Talk:Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand/Archive 1

message: I've seen a few times the story that the Duke's wounds perhaps would have been treatable had he not been sewn into his uniform (as dictated by current fashion), thus slowing doctors' efforts to save him. This story was cited from "Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts" on one site. Is this really true? Felosele 27 June 2006
I don't think that it is. I have seen the actual uniform on display in the Heeresgeschichtliches Museum in Vienna. It is torn on one side of the chest - about where his medals would have been, but there are no signs that it was sewn tight or that he had to be cut out of it. Of course he may have been wearing a corset - that  was a fashion of the time for corpulent wearers of tight military uniforms and that would have delayed medical treatment.
I understood that he was shot in the neck (among other places), so it might not have made a difference. Interesting trivia, however. Taybot 02:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sewn Into Uniform 

message: UKG1RKJ just tried putting the absolutely false myth about the Archduke batting the bomb away into the article.  Doesn't anyone read the discussion section?  A lot of the other things he changed were dubious.  There are conflicting accounts about why the other assassins failed to act.  Some said they worried about civilian casualties, or killing the Archduchess, or they were worried the gendarmes would catch them and then that would prevent the others from making a good attempt.  They may well have lost their nerve or left the scene thinking the bomb was successful as UKG1 said, but the evidence is contradictory and so the article should probably not take a position on the issue as the reasons behind them not acting have little consequence.
Werchovsky 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassination 

message: A note on the bottom of page 344 of Michael Balfour's book, "The Kaiser and his Times," Houghton Mifflin (1964) states:
: "The chief instigator of the assassination was almost certainly the Serb director of Military Intelligence, in his private capacity as head of the secret society 'The Black Hand'. The Russian Miltary Attache at Belgrade equally certainly was in the secret. So was the Serb Prime Minister, Pasic who, although frightened of what war would mean for Serbia, was even more frightened of the 'Black Hand'. Pasic did send a warning to Vienna but by the time it had passed through several intermediaries, it became so muffled as to be disregarded."
[User: Domenico Rosa, 29 June 2006]
The "private capacity" portion of which does not square well with the confession of Serbia's Chief of Military Intelligence:
“As the Chief of the Intelligence Department of the General Staff, I engaged Rade Malobabić to organize the information service in Austria-Hungary.  I took this step in agreement with the Russian Military Attaché Artamonov, who had a meeting with Rade in my presence.  Feeling that Austria was planning a war with us, I thought that the disappearance of the Austrian Heir Apparent would weaken the power of the military clique he headed, and thus the danger of war would be removed or postponed for a while.  I engaged Malobabić to organize the assassination on the occasion of the announced arrival of Franz Ferdinand to Sarajevo...."  (This is the english translation appearing on page 398 of "The Road to Sarajevo", by Dedijer of the confession of Dragutin Dimitrievic to the Serbia Court Martial in French Occupied Salonika where he was being tried on other charges.)  
One needs to be skeptical of this "private capacity" claim popular in Entente capitals.  Heads of government spy agencies don't have a private capacity to conduct clandestined actions.  Its like saying Iran-Contra was a private act of CIA director Casey; but at least in Iran-Contra, charges were brought by the government.  In the case of Franz-Ferdinand's assassination, no one was ever charged with any act in the assassination by Serbia or any other Entente Power.
Werchovsky 00:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Balfour on the assassination 

message: I think this should be called Assassination of Franz Ferdinand, or Franz Ferdinand Assassination.  This is a more natural title, and the only other pages I can find on specific assassinations are John F. Kennedy assassination and Robert F. Kennedy assassination.  There may well be/have been other assassinations in Sarajevo, especially given its recent history.
--Townmouse 23:19, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The event is commonly known in history as the Assassination in Sarajevo. Other encyclopedias also call it that. The naming convention is to use the most common name, which migh not necessarily be the most logical, accurate or consistent one. Redirects from those should of course be provided. I'll move the article back here. Zocky 01:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be interesting to find out what the event is called around the world.  I had certainly never heard of it as the Assassination in Sarajevo before looking it up on Wikipedia today.  I was astonished to read references on different pages saying that this was the common term.  I've always heard it called The Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and could not have said for sure which city it occurred in.  Now I'm not proud of not knowing which city it had happened in, but I wonder if other people may be the same. - Russell Brown 09:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: OK, a not-logged-in user keeps changing the phrase "saved from lynching" to "tried to save from lynching" in a photo caption.  If Princip had been lynched, he would have been killed, yes?  Since he wasn't killed by the mob, he was successfully saved.  I guess maybe the individual in question didn't necessarily save him, but the phrase "tried to save" definitely implies that he was killed. --Jfruh 8 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
:This picture was at one time believed to show Princip's arrest. It was later confirmed that it actually depicted the arrest of a German passerby who tried to save Princip from being lynched.
:This is news to me!  Can we please have a link to a credible source making this claim?67.124.172.254 20:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saved/tried to save from lynching 

message: I added a description of the members of the motorcade, who was with who and in which car. Marcos2006 13:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members of the parade 

message: What is this word "comitive", as used in the sentence starting
:"Around 10:00 Ferdinand and his comitive left the Philipovic army camp, ..." 
If talking about the assassin then 'comitiva' might work, but this is about Ferdinand.  And I don't think 'committee' is quite right either.  I can't find this word anywhere.  
Shenme 22:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Comitive' - what? 

message: This article, although detailed, fails WP:V and WP:NPOV.  All good articles should have line citations.  Those that discuss conspiracy theories usually need particularly heavy referencing.  This presents conspiracy theories as fact without giving the reader any basis for evaluating the claims. Durova 16:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA nomination 

message: Could the contributor who has added extensive material relating to French, Montenegran and Russian conspiracies over the last month please provide supporting references and citations.
:I concur; the citation of a French diplomatic document does not count as a published source. Ih fact the entire section, with its unsourced claims, should be on the talk page until it is. Septentrionalis 05:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy material 

message: There were complaints as to bias and inadequate citations regarding the conspiracy to assassinate Franz-Ferdinand and the subsequent cover-up.  Also there was a complaint about the use of the word "terrorist".  I have redone the section dealing with the assassination conspiracy below.  Only the 3 assassins from Belgrade and Mehmedbasic are now referred to as terrorists.  This word was chosen because Cabrinovic threw a bomb into the street wounding many civilians, Prinicip and Grabez stated at trial that they were terrorists, and because Mehmedbasic said he was eager to carry out acts of terror and plotted them in Tolouse ("Origins of the War, Vol. 2, pp88-9).  In other places I have used the word revolutionary, irridentist, or youth. I have also cited the books and page numbers for all the major facts.  Frankly I think it is overkill. Next, I set about deleting unnecessary references to the "Black Hand" that someone had put in.  All the key members of the Black Hand stated under oath that by 1914 the "Black Hand" no longer was a functioning organization, its president dead, its secretary disinterested, its secret links between cells broken by losses in the Balkans Wars, its coffers empty.  What was left was a group of friends of Apis.  Since, in his confession, Apis said he organized the assassination in his role as Chief of Military Intelligence, this title should suffice as he was never President or Secretary of the "Black Hand", and under the bi-laws of the "Black Hand" only the President or Secretary could order an action such as the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand without a vote of the entire committee (for which there is no evidence and for which I have found no historical work saying there was such a vote).  Finally, I deleted those sentences which seemed to be conclusions.  After leaving some time for comment on this portion, I will move on to Russia, France and Montenegro.  It seems there was one complaint about citing "Documents Diplomatiques Francais III Serie 1911-14, 3”, X Doc. 537", this is a broadly published diplomatic archive available in most major university libraries and the document in question is cited by major historical works such as "Origins of the War" by Albertini. If you can explain a little better about what is wrong with citing it directly rather than indirectly through Albertini I would appreciate it.  By the way, its footnote is misnumbered, it should be "2" rather than "1" if you take a look at the document.  Please give me your feedback. 
----Van Aken
Does the conspiracy material really have to be reincorporated in this article? Editing by several contributors has now streamlined the text to the point where it could again be a serious candidate for "good article" rating. Re-incorporating a mass of conjecture and supposition would undo this good work and return the article to the muddled state that it was in last year. 
--
If you have particular problems with the text below please cite them.  I tried hard to follow Wikipedia rules in the text below and I think its important information that the assassins were not Bosnian revolutionaries acting alone but were part of a broad Serbian conspiracy centered on the Chief of Military Intelligence.  Its hard to convey that convincingly without a lot of detail which I therefore provide.
----Van Aken
----------------------------------------------------------
In late 1913, Danilo Ilić came to the Serbian listening post at Užice to speak to his handler and recommend an end to the period of revolutionary organization building and a move to direct action against Austria-Hungary. Colonel Popović stated to the historian Albertini that he passed Danilo Ilić on to Belgrade to discuss this matter with Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijević (Apis)(“Origins of the War”, Vol II, pp 27-28, 79).  Ilić and Apis took the secrets of their discussion to their graves, but soon after their meeting, Apis’ right hand man, Major Vojislav Tankosić, called a Serbian irridentist planning meeting in Toulouse, France (“Origins of the War”, Vol II, pp 76-77). This is established by the statement of Paul Bastaić and Mustafa Golubić to the diplomat and historian Milos Bogićević. During this January 1914 meeting, various possible Austro-Hungarian targets for assassination were discussed including Franz-Ferdinand, but ultimately, at this meeting, it was decided only to dispatch Mohamed Mehmedbašić to Sarajevo, to kill the Austrian Governor of Bosnia, Oskar Potiorek.
Mehmedbašić was delayed and before he made an attempt on Potiorek, Apis ordered the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand (as evidenced by Apis’ confession to the Serbian Court  “The Road to Sarajevo” page 398). Mehmedbašić told the historian Albertini that Ilić summoned him to Mostar and informed him that Belgrade had scrapped the mission to kill the governor in favor of the murder of Franz-Ferdinand and that Mehmbedbašić should stand by for the new operation (“Origins of the War”, Vol. 2, pp78-79; please note the date error, 25 July should read 25 June).
Ilić recruited the Serbian youths Vaso Čubrilović and Cvjetko Popović shortly after Easter (April 19, 1914), for the assassination as evidenced by the testimony of Ilić, Čubrilović, and Popović at the Sarajevo trial (“The Sarajevo Trial” pp117-118, pp129-130, pg 131, pp140,142). Three Bosnian Serb youths living in Belgrade, Gavrilo Princip (“The Sarajevo Trial”, pp58-9), Trifun Grabež (“The Sarajevo Trial pp93-94), and Nedjelko Čabrinović (“The Sarajevo Trial”, pp26-27, pg.30, pp27-28)  testified at the Sarajevo trial that at about the same time, (a little after Easter) they were eager to carry out an assasination and approached Milan Ciganović and through him Major Tankosić and reached an agreement to transport arms to Sarajevo and participate in the assasination.
At trial, the 3 youths from Belgrade testified that Tankosić, directly and through Ciganović, not only provided six hand grenades, four Browning Automatic Pistols and ammunition, but also money (“The Sarajevo Trial”, pg. 59) suicide pills (“The Sarayevo Trial”, pg. 41, 46), training (“The Sarajevo Trial” 93-94), a special map with the location of gendarmes marked (“The Sarajevo Trial” pp109-110), knowledge of contacts on a special channel used to infiltrate agents and arms into Austria-Hungary (“The Sarajevo Trial” pg. 106) and a small card authorizing the use of that special channel (“The Sarayevo Trial”, pg. 59, pg. 40). Major Tankosić confirmed to the historian Luciano Magrini that he provided the bombs and revolvers and was responsible for the terrorists’ training and that he initiated the idea of the suicide pills (“Il Dramma Di Seraievo” by Luciano Magrini pp94-5 [In Italian]).
After receiving this training and support from Major Tankosić and his associates, the three conspirators traveled from Belgrade to Šabac and handed the small card to Captain Popović of the Serbian Border Guard. Popović, in turn, provided them with a letter to Captain Prvanović and sent them on to Loznica, a small border town (“The Sarajevo Trial”, pp36-8). When they reached Loznica, Captain Prvanović summoned three of his revenue sergeants to discuss the best way to cross the border undetected. Sergeant Grbić accepted the task and led Princip and Grabež with the weapons to Isaković’s Island, a small island in the middle of the Drina River that separated Serbia from Austria-Hungary, (Čabrinović crossed at another point without weapons) and then handed off the two terrorists (They admitted in open court to being terrorists [“The Sarajevo Trial”, pg 56, 109].) (“The Sarajevo Trial”, pg. 59) and their weapons to the agents of the Serbian Narodna Obrana for transport into Austria-Hungarian territory and from safe-house to safe-house.
The terrorists and weapons were passed from agent to agent until they arrived in Tuzla where the terrorists left their weapons in the hands of the Narodna Obrana agent Miško Jovanović (“The Sarajevo Trial” pp61-64). The agents reported back their activities to the Narodna Obrana President, Boža Milanović, who in turn reported to the then Caretaker Prime Minister Nikola Pašić (“The Road to Sarajevo” 388-9). The report adds the name of a new military conspirator, Major Kosta Todorović, apparently the immediate superior of Captains Popović and Prvanović. Pašić’s handwritten notes document the Prime Minister’s advanced knowledge of the plot and that he was able to connect Major Tankosić (“The Road to Sarajevo”, pg. 503). The Austrians captured the report, Pašić’s handwritten notes, and additional documents corroborating the Civilian Government’s foreknowledge of the plot, and the involvement of Major Todorović and Captain Prvanović (“The Road to Sarajevo”, pg. 390, pg 505).
From Tuzla, Grabež and Čabrinović went on to their parents’ homes to lie low until Franz-Ferdinand’s arrival and Princip stayed at Ilić’s mother’s house and there met Ilić. After meeting Princip, Ilić went to Tuzla to bring the weapons to Sarajevo. Miško Jovanović hid the weapons in a large box of sugar and the two went separately by train to Doboj where Jovanovic handed off the box to Ilić (“The Sarajevo Trial” pp185-6). Ilić brought the weapons back to his mother’s house on June 15 and kept them in a suitcase under a sofa (“The Sarajevo Trial” pp118-9).
Ilić testified that on June 18 he went to Brod (“The Sarajevo Trial”, pg 126) and here begins an interesting twist in the plot as put forward by Vladimir Dedijer in “The Road to Sarajevo”, because Ilić claimed that from this time on he opposed the assassination. According to Čeda Popović, Đuro Šarac was sent to Šabac by Tankosić to meet with Ilić and cancel the assassination (“The Road to Sarajevo” pg. 393). It is about 100km along the river Sava from Brod to Šabac.
In further testimony Ilić, Princip and Grabež describe how after Ilić returned from Brod he tried to prevent the assassination (“The Sarajevo Trial”, pg. 120, pp122-3). But then, and this is a point of some controversy, on the eve of the assassination, Masterspy Rade Malobabić arrived in Sarajevo on the orders of the Chief of the Serbian General Staff, Marshall Putnik, and apparently gave the final go ahead on the assassination and only then did Ilić hand out the weapons to the assassins.  The evidence of this is Rade Malobabić's confession to a priest (“The ‘Black Hand’ on Trial, Salonika 1917” pg. 391, “The Road to Sarajevo” pg. 391), Colonel Ljubomir Vulović's statement to the Serbian Court that he received orders from Putnik and sent Malobabić into Austria-Hungary (“The ‘Black Hand’ on Trial, Salonika 1917”, pg.241-2), witness accounts from Sarajevo (“The Road to Sarajevo” pg. 394), and Dragutin Dimitrijević's confession to the Serbian Court that he had ordered Malobabić to organize the assassination. Still all these statements and accounts are open to multiple interpretations and its possible Malobabić was conducting other business on behalf of the Serbian Military on this particular visit to Austria-Hungary.
Caretaker Prime Minister Pašić learned of the assassination plot and informed members of his cabinet in late May or early June according to Ljuba Jovanović in the article "The Blood of Slavism" (“Origins of the War”, Vol 2, pg. 90). Other evidence making it clear Pašić had sufficient advanced warning to have prevented the attack include Pašić’s handwritten notes on the briefing by the Narodna Obrana and the statement of Serbian Military Attache to Vienna, Colonel Lešanin to the historian Luciano Magrini (“Il Dramma Di Seraievo” by Luciano Magrini pp115-6 [In Italian]). The statements of Colonel Lešanin, and Ljuba Jovanović cite two half-measures taken by the Prime Minister.
The half-measures were doomed to failure. The first half-measure was the instruction to the border guards to block the assassins. Jovanovic’s account makes it clear that the Prime Minister did not give his order immediately, but rather reviewed it with his ministers while the assassins were on the move, and the Prime Minister gave the order through the Minister of the Interior rather than asking The King of Serbia to deliver it. In the Spring of 1914, the Serbian Civilian Government was in the process of trying to establish its authority over the Serbian Military and the Serbian Military was resisting by all means available including refusing to follow orders (“The ‘Black Hand’ on Trial, Salonika 1917” pg. 43), forcing Prime Minister Pašić to resign (“The Road to Sarajevo” pg. 398), and, when the Prime Minister was reinstated, an attempted putsch in Macedonia.  The second half-measure was to give Austria an oblique warning through Serbia’s embassy in Vienna. The ambassador was a known ally of the military conspirators and his instructions were carried out poorly (“Origins of the War”, Vol. 2, pg 106) and not followed up on. By Colonel Lešanin’s account, Prime Minister Pašić did not share the details he knew about the assassination with his ambassador such as the name of one of the assassins, the agents who passed them along, and the fact that the weapons were in Tuzla with Misko Jovanovic.
 
Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijević, Colonel Ljubomir Vulović, and Masterspy Rade Malobabić were convicted for a fictious crime (posthumously exonerated) by a Serbian kangaroo court and executed (“The ‘Black Hand’ on Trial:  Salonika, 1917” in entirety).  These executions were orchestrated largely by Prime Minister Pašić.  Prime Minister Pašić made the private explanation that Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijević had to be executed because he had confessed he had ordered Franz Ferdinand’s assassination (“The ‘Black Hand’ on Trial:  Salonika, 1917” pg. 392). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.19.156 (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations on Conspiracy to Assassinate Franz Ferdinand 

message: I think I have read all the reference books listed and none cited evidence of Franz-Ferdinand wearing a bullet proof vest.  Where does this come from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.19.156 (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet Proof Vest...Isn't that legend? 

message: The article appears to be in error.  Mehmedbasic was armed by Ilic with only a bomb.  He was positioned by Ilic in front of the Garden of the Mostar Cafe.  From "The Road to Sarajevo", pg. 313:  "The first was Mehmedbasic, the oldest, who had to wait in front of the garden of the Mostar Cafe..." and further down the page:  "On the way he (Ilic) gave him (Mehmedbasic) a bomb, with brief instructions on how to handle it."  There were only four revolvers for 6 assassins, 2 had to make due with only bombs.  There is a story that Mehmbedbasic obtained a pistol in Stolac, but even if true, I find no evidence he brought it to the assassination.
Please cite the source of the material regarding Mehmedbasic's position and failure to fire or correct the account to match "The Road to Sarajevo's version"?   
----Van Aken —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.19.156 (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error About Mehmedbasic 

message: "Unification or Death", also known as the Black Hand, was not a "fringe political group".  All three words are somewhat in error
Not from the Fringe:
As the assassins and their weapons were on their way from Belgrade to Sarajevo, Dragutin Dimitrievic, a member of the Supreme Central Directorate of "Unification or Death!" organized a successful no-confidence vote leading to the resignation of Serbian Prime Minister Pasic and his government.  In the period between the Prime Minister's resignation and his reinstatement pending new elections Dragutin Dimitrievic was active in organizing a new government.  "Unification or Death"'s goal of the unification of all Serbs was popular as was its leading personality, Dragutin Dimitrievic.
Not what we normally think of as Political:
Politics is a broad term and its use could lead to a serious misunderstanding.  "Unification or Death" was a secret organization.  It did not field candidates for elections.  "Unification or Death" was established primarily as a counterweight to IMRO which on behalf of Bulgarian interests engaged in a dirty war against the Turks and Serbs in Macedonia.  "Unification or Death" did the dirty work the Serbian Government felt it could not do directly.  "Unification or Death"'s actions include propaganda, terrorism, revolution, and organizing fifth columns and auxiliaries.
Organization not Group:
"Unification or Death" was a formal organization founded in 1911 and winding down in 1913. During its funtioning period it had a constitution, organizational structure, treasury, and it paid a salary to its secretary.  Thus "Organization" is more apt than "group".  After 1913 "Unification or Death", due to poverty and attrition, was no longer capable of functioning in accordance with its constitution and instead its rump was functioning indeed as a "group" of friends of Dragutin Dimitrievic.
A more accurate discription of "Unification or Death" is a Secret Organization aimed at the Unification of Serbdom by propaganda ('Pijemont'), revolution, assassination and terror.
Werchovsky 21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Black Hand was NOT a Fringe Political Group 

message: My understanding is that the collapse of relations between Serbia and Austria-Hungary did not begin until roughly 10 years before the assassination; starting soon after the 1903 assassination of the King and Queen of Serbia, the Queen's brothers, and two cabinet members in 1903.  Can the person who wrote the "Arcane" sentence please list the disputes prior to 1903 he has in mind that contributed significantly to the assassination?
Werchovsky 00:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arcane Disputes over Several Decades? 

message: Dedijer describes Jevtic as "Being a fiction writer first and only afterward an objective witness of a historical process, Jevtic did not take much care with his facts..."  Albertini mentions the uncorroberated nature of various statements of Jevtic.  The fantastic nature of the account [including 22 (unnamed and armed with unknown weapons) assassins is not credible without details and corroberation] leads me to recommend deletion.
Werchovsky 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jevtic Unreliable Source:  Suggest Deletion of the cut and pasting into this Article 

message: Although a few articles were published prior to WWI with "Young Bosnia" or "Young Bosnians" in the title, no such organization existed at the time.  Rather, "Young Bosnians" became a popular term after the war to refer to many individuals or groups dedicated to the revolutionary destruction of the Hapsburg empire prior to the war.  The term includes Serb Ultranationalists like Gacinovic, advocates of a true Yugoslavia, and those like Princip who favored a south-slav republic with Serbia as Piedmont. See "The Road to Sarajevo" on the subject starting on page 175.
Under the popular definition after the war, any south slav to make an attempt against the Dual Monarchy would automatically be a member of "Young Bosnians", and so, as used in this article, "Young Bosnia" is a term which implies something, but which actually signifies nothing.
Werchovsky 04:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young Bosnia 

message: Franz Ferdinand's funeral was one step down from an offical state funeral by order of Franz Joseph. Therefore, diplomats from neighbouring countries were not encouraged to attend. 
I think this is important for the Consequences section because it would have made for a natural occasion for heads of state to attend - thus allowing for discussions. 
It would have been an important occasions for Officials to talk - i.e Sir Edward Grey and Franz Joseph.
Instead it allowed Austria (Alexander Hoyos) to approach Germany to seek support. Taybot 02:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consequences (section) The Funeral 

message: I would like to point out that Narodna Odbrana (A.K.A. The Black Hand) is a false bit of information (this is stated in the article), Narodna Odbrana are two different groups.
     ~Anonymous
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.42.136.61 (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narodna Odbrana (A.K.A. The Black Hand) 

message: A recent set of 3 edits attempt to place blame for WWI on Germany and Austria-Hungary a controversial conclusion that goes beyond the scope of this article.  I have the following comments:
Edit 1a.  "(which it did, because Berlin was anxious to start a war for its own reasons)"
This is a controversial and vague conclusion without supporting facts or citations.  It goes beyond the scope of this article.  Please try Wikipedia's Origin of World War I.
Edit 1b.  ".(The note had, in fact been phrased so that Serbia could not accept it, so the break was expected)"
This sentence has some merit but goes beyond the facts to a probably false conclusion (Serbia very nearly did decide to accept it).  It also has punctuation problems.
Edit 1c:  "Pursuant to Vienna's policy of forcing a war, this"
"Vienna's policy of forcing war" is again another conclusion devoid of supporting facts within the article and that is better argued out in "Origin of World War I".  There is also a factual problem in that the initial over-interpretation of the telegram on the incident was at least partially accidental.
Edit 2a:"written together with the envoys of the German Ambassador in such a vein that no country could accept it"
The the vein of the letter was "such that no country could accept it" is impossible to verify.  Certainly, it was a tough letter by diplomatic standards, but Serbia nearly did accept it.  That the letter was written together with German envoys can't be kept in the article without a citation.
Edit 2b.: "but also effectively demanded the ceding of a part of Serbia's sovereignty to Austria."
This is certainly the Entente line, but since all international agreements involve ceding some sovereignty, it is actually meaningless.  The amount of sovereignty Serbia claimed Austria was asking it to give up was more than what the Austrians had asked.  See the Austrian response.
Edit 2c.:  "The 'reason given for these' demands 'was that they were nessesary(sic) for' destroying the funding and operation of terrorist organizations"
 
Given by whom, when, how?  Didn't some of the demands aim at destroying the terrorist infrastructure as was originally written?  The new edit is less factual so reverting to the old version is more appropriate.
Edit 3:  Just a typo correction to edits 1 and 2.  It has to be reverted to revert the other two.
Werchovsky 19:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warguilt Assignment Conclusion and Related Matters in Recent Edit 

message: I was interested to see that one of the reasons for the Archduke visiting Sarajevo was to to open a museum (in addition to the usually cited military manouvers). Could the editor who added this information identify the museum or give a reference? Thanks. Buistr 02:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the Museum ?

message: Not just one Browning Automatic Pistol is shown along with Franz Ferdinand's uniform at the Museum of Military History, Vienna, but three. According to guides at the museum, the pistols on display do however NOT include the one used by Princip. Princip's gun was stolen by the end of WW II and has not been recovered yet, although its serial number is known. ViennaUK 09:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  relics on display in Vienna: Princip's weapon 

message: This has probably been mentioned hundreds of times, but is the fact that the number plate of Ferdinands car was 11 11 18 mentioned in the article? I can't see it, and it's quite interesting. SGGH speak! 01:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  11 11 18 

message: Lots of material irrelevant to the assassination in Sarajevo, which was deleted.
I.E. 
 - details of the 1903 Serbian coup d'etat (there's an article on King Aleksandar)
 - details of the Pig War and Bosnian Crisis (there are articles on both)
This material belongs in these other articles, so that it can be maintained in one place.
Some very long sentences. I.E.
"Serbia's military successes emboldened nationalistic elements in Serbia and amongst the indigenous Serbian populations within Austria-Hungary who chafed under Magyar rule and who through "cultural" organizations were inspired by Serbian or South Slav nationalistic ideas."
which have been broken up.
Extraneous unnecessary verbiage deleted here and there, or replaced with direct phrasing.
The description of the car's movement just before the attack was confusing - rewritten.
Some necessary links added: Magyar, irredentist, Morganatic
Error fixed - the assassins did not have "six bombs and four revolvers"; the guns were semi-automatic pistols.
The make and model of FF's car: Graf and Stift is correct, but "Rois de Blougne" looks very much like a garble of "Bois de Boulogne". I cannot find any information on the Net about G&S's cars except a 1932 model, and that the 1911 tourer was model "HP 28/32". I cannot find any reference at all to "Blougne" except cites of this story, and obvious garbles of Boulogne, e.g. "Blougne-Billancourt". I have commented out this name, to prevent further cites of this apparent garble.
ISTM that the section "The Assassins on Their Way" should precede the narrative of the assassination.
--Rich Rostrom (Talk) 02:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needed tightening