Hi there, at the outset I'm not claiming to be an historical expert of the matter. I'm just interested in the history of it all. So, my question is did Bosnia indirectly cause ww2 ? As in, a Bosnian assassinated Archduke Ferdinand.
Oh dear - Archduke Franz Ferdinand Carl Ludwig Joseph Maria of Austria assassinated in Sarajevo – 28 June 1914 World War 2 started when ? TD
Yes, is the very simple answer to your question: the origins of WW2 belong in WW1. Europe had new nations, new rulers - often democratic once - and old ideologies refreshed, communism, fascism etc. Few were truly happy with their lot and looked enviously to gain more space, or territory.
I was also thinking, or rather asking the question, that the origins of the Bosnian muslim population were from the ruling ottomans. So therefore do the origins of WW2 extend right back to the ottoman rule ?
Bosnia-Herzogovina was a mixed community before WW1 and is today. My recollection is that most chose or were coerced a long time before WW1 to the Muslim faith. Many Bosnians fought in the Austro-Hungarian army in WW1. Communal bloodletting was a feature of WW2. Not to overlook the Ottoman Empire "lost" Bosnia in 1875-1878 and Austria-Hungary became the governors. See: Bosnia and Herzegovina - Wikipedia Remember the "spark" for the escalation to war came from a radical Serbian group supporting a Bosnian Serb to murder Archduke Ferdinand. Which from memory is well explained in Malcolm's book and of course by: Gavrilo Princip - Wikipedia The best book on the start of WW1 is 'The Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914' by Christopher Clark (Pub. in paperback 2012). It became a best seller and there are numerous audio options to listen to. If you want to know more I recommend the chapters in 'Eastern Approaches' by Fitzroy Maclean (Pub. 1949, my edition is later 1960) and 'Bosnia: A Short History' by Noel Malcolm (Pub. 1994). Whatever the "fault(s)" in Bosnia and other states in the Balkans there were many, more powerful factors involved. Try this: World War One: 10 interpretations of who started WW1
I think that there are certain events in history which, though given little significance at the time, turn out to be pivotal moments with devastating long term consequences. Historians tend to interpret history from one political viewpoint or another and rarely provide a balanced, dispassionate overview. The thing to remember is cause and effect and that all actions have reactions and long term consequences. That the Bosnians might have played a significant role in causing WW2 is a new angle that historians have yet to address, and the desire for freedom amongst the subject peoples of the Austro-Hungarian empire may have been a minor factor. For me, several other overlooked factors are more significant. 1) The Germans persuading the Turks to be their allies during the Great War, leading to the break up of the Ottoman Empire. 2) The break up of the Austro- Hungarian Empire. 3) The Germans putting Lenin on a train to Leningrad in 1917. These events led to the demise of three empires that had ruled Europe and the Middle East for hundreds of years, leaving a huge political vacuum which allowed the rise of Soviet Communism and the inevitable reactionary rise of Fascism and ultimately, World War Two. My personal view is that WW2 was two, (three if you include Japanese Imperialism) extreme political systems fighting for world domination. With democratic nations paying a huge price in blood and treasure to restore democracy to the free world, despite themselves having a history of colonialism and imperialism. Old, outdated orders must pass but the birth of a new order is rarely achieved without bloodshed and the settling of scores. We are still seeing the long term effects of both great wars playing out and it is wise to remember that where we are now is due to the sum total of all our actions since history began. As we know from bitter experience, the rise of political extremism is ugly and brutal and dark forces fill the void unless good people step forward to re-establish common law and decency. And finally, as we fair minded, principled, level headed and decent folk say, "Death to all extremists".
This "The Rest is History" podcast was relatively recent... 9. Causes of the First World War 9. Causes of the First World War Whose fault was it? Does the question even make sense? Are wars always somebody's "fault"? Was it really the first global war? And should Britain have fought, or stayed out? Looking for an indirect cause of WW2 - why not look for direct causes?
Surely it's the guy in the factory who made the bullet that killed Archduke Ferdinand who is responsible for causing WW1 and, therefore, WW2?
No, its the rich land owner who sacked him from his job as a stable boy for making eyes at his daughter, that caused him to leave the countryside and get a job in an armaments factory in the big city, that is responsible.
“Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.”
Seems like you are less interested in history and more interested in pushing an agenda. As others have already written, why stop at Ottoman rule of Bosnia and use that as a start point of your "this happened because that happened routine". One point worth noting is that Gavrilo Princip was a citizen of the Austro-Hungarian ruled region of Bosnia protesting against that Austro-Hungarian rule. Nothing to do with the Ottoman previous rule of the land. And Princip was not Muslim. He was a Christian.
Which would be a Belgian. Unless he was a migrant/refugee worker from Poland. Which goes to explain why Belgium and Poland are the usual lands to be first on the German list of invaded countries. Jeez, this history learning thingy is so easy.
I shall be extra careful tonight when l drink my ovaltine. I wouldn't want too big a slurp to result in a global catastrophy.
You should be O.K. with Ovaltine, but lay off the Horlicks as over indulgence can lead to vulgarity, spiritual decline and the concomitant moral degeneration.
Those of the Muslim faith made up about 1/3 of the Bosnian population at the beginning of WW1. Christians the other 2/3. Any Slav converting to the Muslim faith under the Ottomans instantly stepped up a rung in society and gave himself an opportunity of better employment and lifestyle. Bosnia had been incorporated into the Austro-Hungarian Empire a good few years earlier. In theory its population should have been no less liable for military service than those of other parts of the Empire. However, military conscription in Bosnia was low and most of the "Bosnians" in the Austro-Hungarian armies at the start of hostilities were volunteers. Best avoid wiki. Princip was a member of an organization that was multi-ethnic whose agenda was anti Austro-Hungarian rule. Yes Princip was himself a Serb, yes the group had more Serbs than others and yes they did get some weapons handling training from freelancing Serbs from the Royal Serbian Army. But to assume that means Serbia was behind the assassination is just lazy and wrong. Sadly, there are many lazy people out there, so you will come across that narrative very often.
