Bosnian Serbs erect statue to Gavrilo Princip

[Sidewinder]

Bosnian Serbs erect statue to Gavrilo Princip, teen assassin who ignited WWI

Jun 27th 2014 7:07PM

By AIDA CERKEZ

SARAJEVO, Bosnia-Herzegovina (AP) -- Marking the eve of the centennial of the beginning of World War I in their own way, Bosnian Serbs on Friday unveiled a monument in their part of Sarajevo to the man who ignited the war by assassinating the Austro-Hungarian crown prince on June 28, 1914.

At the other end of the city, the Vienna Philharmonic orchestra was rehearsing for Saturday's grand EU-sponsored performance, planned as a symbolic start of a new century of peace at the place where the century of wars in Europe started 100 years ago.

The two separate events testify to the depth of lingering divisions in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where one side performed works of Austrian, German and French composers in a salute to European integration while the other celebrated the man who assassinated the emperor's heir as a national hero.

Saturday's concert aims to emphasize the transformation Europe has gone through, said Clemens Hellsberg, the President of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra. "We feel obliged to do things in a better way than it was done in the past," the Austrian said, adding the orchestra is delivering a message of humanity to those who want to listen.

It will start with the Bosnian anthem and finish with Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" - the official European anthem - which symbolizes where Europe sees Bosnia's future, he said.

In the Bosnian Serb East Sarajevo they have a different view of Bosnia's future: to divide the country so that the Serb part can join neighboring Serbia.

During the unveiling ceremony Friday, a young actor dressed as shooter Gavrilo Princip ran on the stage and fired two shots in the air. He then cited a poem Princip wrote in captivity which was followed by a Serbian folk dance. Later the actor pointed his gun into the air while posing in front of Princip's statue as people in the crowd shouted he should "shoot at NATO" or "shoot at the EU."

"Gavrilo Princip was a freedom fighter and the Austro Hungarian empire was an occupier here," said the president of the Bosnian Serb half of the country, Milorad Dodik, after he unveiled the 2 meters-high bronze statue.

"People who live here have never been on the same side of history and are still divided. We are sending different messages and that says it all about this country which is being held together by international violence," he said.

A century ago Austria accused Serbia of masterminding the assassination and attacked the country with backing from Germany. Serbia's allies, Russia and France, were quickly drawn in and later Britain, its sprawling Commonwealth empire and the United States also joined the fighting. When the mass slaughter known as the Great War ended in 1918, it had claimed some 14 million lives.

For the Bosnian Serbs Princip's shots on St. Vitus Day - a sacred Serb holiday of June 28 - announced the liberation from Austro-Hungarian rule and a chance for including Bosnia into the neighboring Serbian kingdom. That same idea inspired the Serbs in 1992 to fight the decision by Muslim Bosnians and Catholic Croats to declare the former republic of Bosnia independent when Serb-dominated Yugoslavia fell apart.

A peace agreement ended the 1992-95 war without a winner by recognizing Bosnia as a sovereign state but divided in two parts - one for the Serbs and the other shared by Muslim Bosniaks and Roman Catholic Croats. The Serb leadership sees the current division only as a step toward a final dissolution and inclusion of their half into Serbia.

"St. Vitus day is an inspiration for all of us," said Nebojsa Radmanovic, the Serb member of Bosnia's joint three-member presidency. "It's an inspiration in the fight for our freedom, in a fight for our sacrifice and in our joint battle for a joint country, which we haven't managed yet to create," he said referring to a Greater Serbia.

Serbs refused to take part in the commemoration in Sarajevo on Saturday, where the EU has financed various international cultural events to mark the centennial.

"Sarajevo is now a symbol of a century of wars in Europe but we are here to talk about peace and reconciliation," said Joseph Zimet, Sarajevo director general of the "Mission du centenaire" - a French-led partnership program managing the WWI commemorations. He added that it "was a pity" Serbs from Serbia and Bosnia have "not joined us".

Sarajevo mayor Ivo Komsic said those who refused to come "demonstrated not their attitude toward the past but toward the future of this region."

Maestro Franz Welser-Most said the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra came to Sarajevo "with a historical burden" and with the intention to "send a clear message: Never again!"

[Thanas]

It is nationalism - the Bosnian serbs are bitter about the end of the Bosnian war. I doubt most of them even know a lot about the historical event, it is just a statue to make them feel strong and relevant by erecting a monument to a Serb killing what he believed to be unjust rulers.

[Metahive]

In Korea we did a similar thing by erecting a statue for Ahn Jung-geun who's claim to fame is having murdered japanese resident general Itoh Hirobumi. It's just as dumb as both Itoh and Franz-Ferdinand were moderating and compromising voices whose death made everything worse. Neither deserves a monument and it's clear it's just spite that's behind them anyway.

[Sidewinder]

Question for the person who voted "Yes" on whether or not Gavrilo Princip deserves to be honored: WHY do you think he deserves to be honored? Because he fought for Serbian independence? Wasn't Serbia ALREADY an independent nation- see "Kingdom of Serbia"- when Princip and his co-conspirators got greedy and sought to annex Bosnia (then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire)?

[Titan Uranus]

Question for the person who voted "Yes" on whether or not Gavrilo Princip deserves to be honored: WHY do you think he deserves to be honored? Because he fought for Serbian independence? Wasn't Serbia ALREADY an independent nation- see "Kingdom of Serbia"- when Princip and his co-conspirators got greedy and sought to annex Bosnia (then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire)?

I am not the one who voted "yes", but I can certainly see why the Serbs would wish to honor him.

Only a small portion of Serbia was independent in 1914, without his act it is possible that the remainder of the Slavs under the Austrian thumb would never have been freed, with his act basically all of them were.

Bosnia was an oppressed state of Slavs, saying that the Serbs "got greedy" is as reasonable as saying that the western Germans "got greedy" when they annexed the East, never-mind that the two halves wanted to recombine and were only halted by an outside power.

Yes, this man's actions wrecked proud empires and gave birth to much of modern Eastern Europe, whether you like him or not, the man deserves to be remembered. Unless, of course, you think WW1 would have happened the same no matter what.

In Korea we did a similar thing by erecting a statue for Ahn Jung-geun who's claim to fame is having murdered japanese resident general Itoh Hirobumi. It's just as dumb as both Itoh and Franz-Ferdinand were moderating and compromising voices whose death made everything worse. Neither deserves a monument and it's clear it's just spite that's behind them anyway.

Really? Please prove that Ito Hirobumi did not commit what we would consider to be atrocities today and did not oppress the Korean people, as I find that hard to believe considering the time and place.
From what little I can find quickly, he oppressed the Korean people rather badly and killed quite a few of them.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I voted "No", but honestly that's mostly because I don't think he is worthy of adulation per se. However, I think a monument to him is important for historical reasons. But it is possible to memorialize without glorifying.

[Ahriman238]

I voted "No", but honestly that's mostly because I don't think he is worthy of adulation per se. However, I think a monument to him is important for historical reasons. But it is possible to memorialize without glorifying.

^this. Here is a man who quite literally made history. Not in a good way, but he deserves to be remembered if not revered.

[Sidewinder]

Bosnia was an oppressed state of Slavs, saying that the Serbs "got greedy" is as reasonable as saying that the western Germans "got greedy" when they annexed the East, never-mind that the two halves wanted to recombine and were only halted by an outside power.

There were/are also large numbers of non-Slavs living in Bosnia. If the Kingdom of Serbia wanted to annex Bosnia, it had to make accommodations for a large minority of non-Serbs. In such conditions, it's better to negotiate.

I say the Serbs "got greedy" for the same reason I say the Irish Republican Army "got greedy" when they wanted North Ireland to reunite with Ireland. Yes, there are lots of Irish Catholics living there, who want Ulster to reunite with Ireland; there are also lots of Protestants living there, who do NOT want Ulster to leave Great Britain. Did anyone in the IRA take into consideration what might happen if they won? What concessions they might have to give to avoid yet another civil war?

Yes, this man's actions wrecked proud empires and gave birth to much of modern Eastern Europe, whether you like him or not, the man deserves to be remembered.

Don't forget, one of the proud empires that Gavrilo Princip wrecked, was Russia- a SLAVIC empire, which saw itself as protector of the SLAVIC peoples, and suffered over TEN MILLION casualties (including 2,254,400 killed) doing so. The man deserves to be remembered, but he deserves no honor.

[Titan Uranus]

Bosnia was an oppressed state of Slavs, saying that the Serbs "got greedy" is as reasonable as saying that the western Germans "got greedy" when they annexed the East, never-mind that the two halves wanted to recombine and were only halted by an outside power.

There were/are also large numbers of non-Slavs living in Bosnia. If the Kingdom of Serbia wanted to annex Bosnia, it had to make accommodations for a large minority of non-Serbs. In such conditions, it's better to negotiate.

I say the Serbs "got greedy" for the same reason I say the Irish Republican Army "got greedy" when they wanted North Ireland to reunite with Ireland. Yes, there are lots of Irish Catholics living there, who want Ulster to reunite with Ireland; there are also lots of Protestants living there, who do NOT want Ulster to leave Great Britain. Did anyone in the IRA take into consideration what might happen if they won? What concessions they might have to give to avoid yet another civil war?

Yes, this man's actions wrecked proud empires and gave birth to much of modern Eastern Europe, whether you like him or not, the man deserves to be remembered.

Don't forget, one of the proud empires that Gavrilo Princip wrecked, was Russia- a SLAVIC empire, which saw itself as protector of the SLAVIC peoples, and suffered over TEN MILLION casualties (including 2,254,400 killed) doing so. The man deserves to be remembered, but he deserves no honor.

According to the 1895 census, 98% of the population were Serbians.
There is no way that the Austro-Hungarians would have yielded an inch to Serbia in negotiations, they had designs on Serbia as can be seen in the terms they offered to Serbia after the assassination.

Let's be clear about Northern Ireland, the IRA did in fact win. Not only did the oppression of the Catholic northern Irish stop, Sinn Fein and the SDLP are now steadily taking over Northern Ireland, only 8 out of 18 Northern Irish MPs are Unionists.

Who cares if Russia, the self-designated protector of the Slavs looses some non-Slavic territory and a few million people? All of the Slavs are free now, (or at least oppressed by other Slavs) the great oppressors of the Slavs (the Germans and the Turks) have been struck down, and in an age of high birth rates, it would not take very long for the populations to recover. Especially in a rapidly-growing nation like Yugoslavia after WW1.

But ignoring that, what did he do, specifically? He killed an empowered aristocrat, a wholly noble act in general. This aristocrat promised reforms and such, but he seems to have done so solely in order to consolidate his power in a time and a place where the old feudal system was a death sentence to a state, especially one as fractured as Austria, with so many nationalist divides.

The man had no way of knowing that WW1 would start over his actions, no one at the time did.

[Metahive]

Really? Please prove that Ito Hirobumi did not commit what we would consider to be atrocities today and did not oppress the Korean people, as I find that hard to believe considering the time and place.
From what little I can find quickly, he oppressed the Korean people rather badly and killed quite a few of them.

You ask me to prove a negative? That's your first fault. Your second fault is forgetting that Itoh was opposed to the military hardliners in Japan who wanted to outright annex Korea and killing Itoh paved the way to that which made everything worse for Korea.

Yeah, you could only find "little", alright.

[Sidewinder]

Who cares if Russia, the self-designated protector of the Slavs looses some non-Slavic territory and a few million people? All of the Slavs are free now, (or at least oppressed by other Slavs) the great oppressors of the Slavs (the Germans and the Turks) have been struck down, and in an age of high birth rates, it would not take very long for the populations to recover. Especially in a rapidly-growing nation like Yugoslavia after WW1.

But ignoring that, what did he do, specifically? He killed an empowered aristocrat, a wholly noble act in general. This aristocrat promised reforms and such, but he seems to have done so solely in order to consolidate his power in a time and a place where the old feudal system was a death sentence to a state, especially one as fractured as Austria, with so many nationalist divides.

"Who cares if Russia [loses] a few million people?" You're just being a troll. And murder is NOT a "wholly noble act in general," Franz Ferdinand was NOT a mass-murderer like Adolf Hitler, and if you seriously believe anarchy and civil war are preferable to life under an "old feudal system," you should learn from Voluntaryist.

The man had no way of knowing that WW1 would start over his actions, no one at the time did.

That does NOT excuse his stupidity, any more than "George W. Bush had no way of knowing he would revive al-Qaida with his decision to invade Iraq," excused the stupidity of the 46th President of the United States.

[Ultonius]

Let's be clear about Northern Ireland, the IRA did in fact win. Not only did the oppression of the Catholic northern Irish stop, Sinn Fein and the SDLP are now steadily taking over Northern Ireland, only 8 out of 18 Northern Irish MPs are Unionists.

Sinn Fein and the SDLP only have 8 MPs between them as well, and one of the remaining two is a Unionist-leaning independent. Unionist parties do maintain a relative majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly, where there are 54 Unionist MLAs to 43 Nationalist and 11 Other.

I would also point out that the Provisional IRA's main goals during the Troubles were to use physical force to make Northern Ireland ungovernable and to compel the British government to withdraw. Agreeing to renounce physical force in favour of democratic means and participating in a devolved Northern Ireland government doesn't sound as though they achieved those goals, to me.

[K. A. Pital]

Franz Ferdinand's life is irrelevant (as an aristocrat, he probably deserved to feel the wrath through a bullet). Neither would his life stop a World War from happening, since it is the general trends and not isolated incidents which determine what happens. Titanic forces were at work, both Gavrilo and Franz totally irrelevant, a mere trigger for the loaded gun.

I think he deserves commemoration, by the way. Being a rebel in his day and age was not an easy life, and national Empires seemed to dispose of ethnic minorities with peculiar ease (Ottoman Empire, yeah).

[Borgholio]

Neither would his life stop a World War from happening, since it is the general trends and not isolated incidents which determine what happens.

I do seem to recall reading that Europe was basically walking on a knife's edge already with tension between the various alliances...it was only a matter of time before SOMETHING set it off. In our history it was the assassination of the Archduke but it really could have been any number of things.

[Thanas]

That kind of thinking always amazes me. No, you can't say it was only a matter of time any more than you can make the same grand claims about any period of tension. War could have been trivially easy to prevent, if nothing else by the passage of time. Heck, suppose there is no war in 1914. What then? The Brits realize the German fleet is less of a threat than they thought (and if anything, their 4:1 advantage in building large ships would have driven that home real quick). Ferdinand might have ascended to the throne and ushered in his policies of turning the empire into a federation of several ethnicities. The French, British and Russians might have gotten into a colonial squabble. There are dozens of ways war could have been avoided.

I mean, heck, if the cold war had gone nuclear, you would say that it was only a matter of time until something went wrong with such giant armies and walking on the knife's edge.

[Borgholio]

How was it not a period of tension? There were alliances left and right trying to balance power against what they thought was inevitable aggression from one of their neighbors. When the Archduke was murdered, that started a series of events that led to troop movement and it all snowballed from there. The comparison with the Cold War would best be shown by the Cuban Missile Crisis. Easily a dozen different events could have set off a nuclear war had they occurred even slightly differently than what they did historically. The difference between the two examples is that in Europe, war actually happened. With Cuba, war was avoided. But in both cases, it would (did) not take much to get the ball rolling.

[Captain Seafort]

The comparison with the Cold War would best be shown by the Cuban Missile Crisis. Easily a dozen different events could have set off a nuclear war had they occurred even slightly differently than what they did historically. The difference between the two examples is that in Europe, war actually happened. With Cuba, war was avoided. But in both cases, it would (did) not take much to get the ball rolling.

It also demonstrates that WW1 was no more "inevitable" than the full scale nuclear exchange triggered by the Cuban Missile Crisis or Able Archer 83.

[K. A. Pital]

That kind of thinking always amazes me.

The kind of thinking that sees how in pre-nuclear times people went to war over trivial shit faster than you can say "Vae victis"? It only reflects the truth.

War could have been trivially easy to prevent, if nothing else by the passage of time. Heck, suppose there is no war in 1914. What then? The Brits realize the German fleet is less of a threat than they thought (and if anything, their 4:1 advantage in building large ships would have driven that home real quick).

"Brits", "realize". Thanas, you are talking about national governments even less caring to avoid a bloodbath than the ones that participated in WWII. Not to mention the 'bloodbath' was not believed by anyone, all thought war is glorious and quick and brings spoils. Because, you know, that's how it pretty much was before.

Ferdinand might have ascended to the throne and ushered in his policies of turning the empire into a federation of several ethnicities.

As we know, this doesn't help much: even the US, a Republic from the start, participated in lots of colonial wars, in the bloodbath in China and finally both World Wars.

The French, British and Russians might have gotten into a colonial squabble. There are dozens of ways war could have been avoided.

'Colonial squabble' means war. The collapse of one grand alliance means more fodder for wars, and the formation of new alliances. The only thing decisively stopping large-scale war was nuclear arsenals.

I mean, heck, if the cold war had gone nuclear, you would say that it was only a matter of time until something went wrong with such giant armies and walking on the knife's edge.

In fact, it is pretty much so even without it going nuclear. The deterrent is there, but otherwise the large armies are unnecessary, a product of a paranoid two centuries of enormous scale warfare. And the Army is an additional factor of provocation, which is why the Cold War came to a standoff so many times: both nations interpreted the military movements and deployments of the other side as a precursor to hostile acts.

[K. A. Pital]

It also demonstrates that WW1 was no more "inevitable" than the full scale nuclear exchange triggered by the Cuban Missile Crisis or Able Archer 83.

Except while everyone understood that CMC or Archer's consequences would be basically a throwback to the XIX century and complete and utter destruction of lots of advanced nations that harbored most of the world's industrial potential, with World War I nobody thought that the consequences would be devastating. Or that devastating. This is why they started it in the first place.

It is very hard to press the button knowing you are also destroying the very world you live in. It is very easy to fire the first shell if you think in a matter of weeks, months maybe, you'll take over enemy land force him to surrender and take over his stuff. And territory. Like you always did before.

This is why pre-nuclear wars happened with guaranteed regularity even though the actors were often different, in separated parts of the world. This is also why no nuclear war has happened to that day, even though there's a multitude of parties locked in crisis situations.

[Titan Uranus]

Who cares if Russia, the self-designated protector of the Slavs looses some non-Slavic territory and a few million people? All of the Slavs are free now, (or at least oppressed by other Slavs) the great oppressors of the Slavs (the Germans and the Turks) have been struck down, and in an age of high birth rates, it would not take very long for the populations to recover. Especially in a rapidly-growing nation like Yugoslavia after WW1.

But ignoring that, what did he do, specifically? He killed an empowered aristocrat, a wholly noble act in general. This aristocrat promised reforms and such, but he seems to have done so solely in order to consolidate his power in a time and a place where the old feudal system was a death sentence to a state, especially one as fractured as Austria, with so many nationalist divides.

"Who cares if Russia [loses] a few million people?" You're just being a troll. And murder is NOT a "wholly noble act in general," Franz Ferdinand was NOT a mass-murderer like Adolf Hitler, and if you seriously believe anarchy and civil war are preferable to life under an "old feudal system," you should learn from Voluntaryist.

The man had no way of knowing that WW1 would start over his actions, no one at the time did.

That does NOT excuse his stupidity, any more than "George W. Bush had no way of knowing he would revive al-Qaida with his decision to invade Iraq," excused the stupidity of the 46th President of the United States.

I was speaking from the perspective of a Serbian Nationalist, not myself, though I do realize that that was unclear. I am not an anarchist, however the old feudal monarchies perpetuated a multitude of evils and horrors. If a war on the scale of WW1 was required to break them and do terrible damage to old-school colonialism, then I would say that it was worth it.

I do not know enough to say whether or not Princip is worthy of veneration. Was he just an angry young man looking for an outlet? Or was he simply outraged by the oppression of his fellow Slavs rules by the KuK?

And it is not the murder that is a noble act on general principles, it is the fat that he removed an empowered aristocrat, who would have oppressed the people of Austria-Hungry the instant that he gained power because that is what basically every empowered aristocrat does. This is hardly surprising considering the fact that they are told from birth that they are somehow better than the common folk.

The reason that we blame Bush the Lesser for the results of the invasion of Iraq is that tons of people told him what would happen and they were either ignored, fired, or silenced. I sincerely doubt that very many people would expect the chain of events that brought every European Great Power to war in 1914 to happen.

I mean, for WW1 as we know it to happen:
1. Austria-Hungry must demand terms of Serbia that no sovereign nation could accept, despite the fact that it was a terrorist group connected to the Serbian government, not the government itself that committed the act.
2. Serbia must remain defiant in the face of these demands, despite the seeming suicidal nature of this act. And Austria-Hungry must continue on the path to war despite the Serbians agreeing to several of the demands.
3. Russia must leap to Serbia's defense (which seems in hindsight a high-probability event, but Russia had failed to do so before)
4. Germany must leap to Austria's defense, and to add fuel to the fire, demand terms of France that no sovereign nation could accept.
5. France must then leap to the aid of Russia.
6. Germany must violate Belgian neutrality and bring the British into the war.
7. During the entirety of the month of July, there is no concerted, successful effort to stop this crisis


The assassination should have caused a local war between Austria and Serbia, and at most any other time in the century prior that is exactly what would have happened. Remember, the last big, general war in Europe was the Napoleonic Wars.



Also, I misstated something earlier, according to the 1895 census 98% of the population of Bosnia were Slavic, not Serbian in particular.

Really? Please prove that Ito Hirobumi did not commit what we would consider to be atrocities today and did not oppress the Korean people, as I find that hard to believe considering the time and place.
From what little I can find quickly, he oppressed the Korean people rather badly and killed quite a few of them.

You ask me to prove a negative? That's your first fault. Your second fault is forgetting that Itoh was opposed to the military hardliners in Japan who wanted to outright annex Korea and killing Itoh paved the way to that which made everything worse for Korea.

Yeah, you could only find "little", alright.

You are correct, I ought not have asked you to prove a negative. However, if Ito Hirobumi did not commit an act that we would consider an atrocity he would be gentler than every imperialist overlord imposed on a nation that I can think of prior to WW2. I was under the impression that you were a Korean ex-pat and might have access to Korean sources that I do not. If this is so, could you provide some of them, as I can find very little on the man's time in Korea good or ill in English. I only have access to online resources and one University Library and neither seem to have useful information on this subject.

Let's be clear about Northern Ireland, the IRA did in fact win. Not only did the oppression of the Catholic northern Irish stop, Sinn Fein and the SDLP are now steadily taking over Northern Ireland, only 8 out of 18 Northern Irish MPs are Unionists.

Sinn Fein and the SDLP only have 8 MPs between them as well, and one of the remaining two is a Unionist-leaning independent. Unionist parties do maintain a relative majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly, where there are 54 Unionist MLAs to 43 Nationalist and 11 Other.

I would also point out that the Provisional IRA's main goals during the Troubles were to use physical force to make Northern Ireland ungovernable and to compel the British government to withdraw. Agreeing to renounce physical force in favour of democratic means and participating in a devolved Northern Ireland government doesn't sound as though they achieved those goals, to me.

To the first point, Yes, but in 1997 there were 13 unionist Irish MPs.
However, now that I look at it, the battle lines do not appear to have changed much since 2001. I concede on this point, though if you do have more information on Northern Ireland I would like to hear it. I really do not know as much as I should about it.

However, as far as I know the oppression of the Northern Irish Catholics did cease, which I suspect was the main goal all along for the individual members if not the organization as a whole. And from what I understand, the IRA started switching to political activities in the 1980's and their last major attacks were not intended to cause any casualties, in fact, from what I understand they notified authorities and journalists prior to the attacks to ensure evacuations were performed. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it.

[Thanas]

The comparison with the Cold War would best be shown by the Cuban Missile Crisis. Easily a dozen different events could have set off a nuclear war had they occurred even slightly differently than what they did historically. The difference between the two examples is that in Europe, war actually happened. With Cuba, war was avoided. But in both cases, it would (did) not take much to get the ball rolling.

It also demonstrates that WW1 was no more "inevitable" than the full scale nuclear exchange triggered by the Cuban Missile Crisis or Able Archer 83.

Indeed. Seafort gets it.

The kind of thinking that sees how in pre-nuclear times people went to war over trivial shit faster than you can say "Vae victis"? It only reflects the truth.

No, the kind of thinking that thinks there is some grand inevitability to complex systems. It is utterly hilarious.

"Brits", "realize". Thanas, you are talking about national governments even less caring to avoid a bloodbath than the ones that participated in WWII. Not to mention the 'bloodbath' was not believed by anyone, all thought war is glorious and quick and brings spoils. Because, you know, that's how it pretty much was before.

This is wrong, new research (especially by Münkler) has shown that every national Government very well knew the risks. The "we'll be home by christmas" was something fed to the men, but not believed by at least the British, French and German staffs (though the Germans believed it would not be the case if the Schlieffen plan succeeded).

As we know, this doesn't help much: even the US, a Republic from the start, participated in lots of colonial wars, in the bloodbath in China and finally both World Wars.

I am not talking about the aggressive potential (though with the way Ferdinand envisioned it making war would have been much harder per se), I am talking about a way to avoid the ethnic bloodshed that followed much of the dissolution of the empire.

'Colonial squabble' means war. The collapse of one grand alliance means more fodder for wars, and the formation of new alliances. The only thing decisively stopping large-scale war was nuclear arsenals.

It doesn't, not anymore than Russia and England went to war over their gigantic squabble in Asia.

And somehow people managed to get by without large-scale wars without nukes for a very long time both before and after the cold war ended.

[K. A. Pital]

No, the kind of thinking that thinks there is some grand inevitability to complex systems. It is utterly hilarious.

It is not hilarious in the least; the ocean and the Earth are complex systems, and there are big storms, earthquakes and tsunamis. We don't know when and where exactly they strike, but we know they will with certainity.

This is wrong, new research (especially by Münkler) has shown that every national Government very well knew the risks. The "we'll be home by christmas" was something fed to the men, but not believed by at least the British, French and German staffs (though the Germans believed it would not be the case if the Schlieffen plan succeeded).

That is not wrong; the 'new research', if it is really denying the known facts (like Germany's six month potassium nitrate stockpile, for example) is simply historical revisionism just like Japan's right-wingers 'revise' Japan's history in World War II and Holocaust deniers 'revise' the history of Nazi Germany to make it look more sympathetic. The general staff in Russia was so certain this wouldn't happen, that they wrote even if there's an unlikely case and war lasts for two years, at most, they would have no problems manning the Army. IRL they ran out of trained soldiers, literally, by June 1915, less than one year later. The laws had to be rewritten to send reservists to war.

I am talking about a way to avoid the ethnic bloodshed that followed much of the dissolution of the empire.

How exactly is this going to stop the bloody path of imperialism, though? If not there - then elsewhere.

It doesn't, not anymore than Russia and England went to war over their gigantic squabble in Asia.

As if Russia didn't fight with Britain enough during the Crimean campaign already. The fact that one flare did not cause a major head-on collision between Russia and Britain in the later XIX century means only one thing: the delineation of influence spheres and creation of a yet more powerful imperialist bloc. Which, as we then saw, proceeded not only to carve the world apart with blood never drying, but also was one of the parties in a World War. Perfect play!

And somehow people managed to get by without large-scale wars without nukes for a very long time both before and after the cold war ended.

You mean the short time between the slaughter of World War I and World War II was a 'very long time'? One marked the start of the century - which was already flaring with wars due to rampant imperialism, the other started soon enough after the first one was over. After the Cold War ended, the nukes did not go anywhere. They remained; if anything, they proliferated, making, for example, Pakistan and India think a bit more before commiting to another war.

The pre-nuclear age was, all in all, more or less full of wars, the XX century with the advent of industrial warfare managed to give two world wars in the timespan of less than 50 years, and countless smaller wars inbetween. If we consider the draw-ins to World War II, with the Civil War in Spain and the absolutely horrendous Japanese campaign in China, then the time between I and II is shorter yet.

So, long story short: people did not manage to refrain from big wars very long before nukes. The partitioning of the World was complete at the beginning of the XX century, coupled with the lack of deterrent and the industrial potential of top imperialist powers, this produced the bloodbath.

Not one shot by one guy.

[Metahive]

You are correct, I ought not have asked you to prove a negative. However, if Ito Hirobumi did not commit an act that we would consider an atrocity he would be gentler than every imperialist overlord imposed on a nation that I can think of prior to WW2. I was under the impression that you were a Korean ex-pat and might have access to Korean sources that I do not. If this is so, could you provide some of them, as I can find very little on the man's time in Korea good or ill in English. I only have access to online resources and one University Library and neither seem to have useful information on this subject.

So you made an assertion that you had nothing to back up with and you expect me to do your homework for you? It ain't gonna' happen, buddy. You've missed the point anyway.

My argument is that Ahn's deed did nothing to prevent greater harm from coming to Korea and might even have accelerated it. That's why I don't think he deserves a statue. People who make things worse should not be commemorated.

[Thanas]

It is not hilarious in the least; the ocean and the Earth are complex systems, and there are big storms, earthquakes and tsunamis. We don't know when and where exactly they strike, but we know they will with certainity.

History does not follow natural laws, if it follows any laws at all.

That is not wrong; the 'new research', if it is really denying the known facts (like Germany's six month potassium nitrate stockpile, for example) is simply historical revisionism just like Japan's right-wingers 'revise' Japan's history in World War II and Holocaust deniers 'revise' the history of Nazi Germany to make it look more sympathetic. The general staff in Russia was so certain this wouldn't happen, that they wrote even if there's an unlikely case and war lasts for two years, at most, they would have no problems manning the Army. IRL they ran out of trained soldiers, literally, by June 1915, less than one year later. The laws had to be rewritten to send reservists to war.

Note how I didn't mention Russia in the above? Did you read Münkler, btw, or are you just making asusmptions about his work?

(Also, I fail to see how "generals were so callous that they willingly fed lies to troops in order to keep morale while knowing they were sending people to the slaughter" is revisionism.)

How exactly is this going to stop the bloody path of imperialism, though? If not there - then elsewhere.

It is not a war-stopper, for sure. However, it would remove at least one nation from the equation. If Germany cannot count on Austria for support, for example, it is very unlikely they will go to war at all. They know they would lose without Austria for certain.

As if Russia didn't fight with Britain enough during the Crimean campaign already. The fact that one flare did not cause a major head-on collision between Russia and Britain in the later XIX century means only one thing: the delineation of influence spheres and creation of a yet more powerful imperialist bloc. Which, as we then saw, proceeded not only to carve the world apart with blood never drying, but also was one of the parties in a World War. Perfect play!

Are you incapable of even considering the possibility that war is not inevitable? I mean, your entire thought process seems to be a very simplistic "Imperialism means war. Therefore, a world war will happen, no matter what". How, if Germany is not starting it, is there going to be a world war on the scale of WWI? It is just a physical impossibility. Britiain would not back France if France starts one either, nor would Russia. Even if Russia does, it will be a very localized war that will not reach the level of World War I. Just removing Britain and Austria means millions less dead. And without Britian and Russia France would not start a war either.

So pray tell, where is that huge war between all the grand powers of the world going to come from?

You mean the short time between the slaughter of World War I and World War II was a 'very long time'? One marked the start of the century - which was already flaring with wars due to rampant imperialism, the other started soon enough after the first one was over. After the Cold War ended, the nukes did not go anywhere. They remained; if anything, they proliferated, making, for example, Pakistan and India think a bit more before commiting to another war.

No, I meant the cabinet wars and the wars of the 19th century after Napoleon etc. Having colonial squabbles does not mean widespread war.

[K. A. Pital]

History does not follow natural laws, if it follows any laws at all.

The complexity of social systems is no different from the complexity of other system. We still cannot predict many things about turbulence, for example. But if you know the general underlying principles, at least partly, you can understand more than if you treat history as simply a collection of events, each of which could be removed by altering some minor details. This approach, in fact, is ahistorical.

Note how I didn't mention Russia in the above? Did you read Münkler, btw, or are you just making asusmptions about his work? (Also, I fail to see how "generals were so callous that they willingly fed lies to troops in order to keep morale while knowing they were sending people to the slaughter" is revisionism.)

I am not making assumption: I am saying that if it is simply trying to prove readiness, it would have a hard time dealing with very simple facts. Like this:

With the start of the First World War on August 1, 1914, the German chemicals industry faced immediate and radical changes. First, companies could no longer import the raw materials they urgently needed; second, they increasingly shifted their activities to weapons production. Once the positional war on the Western Front began in September 1914, it became clear that Germany was not ready for a long war and possessed no raw materials reserves.
...
Late September 1914 saw a meeting between Carl Bosch, the second ranking executive of BASF, and representatives of the War Ministry. Aiming for a solution to the saltpeter shortage, the military hoped it would be possible to develop a process for industrial creation of nitric acid (which in turn is used in making saltpeter) from synthetic ammonia. Bosch gave the high command assurances that it was possible to oxidize ammonia into nitric acid on an industrial scale. This became known as the “saltpeter promise,” and it signaled a commitment by the chemical industry to the arms industry.

So I am not exactly sure how this could be twisted into 'they started the war knowing it will last for years'. Looks more like 'maybe they wouldn't have done it if they knew it would last for years'.

It is not a war-stopper, for sure. However, it would remove at least one nation from the equation. If Germany cannot count on Austria for support, for example, it is very unlikely they will go to war at all. They know they would lose without Austria for certain.

Even the very dissolution of Austro-Hungary does not necessarily mean Germany and Austria won't combine efforts. As it did not mean this IRL, when the Third Reich annexed Austria. 'Crowns laying in dust and nobody even caring to pick them up' is a temporary phenomenon, which lasts only a limited amount of time. When one empire falls, blood will be spilt taking over its remains; needless to remind you how coalitions repeatedly attacked the weaker Empires (Russia, China, Ottomans). Low casualties of wars was only a function of their pre-industrial nature, limited scale and time.

Are you incapable of even considering the possibility that war is not inevitable? I mean, your entire thought process seems to be a very simplistic "Imperialism means war. Therefore, a world war will happen, no matter what". How, if Germany is not starting it, is there going to be a world war on the scale of WWI? It is just a physical impossibility.

Sure enough, none of the imperialist powers operated without contraditions. France could go to war over the colonies. So could Britain. With any of the up-and-coming Empires - Japanese, Russian... What would produce a massive and deadly war? A clash of industrialized Empires. If there'd be more of them (which is what happened in reality), the chances of war grow, they don't somehow evaporate. Tearing Russia apart created enough casualties on its own; the Civil War and intervention by the Entente was quite deadly. Removing Britain? If not with Russia, they would sooner or later be fighting Japan. Let's imagine the blocs fall apart. This only means that after some local conflicts to delineate colonial spheres new blocs would form; Britain would necessarily be part of one of them, since it would want a leading role in a sizeable alliance and wouldn't want to be on its own.

So pray tell, where is that huge war between all the grand powers of the world going to come from?

Industry and industrialization of Empires in general - the industry of war means that any invasion, even between a semi-industrialized power and one or several industrialized powers, is bound to turn into a bloodbath. The intervention in Russia and the Second Sino-Japanese war (when China was starting to industrialize some parts) are quite demonstrative. The losses would be immense, especially for the territory where the war is waged. If people don't sate arising Empires with new colonies and spheres of influence, these Empires will then seek to carve these territories out by force, if needed. Especially the more industrialized they get, the more reckless they become. Germany's rapid industrialization made it so boastful that it essentially assaulted a very huge alliance with a top industrial power (Britain), having the industrial weakling Austro-Hungary in allies (which contributed manpower but was shit in terms of industrial output, kind of like Russia or maybe even worse). Japan's rapid industrialization set it on a collision course with teh Russian Empire and Chinese Empires; even after the collapse Japan was continuing to attack the continent. Until eventually the Second Sino-Japanese war, a bloodbath of unimaginable proportions, and Japan's bold attack against all the old colonial powers (Britain, Dutch) and finally the United States. There was no non-imperial thinking in the world; it was full of racist, shortsighted and militaristic leaders - just consider the racist statements of the German nobility about China. The US was crushing the Spanish Empire and taking over its colonies while committing genocide in the process - that was only a tiny flash of war on the face of the Earth, but at some point you run out of small states to bully and conquer, and industrial collides with industrial.

Having colonial squabbles does not mean widespread war.

While there's ground to carve for everyone? Sure. When the ground runs out, it is either a grand alliance against some other alliance (which means the possibility of an even more massive war later), or direct war. You asked about the finale of the Grand Game between Russia and Britain in the Middle East - you were quite right. Had there been no other powers but Russia and Britain, no alliances to make against some powerful other, it would be war. Industrial and deadly, had it happened not in the XIX century but sometime in the early XX one.