• This topic has 10 voices and 24 replies.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
  • Author
  • #345747


    Princip is portrayed in the history books of the various countries of former Yugoslavia either as a terrorist or as a rebel with a cause – reflecting contemporary divisions in a region still recovering from the most recent conflicts of the 1990s.

    While they were part of Yugoslavia, children in all these countries were taught the same history. Now they all have their own versions of the truth, shaped by the more recent wars, and are passing it on to the next generation. To sum it up, people who traditionally welcomed the invaders – Croats and muslims, generally, they see him as a terrorist. Serbs on another hand, think he is a hero.  What other Slavs think?



    Who has seen who as invaders? you have to place everything in a timeline:

    Serbia has seen Austo-Hungary as an enemy from the point where they became a Ottoman Vassal and were forced to fight against other Christian Europeans. This is also the point where they started to be influenced by Ottoman and Russian geopolitical interests (uprisings backed by Russia) which were both aimed against A-H on end of the day.

    So yeah he was a terrorist that started a world wide genocide. it’s not like people of BiH had a referendum against A-H and faced dictatorship from Vienna. 



    Well he was terrorist, but he was just a pawn. People often think his organization Young Bosnia was funded by Serbian government. However that was quite different. Young Bosnia started off as offspring of another terrorist organization known as The Black Hand, and its founder Apis killed last Serbian king of house of Obrenovic. What came afterwards was total mayham inside of country where newly appointed king Petar of Karadjordjevic dynasty didn’t had full control of governmental institutions. Later during WW1 this thug Apis was charged for treason and was executed as well as most of his men, but Communists removed the charge against him post-mortem in 1950’s. Lets just say The Black Hand were soldiers who wanted to renegade from official government and they almost suceeded in their intentions, kind of like ISIS today.

    @Kat Not really. Austro-Hungary wanted to take the whole Balkans under themselves. They would start WW1 even if the Arch Duke wasn’t assassinated



    So you say he was terrorist. He was born and bred in Bosnia, and in Bosnia, he killed the head of the state who invaded Bosnia. Does  that mean that Partisans were also terrorist because they fought Germans in Bosnia from 1941-45?



    Historically from the period of First Serbian Uprisings backbone of Serbian army has been made by outlaws(hajduci
    in Serbian). To give you a hint how undisciplined they were Karadjordje had to kill around 20 of his men when they liberated city of Smederevo because the atrocities they did against the local population were worse then Dahije, the very same force they fought against. This mentality in the army didn’t changed for centuries. In fact I doubt its much different even today. That’s why Aleksandar
    Obrenovic was murdered, because he wanted to make a real, professional
    army. The stories they write in Serbian elementary and high history books are simply lies and rubbish. Anyone with a small sense of a doubt and logic can find many contradictions there.

    Another thing worhty of mention is that Princip and few other fellow terrorists were caught on Serbian border trying
    to smuggle in Bosnia by Serbian border police. However since Apis was
    member of secret police they were released and they managed to
    infiltrate. But like I said Princip was just a pawn. He was too brainwashed to think independantly and reasonably at that point.

    Partisan movement was not much better, but they were trying to free the country.
    How many innocents died because of their dreadful actions? Countless.
    Don’t forget they killed members of other forms of resistance against the Nazi’s, after they proclaimed them as Nazi collaborators.

    I am sometimes just stunned at the amount of lies that had been sold to us and by whom? By our own! For instance my great-granduncle used to live in Belgrade when the infamous “Bolje rat nego pakt, bolje grob nego rob” protest was organized. There were no more then 100 people. Our history books tell us tale that whole city went on the streets. Now, the Brittish intelligence managed to sold this story to Nazi’s and you know the rest.

    Furthermore all of the secret societies in Balkans were akin to Italian mafia, but were made legit and aided by the foreign factors.

    Anyway, what I wanted to say is communists even though they were bad at the start tried later on to do something for the people in general. They tried to fix the broken state but because of their methods, and because they were generally ignorant ruling class, common folks were suffering often. You can’t say that for the members of The Black Hand and Young Bosnia. See a documentary “Houston, we have a problem!” to find out what Tito and communists did to some of the most contributing scientists of SFR Yugoslavia.



    Citizen of AH empire killed the heir to the throne of AH empire. People were oppressed, some reacted and that’s it. Most of historical figures can be called terrorists if just find the right point of view. IMO he wasn’t a terrorist, he was much closer to a here, although he was too young and enthralled with ideals to be thinking on a global scale. Nickname “Dungeon of Nations” didn’t come from nowhere, it was well deserved.



    @anna25 Of course he was a terrorist.But let me ask you this..If we take into consideration that there was no option for independent Bosnia after the Turkish invaders with whom the Serbs traditionally collaborated retreated,and the only scenario was an occupation by either A-H,or kingdom of Serbia,would he in case of Serbian occupation killed the Serbian king,and would he still be a “hero” as you call it,of Bosnia,in your opinion?



    Franz Ferdinand wanted peace and went against AH intervention during previous wars in the region. He also advocated for reforms that weakened the two ruling nations, including trialism, the establishment of a third, Slavic kingdom alongside Austria and Hungary. This and other made him unpopular with the ruling classes, even the royal family (the emperor was only his uncle). Someone wanted him dead and someone also wanted war, for sure. His assassination would have killed two birds with one stone. Like Shaokang said Princip was only a pawn and I think the whole of Mlada Bosna was used as a pawn. Seeking political change through assassination attempts is something a terrorist would do though, regardles if you consider him a villain or hero.
    As for the annexation of Bosnia I’m sure the AH tried to weaken the Serbs, but I wonder how much more tolerant the Serbs would have been had Serbia taken the land.



    1st of all he was pan Yugoslav not ultra Serbian nationalist as some of you claim!
    2nd Organisation of “Young Bosnia” included also Catholics and Muslims, so your anti Serbian bias falls in water here.
    3rd Austria wanted to expand borders and most likely it would be the same if Ferdinand was not killed. Problems between Austia and Serbia stared before assassination.
    4th Those claims that Ferdinand wanted peace are in range of rumors.
    5th after all Gavrilo was citzen of Austro-Hungary, so it is pretty obvious that assassination was just excuse to attack Serbia.

    I recomand film “kako sam branio mladu Bosnu” to all of you, it is really interesting and good.



    @Gvarda The way I see it, Serbs mostly fought for themselves, neither for Austro-Hungary nor Ottomans. There were short period when Serbs helped first Ottomans, then Austro-Hungarians – all for the reasons of self-preservation. In general Serbia was under Ottomans for 400 years, and every little here and there was some major rebellion against Ottomans.

    PS. I forgot to mention that it lasted until end of WW1, when they started to fight for other Yugoslavs too



    @Kust WW1 would start anyway. A brief lesson.



    @Shaokang The article states that the root of the problem was Hungarian hegemony after the Ausgleich and the AH trying to control Serbia as a puppet. Ferdinand wanted to introduce universal male suffrage, which would have ended that hegemony, while the Slavic Kingdom was described as a “bulwark against Serbian irredentism”, to dissuade the Slavs from seeking Serbian or Russian aid. WW1would have started, but without the assassination perhaps in another hotspot.



    @Kust What I could see from the article is that things gone too far for anything or anyone to stop it. Ferdinand was forced to reify relations and change something because he could see it that things got out of hand for his empire. I believe he wasn’t really informed how things gone far. The war would happen sooner or later when the relations are built on foundations of a shanty town and when a lot of things are being done behind the scene, like the case here. Anyway if you read my 2nd comment in this thread you can see that I don’t justify The Young Bosnia organization who did this (quite the opposite), but you can be 100% sure it wasn’t what official Serbian government wanted to happen, and yet some of the folks here claim like it was orchestrated by Serbian government



    @Shaokang I don’t know. Those policies might have bought enough time for the radicals in the Serbian government to lose influence and relations to improve. Either way Ferdinand wasn’t well liked and probably wouldn’t have lasted long anyway, and the situation was indeed very unstable.

    Also, I wasn’t really stating it was all Serbia’s fault. If anything I put the blame on shady forces of the AH. If it was my comment about the Bosnian annexation I was merely stating that Serbia would probably have disenfranchised the muslims, maybe the Croatians, had it taken Bosnia after the rebellion.



    Gvarda (I don’t know how to answer to a particular person here). On your hypothetical question, I can only say that it couldn’t have been AH as they were going down in history, and it couldn’t have been Serbia as, through the history, the Serbs never wanted or tried to take over Bosnia (don’t believe in post-90’s lies). But if we look at your scenario regardless, at the time, Serbia take over of Bosnia would be seen as a positive outcome. A pro-Yugoslav idea was at its peak. Another point. You are viewing 1914 Bosnia as a country. Bosnia was never in history ( the only time relevant for the present Bosnia starts with the Ottoman invasion 1463) a sovereign country. Not even today, so people who were not involved in politics, wouldn’t care less if Serbia took over. Those who did would welcome them.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


5 User(s) Online Join Server
  • (o)possum tamer 🐀 (kris)
  • kony97
  • Tujev
  • Nefario
  • Nexius