I haven't read Vojinović's book yet, so I don't know the source of two inaccuracies: in Young Bosnia, besides Mehmedbašić, there was also Golubić, and secondly, he was killed by the Gestapo, not the Ustasha
Both are mentioned in the book. Mehmedbasic was directly involved in the"attentat"and, acc.to Vojinovic died in Bosnia in 1943 after a severe torture by the Ustasa. Golubic is also mentioned, but not his death. I think he was killed in Belgrade by the Gestapo. Am i right?
Mustafa Golubić, a Bosnian Muslim-born NKVD agent and communist operative, played a key role in organizing resistance in Yugoslavia during World War II. He was arrested by the Gestapo in 1941, likely after being betrayed by fellow communists who feared his growing influence as a potential threat to Tito's leadership in the KPJ. Golubić was tortured and executed in Belgrade in July 1941, shortly after his capture, while the city was under German occupation.
Sounds like a very interesting book. I wonder if it discusses the impact of the events from September 22/23, 1908 (O.S.) on this group of young people?
The Conventional Wisdom states that Princip is that random match-stick that lit the XXth century on fire, however, in my view that "honor" should belong to the Bulgarians and their Declaration of Independence from 1908.
For all its absurdities - including the "Schrodinger's Vilayet of Bosnia" (simultaneously part of A-H and the Ottoman Empire) - the Berlin Treaty of 1879 maintained the peace in Europe for decades. It was a legal document that everyone begrudgingly abided by.
When Bulgaria decided to declare independence on September 22nd, 1908, it signaled "Game ON!!!" to the rest of Europe, so the very next day A-H declared the formal annexation of Bosnia, which in turn helped concentrate the ire of the Serbian/Yugo nationalists strictly on A-H. After all, in Schrodinger's Bosnia, there would be very little impetus for Princip to assassinate the Habsburg heir, if the principality was not even legally in their empire.
As is often the case in history, the Bulgarian Declaration of Independence was at the time considered an inconsequential event, even by the Bulgarians. It was conceived as a PR move by the PM, that would face no opposition by the Great Powers, as it was just a formality, elevating Bulgaria from a principality into a kingdom, without many de facto consequences. However, it was the domino that formally violated the Berlin Treaty, and the rest is... history.
Interesting. Was Austrian decision to annex Bosnia a direct result of Bulgarian declaration of independence, or more exactly of increased status, from principality to kingdom?
The Austrians knew for sure what was going to happen and were waiting for the Bulgarians to make the first move.
What is not known for sure whether there was an active coordination. The archives of the Bulgarian ministers don't mention any coordination, but it is worth noting that Ferdinand, (the Bulgarian prince who became a king through the Act) spent some time in the summer in a family castle in Austria. This was enough to convince Russia that there was an Austria-Bulgaria conspiracy against Russia...
It is generally thought that Austria decided to take advantage of Russia's weakness after it lost the war against Japan, and that in addition Izvolsky was tricked by the Austrians re. Constantinople (the English would never agree to Russian control).
The point was about the "trigger event" for concrete action. Everything up to that point was general discussion, in fact there was a meeting earlier in September in Moravia with Izvolsky, talking about the general parameters of post-Ottoman Balkans (i.e. Bosnia going to A-H and the Straits under RU control).
To be sure, the war didn't start in 1908, in fact Izvolsky was given two more years to get things done diplomatically. in 1910 Izvolsky was replaced by Sazonov and RU became much more assertive, orchestrating the Balkan War of 1912.
The point however was that the dominoes started falling in 1908, Princip was not the first domino. The first domino was the Bulgarian Act of Independence....
Interesting essay, the idea of differences in political idealism and the political/social climate then and now are interesting to contrast and compare. The justification of violence is clearly coming back as a legitimate option for young people, at least those I’ve spoken to and what I’ve seen online (the online component of this can’t be underestimated).
Compared to the time of Princip, the proportion of young people in the population has greatly diminished, especially in Europe and the proportion of Europeans in the world population has diminished even more. The age of (European) imperialism coincided with the peak of European population relative to the world population. Military expenditure is dwarfed by pension expenditure.
I trust your reading of the book. I am not sure however what to make of your argument ‘this is not what Princip and his friends thought [would happen].’ If you allow me a provocation, one could use the same words to describe the case of Mohamed Atta and his young friends, who certainly exhibited a high degree of ‘idealism’ coupled with utter refusal of the ways of their parents’ generation.
As Benedetto Croce said “all history is always contemporary history.” Still, on specific facts, it should be possible to tell, as Leopold von Ranke said, “how it really was.” For all their idealism, were not Princip and his co-conspirators manoeuvred by the Serbian secret services? For all their faults, European governments of the time generally did not engage in political assassinations of foreign heads of state: difficult to escape the impression that Serbia was an ‘outlier.’ As to the world that followed, one need not share the rose-tinted view of the Belle Epoque of Keynes’ Economic consequences to acknowledge that the states that emerged from the dissolution of A-H can be summarily depicted under different shades of fascism (with the exception of Czechoslovakia), making A-H look by comparison as a model of enlightened and liberal government. Also economically (but here the author is best equipped to tell) they tended to perform badly.
And I think there is by now enough evidence of collusion w/ Serbia's military intelligence, but not with the PM and the government strictu senso. The problem for Serbia was that the military intelligence agency operated as a state within a state.
It is also my understanding that the military secret services were manoeuvring the conspirators without involvement or knowledge of the government. This in itself however makes Serbia an outlier (Pakistan is the contemporary equivalent that comes to one’s mind).
The assassination was a big mistake. Your points are well-taken. But this not what or how Princip and his friends thought in 1914, no more than we can in 2024 imagine what would happen in ten or twenty years. The objective of the book is to recreate that atmosphere based on their writings and readings.
Agree with you. What the book, even if indirectly, brings is the dreams of the young people (and they were of different ethnicities including Tin Ujevic and Ivo Andric) of a different & better world. It is the unrealized dreams of the youth that I find fascinating and worth remembering
Yes, exactly. I think Mestrovic's goal was, as you write, to produce a sculptural mythology for the new state. In that vision of South Slavic "quest for freedom" Vidovdan and Frankopan-Zrinjski could both be included. There was no contradiction. By the way, Vojinovic quotes Tin Ujevic, Ivo Andric and many others quite extensively.
I haven't read Vojinović's book yet, so I don't know the source of two inaccuracies: in Young Bosnia, besides Mehmedbašić, there was also Golubić, and secondly, he was killed by the Gestapo, not the Ustasha
Both are mentioned in the book. Mehmedbasic was directly involved in the"attentat"and, acc.to Vojinovic died in Bosnia in 1943 after a severe torture by the Ustasa. Golubic is also mentioned, but not his death. I think he was killed in Belgrade by the Gestapo. Am i right?
Mustafa Golubić, a Bosnian Muslim-born NKVD agent and communist operative, played a key role in organizing resistance in Yugoslavia during World War II. He was arrested by the Gestapo in 1941, likely after being betrayed by fellow communists who feared his growing influence as a potential threat to Tito's leadership in the KPJ. Golubić was tortured and executed in Belgrade in July 1941, shortly after his capture, while the city was under German occupation.
Sounds like a very interesting book. I wonder if it discusses the impact of the events from September 22/23, 1908 (O.S.) on this group of young people?
The Conventional Wisdom states that Princip is that random match-stick that lit the XXth century on fire, however, in my view that "honor" should belong to the Bulgarians and their Declaration of Independence from 1908.
For all its absurdities - including the "Schrodinger's Vilayet of Bosnia" (simultaneously part of A-H and the Ottoman Empire) - the Berlin Treaty of 1879 maintained the peace in Europe for decades. It was a legal document that everyone begrudgingly abided by.
When Bulgaria decided to declare independence on September 22nd, 1908, it signaled "Game ON!!!" to the rest of Europe, so the very next day A-H declared the formal annexation of Bosnia, which in turn helped concentrate the ire of the Serbian/Yugo nationalists strictly on A-H. After all, in Schrodinger's Bosnia, there would be very little impetus for Princip to assassinate the Habsburg heir, if the principality was not even legally in their empire.
As is often the case in history, the Bulgarian Declaration of Independence was at the time considered an inconsequential event, even by the Bulgarians. It was conceived as a PR move by the PM, that would face no opposition by the Great Powers, as it was just a formality, elevating Bulgaria from a principality into a kingdom, without many de facto consequences. However, it was the domino that formally violated the Berlin Treaty, and the rest is... history.
Interesting. Was Austrian decision to annex Bosnia a direct result of Bulgarian declaration of independence, or more exactly of increased status, from principality to kingdom?
The Austrians knew for sure what was going to happen and were waiting for the Bulgarians to make the first move.
What is not known for sure whether there was an active coordination. The archives of the Bulgarian ministers don't mention any coordination, but it is worth noting that Ferdinand, (the Bulgarian prince who became a king through the Act) spent some time in the summer in a family castle in Austria. This was enough to convince Russia that there was an Austria-Bulgaria conspiracy against Russia...
It is generally thought that Austria decided to take advantage of Russia's weakness after it lost the war against Japan, and that in addition Izvolsky was tricked by the Austrians re. Constantinople (the English would never agree to Russian control).
The point was about the "trigger event" for concrete action. Everything up to that point was general discussion, in fact there was a meeting earlier in September in Moravia with Izvolsky, talking about the general parameters of post-Ottoman Balkans (i.e. Bosnia going to A-H and the Straits under RU control).
To be sure, the war didn't start in 1908, in fact Izvolsky was given two more years to get things done diplomatically. in 1910 Izvolsky was replaced by Sazonov and RU became much more assertive, orchestrating the Balkan War of 1912.
The point however was that the dominoes started falling in 1908, Princip was not the first domino. The first domino was the Bulgarian Act of Independence....
100,000 out of 2 million is 1 in 20, not 1 in 5.
has there been an english version of this book, I've been unable to find it other than a section or prelude that's 35 pages?
Interesting essay, the idea of differences in political idealism and the political/social climate then and now are interesting to contrast and compare. The justification of violence is clearly coming back as a legitimate option for young people, at least those I’ve spoken to and what I’ve seen online (the online component of this can’t be underestimated).
Perhaps the ending (in italics) of my piece is of relevance...
Compared to the time of Princip, the proportion of young people in the population has greatly diminished, especially in Europe and the proportion of Europeans in the world population has diminished even more. The age of (European) imperialism coincided with the peak of European population relative to the world population. Military expenditure is dwarfed by pension expenditure.
I trust your reading of the book. I am not sure however what to make of your argument ‘this is not what Princip and his friends thought [would happen].’ If you allow me a provocation, one could use the same words to describe the case of Mohamed Atta and his young friends, who certainly exhibited a high degree of ‘idealism’ coupled with utter refusal of the ways of their parents’ generation.
As Benedetto Croce said “all history is always contemporary history.” Still, on specific facts, it should be possible to tell, as Leopold von Ranke said, “how it really was.” For all their idealism, were not Princip and his co-conspirators manoeuvred by the Serbian secret services? For all their faults, European governments of the time generally did not engage in political assassinations of foreign heads of state: difficult to escape the impression that Serbia was an ‘outlier.’ As to the world that followed, one need not share the rose-tinted view of the Belle Epoque of Keynes’ Economic consequences to acknowledge that the states that emerged from the dissolution of A-H can be summarily depicted under different shades of fascism (with the exception of Czechoslovakia), making A-H look by comparison as a model of enlightened and liberal government. Also economically (but here the author is best equipped to tell) they tended to perform badly.
And I think there is by now enough evidence of collusion w/ Serbia's military intelligence, but not with the PM and the government strictu senso. The problem for Serbia was that the military intelligence agency operated as a state within a state.
It is also my understanding that the military secret services were manoeuvring the conspirators without involvement or knowledge of the government. This in itself however makes Serbia an outlier (Pakistan is the contemporary equivalent that comes to one’s mind).
The assassination was a big mistake. Your points are well-taken. But this not what or how Princip and his friends thought in 1914, no more than we can in 2024 imagine what would happen in ten or twenty years. The objective of the book is to recreate that atmosphere based on their writings and readings.
Agree with you. What the book, even if indirectly, brings is the dreams of the young people (and they were of different ethnicities including Tin Ujevic and Ivo Andric) of a different & better world. It is the unrealized dreams of the youth that I find fascinating and worth remembering
And I forgot also many "integral Yugoslavist" quotes by Ivan Mestrovic (incl. of course his later Kosovski ciklus).
Yes, exactly. I think Mestrovic's goal was, as you write, to produce a sculptural mythology for the new state. In that vision of South Slavic "quest for freedom" Vidovdan and Frankopan-Zrinjski could both be included. There was no contradiction. By the way, Vojinovic quotes Tin Ujevic, Ivo Andric and many others quite extensively.
Agree. Also, all the best in 2025!