My article, "100 years ago today one man with a pistol set off World War I"

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Trebor

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
4,817
Here's my latest Michigan Firearms Examiner article about the assassination that led to World War I. This includes some photos of the actual FN pistol used in the killing and the history of how it was lost and then found again after 90 years.

100 years ago today one man with a pistol set off World War I

"One hundred years ago today one man and his pistol changed the world when an assassin killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, on June 28 1914, and ignited the spark that led to World War I."

..."Today, the relics of that day reside peacefully at the Museum of Military History in Vienna, Austria. Among the exhibits are Ferdinand’s car, still showing a bullet hole, his blood soaked clothes, and the four pistols supplied by Serbian officers to the assassins.

The pistols, all FN Model 1910’s, show the wear of years now, even though they would have been near new at the time of the killings."
 
Good article.

I sent the note below to friends on the 28th. The subject was "One Hundred Years Ago Today in Sarajevo.....

...a Bosnian Serb named Gavrilo Princip murdered Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria-Este and of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Royal Prince of Hungary and of Bohemia. Also killed was Franz Ferdinand's spouse Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg.

For those who have some idea of the present-day borders of Austria and Hungary, the Austro-Hungarian Empire encompassed much more than those two. Within its borders were Austria, Bohemia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Carniola, Croatia-Slavonia, Dalmatia, Galicia, Hungary, Moravia, Transylvania, and Tyrol. Bohemia and Moravia were inhabited largely by Czechs, who did not have their own country; the Slovaks lived in Hungary.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was aligned with Germany. Serbia was a powerful separate country, closely allied with Russia and rivaling the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The assassination resulted in the declaration of war on Serbia by Austria-Hungary and in the mobilization of armies in Germany and Russia before the end of July. Full scale war broke out in August, 1914.

Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were known as the Central Powers, and they were allied with Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire.

The Central Powers were opposed by an alliance consisting of Belgium, Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Romania, Russia, and Serbia. Ultimately, Brazil, China, and the United States joined the war against the Central Powers.

The war brought about the end of the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian Empires, and the creation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, and Yugoslavia. From the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire arose British and French Mandates that led to the creation of Iraq, Syria, Trans-Jordan, and Palestine.

The war was called "the war to end all wars", but in reality, the terms of the armistice ultimately led to the Second World War.

For anyone who might for some reason be interested in the obscure traditions of royalty, the union between Franz Ferdinand and Sophie was a morganatic marriage. Because they parties had been of unequal status, Sophie and her offspring would have been prevented from assuming any of the hereditary titles of the Archduke. But because of Gavrilo Princip, that didn't matter.

The Great War, now generally known as the First World War, brought about the end of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and empire and those of Germany and Russia. By the way, the titles "Kaiser" and "Tsar" were derived from "Caesar", which is properly pronounced in classical Latin the same way that Kaiser Wilhelm's title was pronounced. I do not use Latin very often.

One hundred years ago today.
Click to expand...

The car in which the Archduke and Sophie were ridng was a Graf und Stift.

Many in my audience would have been less than interested in the FN Brownings, but I was, of course, well aware of that part of the history.
 
Interesting stuff Kleanbore. I'm sure there are car buffs who go to the museum to drool over the car.
 
"Court Intrigue" --or-- "What Was He Even Doing There?"

Apparently, the purpose of the visit was to oversee military operations of the A-H occupying force in a fiercely-nationalizing Serbia awash with state-sponsored terrorist activity. Ostensibly because the Archduke could be accompanied in public by his lesser-status wife only when conducting military affairs, but probably also as a show of A-H commitment (if not a show of force) to the continued military occupation there. Ultimately, the same group of Serbian military commanders who had orchestrated the coup overthrowing the previous King of Serbia, conspired to provoke a war with A-H in order to force an end to the occupation (they had been on a military/nationalist upswing and doubtless figured they/their allies could fight them off). The following conflagration was obviously unforeseen.

Interestingly, Princip seems to have himself had quite the fascination with other highly-publicized assassinations, in conjunction with his political motivations. He was preceded by a series of other high-profile assassinations and attempts, which were apparently celebrated widely, and appeared almost obsessed with them (sound familiar?)

"Convection" theory of geo-politics;

1) Previous war leaves arbitrary borders
2) Victors install a puppet-state as a buffer
3) Irritated locals knock-off the puppet-state
4) Locals seek greater autonomy through nationalism
5) Occupying powers hang on a bit too long, provoking the locals
6) Locals bite off more than they intended
1) Ensuing war leads to arbitrary borders

Oh, and "Germany" gets bigger with every iteration (after at least four, they're now nearly continent-sized with this Euro thing they've concocted :D)

TCB
 
The assassination in my opinion has just been bull claimed time and time again for what was in reality just a bunch of greedy racist imperial powers bent on using their lower classes to wage warfare for profiteering purposes. Al la it's been done before.

Folks were looking for a fight, the assassination just happened to make it easier than just outright declaring war. Folks in power wanted more, and they used the assassination as a pretext for waging war.
 
Wilhelm II was pining for a war with, basically, anybody. He had been building up to it for years.

He was one of the truly evil men of the 20th century, responsible for somewhere between 50 and 55 million deaths in WWI (the figures are somewhat flexible depending on who you use as a source), and the secondary effects of his little ego-fest included destabilizing the Russian Empire so that the Communists could take over, a worldwide economic depression, and the Second World War. Yet few people seem to know who Wilhelm II was, what he did, or what the consequences were.

After losing WWI, he abdicated, went into voluntary exile, and went to live in luxury Holland, where he died peacefully in 1941 at the age of 82.

Proof that "justice" is not part of the natural order of things...
 
A very interesting read. Although the assasination was the spark that ignited the powder keg a little over a month later, war at some stage had been inevitable due mainly to the Kaiser's bellicose attitude.
He had a huge chip on his shoulder due to a number of reasons. Because of an accident at birth his left arm was withered. He probably thought of himself as the rightful heir to the British throne as his mother was Queen Victoria's eldest child. He was certainly jealous of Britain's huge empire and navy whereas his own empire consisted of a sausage factory in Tanganyika (as Edmund Blackadder put it).
Possibly because of the inter-marrying that went on amongst European royalty there was a degree of madness in some sectors. The Kaiser himself was at best emotionally unstable and the ensuing arms race could only have one outcome.
 
Cousin Willie had little to do with starting WWI. Austria-Hungary was looking for an excuse to take over Serbia and absorb them into the A-H empire. When A-H invaded Serbia in the wake of the Prince's assassination, existing alliances kicked in. Russia was aligned with Serbia and came into the war to assist Serbia, and Germany was aligned with Austria-Hungary, should the Russians attack them. Emperor Franz Joseph's wife, Empress Elizabeth was related to Willie. Cousin Nicky tried to get cousin Willie not to intervene, to no avail. France came into the war to enact revenge for the outcome of the Franco-Prussian war and cousin George for some crazy reason came in to assist France. To quote my college history Professor, "World War I was not Germany's fault".
 
Thanks for posting.

The war was called "the war to end all wars", but in reality, the terms of the armistice ultimately led to the Second World War.
Click to expand...

The argument could be made that we're still fighting wars because of the way WWI was ended.
 
The allies screwed the Germans over so badly after the war that they predicted a new war with Germany in twenty years. They knew it was coming. They knew no nation could exist paying out billions in reparations. They did it anyway.

T-shirt: Which nation are you from? The ones whose butts we saved or the ones whose butts we kicked?

Trivia: How many countries were created from the fall of the Ottoman Empire?
Twenty
 
T-shirt: Which nation are you from? The ones whose butts we saved or the ones whose butts we kicked?
Click to expand...
Or the one with Woodrow Wilson... :rolleyes:

TCB
 
More or less. The Austro-Hungarian elite had convinced elderly emperor Franz Joseph to sign a declaration of war against Serbia. In July, Russia then mobilized to attack Austria in defense of Serbia. France and England then enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon, citing their treaty support for Russia. At the end of July, the German Kaiser wrote some thoughts about the upcoming conflict, complaining that England, Russia and France well understood that Germany would have to honor its treat with Austria, and that the Allies would use Austro-Serb conflict as an excuse for waging a "war of annihilation" against Germany. Paranoid or not, Kaiser Wilhelm and other German officials felt that there was a grand game being played against them.

I'm no Germano-phile (far from it), and Kaiser Wilhelm is generally regarded as a narcissist, megalomaniac, and anti-Semite. On the other hand, the European Allies had no small role in shoving the continent towards full scale war ... and then again laid the groundwork for a second full scale war by bringing a heavy hand against the defeated parties at Versailles.

BTW, the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman is still a must read (my summer book for this year).

I had the occasion to visit the Heeresgeschichtliches Museum some years ago, and saw Archduke Ferdinands car and the tunic that Ferdinand was wearing at the time of the assassination. Chilling (I visited the Museum around the 75th anniversary of the start of the Great War).

I understand that a few years ago the Museum finally got hold of Princip's FN Browning 1910 and has that on display now, along with the undershirt that the Archduke was wearing.

HexHead said:
Cousin Willie had little to do with starting WWI. Austria-Hungary was looking for an excuse to take over Serbia and absorb them into the A-H empire. When A-H invaded Serbia in the wake of the Prince's assassination, existing alliances kicked in. Russia was aligned with Serbia and came into the war to assist Serbia, and Germany was aligned with Austria-Hungary, should the Russians attack them. Emperor Franz Joseph's wife, Empress Elizabeth was related to Willie. Cousin Nicky tried to get cousin Willie not to intervene, to no avail. France came into the war to enact revenge for the outcome of the Franco-Prussian war and cousin George for some crazy reason came in to assist France. To quote my college history Professor, "World War I was not Germany's fault".
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Serbs had a list of grievances against the Austro-Hungarian Empire like the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina which violated what is known as the Treaty Of Berlin. They wanted to consolidate their ethnic groups also and that was pretty much stopped by Austro-Hungarian politics.

But Serbia was a small country and incapable of starting the kind of war that ensued. It was a time of militarization around Europe and into the Middle East. New machines made the art of war tempting to put into practice by a number of nations. In other words they were all spoiling for a fight so they could prove who built the best toys and to be able to take advantage of those toys. Machine guns were new for example. The country that built the best examples had the upper hand in many ways. But other, more horrendous forms of war also came into play.

The war was a lot more complicated than we learned in grade school. It's a shame that more wasn't taught about it and still to this day you turn on the History Channel and you see endless shows about the Nazis but almost nothing really explains how they came to be. WWI is almost never mentioned and the build up for it is always shortened and distorted.
 
Cee Zee said:
Serbs had a list of grievances against the Austro-Hungarian Empire like the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina which violated what is known as the Treaty Of Berlin. They wanted to consolidate their ethnic groups also and that was pretty much stopped by Austro-Hungarian politics.

But Serbia was a small country and incapable of starting the kind of war that ensued. It was a time of militarization around Europe and into the Middle East. New machines made the art of war tempting to put into practice by a number of nations. In other words they were all spoiling for a fight so they could prove who built the best toys and to be able to take advantage of those toys. Machine guns were new for example. The country that built the best examples had the upper hand in many ways. But other, more horrendous forms of war also came into play.

The war was a lot more complicated than we learned in grade school. It's a shame that more wasn't taught about it and still to this day you turn on the History Channel and you see endless shows about the Nazis but almost nothing really explains how they came to be. WWI is almost never mentioned and the build up for it is always shortened and distorted.
Click to expand...
Good post. And a great forum name - although I'd modify it to "Che Zed".
 
100 Years Ago Today

One month after the assassination, the other shoe dropped.

On 28 July 1914, the Austro-Hungarian Empire declared war on Serbia.

Within a week, most of Europe was involved.

The sides had been drawn by treaty and by ethnic kinship. The royal heads of the great empires of Europe may have been eager to rattle their sabers, but there are indications that some of them were swept into the fray with great regret. Once they had issued their ultimata and their orders, however, it was too late to turn back.

The rest is history, and it goes on to this day. The troubles in Ukraine and in the Middle East can be traced directly both to the fall of the great empires precipitated by WWI and to the arrangements that ended the conflict.

The tumult that led the world into war is well described in Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August, also known as August 1914.

I read it years ago. It is not light reading, but I do recommend it. It is available on the Kindle.

I did not know at the time that President John F. Kennedy had read it, and that the way the world had been swept inexorably into war by intemperate words and ill-advised actions weighed very heavily on his mind during what we now refer to as the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Though not physically present, Tuchman likely wielded major influence on the men of the ExComm (the Executive Committee of the National Security Council, convened ad hoc for the occasion) during those tense days.

By the way, President Harry S. Truman served in combat in WWI as a Captain in the Artillery. It is not well known, but his unit actually fired shells containing poison gas at the Germans.

One can read about Truman's military service in The Soldier from Independence, a Military Biography of Harry Truman. The book also covers Harry's farm life and political career before he went into the Army.

The best aspect of it, in my humble opinion, is the insight that one gains about leadership--Harry Truman's own personal brand of leadership, which was exceptionally successful.

I have been force-fed more untried theory on leadership than most people can stand, but this one is truly worth reading. I suggest it for anyone you know in business, government, or academia.

The bits about how to Truman strived to keep the existence of the large numbers of horses that pulled the guns (and which left evidence wherever they had been) from being detected by spotters in airplanes provide an interesting convergence of anachronisms, too.
 
Interesting thread.

"Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War" (author Margaret MacMillan, 2001) is another book relevant to this discussion about the world as we now know it.

Surprisingly, the author argues that the conditions imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles did not lead to the rise of Adolf Hitler.

Incidentally, "Peacemakers" (also published as "Paris 1919: Six months that changed the world) illustrates the efforts made by countless Middle East, Asian and African countries to have their independence recognized in light of wartime commitments made by European colonial powers (who'd made extensive use of colored colonial troops). These third world delegates were shushed away and the victors (America-France-UK-Russia) carved up the world to suit their immediate interests.

Many of the anti-colonial struggles for independence that began in the 50s-60s, including the Vietnam war, were led by the very people who were spurned as delegates to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. IMO, today's perennial wars in Africa and the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Libya) are echoes of that flawed process.

iirc, MacMillan's "Peacemakers" does not however go down the full length of that contemporaneous road.
 
Hey everyone who is enjoying this conversation might want to check out a podcast called "Hardcore History" by a guy named Dan Carlin. He is currently in the middle of a series of podcast about WW1. I highly recommend anything he has produced!
 
Harry Truman's own personal brand of leadership, which was exceptionally successful
Click to expand...

Some of the things Truman did weren't exactly great events in the history of humanity. I'm not talking about the thing some would mention. Instead I'm thinking of the concept of limited war that he gave us. He sent an army to stop the communists from taking over Korea, they drove the enemy back to the Chinese border and then the Chinese army attacked the US forces in a huge way. Maybe half a million soldiers poured across the border to prevent the US Army from establishing a foundation for democracy on that border. This is where Truman's leadership comes into question. He didn't allow his army to respond to the attack by the Chinese other than to fight against the invading forces. Once enemy planes were back across the border they were safe because the rules of engagement employed by Truman denied our planes the right to pursue those attacking planes back to their bases and destroy then where they were most vulnerable. Truman gave us the concept of a political war where advantage was gained by suffering and inflicting causalities rather than taking territory. That led to a prolonged war where suffering was the currency of victory. We saw the same ugly menace come up again in Vietnam. We weren't allowed to win a war we were asked to fight. That was an immoral act and a terrible way to fight wars. It only delayed the inevitable conflict and gave the enemy valuable time to build their forces up to the level where they could match our own. We certainly had the means to take the war to China but Truman was scared of starting WWIII. The thing is the Chinese were the ones that played that card.

Gen. MacArthur was adamantly opposed to the actions taken by Truman and was eventually fired for his outspoken views on the subject. I would have to say that generals serve the government in this country and have no business contradicting their orders in a public way but sometimes there are bigger issues and what Truman did to the world in Korea is a perfect example. He didn't prevent WWIII. He just made sure it would be far worse when it does happen because since then both the Russians and the Chinese have developed huge nuclear arsenals and considering the fact that they murder their own people by the millions there is little doubt that they would use those weapons in a first strike if they thought they could get away with it. And eventually they will find a way to do just that. Truman didn't save us. He doomed us. He didn't exactly do well by the Korean people either or at least the ones in North Korea. He created a festering hatred for all things American in that country and now they are a nuclear country as well. They starve their own people to save money to buy weapons or create them. And they blame us for all their problems. It is a horrendous place unlike almost anything known in history. And we can thank Truman for allowing that to happen.

I understand the thinking that the US shouldn't be the policemen of the world but taking on that role and then failing in such a huge way did great damage to the US. Our enemies knew they could push us to the point we would blink and too many times they tried it and too many times it worked. It's still happening in the Ukraine and in Taiwan right now and even North Korea believes they can push us around. Why wouldn't they think that since we give them money every time they rattle their sabres? It's a sick system IMO and it all goes back to Truman.
 
Last edited:
Cee Zee,
Keep in mind that Korea was the first war ostensibly led by the "United Nations." It was really a "U.N." war. There were British, Greek, Australian, and other troops there as well as American soldiers.
A lot of the "limited war" aspects you complain about could really be more attributed to U.N. cr@pola rather than Truman -- though Truman certainly "went along to get along."
True limited war concepts were adopted by McNamara under JFK and employed in Vietnam, causing a war that should have been over in a couple or three years to drag out to a decade.
I've spoken to ex Air Force fighter pilots who served in 'nam and they were seriously hampered by the rules of engagement there, just as early pilots were in Korea, although I do think it was worse in Vietnam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Audie Murphy’s World War II Heroics, 70 Years Ago
Replies
1
Views
628
hso
hso
W
  • Locked
11 years ago today
Replies
4
Views
683
4v50 Gary
4v50 Gary
H
  • Locked
What can one man with a rifle do?
2 3
Replies
68
Views
6K
myrockfight
M
P
  • Locked
The Burr-Hamilton Duel: 200 years ago...
Replies
11
Views
1K
Sunray
S
T
  • Locked
Curse of the Albino Buck
Replies
6
Views
1K
PotatoJudge
P
Back
Top