Gavrilo Princip & The Start of WWI

[Rambuchan]

It is commonly stated that Franz Ferdinand's assassination at the hands of Gavrilo Princip was "the main catalyst to the start of WWI".

When we see this simplistic rendering peddled about, and when we peddle it about ourselves, don't we tend to forget and gloss over the fact that it was carried out in response to Austrian Imperial ambition and aggression in the Balkans?

Wouldn't a more truthful, revealing, useful, and still quite digestible account of the start of WWI take into account Austro-Hungarian expansion in this area, as devised and advocated by Count Gyula Andrássy? (Perhaps it could go on to mention that both Italy and Germany had been written off as areas of expansion due to the rise of them as new national powers too, but that's a digression, which may or may not arise later in the thread, as posters wish.)

Of course, history is written by the victor and blah blah blah. But isn't the victor in this case "imperialism in general"? All of the Austro-Hungarian Empire's major enemies, the victors of WWI, were, after all, imperial powers themselves. We can't really say the same about Pan-Slavism and its various grass roots organisations. To propagate the Princip assassination account is to lay the onus and responsibility for the world's most horrific ever war at the time not on imperial powers, and the precarious balance of these in Europe at the time, but on some mad hat, arguably nihilistic, possibly anarchistic, brigade of goons - people acting to resist imperial aggression and overlordship no less. To focus on this group, and other such groups as the likes of Princip belonged to, detracts from the lack of respect for human life and self determination that imperialism brings about on a far greater scale than Princip and his affiliates ever sought to bring about. Instead we are encouraged to perceive such groups not as legitimate resistors to a far bigger "evil", but as lunatics and fanatics who - shock, horror, aren't they evil! - care not for human life and are willing to use violence at the drop of a hat.

---

~ Shouldn't we, those who care about the accuracy and truthfulness of our histories and their implications for the modern world, have our accounts of the start of WWI include the plans of Count Gyula Andrássy at the very least?

~ Do you agree with the statement that "imperialist powers in general were the victors who authored the common story of the start of WWI"?

~ Would WWI have happened regardless of the actions of Princip, or anyone else assassinating an Austro-Hungarian Archduke?

~ What implications do you think the common (Princip assassination) account of the start of WWI have on our world today?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I have heard the assassination described as the spark - with the implication that the powder keg was there for other reasons.

In other words, every account I have ever read said that this was only the catalyst, but it set in motion events that were ultimately caused by many other factors.

 

[Rambuchan]

I have heard the assassination described as the spark - with the implication that the powder keg was there for other reasons.

In other words, every account I have ever read said that this was only the catalyst, but it set in motion events that were ultimately caused by many other factors.

The point being that these other factors are almost always implied. Rarely are they explicitly stated, especially to schoolkids at whatever level. Hence my question about whether WWI would have come about regardless of this assassination, or any other like it.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I am trying to remember what exactly I was taught in school - since most of what I learned about history I picked up on my own. They did tell us that the only reason that one assassination led to a major war was because of the already-existing series of alliances and treaties. They didn't explicitly tie this to imperialism (although they would mention imperialism in the context of, say, Africa.)

 

[silver 2039]

I was told Militralisim, Nationalism, Imperialism, and the Alliance System were the major causes. And we did look at them in detail.

This was Canadian, Ontario curriculum 10th grade.

 

[Evie]

I had pretty much the same classes as Silver this side of the Ottawa river (ie, Quebec).

We also talked a lot about the arms race of the era.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Austria had been attempting to expand into the Balkans since at least the early 1500's, if not earlier. It is an omnipresent background factor in European history. Yet, it only led to World War One in one specific instance.

That's because the response at that one point was different.

 

[Swedishguy]

Different alliances, ganging up together. I think the war could've been caused by pretty much anything.

 

[Sofista]

To believe that Gavrilo Princip's actions were the cause of the war means confusing causes with occasions.

In 1898 Elizabeth of Austria was similarly murdered, but no war was declared. The Sarajevo murder was "the main catalyst" of subsequent events alright, which means the conditions for war were already there.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Vrylakas wrote a long article on it...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95423

 

[Tee Kay]

To propagate the Princip assassination account is to lay the onus and responsibility for the world's most horrific ever war at the time not on imperial powers, and the precarious balance of these in Europe at the time, but on some mad hat, arguably nihilistic, possibly anarchistic, brigade of goons - people acting to resist imperial aggression and overlordship no less. To focus on this group, and other such groups as the likes of Princip belonged to, detracts from the lack of respect for human life and self determination that imperialism brings about on a far greater scale than Princip and his affiliates ever sought to bring about. Instead we are encouraged to perceive such groups not as legitimate resistors to a far bigger "evil", but as lunatics and fanatics who - shock, horror, aren't they evil! - care not for human life and are willing to use violence at the drop of a hat.

You could say the same about how people in the 1920s often blame a single nation (Germany) for causing World War I or how people today often blame a single individual (Hitler) as the main propagator of the Second World War. I am not saying that Hitler is a "good guy" who tried to bring down impsm, because he himself was an imperialist. But it goes to show how historians often ignore the whole picture and lay the blame for calamities on one evil, despicable individual or group.

~ Shouldn't we, those who care about the accuracy and truthfulness of our histories and their implications for the modern world, have our accounts of the start of WWI include the plans of Count Gyula Andrássy at the very least?

We should, and in some cases we already are. However, most people can't be bothered learning about Austria-Hungary and Count Gyuwhathisname, so general accounts of the War is, predictably, simplified.

~ Do you agree with the statement that "imperialist powers in general were the victors who authored the common story of the start of WWI"?

"Winners write history". This much is true, but what happens to history after the winners wrote it is a different matter. The events of World War I happened almost a century ago, after all. In the 1920s, the blame for the war lay squarely on Germany, as the 1919 Treaty of Verseilles show. After the Second World War (and, co-incidentally, at the start of the Cold War), in the Western world the blame for the war shifted to Gavrilo Princip and Slavic nationalism in the Balkans - additionally it was decided that Germany was treated "too harshly" by the Verseilles. Today, in the post-Cold War world it seemed another shift in thinking is underway, with a lot of history books focusing on the Anglo-German arms race of the 1900s, French and German disputes in Africa, and the decline of Tsarist Russia.

 

[Tee Kay]

~ Would WWI have happened regardless of the actions of Princip, or anyone else assassinating an Austro-Hungarian Archduke?

Possibly. Europe then had a fragile balance of power between aggressively miltarist and imperialist states. War could easily break out. Most of the great powers are more or less evenly matched and there are no incentive to not go to war (eg nukes).

~ What implications do you think the common (Princip assassination) account of the start of WWI have on our world today?

What implications? Most people have a simplified view of the war and some have a more detailed view based on their understanding of history.

Anyway, these days the Princip assassination theory is usually served with a side dish of Great Power imperialism and the alliance system, and top up with Balkan nationalism. At my school, for instances, the Princip assassination is treated as the "spark" which caused the war, but the real reasoning behind it can be found in the events of the decades leading up to the war.

 

[Rambuchan]

I was told Militralisim, Nationalism, Imperialism, and the Alliance System were the major causes. And we did look at them in detail.

This was Canadian, Ontario curriculum 10th grade.

I had pretty much the same classes as Silver this side of the Ottawa river (ie, Quebec).

We also talked a lot about the arms race of the era.

It's interesting that getting an education in North America has provided you with this angle on the matter. There is, after all, a strong tradition of anti-imperialism to be found there. Funny how in Britain, in the '80s and '90s, we were told the version that Princip's act was the main straw that broke the camel's back and the stack of cards of imperial power alliances and arms races was only implied.

 

[Rambuchan]

To believe that Gavrilo Princip's actions were the cause of the war means confusing causes with occasions.

In 1898 Elizabeth of Austria was similarly murdered, but no war was declared. The Sarajevo murder was "the main catalyst" of subsequent events alright, which means the conditions for war were already there.

A very good point. Shamefully, I had quite forgotten about this when putting together the OP! What is your personal take on what those conditions for war were?

Vrylakas wrote a long article on it...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95423

Thanks, I'll have a read when I can.

 

[rilnator]

The domino effect of honouring treaties and pacts following the assasination showed that all the combatants were itching for a fight. The build up of military forces in the years proceeding and the 2 distincly different camps.

I remember learning about the all the jingoism in school.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

~ Shouldn't we, those who care about the accuracy and truthfulness of our histories and their implications for the modern world, have our accounts of the start of WWI include the plans of Count Gyula Andrássy at the very least?

Why stop at exposing the ugly side of one of the imperial powers? Shame them all. Realistically though, every simplification of history, every shortcut taken to cram things into a syllabus erodes it's historical authenticity. We can't really bemoan one omission without bemoaning the rest. Students should be presented with all of the perspectives, but if we're talking about GCSE History then there's always going to be something to get legitimately annoyed about.

~ Do you agree with the statement that "imperialist powers in general were the victors who authored the common story of the start of WWI"?

Initially yes. But, apart from the predictable anti-German presumptions of British history education, I don't think I suffered from any pro-imperial bias.

~ Would WWI have happened regardless of the actions of Princip, or anyone else assassinating an Austro-Hungarian Archduke?

While the assasination was in one very real sense the cause of the war, I think you'd be crazy to suggest that the war would never have happened without it. WWI was a pretty much inevitable given the alliances and behaviour of the various powers.

~ What implications do you think the common (Princip assassination) account of the start of WWI have on our world today?

I really don't think the Balkans are genuinely being blamed for what happened, it's just incumbent on journalists to mention it everytime something violent happens there. Do you think your view of the Balkans was really shaped by the Princip thing before you came to know more? It's a very iconic event for sure, but it says much more about the imperial powers that fell on each other as a result than it does about the comparatively petty details of the assasination itself, and this always struck me as the intended implication, rather than an awfully backfiring attempt to deflect attention for the underlying imperial causes for the war, as I guess you're suggesting.

 

[Disenfrancised]

It's interesting that getting an education in North America has provided you with this angle on the matter. There is, after all, a strong tradition of anti-imperialism to be found there. Funny how in Britain, in the '80s and '90s, we were told the version that Princip's act was the main straw that broke the camel's back and the stack of cards of imperial power alliances and arms races was only implied.

But without the Assassination of their leader, would the Germans have given the Austrians a diplomatic blank cheque to crack down on Serbia? War due to imperialism and nationalism was coming, but World War 1 as it occurred was triggered by Princip's. A different trigger event (some French-German border incidents in Africa perhaps? A Polish uprising?), would have given a different war, and a different post-war world.

You could say the same about how people in the 1920s often blame a single nation (Germany) for causing World War I or how people today often blame a single individual (Hitler) as the main propagator of the Second World War. I am not saying that Hitler is a "good guy" who tried to bring down impsm, because he himself was an imperialist.

I agree with you on the first - but the second WW? yeah that was pretty much Hitler, I doubt any other German leader would have been crazy enough to push things so far (stopping at the Anschluss and the Sudetenland before chickening out), and none of the other powers wanted war at all (Anglo-French have colonial troubles and economic and military difficulties, and Russia is reaping the fruits of Stalins purges)

 

[Adler17]

Without the assassination Germany would not have given the Austrians a card blanche. They only did so for having better cards in the following negotiations. At least that was the German plan. If the arch duke survived or someone else was killed not belonging to the House Habsburg, no war would have happened. And a later war is something totally different indeed.
Hitler needed the money so that he attacked. He was "only" a robber at first. Any other German politician would have tried to stop it much earlier or if it went bad after the fall of France. But then we would talk to a much different person. So it is unlikely to have such a radical anti semitic politician there. And also a much different war.

Adler

 

[Tee Kay]

I agree with you on the first - but the second WW? yeah that was pretty much Hitler, I doubt any other German leader would have been crazy enough to push things so far (stopping at the Anschluss and the Sudetenland before chickening out), and none of the other powers wanted war at all (Anglo-French have colonial troubles and economic and military difficulties, and Russia is reaping the fruits of Stalins purges)

Hitler may have been the main driving force behind the events of the European theatre, but he couldn't have gone that far without the support of his Nazi Party. Mussolini's Italy and the military junta in Japan developed almost independently of Nazi Germany. There are other factors that need to be considered as well: the Great Depression, start of the decolonisation movement (which Japan capitalised upon when they invaded South East Asia), rise of leftist and far-right political movements, etc.

 

[happy_Alex]

sorry to butt in here, but the link between the Black Hand and the serbian government has never been proved...