The Bullet That Changed The World

Political Violence in Theory and Practice

I want to run a little thought experiment. You’re a time traveler and you’ve gone back in time, but not far. Maybe only a hundred years or so. Imagine, if you will, that you’re in a café. Somewhere in eastern Europe, judging by the architecture. Maybe early 20th century? How quaint. It’s mid-morning, a little before lunchtime and you’re the only other patron there besides a disheveled, young man. He seems a bit melancholy- he’s only picking at his sandwich, not eating- his eyes are downcast. Poor kid- and he is a kid, he looks to be in his late teens, maybe early 20s. Perhaps he got dumped? Didn’t get into the university he applied to? He has the look of someone who missed the opportunity of a lifetime. You sip your coffee, and your eyes continue to wander. From the window, you see a car pull up outside. It’s one of those open top, old timey numbers like Cruella Deville drove and it seems to be experiencing engine trouble. The passengers sit in the back seat making conversation in the mid-morning sun while the driver is trying to get the car to start again. It’s a man and a woman, both dressed in finery that marks them as more than just rich, but as nobility. The man is dressed in a powder blue uniform adorned with medals; his easy smile framed by a thick mustache as he talks to his wife. She is beautiful, garbed in an elegant dress and she returns his smile and idle conversation.

You sip your coffee and return your gaze to the café and the young man. He looks up and your eyes lock for a moment. You both look away to avoid the awkward faux pas of eye contact with a stranger. He looks out the window to avoid your gaze. You see his look of despondency change to disbelief and then to nervous excitement and finally determination. He stands up. Perhaps seeing this happy, middle-aged couple has changed his outlook on life and he’s ready to try at love again? He reaches into his jacket. But instead of a wallet to pay for his half-eaten sandwich, he pulls out a pistol. You freeze. Is he robbing the café? Of all the cafes in the whole timeline and you somehow picked the one getting robbed. But he leaves the café immediately. You are relieved briefly, but that relief turns to horror. The young man makes a beeline for the couple in the car and takes several shots at them both. The man’s powder blue uniform blossoms with red and he slumps over. The woman doubles over, her beautiful dress ruined with bloodstains. You see the young man fleeing the scene, a smile on his face. Little did he know, he had changed the world forever.

That young man was named Gavrilo Princip. The man he killed was Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian empire. This event is widely considered to be the inciting incident that sparked World War I- the most destructive conflict in human history up until that point. Ironically, it almost didn’t happen. Princip was a part of a group of Serbian nationalists known as the Black Hand. They wanted to gain national sovereignty from the Austro-Hungarian empire. While Ferdinand was a reformer who was even sympathetic to their cause, it wasn’t fast enough for the nationalists, so they decided to take measures into their own hands. Earlier that day, the group had attempted an assassination on the Archduke and planned to blow up his car with dynamite. However, Ferdinand took a different route and the dynamite detonated without killing its intended target. Princip and his comrades fled, thinking the plot was foiled and they would have to wait years before trying again. Princip fled to hide in a small café where, purely by chance, Ferdinand stopped later that day. And the rest, as they say, is history.

In my opinion, Gavrilo Princip is perhaps one of the most important figures in all of history. Or at least, the most influential. It’s easy to take the world we live in today for granted, but a little over one hundred years ago, it was a completely different place. Most countries in Europe were still ruled by monarchies. The United States was still a regional power at best and seen as somewhat of a backwater. This was the height of European colonialism and much of the global south was under that yoke. Russia was also a monarchy at the time, a land of millions of feudal peasants ruled by the Tsar. Somewhere in the middle were countries like Bosnia where Princip was from- caught up in the empire of the larger, more powerful European countries. But with a few bullets, Princip destroyed that world.

During his lifetime, Princip never expressed remorse. When questioned, he would say: “I am the son of peasants and I know what is happening in the villages. That is why I wanted to take revenge, and I regret nothing.” However, Princip only lived another four years, dying in prison of tuberculosis in 1918. He is still seen as a national hero in Bosnia today, but such is often the fate of those who die young for a cause. Let’s do another thought experiment. Let’s imagine we can take Princip to our time and tell him the consequences of the actions he took that summer morning. Let’s imagine you can describe the horrors of the 20th century to him. You explain the full effects of WWI and the devastation it caused. You tell him about the Russian revolution and the millions who died during that time. You explain the treaty of Versailles and the uneasy peace it created and how it led to the rise of fascist dictators like Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini. You tell him of the horrors of the Holocaust. You tell him about World War II and the devastation it brought to Europe and the world. You tell him about the atom bomb and the desolation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You tell him how many of his own people died in WWII- approximately 17% of the population. You tell him about the Soviet Union occupying his country. You tell him about the Stalinist purges. About Maoist China and the millions of deaths. The Cold War. All the death and suffering brought about in eastern Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America by the proxy war of the USA and USSR. About the bloody Civil war in his own country. Do you think he would express regret then?

Of course, this is just a thought experiment. To blame Princip for all the atrocities of the 20th century is obviously unfair and historically inaccurate. In fact, many or all of these events would undoubtedly still happen even if Princip went to a different café that day. These events are historically over-determined, meaning that some events will happen one way or another because of compounding social, political and economic factors rather than due to the actions of individual actors. If it wasn’t Princip and Ferdinand, it would have been someone else that ignited that powder keg. In fact, Otto Von Bismark, the architect of the modern nation state of Germany and the delicate web of political alliances that led to WWI was quoted as saying: "If there is ever another war in Europe, it will come out of some damned silly thing in the Balkans." Once again, overdetermined. That said, one still has to wonder if the young Gavrilo Princip would still take the shot if he knew how ultimately counter-intuitive the assassination would be to his goals. He wanted to free his country, but countless of his people died within the next 50 years because of his actions. Bosnia is an independent state today, but only after decades of war and death and being under the yoke of yet another empire. Maybe he would still do it, or maybe the cost would be too high.

So, if you were in his shoes, would you do it? There is something to be said for the events of the 20th century being overdetermined, but nothing is ever 100% certain. Would you roll those dice for the small chance you could prevent all that suffering? Perhaps it depends on who you are. Perhaps you’re an American, like me, and few of these events were likely to effect you directly and your country comes away from these conflicts richer and stronger and (until very recently) the unquestioned super-power of the world. Perhaps you’re Japanese and you lost family members in the US bombing campaign. Perhaps you’re Korean and would like to avoid the violence and genocide inflicted by the Japanese onto your people. Perhaps you’re Jewish and you’re willing to take any chance to avoid the horrors of the holocaust. Perhaps you’re Russian or Chinese and you see your countries tumultuous past as a glorious revolution that overthrew an oppressive ruling class and transformed your homeland from a backwater to world superpowers. Or maybe you’re from one of the countless countries in the third world that was under the yoke of colonialism and the wars in Europe mean nothing to you other than that it weakened them to the point where they could no longer keep you as a colony and you gained independence. It all depends on perspective.

So, that poses the question of the nature and morality of political violence. There are some who say it can be a necessary evil. After all, sometimes injustice can be so great that ordinary people will rise up and take justice into their own hands. We have countless examples of people who do just that and are seen as heroes. Nelson Mandella was initially viewed as a terrorist and was responsible for multiple deaths- that’s why he was in prison. However, he is seen as a hero today. The French resistance during Nazi occupation is legendary. American folk heroes like Nat Turner or John Brown led slave revolts that, while extraordinarily bloody, are now seen as acts of righteous and justified violence.

This is where the danger lies to me. There is something in the human psyche that craves the excuse for righteous violence. In fact, it’s a concept that permeates our popular culture. Be it movies like “Taken”, “Hard Candy”, “John Wick” or the entire film catalogue of Quentin Tarantino- there’s something darkly seductive in the revenge fantasy. Especially if you’re totally morally justified in that violence. If we’re honest with ourselves, this is a fantasy that can really get the lizard brain firing synapses on all cylinders. Furthermore, righteous violence is a concept that is integral to the founding myths of many countries. My own nation of the United States has the revolutionary war where we threw off the oppressive English royal crown to be an independent, democratic nation. This was followed by the Civil War where we fought a bloody internal conflict to end slavery. Our most recent foundational myth is that of WWII where we destroyed the genocidal Nazis and Imperial Japanese bent on world domination and made the world safe for democracy. What level of violence would not be justified in pursuit of those lofty goals? Will history not absolve you?

I’m writing this on July 14th, 2024. Yesterday, on July 13th, someone attempted to assassinate former president Donald Trump who was giving a speech in Pennsylvania during his re-election campaign. As of now, the shooter has been identified but motives are still unclear. I’m sure in the coming days and weeks more will come out and the actions of the would-be assassin will come to light, and they will be spun to fit multiple narratives. But ultimately, to me at least, his motives are not as important as the environment that created him. Since he began his campaign in 2015, Donald Trump has changed the nature of politics in the United States forever. His rhetoric was fiery and often violent. He was a populist, railing against enemies domestic and abroad. His opponents, in turn, cranked up their rhetoric about him in response. He was inciting violence. He was a racist. He was a danger to democracy itself. The comparison to Adolph Hitler was made frequently and indiscriminately. So, is it really a surprise someone took a shot at him? After all, “kill baby Hitler” is like time travel thought experiment 101. If you could stop Hitler before he rose to power, wouldn’t you do it? Won’t you save democracy?

The thing is, people tried. Many, many times. No one tried to kill Hitler as a baby (that I know of), but there were multiple assassination attempts on the life of Adolph Hitler during his rise to power and subsequent rule. Each failed attempt only made Hitler more paranoid, and the Nazi regime cracked down harder on the groups he viewed as responsible. Similarly, during the Nazi’s rise to power, they often clashed with Antifa. A far cry from the blue-dyed hair, bicycle lock-wielding gender studies majors of today, the Antifa of Weimar Germany were often hardened WWI vets and Bolshevik revolutionaries. They feared the rise of the Nazis and were willing to do anything necessary to stop them. This included street fighting, assassinations and bombings. This was all justified, right? They were literally trying to stop the Nazis. Well, justified or not, their actions ultimately ended up being counter intuitive. Instead of stopping the Nazis from gaining power, some historians believe they ended up helping. The street level violence, assassinations and instability ended up galvanizing the middle class against the left and allowed the burgeoning national socialist movement to present themselves as a stabilizing force and the anti-fascist’s acts of violence would be used as justification for the draconian measures that were taken by the Nazi regime.

There are many other cases of political violence having effects counter-intuitive to the intentions of the ones who committed them. In the 1960s, the civil rights leader martin Luther King Jr. had become a national figure, and he was helping to lead a movement that was challenging the racist, segregationist policies that were still in effect at the time. As you can imagine, this made King a lot of powerful enemies. Many people tried to shut him up and stop his movement and would attempt to do so with methods ranging from physical violence, bombings, arrests, legal action and even going as far as being blackmailed by the FBI to expose his extra-marital affairs unless he committed suicide. However, King was undaunted and continued his campaign. He was only stopped when he was assassinated by James Earl Ray in 1968. This did not have the effects Ray intended, however, as Kings death sparked riots that ultimately put the pressure on the US federal government to enact many of the legal changes that King and his allies advocated for. King himself became something of a secular saint and martyr and is considered one of the most important figures of the 20th century.

On March 13, 1881, Tsar Alexander II of Russia was assassinated. He was killed by a bomb thrown by members of the People's Will (Narodnaya Volya). This revolutionary group was made up mostly of disaffected upper-class intellectuals who paradoxically claimed to represent the peasantry, but sought to overthrow the autocratic Tsarist regime on their behalf. Despite their revolutionary rhetoric, the “People’s Will” were largely middle class strivers who were using the cause of the downtrodden for personal advancement in a changing Russia with fewer and fewer opportunities. Ironically, on the very day of his assassination, Alexander II had signed a document that would have granted the peasants more rights and introduced a constitution. His death tragically halted these reforms and marked a significant setback for the movement advocating for peasant rights. In the aftermath, his successor, Alexander III, instituted a period of increased repression, rolling back the liberal policies of his father and intensifying autocratic rule, further stifling the hopes of progress for the peasant class for another generation.

That is where the problem often lies. For every instance of political violence accomplishing the goals it sets out to do, there are several more where it accomplishes something totally counter intuitive. In almost all cases, the collateral damage can be severe and innocent people are the ones hurt. With the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, for example, one can’t help but see this helping him immensely in his campaign. He can literally wave his own bloody shirt during speeches, now. He, and by extension, his supporters feel vindicated in their belief that their enemies are violent and dangerous. After all, one attendee of the rally was killed by a stray gunshot and two more were critically injured. The image that emerged from the attempted assassination is something that is already so iconic that one imagines it in future history books. It’s almost like a renaissance painting- Trump, blood pouring from his head surrounded by secret service members in black sunglasses. He raises his fist in defiance, mouth agape as he chants “FIGHT” to the crowd- an American flag waving in the background. You couldn’t create a better campaign ad with all of the money in the world. This event, in my opinion, may have all but won him the 2024 election. Something tells me this wasn’t the results the would-be Gavrilo Princip was hoping for.

That’s the problem with political violence. It can be extremely effective, but it may not be the results you’re hoping for. In most cases, real life is not like the movies. There isn’t one big, bad guy who can be defeated, and the world is saved. If Hitler had been killed early on, the Nazi regime would have just promoted someone else- perhaps someone less erratic who would have been more effective who wouldn’t make the mistakes Hitler made. Killing Martin Luther King Jr did not stop his movement- it only strengthened it. Movements and ideas will have leaders and figureheads, but without people who follow them they are meaningless. And sometimes, when you take actions into your own hands like Gavrilo Princip did, you end up doing more harm than good and hurting the very people you were trying to help.

Obviously, I don’t endorse or call for violence in any way, shape or form. I do, however, recognize that it’s inevitable. It’s easy to imagine yourself as a revolutionary fighting for a just cause and to be completely justified in your wrath. It’s easy to fantasize about killing Hitler. It’s intoxicating to imagine yourself as a revolutionary of the past- a Haitian or French partisan going from mansion to mansion and slaying your former oppressor. There is something darkly seductive about the idea of being a hero to die for a cause, taking out the leader of whatever movement you see as the root of all the worlds problems- Donald Trump, Klaus Schaub, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping- it doesn’t matter. It’s romantic to see yourself as Gavrilo Princip, blowing up the world and rolling the dice on creating a better one. But if you’re not going to be the one to live through the death of the old world, it’s not really your life you’re gambling with. Sometimes figures like Princip are needed to create the spark, but real, lasting change comes from the people who live and work through the chaos and keep the fire going. And as someone who plans to try to live through this time period and create a better world, I really hope more people put down the gun and just eat their fucking sandwich.