5 ms·

Small nitpick: please don't spread the misconception that Gavrilo Princip killing chief commander of occupying army who wanted to show off by visiting occupied

Small nitpick: please don't spread the misconception that Gavrilo Princip killing chief commander of occupying army who wanted to show off by visiting occupied territories somehow started the world war. It would have started anyways since the balance of powers was way off.

_ak 13y ago
Bosnia Herzegovina wasn't "occupied" in any way and it belonging to Austria-Hungary was recognized by all European powers, including Serbia, and thus legal under then international law. A limited war against Serbia following the assassination was thus justified, but Austria hadn't considered the "chain" of allied countries assisting each other extending the conflict to basically all of Europe, plus the Germans used it as justification to finally implement 30, 40 year old plans to wage war on basically everyone else around them. tl;dr it's complicated.
- vasac 13y ago
  Bosnia and Herzegovina was occupied (no need for quotation marks). It doesn't matter who recognized occupation - it was still an occupation. It wasn't welcomed by Serbs in Bosnia (they didn't start rebelion just to replace one occupying force with another one), it wasn't welcomed by Bosnian Muslims. There were no Austrians or Hungarians in Bosnia and there were no reasons why Bosnia should become part of AH Empire.
  - userulluipeste 13y ago
    I agree with all but the last sentence. The ethnicity may be considered as constituency warrant for a national state, not for an empire. Usually empires don't have any warrant for their existence but the power through which are maintained.
- nzp 13y ago
  > but Austria hadn't considered the "chain" of allied countries assisting each other How could it not consider such a, ahem, small detail?
- levosmetalo 13y ago
  So, if an emperor has a right to take country by force, why not grant the same right to inhabitants of that same country to free themselves by force? Besides, how any sane person can find justifying attacking one small neighboring country and killing one third of its male population and committing such atrocities against humanity just to "revenge" the death of one person, for which Serbia wasn't even responsible. After all, if Bosnia was really legitimate part of AH empire, as opposed to occupied country, then why attack Serbia because one AH citizen killed another one. Seems like blaming the victim, since Serbia was clearly the biggest victim of WW1. As you already said, one Bosnian Serb (which btw declared himself as Yugoslavian, like many members of his Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia) organization) kills one tyrant, then AH and Germany attack half of the Europe, and Serbia and Gavrilo Princip are guilt of WW1? Makes no sense to me.
merloen 13y ago
That is by no means a fact. Nobody expected war in 1914, and most of the Great Powers did not want war. Franz Ferdinand was a force for moderation in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. A lot of domino stones had to fall for WWI to happen. By the way, I can recommend "The War that Ended Peace", excellent book about the causes of WWI.
- mcv 13y ago
  Most of the great powers didn't want war, but Germany clearly did. For a single assassination to legitimately trigger a war between Germany and France is silly. It was the trigger, but the tension was already there. They would probably have taken any excuse to go to war.
- ableal 13y ago
  > Nobody expected war in 1914 That's not the impression one gets from the popular literature (thriller romances, etc.) of the preceding years. For instance, it is obvious that the English were expecting a naval clash with Germany sooner or later. What was unexpected was the prolonged slaughter of trench warfare. The previous war of 1870 had been a relatively quick affair ...

_ak 13y ago

Bosnia Herzegovina wasn't "occupied" in any way and it belonging to Austria-Hungary was recognized by all European powers, including Serbia, and thus legal under then international law. A limited war against Serbia following the assassination was thus justified, but Austria hadn't considered the "chain" of allied countries assisting each other extending the conflict to basically all of Europe, plus the Germans used it as justification to finally implement 30, 40 year old plans to wage war on basically everyone else around them. tl;dr it's complicated.

vasac 13y ago
Bosnia and Herzegovina was occupied (no need for quotation marks). It doesn't matter who recognized occupation - it was still an occupation. It wasn't welcomed by Serbs in Bosnia (they didn't start rebelion just to replace one occupying force with another one), it wasn't welcomed by Bosnian Muslims. There were no Austrians or Hungarians in Bosnia and there were no reasons why Bosnia should become part of AH Empire.
- userulluipeste 13y ago
  I agree with all but the last sentence. The ethnicity may be considered as constituency warrant for a national state, not for an empire. Usually empires don't have any warrant for their existence but the power through which are maintained.
nzp 13y ago
> but Austria hadn't considered the "chain" of allied countries assisting each other How could it not consider such a, ahem, small detail?
levosmetalo 13y ago
So, if an emperor has a right to take country by force, why not grant the same right to inhabitants of that same country to free themselves by force? Besides, how any sane person can find justifying attacking one small neighboring country and killing one third of its male population and committing such atrocities against humanity just to "revenge" the death of one person, for which Serbia wasn't even responsible. After all, if Bosnia was really legitimate part of AH empire, as opposed to occupied country, then why attack Serbia because one AH citizen killed another one. Seems like blaming the victim, since Serbia was clearly the biggest victim of WW1. As you already said, one Bosnian Serb (which btw declared himself as Yugoslavian, like many members of his Mlada Bosna (Young Bosnia) organization) kills one tyrant, then AH and Germany attack half of the Europe, and Serbia and Gavrilo Princip are guilt of WW1? Makes no sense to me.

merloen 13y ago

That is by no means a fact. Nobody expected war in 1914, and most of the Great Powers did not want war. Franz Ferdinand was a force for moderation in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. A lot of domino stones had to fall for WWI to happen. By the way, I can recommend "The War that Ended Peace", excellent book about the causes of WWI.

mcv 13y ago
Most of the great powers didn't want war, but Germany clearly did. For a single assassination to legitimately trigger a war between Germany and France is silly. It was the trigger, but the tension was already there. They would probably have taken any excuse to go to war.
ableal 13y ago
> Nobody expected war in 1914 That's not the impression one gets from the popular literature (thriller romances, etc.) of the preceding years. For instance, it is obvious that the English were expecting a naval clash with Germany sooner or later. What was unexpected was the prolonged slaughter of trench warfare. The previous war of 1870 had been a relatively quick affair ...