map
Our Affiliates
Listen In 28 LanguagesRFE/RL Radio
In 28 Languages

'Berlin Wall's Lessons For Today'

In an op-ed for "USA Today," Jeffrey Gedmin discusses RFE and the role of free media in societies living under repressive regimes. More
More Articles

Commentary

The Balkans: Where History Lives And People Die

The plaque marking the site of Archduke Ferdinand's assassination in 1914 in Sarajevo

November 11, 2008
By Nenad Pejic
Before the 1990s, there was one site in Sarajevo that every visitor to the city had to see. It wasn't a monument, a plaque, or a museum. It was a set of footprints in the pavement that marked the spot where Gavrilo Princip stood on June 28, 1914, when he pulled the trigger and assassinated Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand. That shot set off the chain of events that plunged Europe into World War I.

Sandwiched between two great empires -- Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Turkey -- the Balkans have for centuries been little more than the battleground where the waxing and waning fortunes of Vienna and Istanbul were played out. That legacy as much as anything else left the region divided, and among the issues that can probably never be settled in the Balkans is the historical legacy of Gavrilo Princip: for some he is a freedom fighter; for others, a terrorist.

World War I ended exactly 90 years ago. Hundreds of thousands of lives in the region were lost, but the result was not Princip's illusory vision of a united Yugoslav nation. The result of the war was not a uniting of the region, but its division into hostile ethnic groups.

And the debate over the man who started it continues. Princip's house in Sarajevo, which was destroyed during the war, was rebuilt afterward and turned into a museum of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

Then World War II broke out and another 1.7 million Balkan lives were swept away. Most of them, incidentally, died as a result of ethnic fighting among themselves; far fewer were killed by Hitler's armies.

During that war, Princip's house was destroyed a second time. After communist resistance leader Tito established a communist government in Yugoslavia in 1944 and the war ended in 1945, the house was rebuilt again. In addition, a museum dedicated to Princip was opened in Sarajevo. Those who interpreted Princip as a freedom fighter proudly took visitors to see the footprints, while those who saw him as a terrorist continued muttering under their breath.

Tito's ideology was based on the "brotherhood and unity" of the peoples of Yugoslavia. He attempted to bring the region's many peoples together under the umbrella of his strong, one-party state. Princip, as a hero of Yugoslav unification, was written into the history books as a patriotic hero.

But just a decade after Tito died, the illusion of Yugoslav unity was shattered again by war. The wars of the 1990s raged furiously and Princip's house was destroyed yet a third time. This time, it was razed by the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina and, to date, no attempts to restore it have been announced. The old Princip museum was refashioned as one devoted to Archduke Ferdinand and the Habsburg monarchy.

This, of course, did not settle the question. Many in the region (mostly non-Serbs) emphasize that Serbian military officers stood behind the assassination and that the political objective of the conspirators was to wrest the South Slav provinces from Austria in order to unite them into a Greater Serbia. How heroic, they ask, is it to kill a tyrant in the name of another tyranny?

Knee-Deep In Undigested History

Princip, of course, is a symptom rather than a cause of the divisions in the Balkans. In fact, looking at the patchwork of ethnic, religious, and cultural fault lines in the region, it is hard to imagine that Princip and others ever believed a united Yugoslavia could be possible. There are simply too many differences in a relatively tiny space -- too many conflicting interests and agendas. Sometimes it seems that war is a not a choice for the Balkans, but its fate. The peoples of the region are hot-headed and have a sadly underdeveloped ability to compromise. They fight when they should talk. When they love, they love too much, and when they hate....

Princip's legacy is controversial around the world. In the Czech Republic, at Ferdinand's hunting lodge of Konopiste (from which the archduke set off on his fateful journey to Sarajevo), a sign declares that he was killed by a "Serbian terrorist." But at the Czech prison in Terezin where Princip died, a sign in his cell describes him as "a freedom fighter." The prison museum was opened under the communists; the Konopiste museum was opened by the postcommunist government. Two ideologies -- two points of view. But no fighting.

But in the Balkans, there are no "minor" issues in history. The region is knee-deep in undigested history -- if the Princip question were miraculously settled to everyone's satisfaction, 1,000 other issues spanning the centuries would remain unresolved. And this is as true of recent decades as it is of medieval period -- tensions surrounding the actions of various ethnic groups during the wars of the 1990s have the potential to keep the region at a slow boil for decades.

Literally speaking, Princip's footprints no longer exist in Sarajevo. They were removed after the 1992-95 war by the new national government in Bosnia, which views him as a Serbian nationalist. As might be expected, in Bosnia's ethnic-Serbian entity, Republika Srpska, he is revered as a hero.

Now, on the spot where the footsteps once were, there is a simple wooden memorial with an inscription in Bosnian, Serbian, and English: "May Peace Prevail on Earth." Amen to that.

Nenad Pejic is associate director of broadcasting at RFE/RL. The views expressed in this commentary are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL
This forum has been closed.
     
Comments
by: Abdul Majid from: Germany
December 22, 2008 17:06
David, it does not matter if it was a million or several 100.000. Important is only that it was genocide. And then, when they came acrosss the Balkans they murdered thousands more just because they were Orthodox. And when they finally conquered Jerusalem they massacred the whole population. Muslims did nothing of this sort when they conqured Syria, North Africa, Central Asia or Spain. Only the Mongols did worse things to the Muslims. Yert,those who later became Muslims themselves, made Persie a landf with a refined culture and a high living standard.
But I disgress. What is trhe poit here is that the Jews of today, while they have not forgotten European anti-semitism ands persecution (with its nadir under the Nazis), but they would not use it as a pretext against the Germans (or for that matter the French and others who collaborated wqith thew nazis.) But in the Balkans unfortunately that's different.
If someone really did a constructive effort to make Bosnia a normal country where each and everyone of its inhabitants can live a productive and happy life (to quote Mr. Savo Heleta, who himself was persecuted by the Muslims yet he bears them no grudge - thanks Savo), then there could be a lasting peace. Germany and France cold do it, after two very bloody wars; evenGreece and Turkey are slowly trying to get along with each other, so why nott in the Balkkans too? People here have always lived interspersed (and not only in Bosnia, in Macedonia and Bulgaria too).
Ethnic cleansing has led to bitterness and enmity, as seen by the treaty of Lausanne, or the separation of India and Pakistan.
And as for history of the Balkans, the Serbs have in the time between 1991 and 1998 added a new, very dark and very bloody chapter, and if this timearound it is not addressed and the wrongs resulted thereof are not righted, then in maybe 100 years the Balkan Muslims might well say "The Serbs always try to justify their crimes with the allegation that they were so oppressed by the Turks, but in 1992 thy tried not just to oppress us, but to exterminate us, and nobody can deny that!"

by: David from: New York
December 22, 2008 09:57
While the First Crusade did open a new chapter in mass persecution of the Jews in Europe, nothing like a million were killed. In the heightened religious fervor and xenophobia of the time, there were certainly massacres, but mostly looting and extortion to finance crusaders. I doubt there were a million Jews in France and Germany at the time, especially along the Rhine, where the massacres were focused.

by: Abdul Majid from: Germany
December 21, 2008 19:48
Well, yes, may peace prevail on Earth. But I'm not optimistic about that. That the serbs have used the pretext of how their ancestors were allegedly mistreated by the Ottomans in former times to murder and rob their Bosniak neighbors was evil beyond description. But it was only a pretext and it would be a waste of time to investigate this further. But they would have found another pretext anyway. In 1992 I remember reading that the Serb propagandist Velibor Ostojic ( one of teh instigators of teh massacres against Muslkims at Foca) had the rumor pread that Bosnian Muslims tied Serb childrento crosses and threw them into the Drina, or that they made bread with flour and the bloods of slaughtered Serb children. Tese are the very same things Christian fanatics accused Jews of during the first crusade, and maybe a million Jews were murdered for that in France and Germany alone. And teh Nazis used the same priomitive slander in their childrens' books and killed six million more. Yet, today's Jews would not dream to use this historical precedent to declare war on or demand huge reparations from Europe.
In today's Iran , Afghanistan, Tadjikistan and Kirgisia, to this day mothers tell their chhildren to behave themselves "..or else Dzhingis Khan will come get you!".
Now, even though I have no way of knowing, I am sure that 1000 years from now, Bosnian mothers will tell the children to behave "...or else Karadzic will come get you". Or better "Mladic will come get you!"

by: Drazen
December 17, 2008 03:13
I would like to point out that Prle is wrong about Gavrilo Princips intentions.

First off the Black hand, Young Bosnia and all the other revolutionary movements/organizations/societies were made up off Serbs but also Muslims. Their intentions were to free BiH from A-H and not the unification of Serb lands. Just because Gavrilo was a Serb you cannot assume he was right away trying to create a greater Serbia...those certainly were not the intentions of the Black Hand.

Also Serbia as a nation at that time was never proven to have helped the Black Hand or Young Bosnia at all. Some conspiracies say few Serb Generals of the Serbian army planned the execution but these were proven wrong.

Also if unifying all Serb lands was the intention of that time why did the Serbs back then want Yugoslavia and not Serbia. After WWI the treaty of Versailles promised serbia land around the Northern Albania around Shkoder lake and also a few other areas and yet they chose Yugoslavia, a nation that was doomed from day 1.

by: Drazen
December 17, 2008 02:55
The Archduke visited because he believed he could get the Bosnians` to like him by celebrating St Vitus day (Vidovdan) with them. At that time no one in Serbia or Bosnia liked Austro Hungary or the Archduke. The Archduke was liked by a few at that time anyway. Many revolutionary groups such as Young Bosnia were forming and he wanted to stop this along with all the anti-Austro-Hungarian "propaganda".

by: nedelko from: las vegas
December 11, 2008 04:02
why the austrian archduke was visiting saraevo: he was a tourist ?...

by: ZK from: London
November 12, 2008 15:06
"Balkans: Where listory lives and people die"? I find a very blatant semantic problem with this title. First, it assumes that Balkans are the only place in the world where people die because history lives; second, it assumes continuity of history, minus the lack of political will, wich is much more potent conflict trigger in the region! What a sweeping statement: "Then World War II broke out and another 1.7 million Balkan lives were swept away. Most of them, incidentally, died as a result of ethnic fighting among themselves; far fewer were killed by Hitler's armies." - Mr Pejic, could you please give us numbers? I am getting increasngly annoyed by your writting, because as Prle says: it romanticises the Balkans a little too much, plus it attaches the principle of essentialism, one that modern historians still struggle to get rid of!You never support your claims by facts.

And than you go on to say: "Princip, of course, is a symptom rather than a cause of the divisions in the Balkans.In fact, looking at the patchwork of ethnic, religious, and cultural fault lines in the region, it is hard to imagine that Princip and others ever believed a united Yugoslavia could be possible. "

What does this mean? How do you know that Prinicp did not belive in Unified YU? What historical evidence do you give us, apart from your own unfounded assumption? I think Mr Pejic should not be allowed to write for such a respectable source as the RFE! This is not the first time he spreads unfounded and speculative "truths"! I hope you will publish my comment! Thanks.

by: Prle from: Nepokoreni Grad
November 12, 2008 13:18
... Just one correction: It is Ilija Garasanin, and not Nikola Garasanin. Nikola Pasic is someone else...
Thank you!
Prle

by: Prle from: Nepokoreni Grad
November 11, 2008 21:56
Sir,

I disagree with your slightly fatalistic and a bit romantic representation of the Balkans in this article. Also, you are saying, ‘Balkans,’ but you are writing primarily about Bosnia & Herzegovina.

The Archduke and his pregnant wife were killed by young Gavrilo Princip who was trained in Serbia. He practiced shooting from a pistol in Belgrade. He was trained by the Serbian military officers along with other terrorists, mostly very young Serb students from Bosnia. This naive youth was sent (abused!) to a tragic, suicide, mission. The goal was 'unification' of all ‘Serb lands,’ and not the establishment of Yugoslavia. However, most of those regions (Read: Bosnia & Herzegovina) always had a non-Serb majority, or at least a large and well-established Muslim, as well as Catholic, minority.

Young Gavrilo Princip died in prison, confused, but we should not be confused about the basic facts. We do, ‘love too much and hate too much in the Balkans,’ however, the recent conflict was started by the same Serbian nationalists (Karadzic and co.). The goal was (again) to unify all 'Serb' lands, which meant systematic and planned expulsion and killings of all non-Serb population from Bosnia and Herzegovina (a majority of the population by the early 90’s!). These extremists and the war criminals (later tried and sentenced by the local and international courts!) were awarded with Republika Srpska (RS). There are some 5-8% Muslims and Catholics of the pre-war population still leaving in Republika Srpska, mostly elderly. They will die soon… Of course that poor Gavrilo Princip is still a hero in RS! The plan has finally worked!!

There is nothing mysterious and romantic about the Balkans (or any other region!), if you know the Balkans (or any other particular region!). This notion about the ‘underdeveloped’ and mysterious Balkans is an invention by those who want to cover up the plan (aspiration if you will!) established some 150 years ago by the Serbian Government (See/Google: Nikola Garasanin, The 19th Century Serbian Prime Minister’s program of Serbian expansion).

The facts of history, written documents, personal accounts, can explain a lot, if you are willing to ‘see’ or learn. Referring to the Balkan myths and to, ‘thousand years of tragic history’ can be a great comfort to anyone who refused to act in the face of genocide, but it is a great lie, and nothing but a lie! Princip was a fool and a tool in the hands of some very determined people and their well documented goals. Just to make it clear, this is not a justification for any horrible crimes committed against the Serbs,or anyone else, anytime and anywhere. May peace and justice and knowledge prevail on Earth!


     
TEXT SIZE - +

Products and services:

RSSMail SubscriptionMobile