Skip to comments.Serbia Has a New Teen Idol (Statue of Gavrilo Princip to be erected)
Posted on 01/24/2014 7:34:22 AM PST by C19fan
Serbias government is commissioning a statue to honor Gavrilo Princip, the boy-assassin of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Novosti, Serbias largest newspaper, revealed this week. To avoid any speculation about its intended symbolism, the statue will be erected atop the Belgrade Fortress on June 28, the 100th anniversary of Princips fateful gunshots, which, conventional wisdom holds, ushered in World War I. Serbia and the Serbian people are thus righting a wrong committed against Princip, who has never before had a monument dedicated to him, writes the pro-government paper.
(Excerpt) Read more at the-american-interest.com ...
Okay for Serbians to gun down archdukes they don’t like, eh?.
Archdukes are small potatoes. They gunned down their own monarchs. LOL!
Humanity would have been better off had the Anglophile Wilson stayed out of the war and let Kaiser Wilhelm stomp the Brits and French like bikers on a narc.
They assassinated the wrong guy.
Ferdinand was for treating Serbia fairly.
His opponent in the Austrian political circles was Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, Vienna’s hardliner chief of staff.
But at least Serbia is now admitting that Gavrilo was their guy.
Only took a century..
Who’s left to complain at this point???
There is a podcast about this event, the set up to the assassination, etc on Dan Carlin’s site. He quoted someone who made that exact point and then stated it was Adolf Hitler who was quoted.
With the 100th anniversary of the start of WW I a lot of scabs are getting ripped off.
Princip only accidently got to kill the archduke and his wife...
the original bomb was thrown under the wrong car...
the staff members in the car were badly wounded and rushed to the hospital..
the archduke ordered his drfiver to follow the car to the hospital but they got lost in the strange city and were wandering down the wrong street..
Meanwhile Princip was wandering dejected and defeated down by the river to throw himself in and drown in his despair...he and the other terrorists had failed..
He saw the car with the archduke coming and Princip just happened have a gun in his pocket...
He used it...
The archduchess had a white dress on...the red blood showed up nicely..
However questionable the Austro-Hungarian rule over Serbia might be, Princip was an atheist anarchist motivated by hatred for Christianity. The outcome was the greatest nightmare ever visited upon Europe, leading to two world wars, 150 million dead, and the Communist destruction of Western Civilization.
Lately, I’ve developed strong sympathies for the newly avuncular Orthodox society in Eastern Europe, but if I ever needed reminding how demonic the Serbian regime is, this is it.
How different would the world be today if Archduke hadn’t made a wrong turn!
And he never got a dinner.
Serbia was an independent nation in 1914 and had been for many decades. Not all Serbs, however, lived within its boundaries.
Princip was an atheist anarchist motivated by hatred for Christianity.
Do you have a link showing this?
Everything I've read about him indicates he was a Yugoslav nationalist. The attack was planned and carried out by a rogue faction within the Serbian government, for whom Princip worked.
There were an amazing number of anarchists, of a variety of ideologies. running around the later 19th and the early 20th centuries. Assassination was a favorite tool. They have pretty much disappeared down the memory hole, with communism and fascism showing up.
But most of the anarchists would have scrupled to work for a government like that of Serbia.
Unelected Monarchs are fair game. They are the very definition of despotism.
But anyway, he’s innocent. Killing two people with a 32 acp is impossible, ive read on gun threads that anything smaller than a 9 is essentially useless. So something else must have happened.
Everything I’ve ever read indicates that Serbs are the closest thing there is to normal, decent, middle class people in the Balkans. I’m hoping I can live long enough to see Serbian tanks roll back into Kosovo.
The Black Hand. Have read that the one who actually shot Ferdinand was not all there mentally either.
They really haven’t even disappeared. Anarchist thought is alive and well at the young edge of the American leftist movement. WTO protesters, the occupy crowd,,, they are out there still.
I dislike all forms of Totalitarianism. Monarchy included.
And I have always had great sympathy for the Serbs. They have sure been poorly treated. I am not talking about having sympathy for the Serbian Leadership, but the Serbian People.
They were at one time called the Keepers of the Gate. The gate between the Muslim World and the Christian World. The brutality of the Balkans seems to make all crazy.
In the later 19th century the Austrian Empire split itself up into the Dual Monarchy of Austria and Hungary, to mollify the Hungarians. (Who promptly started treating their own minorities at least as poorly as they themselves had been treated under Austrian rule.)
In both Hungary and Austria Slavs and others made up either a majority or very large minorities.
Ferdinand was in favor of splitting the DM up farther, giving the Slavs their own country or countries. As might be expected, this was violently opposed, especially by the Hungarians.
A rogue faction within the Serbian government wanted him killed specifically because his policies might address the grievances of the South Slavs within the DM, and therefore bring an end to Serbian ambitions to break them off and absorb them into Serbia.
So then he was the Accidental Assassin —
Problem was Franz Ferdinand was a progressive who wanted to reform the monarchy and liberalize the country. Princip killed the wrong guy
An odd person to build a monument to, but I can’t see any immediate ethical concerns.
The bridge near the assassination spot was named the Princip Bridge during the Communist era, but apparently they have gone back to the old name (the Latin Bridge).
I visited Sarajevo before the breakup of Yugoslavia, when the bridge was still named for Princip and they had shoe impressions in the sidewalk which were supposed to represent the place Princip stood when he fired the shots at the Archduke and his wife. I don't know if they are still in place.
Franz Ferdinand supposedly wanted to adopt the “Trialist” solution (make the South Slavs a third group on par with the Austrians and the Hungarians in the empire). Whether he would have really tried to implement that if he had come to power is uncertain. For Princip and people like him, that ran against what they wanted for Bosnia—they wanted to get rid of Austro-Hungarian rule altogether.
You would think that the Austrians would have made an exception in this case, but they didn't.
Nice quip. Of course, anyone under 50 would have no idea what you're talking about. And by the way, Amazon is selling a nice collection of Dean Martin roasts. I recommend it.
>> Serbia was an independent nation in 1914 and had been for many decades. Not all Serbs, however, lived within its boundaries. <<
Yes, what I meant was that Princip wanted to liberate the rest of the Serbs. Actually, he wanted to liberate all of the South Serbs (”Yugoslavs,” including Bosnians, Croats, Slovenes, Bulgars and Serbs), but I’m quite certain that my Slovene ancestors would have told him and his ilk to pound sand; Slovenes and Croats were Catholics, like the Austro-Hungarians and would have never voluntarily formed a union with the Serbs, which is why Milosevic killed so many hundreds and thousands of them.
>> Everything I’ve read about him indicates he was a Yugoslav nationalist. The attack was planned and carried out by a rogue faction within the Serbian government, for whom Princip worked. <<
He absolutely was a Yugoslav nationalist. Those two assertions are in no way contradictory. But where the Black Hand was Masonic, and Young Bosnia was strictly political, Princip was mostly animated by anti-Austrian hatred, which he associated with the Catholic Church.
I’m not saying the Austro-Hungarian emperor met all these standards, but hypothetically:
What if the unelected monarchs are beloved by a majority of the people they represent? What if they rule justly, and enable economic freedom and motility? Is a beloved monarch better than a despised elected government? We are a democracy; is our government beloved? Just? Free?
A people is entitled to choose their own leaders. If a people are prosperous, free and happy under an effective and just ruler, are they wrong to retain such a ruler?
Elections aren’t democracy. Elections are merely the means by which successors are chosen. The laws of a nation make for a democracy when the people retain power over their own lives and decisions. An elected ruler with no respect for law is far worse than a monarch with great respect for the laws he inherited. What major decision, in the last 100 years, has ever been made in America with the consent of the governed? The legalization of abortion? The destruction of the American family? The imposition of the welfare state? The prohibition of public Christianity? The explosion of the public debt?
My understanding is that the Croats and Slovenes were reasonably content under the Dual Monarchy, with Croatia being an autonomous region under Hungary.
Interesting to hear from you. For some unknown (to me) reason, most freepers with an interest in this area are very pro-Serbian and pro-Milosevich.
I’ve always thought the history of Croatia really interesting, especially the Croatian Military Frontier.
Very true. Franz Ferdinand was set against the annexation of Bosnia Herzogovina as being worthless as assets and nothing but trouble. Franz Joseph and his clique overruled him.
Croatia was divided--Dalmatia belonged to the Austrian half but much of inland Croatia was part of the Hungarian half of the empire. The Military Frontier had only recently been added to "civil" Croatia (1881 or something like that).
Modern ideas of national identity seem to have spread to that area only in the 19th century. Before that most people probably thought of their identity in religious terms (Orthodox, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish) rather than ethnic terms. Later, both the Serbs and the Croats tried to claim that the Bosnian Muslims belonged to their group.
Among immigrants to the US (who mostly came before 1921), a lot of them still answered "Austria" for the census question for place of birth rather than Yugoslavia even after Yugoslavia had come into existence.
The history of the Balkans from say 1850 to 1914 is really interesting. All these different groups were trying to gain the allegiance of what were often called “emerging nationalities.”
In actual fact these nationalities were in the process of being invented. Different groups claimed “historical right” to particular areas because they’d controlled a big chunk of land 600 or 800 years before for a decade or two. My personal favorite is the Serbs claiming they “owned” most of the Balkans because Stephen Dushan had an empire for 25 years or so back in the 1300s. Obviously these claims overlapped greatly.
In Macedonia, for example, Greeks claimed all Macedonians were Greeks because Alexander the Great was from Macedonia. In fact, I think they still do. To an unbiased observer, this is a really, really flimsy basis for such a claim.
Meanwhile, the Macedonians themselves were largely Orthodox Slavs. They spoke a language with various dialects that were close to Serbian on one end of the region and Bulgarian on the other.
So of course Serbs and Bulgarians both claimed all Macedonians were “really” members of their “nationality.”
This leaves out of the mess that people in the Balkans didn’t live in neat blocks by “nationality” as they (mostly) did in Western Europe. They lived in general in villages of various ethnicities scattered across the landscape. Which meant that when one “nation” acquired title to the area, the other ethnic groups imediately became intruders, in a land where they had lived just as long as their now “majority” neighbors.
What a mess!
The Italians and the Greeks could claim all of the Balkans based on the fact that the whole peninsula belonged to the Roman Empire, and at times in the Middle Ages to the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantines called themselves Romans, and the Greeks continued to call themselves Romans for the most part until the 19th century, I think, when part of Greece became an independent kingdom (under a non-Greek king).
The ancient Greeks considered the ancient Macedonians to be barbarians, but the modern Greeks claim that they were Greeks--and have prevented the Republic of Macedonia from using that name at the UN. Most of the Balkans became Slavic in the 6th or 7th century, apart from Greece and Albania, so the modern Macedonians have little to do with the ancient Macedonians. (Perhaps they inherited some DNA...language changes don't always mean that the earlier population is wiped out.)
The modern Macedonian language is very similar to Bulgarian--if the Russians had succeeded in creating a "Big Bulgaria" in 1878 that area would use Bulgarian as their official language. Instead it was later conquered by Serbia in the Balkan Wars and called "South Serbia." Between the wars it was illegal to use the local Macedonian language--people were supposed to use Serbian instead. The Tito government recognized the Macedonians as separate from the Serbs and created the Macedonian literary language (trying to make it as different from Bulgarian as they could). Serbian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian are all related but Macedonian and Bulgarian are closer--they have features in common which are lacking in Serbian (like attaching the article to the end of a noun).
The whole Yugoslav project was an example of intellectuals thinking they know what is best for the people.
Well it seems to me that it is your resentment for the Serbs that is forming your opinion, not facts. There was a huge pro-Yugoslavian movement in those times in the Balkans, including Slovenia and Croatia.
Resentment? It’s merely history for me. I have no more resentment for the Yugoslav movement than any other American has for King George. I just have enough living relatives to know from living witnesses what is historically absurd.
Which is not to say that there wouldn’t be any sympathies for the Yugoslav movement; it only makes sense that certain discontents with memories of the nationalist-socialist revolutions (where have we heard that term before?) of 1848 would seek alliances with foreign powers to topple the Empire. But understand them for what they were: radicals seeking foreign intervention, not patriots seeking liberty.
Hungarian Croatia was an imperfect democracy, not at all a dictatorship. Even imemdiately after the Austrian-Hungarian Ausgleich (Settlement) of 1868, the separatist People’s Party were out-voted 66-16; they clearly represented a small fraction of the public. And they were merely separatist; they had no interest in being dominated by their much larger neighbors to the East.
So why would people vote 3-1 (at the LOW point) to be subjected to an Empire? Was it that they saw themselves less as Slavs and more as Catholics, and their empire that of the Holy Roman Empire? Or did they resent Germanic-Hungarian domination, but feared Serbian domination far more? Either way, the notion that they wanted to be under the boot of the Serbs is purely ridiculous.
>> The whole Yugoslav project was an example of intellectuals thinking they know what is best for the people. <<
And of course, by “thinking they know what is best for the people,” you mean, “justifying their own lust for domination and control,” as is the case whenever intellectuals do so, right?