Talk:Gavrilo Princip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: It's all pretty factually correct. But he wasn't a member of the Balck Hand. There is no evidence of him ever being in contact with the Black Hand, that was Apis' job. There are just logistical connections as you say. "was a Bosnian Serb member of a secret society organization named Black Hand" So could you please alter this..? He was a Serb, not a Serbian for anyone unclear. Bosnians can be Serbs too. It is an ethnic group. Serbians are the nationality. (edit)

Contents 1 route 2 Mlada Bosna was not Serbian group 3 Removing 'Legacy' section 4 Most significant man of the 20th century? 5 Pistol, not gun 6 Pistol not a rifle 7 Tubercolosis 8 Sources 9 Further Edit Summary Explanations 10 son of a punany? 11 Member of Black Hand? Serb ethnicity dispute. 12 Painful to read... 13 Gavrilo Princip was a Yugoslav 14 Princip's footprints 15 Headline text 16 Princip's weapon at the of Military History, Vienna 17 Instant Death? 18 Brain damage 19 He was Bosnian 20 What was his religion? 21 Lead Paragraph

[edit] route

Regarding the "freakish set of coincidences", didn't the archduke's car actually take a wrong turn while attempting to escape the assassination that brought it in the path of Princip or something of the sort. Dori 20:50, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

No. The car was on a return trip, as the Archduke wanted to visit the victims of the first botched assassination.

DizietSma 07:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

---

There is a movie from 1990 "Gavre Princip". It is a austrian-german production with international cast and staff.

Rabauz 23:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My Western Civilization textbook 5th ed. (Jackson J. Spielvogel) lists the name as being spelt with two L's - Gavrillo Princip.

Gavrilo is correct in Serbian. I think it is written the same way in English.

naufana 12:29, Mar 23. 2005

---

The car did in fact take a wrong turn. They were on the return trip but had decided to follow the route along the quay rather on the way back rather than the original route through the side streets. The driver of Franz's car did not, however, get the message and so turned onto the side streets. Potiorek (the Governor of Bosnia at the time) alerted the driver of his error, the driver stopped--right in front of Gavrilo.

[edit] Mlada Bosna was not Serbian group

Princip was a member of the Serb group Young Bosnia (Mlada Bosna) and the Black Hand which advocated Bosnia's unification with Serbia.

In fact many Croats and some Muslims were members of this organization. Princip was never member of Black Hand, but some members of that group supported him.

• Are you really sure about this? In most textbooks you can read, that he really was a menber of Black Hand. For me it´s great shock to read something different.--jilm 16:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

He was refused as young, physically undeveloped and sick (Tuberculosis).

Re Croats and Muslims: Muhamed Mehmedbašić was ethnic Muslim and member of Young Bosnia. Ivo Andrić was born as ethnic Croat, he was also connected to the organization and arrested during the WWI. The Young Bosnia was just one of similar organizations of youth Slavs in Austria-Hungaria, not isolated from political movements of that time. Young Bosnia advocated use of violence to achieve this goal. That was similar to the Black Hand. However, there were ideological differences between the right-wing Black Hand and members of Young Bosnia, who espoused anarchism.

Austria-Hungary was multiethnic country at the time of national romanticism.

Pricip was a Serb. The group was Serbian in origin. Apis was a serb. The motive for the killing was Serb nationalism. End of. Of course there were other ethnicities in there, but the actual perpetrators belonged to "Mlada Bosna", or "Young Bosnia", which was a freedom fighting/ terrorist group of Bosnian Serbs, campaigning for Bosnian freedom, who probably would have liked to have seen Serbo-Bosnian unity. If you are unclear on the definitions of a "Serb" and a "Serbian" look elsewhere on this site. ALCUS36 15:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing 'Legacy' section

I've removed this section altogether; I thought it was rubbish. Saying that GP caused WWI is unbelievably overstated, the causes are extremely complex, and (at most) the assassination provided the spark for a conflict which was inevitable (and perceived as inevitable at the time).

[edit] Most significant man of the 20th century?

This man started WWI, which produced WWII, which resulted in the Cold War and the eventual emergence of the United States as a hyper power with all todays plight. Could you imagine how DRASTICALLY the world would have turned out if he had not assassinated Franz?

"This man started WW1"- that's ridiculous. You should look more into the causes of world war one. One man (especially if he isn't rich and powerful) can't cause something like WW1.

There were alliances and powerful militaries being formed long before the war, and they sure weren't being formed because of peace purposes. The assassination was just an excuse to start the war. If the assassination didn't occur, something would have happened a week later which would have started the war anyway. Overhere 5:20, 20 October 2006

-G

Exactly. I've often wondered, "what would the world look like today if not for that one shot in Sarajevo!" K. Lastochka 17:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, we wouldn't be writing here. If not for the rapid development of the USA, then the most used lingua franca in the western world would perhaps have been French or German, which were in very common use in Europe prior to World War I. JIP | Talk 13:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pistol, not gun

A pistol was used by Princip, not a gun. A gun is a piece of artillery. I have made several gun edits

Wikipedia is not a US Army field manual. A handgun is a gun. --Tysto 02:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pistol not a rifle

I don't know why this keeps being changed from a rifle to a pistol on the last line, but it was clearly a pistol he used, the rest of this artcle confirms that, so does the article on the FN model pistol he used, as well as every other source on the topic I've seen, a rifle is not a pistol so unless you have some new revolation with sources please leave it as a pistol...Michael Lynn 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tubercolosis

As of today the article states that "he suffered from tuberculosis, which was his eventual cause of death in 1918, and was also one of the reasons he killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand in the first place". In my limited experience, people with tubercolosis don't usually go around killing the heirs to European thrones. Unless somebody can explain this peculiar statement, I'll remove the later part in a few days. Noel S McFerran 21:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He was going to die anyways, so he was ready to do more extreme things. If he didn't have tuburculousis then he wouldn't have been willing to throw his life away (prison or attempted suicide).

He actually contracted tuberculosis in prison, as did several of the other assassins. According to most scholars (See, "Archduke and the Assassin" or "Road to Sarajevo"), the claims that he had tuberculosis beforehand are erroneous.

[edit] Sources

I need to find some sources relating to Gavrilo Princip for a very important historical investigation for my Year 12 History Extension major work. It would be most helpful if anyone could provide me with some useful sources (or at least some more academic than the rather limited sources quoted on Princip's page) on Princip's involvement (for want of a better word) in the assassination, as well as any correspondence that may still exist between Princip and Tankosic.

If anyone can help, please attach sources here.

[edit] Further Edit Summary Explanations

I backed out the change from sandwich to ham sandwich because it broke linkage, did not add clarity or meaningful detail to the topic at hand and provided no sitation to back up the claim --Michael Lynn 23:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] son of a punany?

I'm guessing vandalism, but I don't know.85.227.226.250 05:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Member of Black Hand? Serb ethnicity dispute.

Gavrilo Princip was NOT a member of the Black Hand. He had links with it, but was not a member, was probably trained by it (at the most). No source or referance. I will change the first sentance, which is probably going to be counted as a major edit, but bear with me..

Bosnians are Serbs. Whoever disputed the fact that he was Serb is wrong. He is a Serb. I think you were trying to say that he isn't Serbian (nationality) which is true. He was Bosnian (nationality) but in ethnicity he was a "Serb", from Bosnia. There is quite a difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ALCUS36 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Painful to read...

"The event, known as the assassination in Sarajevo, either prompted the Austria-Hungarian action against Serbia that led to World War I, or was the pretext for it, depending on your point of view. He is commonly known therefore, rightly or wrongly, as the man who started the First World War."

Do the parentheticals help or benefit in any way?

"The event, known as the assassination in Sarajevo, prompted the Austria-Hungarian action against Serbia that led to World War I. He is commonly known as the man who started the First World War."

Look at it this way, even if the war was going to start a week later due to some other cause, his action WAS the spark that started the conflict. Hemming and hawing (and speculating) can be done later, but the fact of it is not different than Pearl Harbor being the spark that led to the US involvement in World War II. CodeCarpenter 19:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One nobody from a backwater in a peripheral province of a empire on the sidelines of world affairs cannot start a world war. What started it is A-H thinking "aha! this gives us the perfect opportunity to invade Serbia and add it to the empire" (as they'd been trying with intermittent success for centuries).--Methodius 01:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The prose was quite dense, I've edited it to make it a bit more readable (hopefully), while still getting the meaning across.--Methodius 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that does make it easier on the eyes. However, I respectfully disagree with your assessment as to who can start a world war. One nobody (Osama bin Laden) from a backwater in a peripheral province of a empire on the sidelines of world affairs (Afghanistan) cannot start a world war (The "War on Terror"). History is full of those single persons (Booth, Oswald, Churchill, Einstein, Pilate, Hitler, Henry VIII) making decisions or taking actions that make a difference in world afrairs. Had Princip not taken action, the previous assassination attempt might have been enough to lead to the war anyway, but his action was still significant. IMO, of course. CodeCarpenter 13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gavrilo Princip was a Yugoslav

He declared himself as a Yugoslav nationalist aiming for the unity of ALL south slavs. Here is the link: http://www.bookrags.com/Gavrilo_Princip

Gavrilo Princip actually contracted TB after being imprisoned, this fact has been confirmed by a descendant of his brother.

Why are you telling us? If it's that important and it's verifiable, place it in the article with a reference.--203.214.28.34 15:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Princip's footprints

I visited Sarajevo as a boy in 1972 and was taken to see the site of the shooting. There was a small square of older asphalt preserved in a more modern footpath paving and showing the distinct impression of shoe prints, with a sign that said, so I was told, that these were the footprints of GP made as he hung out on the corner waiting for the Ferdinand to arrive. Being a really hot day his shoes sank slightly into the warmed bitumen.

Apart from the implausibility of the whole thing, its a rather quaint little real or imagined artefact of the most important man [or not] of the 20th century [and on that subject, perhaps his Mother becomes by default most important woman?]. Is it still there? Sarajevo has had far more important things to worry about than old footpaths in recent years [[[User:60.242.50.195|60.242.50.195]] 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Headline text

[edit] Princip's weapon at the of Military History, Vienna

I am returning from a visit to the Museum of Military History, Vienna. Not just one Browning Automatic Pistol is shown along with Franz Ferdinand's uniform there, but three. According to museum staff, these pistols were carried by Black Hand members during the assassination, but do NOT include the one used by Princip. Princip's weapon disappeared by the end of WW II (allegedly stolen) and has not been recovered yet, although its serial number is known. ViennaUK 09:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instant Death?

This article claims that Pincip's bullet killed the Archduke's wife instantly, while the article specifically dedicated to the assassination states that she died fifteen minutes after being shot. Can someone clarify? 212.49.210.37 08:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The assassination article is correct. This article on Princip is not sufficiently referenced.

Werchovsky 17:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brain damage

82.39.41.54 posted the following today:

"although it is not proven, it is thought that Gavrilo Princip's brother beat him, giving him brain damage. it is thought that at the time he assassinated Franz Ferdinand, he had long been insane."

I removed it, for two reasons: (a) weasel words; (b) I don't know of any other source that mentions anything about this. Ben Kovitz 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He was Bosnian

Gavrilo Princip was a Bosnian citizen not Serbian, he was mayor of Sarajevo. User:Falcon-Eagle2007. 9:00PM GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcon-eagle2007 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

False. Gavrilo Princip was Serbian as confirmed by every reference. Bosnia was only a region within Serbia--not a country. Gavrilo Princip was never a mayor; he was a 19-year-old kid who had dropped out of college at the time of the assassination.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

LoL, False. Bosnia was not a region within Serbia (nor was it ever, I think), Bosnia was annexed by Austro-Hungary and was previously an isolated province of the Ottoman Empire. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

True, Bosnia has allways been seperate from Serbia. Falcon-eagle2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

False. (lol) It was a part of Serbia (for some time at least) in the Medieval ages. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What was his religion?

Can anyone find a reliable source for this mans religion or religious upbringing? I think this may be relevant to this article just for debunking certain conspiracy theory's out there. I've tried to do a little searching myself but can't figure it out. --70.4.158.133 (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he was not supposed to be (very) religious, as an anti-imperialist and an idealist. Though I too have failed to get a definitive answer on the Web, maybe that's why... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

He was Eastern Orthodox (Serbian), but really an 100% anarchistic atheist. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Paragraph

The lead paragraph seems a little biased to me. It says that Serbia rejected a request to investigate the assasination and also that the Serbian government was behind the assassination!

According to "First World War" by "Martin Gilbert" ISBN 000637665. who has now become "Sir martin Gilbert" because of his written contribution to history.

Austria gave Serbia a 15 point ultimatum and a 48 hour deadline. Serbia agreed to some points and asked for others to be referred to the International Tribunal at the Hague.

Also there was a secret Austrian document that says that the Serbian government were not implicated in the assassination.

I hope to get some feedback as I would like to edit this soon without causing any upset to any regular contributors of this page.

harris 578 (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If we all agree that Gavrilo Princip is member of Black Hand you must be kidding when you say that Serbia has not been behind the assassination because leader of Black Hand has been Chief of the Intelligence Department in the Serbian General Staff Dragutin Dimitrijevic [1]. I am really interested to hear story in which country is not guilty of crime which is organizated by Chief of the Intelligence Department ?--Rjecina (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that a top historian Martin Gilbert is wrong? I agree that Princip was a member of the Black hand along with Dimitrijevic. That we can prove. But to say Dimitrijevic was acting on the orders of the government is an assumption. The link you just provided me with [2] even says that the government arrested him in 1917 in a crackdown on the black hand. harris 578 (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a highly controversial issue about a highly controversial person. Perhaps we should simply state the bare facts? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am all for that. If the paragraph could be worded neutrally to say neither the Serbian government were nor were not behind the assassination, by just putting the facts. If someone later comes up with evidence from a good source to prove that the black hand were acting on the orders of the Serbian Government then fair enough. harris 578 (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Gilbert's sources, but it seems almost impossible to determine the level of implication of the Serbian government without really full-proof evidence. All we know is that the Black Hand was behind the assassination, and that the Black Hand was generally supported by the Serbian government, but we do not know for certain whether the government actually ordered it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In the end it is not important if Serbian government has ordered killings. Only important thing is that Chief of the Intelligence Department in the Serbian General Staff has ordered killings. Can somebody seriously claim that for example Soviet Union is innocent for killings ordered by chief of KGB military strategic intelligence (this is 1 of 4 major KGB sectors) ?

If there is problem with statement that Serbian government is behind assassination we can write that Chief of the Intelligence Department in the Serbian General Staff has ordered assassination. We do not know if his killing in 1917 is connected with 1914 so there is no reason for writing about that--Rjecina (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we know Princip and his group were working on orders from Dimitrijević? If so, I certainly support your view, Zen. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you write Gavrilo Princip and Apis in google you will have many hits. For example I will use this link because in my thinking it is NPOV because it is showing everybody reasons for start of WWI. There is no question that killing is order by Chief of the Intelligence Department in the Serbian General Staff--Rjecina (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be kind of naive to think they worked "freelance", I tend to agree with you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There were members of Hitler's government who tried to assassinate him. By your reckoning you then have a paradox of Hiltler ordering his own assasination. Why is it so unbelievable that Dimitrijević used his position of power to carry out assassinations according to his own ideals. Chief of the Intelligence Department in the Serbian General Staff OK I get it you typed it enough. harris 578 (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing, I agree it is possible that Dimitrijević was working independently on this, but considering the target, it is not probable. Is there evidence (Gilbert?) that he undertook this independently from the government? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert says this. Quoted from "First world war by Martin Gilbert" "Princip and two of his accomplices had been trained in Serbia by members of the Black Hand terrorist organisation, a fiercely nationalist organisation which the Serb Government itself was even then trying to suppress. The conspirators had been encouraged in their task by the leader of the Black Hand, Colonel Dimitrievic (also known as Apis), a sworn enemy of Austria. Having been given their wepons in Belgrade, the conspirators had been smuggled back across the Austrian border into Bosnia in May. Their aim was to strike a physical blow at Austrian rule." I realise that this in its self does not prove anything but neither have I seen anything to prove otherwise. harris 578 (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, my point is that, since the guy was the Serbian Chief of Intelligence, we must find proof that he wasn't working on behalf of Serbia, not that he was. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The following is the July Ultimatum:

1. Any sort of publications that fuse hatred or hostile feelings towards Austria-Hungary must be prevented

2. The Serbian government must break all connections to the National Defense and assist in its abolition as well as any other Serb organization that deals with propaganda against Austria-Hungary

3. To remove from public education any content that incites or could be interpreted to incite propaganda against Austria-Hungary

4. To purge its forces and fire all officers from the military and administration that are considered by Austria-Hungary to be anti-AustroHungarian propagandists, Vienna will supplement the list afterwards

5. To authorize the Austro-Hungarian authorities to freely work on coercion of acts against Austria-Hungary on the territory of Serbia

6. To conduct in cooperation with the Austro-Hungarian Court an investigation of the Sarajevo Assassination and by Austro-Hungarian instruct to process anyone indicted on the soil of Serbia

7. To momentarily arrest two named persons indicted for the assassination by Austro-Hungary's preliminary investigation

8. To by efficient measures prevent illegal transfer of weapons and explosives across the Austro-Hungarian border.

9. To give formal explanations to Austria-Hungary regarding the statements of esteemed Serbian emissaries in Serbia and abroad, whose statements were interpreted by Austria-Hungary as potentially hostile

10. To without delay update Austria-Hungary on fulfillment of these duties

The Serbian government accepted nine of ten, that is it refused to accept six and suggested that it be solved at the International Court of Justice. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, I am not saying Serbia is responsible for World War I! Far from it! I'm just being objective. Even if the Serbian gov. was behind the assassination, it was the ultimatum that started the War. This is in either case not the issue, the issue is wether or not it can be proven that Dimitrijević was acting on his own. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm? Was that comment for me? ;) All I did was read that you were talking about the July Ultimatum, so I decided to post it over here in full (and correct that someone said that most were agreed to and several not - all were agreed save for one)... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was embarrassing... :P ok, thank you Pax. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Pax. That is part of the point I am trying to make. If we all go now and read the lead paragraph on Princip. It is worded in a way to suggest Serbia point blank refused to the ultimatum. It might be misleading to someone doing thier homework on here or something. I think a minor re-word should do it. I never wanted an argument. I just wanted to disscuss it and work towards an edit. harris 578 (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, Harris, you're in the Balkans now, nothing's that simple ;) You'll just have to make your position clear now, are you an imperialist or a communist?! *grabs throat* Answer damn you! :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think its safer if I pick the same side as you ;) harris 578 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Harris though, the precise problem is the word "rejected", as it most definitely is not the case. The Serbian government accepted 9/10 points of the ultimatum, which, according to it legal team, were acceptable under Serbian Law. The government put preservation of peace at the utmost priority. However, at point number 6, a very big technical problem arose. Let me quote Article 146 of Part VIII (Courts) of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbia:

“

Courts are independent. In fulfilling justice they do not stand under any authority, but judge solely upon the Law. No State authority, neither legislative, nor executive, can fulfill the courts' duty, nor can the courts fulfill legislative or executive power. Justice is persecuted in the name of the King.

”

In effect, A-H demanded that all courts be subjected to the Vienna regarding the cases related to the Sajarevo Assassination, or better said, anyone whom Austria-Hungary wants to indict on the soil of Serbia. This would be a serious injure of the judicial process, but primarily violate the Constitution. Belgrade also exposed reluctance to change the Constitution just because of the ultimatum. Considering that normal judicial practice was hurt, the Serbian government proposed addressing the International Court of Justice, whether A-H can legally take over (de facto) Serbian courts (note aside: Serbia already authorized A-H to fight against any action on Serbian territory finding endangering, as well as to fire anyone from the army and administration A-H named and remove all bad things about Austria-Hungary from school textbooks), promising to recognize uphold ICJ's decision. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate: but if you reject any point in an ultimatum, you reject it completely. That's why its called an "ultimatum": its non-negotiable. In either case I think we should explain the matter in detail and not leave any room for misinterpretation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Did they really reject it? The Serbian government complied, but said that there are technical difficulties in the Law (which was, obviously, more advanced than Austro-Hungarian). Requesting ICJ's intervention and altogether, really makes "rejection" improper wording. BTW, there is no mention of the ultimatum in the lead paragraph, but it says that Serbia refused to conduct an investigation, which is blatantly false. For instance, the lead paragraph does not insinuate, but really does claim that:

a) Serbians assassinated Franz Ferdinand

b) Serbians totally refused and ignored Austro-Hungary's innocent diplomatic pleas for justice, because they are guilty

c) The Serbians started the Great War

In essence, it also must not be forgotten that the Black Hand was also a terrorist organization that riled up unrest in Serbia, and that the parliament adopted a resolution against it in the beginning of 1914 demanding reaction from the authorities, satisfying with an open declaration. It should also not be forgotten that the Black Hand massacred the Serbian royal family in 1903 and led Serbia to the brink of civil war (again). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Black Hand article says that the Black Hand was founded in 1911, which sounds kind of strange to me... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they were "upgraded" into Unity or Death on 9 May 1911, but the Black Hand was there in 1903 and responsible for the Obrenovics' extermination.

It is also interesting that a German (Rodolphe Archibald Reiss) actually defends the Black Hand at the Sarajevo Assassination, calling it a reactive act against an oppressing dictatorship. Also, let us not forget that it is Young Bosnia which is primarily the organizer of the assassination. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What if we all offer up some alternative wordings to see what the others think.

Instead of this section "leading Austria-Hungary and Germany to request that Serbia investigate the crime on Serbian soil. Serbian rejection of these requests set off a chain of events that led to World War I."

We could have "leading Austria-Hungary and Germany to issue a ten point Ultimatum to Serbia. Serbia had reservations with one of the requests and this set off a chain of events that led to World War I."

The reader can then follow the link to the July Ultimatum if they are really interested and make up their own mind. harris 578 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Or "leading Austria-Hungary and Germany to issue a document know as the July Ultimatum to Serbia which set off a chain of events that led to World War I." harris 578 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Either is fine with me, I just disliked the "rejection of inquiry" fallaciousness. BTW, didn't Germany declare war on Russia and France, didn't it prepare for it since before, signing a secret treaty with the Ottoman Empire to form a Central Power military alliance also with Austria-Hungary, Italy, Japan and Mexico, and already fully preparing a plan of invading the Netherlands to kick the French out of the war?

Also, the local developments and the assassination itself are in direct connection to the 1908/09 happenings. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In the end, we must also also remember that the Government of the Kingdom of Serbia informed Vienna of the assassination through its ambassador before it had occurred. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

!! this I haven't heard before! really? Are there sources on this? I'd be fascinated to learn more about the communiqué. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know much, but I do know that Nikola Pasic's intelligence informed him of high possibilities of an assassination attempt of Franz Ferdinand. He immediately wrote to the Serbian ambassador in Vienna to pass a letter to Emperor Franz Joseph. In it, Ferdinand's grand visit to Sarajevo on Saint Vitus' day is highly criticized as provocative of the Serbs, that it does not aid the tensions that were created in 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1909 previously and that there the successor's security could be greatly jeopardized in Sarajevo, Pasic advising the A-H authorities not to send him to Sarajevo for his own safety.

I could search more details on this, but to the up is correct. I have heard that several hours before the assassination Pasic has issued warrants for arrest of three of those involved in the assassination, although can't confirm this one yet. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is turning into one hell of a discussion. That's really interesting Pax, can you recommend some good WWI books for me? Anyway what about this lead paragraph thing? Are we changing it? I vote that Pax alter it as he has displayed an extraordinary knowledge of the incident. harris 578 (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that you are interested in the very intro in the war, I'd recommend John H. Mauer's "The Outbreak of the First World War: Strategic Planning, Crisis Decision". If you're interested in the war in precise, next to Martin Gilbert (whom you already know) I recommend Hew Strachan. --PaxEquilibrium (talk)

Thanks. harris 578 (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)