|
PittTheElder posted:Well that's an extreme overstatement. To use the Apollo 13 analogy, all Princip did was stir the tanks. The events that unfolded afterwards, and the various reactions of others, can't really be attributed to him in any meaningful sense. Someone else could have flipped that switch and we would have seen the same outcome. Just because anyone could have lit the fuse on the time bomb that was pre WW1 Europe doesn't make Prnicip's role any less significant. The guy is the perfect historical example of the butterfly effect. Not to mention all the crazy coincidental bullshit that put him right in front of the Archduke's car just in time to carry out the assassination. Yeah Europe was a power keg, but I have a hard time believing that if Franz Ferdinand returns home from that trip things would get as out of hand as they did.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 01:16 |
|
|
HarlanHell posted:Just because anyone could have lit the fuse on the time bomb that was pre WW1 Europe doesn't make Prnicip's role any less significant. The guy is the perfect historical example of the butterfly effect. Not to mention all the crazy coincidental bullshit that put him right in front of the Archduke's car just in time to carry out the assassination. Yeah Europe was a power keg, but I have a hard time believing that if Franz Ferdinand returns home from that trip things would get as out of hand as they did. That story, along with "how Thomas Paine escaped the guillotine in 1794," are two of my favorite examples of the role of chance/dumb luck in history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
HarlanHell posted:Just because anyone could have lit the fuse on the time bomb that was pre WW1 Europe doesn't make Prnicip's role any less significant. The guy is the perfect historical example of the butterfly effect. Not to mention all the crazy coincidental bullshit that put him right in front of the Archduke's car just in time to carry out the assassination. Yeah Europe was a power keg, but I have a hard time believing that if Franz Ferdinand returns home from that trip things would get as out of hand as they did. The point is more that something else would have happened to set it off just as easily. WWI might have started a month or two later, but it was going to start over something relatively trivial, regardless. It probably would have started in the Balkans, as well, as A-H had been looking for an excuse to attack Serbia for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
HarlanHell posted:Just because anyone could have lit the fuse on the time bomb that was pre WW1 Europe doesn't make Prnicip's role any less significant. The guy is the perfect historical example of the butterfly effect. Not to mention all the crazy coincidental bullshit that put him right in front of the Archduke's car just in time to carry out the assassination. Yeah Europe was a power keg, but I have a hard time believing that if Franz Ferdinand returns home from that trip things would get as out of hand as they did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:19
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Deteriorata posted:The point is more that something else would have happened to set it off just as easily. WWI might have started a month or two later, but it was going to start over something relatively trivial, regardless. It probably would have started in the Balkans, as well, as A-H had been looking for an excuse to attack Serbia for a long time. Or, you know, if he hadn't hosed up the first time. Or if the guy ahead of him on the route who hosed up hadn't hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Having looked at the plans for First Artois, it's now time to check out First Champagne. And it's quite interesting, too; some of the orders being given are at least six months ahead of their time, particularly when considered from a British perspective. This is also the first appearance I've seen of the soon-common tactic of ordering a pause in the middle of a heavy barrage, so that the enemy comes out of their dugouts to meet the apparent attack and then gets blowed up real good when the guns open fire again. The paper also has another excellent story of fraternisation, including mention of a common phenomenon; British soldiers meeting Germans who spoke excellent English and it turning out that before the war they'd been working in a pub or as a pork butcher at some well-known establishment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
wukkar posted:International Law is something the British/West invented as an excuse to keep other countries doing what they want them doing. Common misunderstanding. Artillery is something that the West invented to keep other countries doing what we want them to do. International law was invented so we wouldn't have to use artillery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
^ I thought it was to justify using artillery?Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago drat those crafty germans, they had average day jobs like everyone else, drat them!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 09:25
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:The point is that you don't need to know much about Gavrilo Princip, he's perfectly fine as a footnote. "He was a Yugoslav nationalist with support from Serbia, then he shot FF" is pretty much all you need unless you want to get into a big discussion on Balkan politics and Young Bosnia. Any one of his coconspirators could have done the deed and we're back in the same situation. The exact same could be said about McClusky at Midway. Any rear end in a top hat in their Dauntless could have dropped a bomb on a carrier, but it was McClusky's tracking of a Japanese destroyer that put his planes on top of the IJN's carriers just as another flight of US dive bombers was showing up. Sure, a bunch of lovely decisions in IJN doctrine made the following hours that much more brutal, but it doesn't change the fact that one guy's call pulled out the one lovely Jenga piece that sent it all hurtling down. McClusky, like Princip, didn't know the greater shifts caused by his action, he just did it because that was what he was there to do. He's still the guy that called the wild-rear end audible to track one destroyer, found the IJN carrier group with their pants around their ankles, and ended up with three of the IJN's four carriers irretrievably aflame within the hour. The fact that such huge developments were swung into motion by one person is kind of definitive, and makes that one person noteworthy by dint of that outsized leverage regardless of whether they knew they had it to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:That story, along with "how Thomas Paine escaped the guillotine in 1794," are two of my favorite examples of the role of chance/dumb luck in history. Feel free to share these stories btw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
Paine was imprisoned during the Terror in Paris. Every night the gaoler put a chalk mark on the door of those due to be executed in the morning. Paines turn came up, the gaoler put the death mark on the door. However, Paine had visitors at the time so the lazy idiot put it on the inside of the door which was standing fully open so the inside was face out from the wall. This of course meant that the mark was on the inside of the closed door so invisible when the different gaoler and his men came around to collect the condemned in the morning. The mistake wasn't noticed and corrected long enough for the few days till Robespierre fell and the Terror to end. He was then released a couple of months later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Paine was imprisoned during the Terror in Paris. Every night the gaoler put a chalk mark on the door of those due to be executed in the morning. Paines turn came up, the gaoler put the death mark on the door. However, Paine had visitors at the time so the lazy idiot put it on the inside of the door which was standing fully open so the inside was face out from the wall. This of course meant that the mark was on the inside of the closed door so invisible when the different gaoler and his men came around to collect the condemned in the morning. The version I'm aware of had Paine's door open as he was suffering from a high fever and had prevailed upon the previous shift of guards to open his door so he could have a bit of ventilation, but is otherwise identical. In case you wanted both, Orange Devil: Princip had been stationed elsewhere in Sarajevo that day, and having not seen the Arch-Duke's motorcade had gotten dispirited and left to go back to his apartment. While walking home, by utter coincidence the Arch-Duke's driver* pulled the car up in front of him and stopped, having made a wrong turn and needing to back up. Neither Princip, nor Ferdinand, was supposed to be on that stretch of street at the same time, or indeed at all. *They were en route to the hospital where members of Feerdinand's staff, injured in an earlier botched bomb attack, were being treated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Wasn't Cromwell this close to emigrating to America before doing all the civil war poo poo he did?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Wasn't Cromwell this close to emigrating to America before doing all the civil war poo poo he did? Perhaps, but if he had, he'd have likely ended up leading armies during one of the many battles of the English Civil Wars that took place among the colonists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Its really a shame that Princip didn't live to see old age. An interview with an 80-100 year old Princip would have been interesting as hell. Mostly just to see if he would have still taken the shot with the power of hindsight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
HarlanHell posted:Its really a shame that Princip didn't live to see old age. An interview with an 80-100 year old Princip would have been interesting as hell. Mostly just to see if he would have still taken the shot with the power of hindsight. Princip was a terrorist on the level of Usama Bin Laden. He deserved death, far sooner than it came.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Princip was a terrorist on the level of Usama Bin Laden. He deserved death, far sooner than it came. Killing two autocrats (aka dictators) = killing thousands of innocent civilians. Another great MIGF post. Princip caused lots of problems with his assassination, but blaming the war on him instead of the inbred degenerates on the thrones of Europe at the time is missing the point. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Princip was a terrorist on the level of Usama Bin Laden. He deserved death, far sooner than it came. Goddamnit what is it with people and the stupid notion that "he totally deserved it", shut up about your just world delusions  Completely disregarding any moral argument about the death penalty, it is more interesting to keep these people alive as pieces of living history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 13:11
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Maybe on the level of Lee Harvey Oswald, but Bin Laden? Please.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Maybe on the level of Lee Harvey Oswald, but Bin Laden? Please. Not even that level. JFK was a legitimately elected head of state. The archduke was just some royal who won the vagina lottery and stumbled his way into power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Not even that level. JFK was a legitimately elected head of state. The archduke was just some royal who won the vagina lottery and stumbled his way into power. In a monarchic system, he was perfectly legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
Libluini posted:In a monarchic system, he was perfectly legitimate. Legitimately elected, not legitimate. I'm a pretty staunch democrat, so I don't see much wrong with a regicide to get people out from under a dictator.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Not even that level. JFK was a legitimately elected head of state. The archduke was just some royal who won the vagina lottery and stumbled his way into power. I always found it funny that Franz Joseph saw the assassination of his nephew as both a cause for war, and "a relief from a great worry." For Franz Joseph the day the archduke was shot must have seemed like Christmas. Without a doubt the best thing to come from World War 1 was the death of the vast majority of the European monarchies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Legitimately elected, not legitimate. I'm a pretty staunch democrat, so I don't see much wrong with a regicide to get people out from under a dictator. Then you're a fool. Franz Joseph was assassinated specifically because he was a liberal reformer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Legitimately elected, not legitimate. I'm a pretty staunch democrat, so I don't see much wrong with a regicide to get people out from under a dictator. Ferdinand and Joseph both were progressives by the standards of the period (particularly with regard to the internal politics in A-H) and the Black Hand was more or less a little proto-fascist organization who wanted to prevent any reforms from taking place. On the other hand this post makes you look like a pretty tough customer, I know I definitely wouldn't make fun of you to your face. efb
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Hell, FJ had spent the last couple decades or so being all "A-H probably shouldn't be picking fights with anybody." Which is probably the best outlook for any leader of the time, but especially for A-H.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:This is only kind of related, but it's on the topic of treaties: why is any nation bound to a treaty? I mean, say France ignored their treaty to go to war against Germany when the Eastern Front heated up. What would the repercussions have been for France? If you're a sovereign nation, it doesn't make sense that you should be bound to a treaty if there isn't anything for you to gain by it at that particular time. It's not like France was simply forced into the war by just the treaty or anything though, they had their own reasons to go to war too - Germany occupied Alsace-Lorraine, and that was a HUGE sticking point for French nationalists. Any French government that just sat back and let their ally with the largest land army fight Germany without assistance would basically have been saying "yeah, we're giving up on getting our land back, Germany can keep it" since it's pretty obvious that France could not beat Germany in a war single handedly. I mean, you let Russia go it alone, and either they win, and you get nothing because you sat out, or Russia gets creamed, and now your biggest ally is essentially out of commission for who knows how long, and in either scenario, Russia's gonna remember that snub and who else is there for France to buddy up with against Germany?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 00:41
|
|
)
|
rkajdi posted:Legitimately elected, not legitimate. I'm a pretty staunch democrat, so I don't see much wrong with a regicide to get people out from under a dictator. ...what sort of government do you think Serbia had?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Legitimately elected, not legitimate. I'm a pretty staunch democrat, so I don't see much wrong with a regicide to get people out from under a dictator. you're adorable
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Legitimately elected, not legitimate. I'm a pretty staunch democrat, so I don't see much wrong with a regicide to get people out from under a dictator. Louis Antoine de Saint-Just parachute account spotted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Legitimately elected, not legitimate. I'm a pretty staunch democrat, so I don't see much wrong with a regicide to get people out from under a dictator. I know you're not smart enough to understand this, but Serbia was already an independent state, And after the war ended, Bosnia was under a different kingdom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:It's not like France was simply forced into the war by just the treaty or anything though, they had their own reasons to go to war too - Germany occupied Alsace-Lorraine, and that was a HUGE sticking point for French nationalists. Any French government that just sat back and let their ally with the largest land army fight Germany without assistance would basically have been saying "yeah, we're giving up on getting our land back, Germany can keep it" since it's pretty obvious that France could not beat Germany in a war single handedly. I mean, you let Russia go it alone, and either they win, and you get nothing because you sat out, or Russia gets creamed, and now your biggest ally is essentially out of commission for who knows how long, and in either scenario, Russia's gonna remember that snub and who else is there for France to buddy up with against Germany? Also, Germany attacked France, so treaties were somewhat irrelevant. (I see Fishmech is posting, so technically Germany demanded French neutrality - which was to be guaranteed by the surrender of several border forts - or else there would be war. France obviously refused this ultimatum, and therefore WWI)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
It really is a shame that the Tzar and his family were killed the way that they were. I know that politically speaking it would have been risky to deport them, and leave them alive, but the whole family seemed like such genital honest people. Out of all of the aristocracy at the time Nicholas II seemed like the most humanitarian minded. In all the reading I've done he, and his family just seem like clueless naive victims who were trying their best to please everyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
HarlanHell posted:It really is a shame that the Tzar and his family were killed the way that they were. I know that politically speaking it would have been risky to deport them, and leave them alive, but the whole family seemed like such genital honest people. Out of all of the aristocracy at the time Nicholas II seemed like the most humanitarian minded. In all the reading I've done he, and his family just seem like clueless naive victims who were trying their best to please everyone. Ah yes, the true victims of the Tsarist system, Nicholas II and his family. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
HarlanHell posted:It really is a shame that the Tzar and his family were killed the way that they were. I know that politically speaking it would have been risky to deport them, and leave them alive, but the whole family seemed like such genital honest people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
HarlanHell posted:It really is a shame that the Tzar and his family were killed the way that they were. I know that politically speaking it would have been risky to deport them, and leave them alive, but the whole family seemed like such genital honest people. Out of all of the aristocracy at the time Nicholas II seemed like the most humanitarian minded. In all the reading I've done he, and his family just seem like clueless naive victims who were trying their best to please everyone. I'm pretty sure this impression is the result of White Russian/Monarchist/Anti-Communist propaganda more than it has any basis in fact (The first instinct of any apologist is to protect the people at the top from criticism) but I would love to know if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
None of them had all that much grasp of the situation at any time. They practically could have been kept in a combination national park/zoo and staffed by any (disarmed of course) sycophants who wanted in. Also the young hemophiliac son certainly wasn't cut out to be a strong counter revolutionary daughter, nor the various daughters. And it ain't like the White Army fought any less when the assassinations went through.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
HarlanHell posted:It really is a shame that the Tzar and his family were killed the way that they were. I know that politically speaking it would have been risky to deport them, and leave them alive, but the whole family seemed like such genital honest people. Out of all of the aristocracy at the time Nicholas II seemed like the most humanitarian minded. In all the reading I've done he, and his family just seem like clueless naive victims who were trying their best to please everyone. Oh yes, sweet Nicky, who showed clemency to many who were convicted of taking part in the pogroms in the pre-war period. And whose secret police were likely the ones stoking up the anti-Jewish sentiment in the first place. What a delightful, naive and innocent chap. I realise that he's been turned into a saint by the Orthodox Church but this is nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Ferdinand and Joseph both were progressives by the standards of the period (particularly with regard to the internal politics in A-H) and the Black Hand was more or less a little proto-fascist organization who wanted to prevent any reforms from taking place. I understand Princips was a crazy nationalist, but even people who do things for the wrong reasons can do the right thing for the wrong reasons. I've never been a believer in the whole "liberal internal reformer" line in autocratic governments. It smacks too much of the enlightened philosopher king line, and I also doubt any reformer would actually give themselves anything other than a soft landing. And you're deluding yourself if you don't think any autocrat or dictator isn't complicit in a pile of deaths to keep himself in power. If the Chomsky line about presidents is true (and it is) it's much more evident with dictators-- violence against large amounts of citizens to keep yourself in power is an ever-present fact. quote:On the other hand this post makes you look like a pretty tough customer, I know I definitely wouldn't make fun of you to your face. What does this mean? It's not a tough guy position, it seems to be the only way to actually get freedoms and keep counter-revolutionaries away. I'd love to do it in a way that didn't involve this stuff, but history tells us that other methods either still allow the autocrats to retain some level of power or give them a path to returning to power. I'm pretty either aren't acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 01:16 |
|
|
rkajdi posted:I understand Princips was a crazy nationalist, but even people who do things for the wrong reasons can do the right thing for the wrong reasons. I've never been a believer in the whole "liberal internal reformer" line in autocratic governments. It smacks too much of the enlightened philosopher king line, and I also doubt any reformer would actually give themselves anything other than a soft landing. And you're deluding yourself if you don't think any autocrat or dictator isn't complicit in a pile of deaths to keep himself in power. If the Chomsky line about presidents is true (and it is) it's much more evident with dictators-- violence against large amounts of citizens to keep yourself in power is an ever-present fact. Princip wasn't seeking a democratic state, he was part of group that exerted a long term stranglehold on Serbian "democracy", from the shadows. All they really wanted was no more Austria around so that A) Serbia could expand B) Serbia could specifically expand into Austrian holdings. It is childish to paint Princip and his crew of seeking an end of autocracy, they wanted it from someone speaking a different language and cloaking it in a very pseudo Democratic cloak. Much akin to the democratic facade in say Mississippi state politics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 15:11
|
|