10-events-that-led-to-world-war-i.html http://historylists.org/events/10-events-that-led-to-world-w... What worries me is that today it all looks very similar. Heck, even in Bosnia there is a guy from Austria with absolute power. Then we have crisis in Africa and some countries trying to assert themselves as powers.

Svip 11y ago
There is one significant difference between then and now: The world powers wanted a war back then. Emperor Wilhelm II's push for a 'small war' between Austria and Serbia was just the sign of how things were. But Austria's hesitation to act, allowed France and Russia to 'mobilise' their positions. Imagine if Austria had attacked Serbia straight away? Then perhaps it would not have escalated to a great war. Today, the powers that be are not interested in a war. Remember, the powers that were were rather equal in terms of military strength. Today, they team up to beat on weaker powers.
- DominikR 11y ago
  > Today, the powers that be are not interested in a war. And I'm glad this is the case. A war between any of the great powers could potentially have catastrophic consequences for almost everyone. > Remember, the powers that were were rather equal in terms of military strength. Today, they team up to beat on weaker powers. Maybe this seemed like a acceptable strategy back in the 90ties, but today we see it backfiring on everyone. Refugees flooding the EU causing EU members to block each other which in turn threatens the EU itself, radicalised Muslims threatening the territorial integrity of China, North Korea going nuts, possibly a bloody civil war awaiting Turkey. My point is that you can gang up and beat on weak players only for so long until the masses radicalise and become a major threat to your own existence.
  - Svip 11y ago

B1FF_PSUVM 11y ago

Who was it that quipped that the Balkans produce more history than they consume?

Svip 11y ago

While Bosnia was definitely occupied by Austria, it should be noted that the assassins were Serbian nationalists. This makes sense, though, because Serbia was interested in annexing Bosnia (Austrian held or not). As the Second Balkans War proved, the Balkan states and peoples weren't exactly the best of friends. The assassination was not purely against Austrian oppression. Ending Austrian occupation was basically a means to an end; if Serbia were to control Bosnia, Bosnia could not be part of Austria. You are not wrong, there would be no need to assassinate Ferdinand had Bosnia not been Austrian held. But had Bosnia not been under Austrian control, it would just have given Serbia a larger opening for an occupation of Bosnia and possibly a third Balkans War.

acqq 11y ago
> Serbia was interested in annexing Bosnia The annexation by the Austro-Hungarian empire is what actually happened. Serbia wasn't interested in any "annexation." To claim that you'd have to cite something relevant. And to set the record straight, Austro-Hungarian empire was present in Bosnia since 1878 (Congress of Berlin in 1878) but they annexed it in 1908: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Austro-Hungarian_rule_.281878.E2.80.931918.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Austro-... Even that presence since 1878 was the result of Empire's goals to keep the Slavic people separated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Convention_of_1877 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Convention_of_1877 "For Austria, it was important that Russia did not attempt to create a large Slavic state (großen, kompakten, slawischen Staat) in the Balkans that would create problems with the Slavic nations within the monarchy.[3]" Expansion was an additional benefit. Keeping the Slavic people divided was important as almost 40% of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy were Slavic people(!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary It wasn't a simple situation but Austria actually annexed Bosnia in 1908 and Austria was very eager to fight Serbia in war. Austrian historians actually discussed this in 2014, and at least some of them claim "Austria surely didn't want the World War, but really wanted the war with Serbia."
- Svip 11y ago
  Serbs across the Balkans sought to create a Pan-Serbian state, which would have included Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and Southern Hungary. I'll concede that Narodna Orbrana was a reaction to Austria's annexation of Bosnia in 1908 to create an affective vehicle to support this vision. And Black Hand was specifically supported in part to further this goal. But I don't think these thinkings were exactly new by 1908. But you are right, it may not have been Serbian policy until then. And while not official, it was a known secret by the time of the Balkan Wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodna_Odbrana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodna_Odbrana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_%28Serbia%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_%28Serbia%29

m0nty 11y ago

> And what the article doesn't mention: The country of these assassins was invaded (without provocation) Because it isn't relevant to the narrative in this case. It's not an attempt to justify or even explain the circumstances of WWI, it's a story about a story which triggered those events (which would probably have happened anyway). He is careful to say "started" WWI, not "caused".

wobbleblob 11y ago

A Bosnian Serb once tried to explain to me that the Emperor's decision to have this parade on St. Vitus Day was a deliberate insult so great they had no choice but to respond with violence. On that day, they commemorate the start of half a millennium of Turkish occupation.

pmarreck 11y ago

> The country of these assassins was invaded (without provocation) by Austria just before the assassination I was wondering why there was no motivation indicated for why this assassination was done