Talk:Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

Greg King

Greg King writes that Muhamed Mehmedbašić recruited Danilo Ilić, and confusingly that Apis did not know of a "second plot" by Young Bosnia members to kill the Archduke but then suggested it, when in fact Ilić recruited Mehmedbašić and Apis ordered the assassination. This is from a quick look at one page only. Removing King's monograph The Assassination of the Archduke due to serious inconsistencies. There are other sources with differing accounts as well, which need to be addressed.--Zoupan 11:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I am with you on some of this but I am not sure that you can claim so boldly that Apis ordered the assassination. The only evidence for this is Apis's fourth statement at the Salonika Trial, (a trial thrown out as unreliable 40 years later by the supreme court) after making three previous denials and being tortured he made a statement admitting the crime and claiming that a fellow defendant Malobabic (executed with him) was the one who supplied the weapons was the go between and trained P,C & G, when in fact the trial in all cases claims that this was Ciganovic and Tankosic. Apis's last ditch confession to try to safe himself from the firing squad after torture really is not a good basis for saying that he ordered this assassination. Perhaps he did but personally I doubt it mainly because of the people who executed the action and how badly it was done. Apis was head of the Serbian Secret Service, Serbia were the most successful military nation of the 20th Century, they had just won two major wars and doubled their territory. He had well trained marksmen who spoke the local language, fitted into the culture and needed no training to fire a gun or throw a bomb - there is zero chance he would hand such a job to a bunch of incompetent students even if you believe he thought the assassination was a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.13.63 (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria → Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand – Per WP:Concise and WP:COMMONNAME. There is no need for the article title to be this long. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed, as there are multiple Archduke Ferdinands. Support instead shortening to Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. There is only one Franz Ferdinand. Possibly even "Archduke" could be dropped, COMMONNAME allowing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Question: How many other Archduke Ferdinands were assassinated?. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• None. No Archduke Ferdinand was ever assassinated. Surtsicna (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well, in the previous comment you said "there are multiple Archduke Ferdinands" and now you're saying there were none. But I guess I'm fine with your suggestion of Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• No, it was not me who said that. And it is true that there were multiple archdukes named Ferdinand, but the assassination victim was not one of them. His name was Franz Ferdinand. Surtsicna (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, in complete agreement with SmokeyJoe. I have never heard anyone refer to Franz Ferdinand as Ferdinand, much like I have never heard anyone refer to Franz Joseph as Joseph. Surtsicna (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removing 'Franz' as his name is Franz Ferdinand. But I agree with the others here that 'Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand' is sufficiently precise, more concise and recognisable. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support with full name per above comments, Who's on First? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed move but support a move to Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. It would be a proper article name, that would adress all issues raised by the filer and other editors who have participated here so far. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I literally have never heard him referred to without his name "Franz" included.--Calthinus (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Believe it or don't but this opposefest actually looks like a snow close for Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Move to Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Common name. Who on earth calls him Archduke Ferdinand? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

°grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrsddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddsssssssssssssssfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv≠≥≤±±±±±§§··→→→←←÷÷×−±≥≤≠″ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.66.90 (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Princip did not shoot from point blank range.

The article states that Princip mounted the running board and shot from Point blank range. However in the trial he is quite clear that he was four or five paces away from the car when he fired the pistol. I appreciate that some clot has published a book in 2013 stating that he was closer but this fact is not disputed in the trial transcript and this article should surely rely on the primary materials rather than ones produced 100 years later after a series of Chinese whispers. Correct please.

Just discovered the Telegraph story of 30 June 1914 which states that Princip was on the Running Board and shot form there, this does pose an issue and an important inconsistency in the testimonies, he plainly cannot have been both a number of paces away and on the running board; so which is true, well there is a hole in the side of the car from the bullet that killed Sophie which must therefore have come from outside the car, not point blank range, what is more had Princip been on the running board and shot from there anyone in the car could have wrestled the gun away from him before he shot. QED the runningboard story must have been wrong on 30th June. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.13.63 (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Serbia's Warning to AH

I note the reference to Albertini claiming that the Serbian ambassadors to France and Russia issued statements claiming that Serbia had warned AH of the assassination plans. This all seems very far fetched to me and very much like the work of Magrini who was an imaginative man not adverse to making a thing or two up about someone already dead by the time of his invention, with the intention of making money by publishing it. My concern is heightened by the fact that there is utterly no mention of any warning in any of the Serbian diplomatic papers or in the AH papers. Surely had these statements been issued (and again we have no reference to find these alleged unsanctioned statements by just two of Serbia's ambassadors - normally this would be a statement from the government issued by all ambassadors and not just two) there would be correspondence about the statements in the diplomatic papers of the Serbians and even if you believe that they might have destroyed the record, why is there not alarmed communications from the AH ambassadors in France and Russia to Vienna in the AH diplomatic files noting the issuing of these highly incriminating documents so that the AH foreign office could use them for appropriate purpose. Please do not suggest that the AH's destroyed the records also as that is frankly preposterous. If this statement is to remain as it is I feel that there needs to be a note that Albertini is the only commentator to make these observations and that there is no reference to these statements in any of the diplomatic papers and hence their production has to be questioned.

Serbian Warning

This article is too reliant upon Albertini and really owes it to the public to look properly at the primary facts - something which Albertini never did, being too focused on finding reasons to support his fascist patrons Mussolini, Pavelic and Hitler's aims of convincing the world that Germany and Austria (as determined by the Allied commission on responsibility for the War had determined) were not responsible for the war but Serbia were. The article needs the addition of the facts that a) both the Serbian and the Austrian governments denied that a telegram was sent or a warning was given about any plot, b) both the Serbians and the Austrians did confirm that a loose discussion about risks in Sarajevo by JJ took place with Belinski on the 5th June (not the 21st) and c) that Jovan Jovanovic and Pasic always denied that they ever had any forwarding of the plot. Ljuba Jovanovic was an opposition politician to Pasic. In 1914 he was head of National Defence and the Sokol sports clubs (both of which the Austrian legal investigations during the Banja Luka processes of 1915 and 16 found to be responsible for the assassinations – a connection they failed to pin on Apis and the Black Hand) and this may have driven his story about a government discussion on the subject. He used the article to switch blame for the assassinations from himself and National Defence (whom Ciganovic, Tankosic and Jovanovic (the border officer) - all those named in the Sarajevo Trial as involved in the plot on the Serbian side - were all allegedly members of) onto Pasic in one foul move and then used it to unseat Pasic (in spite two other ministers from the time coming out against LJ and in support of Pasic’s denial). He then went on to try to orchestrate a Coup to become the next Prime Minister which his own party rejected and then later expelled him from the party. Notably he was the only member of the government to ever make such an allegation and when Pasic denied it (with the support of two other ex-minister) none of the others raised a voice to claim Pasic was a liar. LJ was also the minister who ordered the Salonika trials – now proved to be illegitimate – and who supplied the information that killed Apis and his friends – he then published an article claiming that he was against the trial and exonerated himself but had clearly done nothing to stop the process – hence I find his press stories self-interested and less than honest. This is not to say that Pasic was an exemplary politician, I have no interest in whether he was or was not but in this instance I cannot believe LJ because he has too much to gain and absolutely no supporters or means of corroboration for making a convenient lie in his 1924 Slavic Blood article. Many alleged historians tried over the years to create arguments to blame Pasic but all of them have since been proved to be lies, only Magrini's claim about Lescanin stands and that is deeply flawed in too many ways to debate here. The reader should ask themselves whether the Serbian ambassador in Vienna was really going to commit treason by ignoring a direct order and then tell one of his juniors he had done that, let alone expect to get away with it when general protocol dictated that they reported back on the success of all disclosures, and if indeed he did fail to comply with his Prime Minister's direct order, how in heaven name did he not get fired on the spot when the act of treason was discovered? You also need to ask yourself why it was that Magrini and George Stevens (the Telegraph journalist whom Magrini claims was present when Lescanin spoke) both failed to publish the revelation in 1915 and Magrini sat on it until 1929 (by which time both Lescanin and Stevens were dead and unable to refute or confirm the claim. Finally it is completely wrong to suggest that JJ was inconsistent in his account - he was totally consistent in all instances 'no a thousand times no!' Albertini claims that the fact that Magrini claimed he would not be drawn into discussion on the topic meant that all his other denials were a lie (you can believe that logic if you like but I am more careful in whom I believe and whom I don't, having invested considerable time in the primary material not other people's inventions or hearsay (which is all that Magrini's account of Lescanin is), I go with Berchtold, Pasic and Jovan Jovanovic, all of which confirmed the same story and had no reason to agree with eachother. Honestly a newspaper comes up with a story on 30th June, Austria deny it, Serbia deny it, a bunch of people latch onto the story and attempt to verify it disasterously unsuccessfully, eventually Magrini comes up with an account 15 years too late when all witnesses are dead and Albertini (his best mate and a man dedicated to blaming the war on the Serbs) uses that as a basis to refute the timely testimony of the Austrians and the Serbs and latches on to Ljuba Jovanovic's unsupported story as a disgruntled rival politician with Nazi sympathies as his only corroboration. Don't just tell one side of the story - put both and don't claim Jovan M Jovanovic Pizon was inconsistent when he certainly was not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.13.63 (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Name of the Archduke

Archduke Franz Ferdinand was affectionately called Franzi but never Ferdinand, the main reason for this was that he had a brother called Ferdinand who outlived him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.13.63 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Minor Grammar Note

The end of the fourth paragraph under the 'background' section where citations 14 and 15 are located - says it was 'whose goal was the dissolution of the Austria-Hungary.[14][15]'. The Austria-Hungary what? Either add additional words to make 'the' necessary or remove 'the'.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2019

Requesting to change: "In charge of these Serbian military conspirators was Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence Dragutin Dimitrijević, his right-hand man Major Vojislav Tankosić, and the spy Rade Malobabić."

To: "Dragutin Dimitrijević, Major Vojislav Tankosić, and Rade Malobabić, members of the Serbian military, together orchestrated the conspiracy to assassinate the archduke, and provided weapons and other resources to the Black Hand."

"In charge of these" seems a tad colloquial/vague. "Right-hand man" is an English idiom/a bit too indirect (and doesn't automatically translate to other languages) I also couldn't find a source for this dynamic of their relationship. Additionally, "the spy" is a bit more colloquial than saying something like "intelligence officer", but I think either is unnecessary as it's more clear to indicate the actual point-- that all three men listed were members of the Serbian military (and the specifics of their ranks/positions can be found on their respective pages).

I don't think my phrasing for the new sentence is perfect yet but I thought I'd take a crack at it. Thanks! Catmoons (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: Per MOS:INTRO. As pointed out by Catmoons, the slightly clunky grammar interposed information not in the body Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The pistol...

The article says:

"the assassin stepped up to the footboard of the car, and shot Franz Ferdinand and Sophie at point‐blank range[89] using a Belgian-made Fabrique Nationale model 1910 .32 caliber pistol."

But... when I read the page of this effective pistol/caliber, i see:

"An FN M1910, serial number 19074, chambered in .380 ACP[2] was the handgun used by Gavrilo Princip to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, the act that precipitated the First World War.[3] Numerous previous sources erroneously cited the FN Model 1900 in .32 calibre as being the weapon Princip used.[4] This has led to confusion over the calibre of the pistol actually used. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Model_1910

So... there is something to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:534:E590:14D1:8801:3704:482B (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

Edit punctuation in the second paragraph under "Background." There is an open parenthesis that needs a corresponding close parenthesis. KFCfamousbowlz (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done: I ended up removing the parenthesis altogether, it seems to read more clearly now. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 21:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

...Also, at the end of the section Salonika trial (spring 1917), in the reported words of Apis, there is a final quotation mark missing: Apis remarked to the driver "Now it is clear to me and clear to you too, that I am to be killed today by Serbian rifles solely because I organized the Sarajevo outrage. 31.125.76.2 (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The car's license plate

It might be interesting to mention that the license plate of the car in which Franz Ferdinand was shot was: A111118. Yes, that's A as Armistice, 11-11-18. Quite a coincidence, isn't it?