Gavrilo Princip

Published by

Clarissa

June 28, 2014

The Spanish newspaper El Pais published an article today claiming that most historians agree that without Gavrilo Princip’s murder of Archduke Franz-Ferdinand exactly 100 years ago, the two world wars would not have begun.

This is, of course, a ridiculous lie because every historian I have ever read (and I read a lot of history) insists that Princip was completely insignificant and the war of 1914-1991 was inevitable. Gavrilo Princip is barely a footnote in scholarly studies of World War I.

Newspapers totally suck. And with the sorry state of the study of history in Spain, such narratives are quite dangerous because of how stupid and uninsightful they are. Epochal conflicts don’t start because an insignificant little fellow freaked out and did something. Even Hitler would have achieved nothing if millions weren’t ready joyfully to shove Jews into ovens.

Look at Putin today, for instance. He isn’t even remotely scary by himself. It is the enormous support he’s getting from the Russian people that makes him terrifying.

Rate this:

10 responses to “Gavrilo Princip”

Vic

June 28, 2014

The wars needed a reason, whether the assassination or something else. Once mobilization happened, there was no mechanism for peaceful demobilization. However, no one mobilized before Princip shot the Archduke.

Given the blood relationships between the Tzar, Kaiser and British King, there was actually good reason for war not to happen. Yes, there were militant expansionists in these countries, just as there are militants today who want a nuclear war that will bring about the second coming of Jesus. (Yes, these people exist; there are probably some near where you live. Missouri doesn’t have a monopoly on nutcases, but it has quite a few.) However, the militants had only succeeded in creating minor wars between the Russians and Japan, between Britain and Zulus, between Britain and Islamic extremists in Sudan, between Spain and the US, as well as incursions into China. These conflicts created limited casualties, and may have contributed to the hubris surrounding the start of WWI.

In the absence of war in Europe, there probably would have been remote conflicts, involving colonies in Africa or Asia. However, I see nothing that says that 14 million deaths were inevitable or that places like Verdun and Tannenberg were predestined to be infamous.

LikeLike

Reply
Good Enough Professor

June 28, 2014

Have you see this? http://themetapicture.com/if-wwi-was-a-bar-fight/

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  June 28, 2014
  
  Hilarious!
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
David Gendron

June 28, 2014

“Even Hitler would have achieved nothing if millions weren’t ready joyfully to shove Jews into ovens.”

They knew nothing about it.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  June 28, 2014
  
  Yes, Hitler killed all those millions of people completely on his own and in secret.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
2. thevenerablecorvex
  
  June 29, 2014
  
  No doubt the people all just assumed that their Jewish neighbours were going away on prolonged vacations.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    June 29, 2014
    
    And were leaving their property for the neighbors to loot because this is just a Jewish tradition.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
musteryou

June 28, 2014

The world wars began because I stubbed my toe.

LikeLike

Reply
thevenerablecorvex

June 29, 2014

The modern media is obsessed with the idea that it is individuals, rather than impersonal forces, which shape the world. Crediting Gavrilo Princip with all of the conflicts of the 20th century is an extension of this.
It makes for a better story, but it is very bad history.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  June 29, 2014
  
  Exactly! This bugs me beyond what I can express.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply