What was the most significant date of the 20th century? Surely June 28, 1914, must be it-the day on which the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, together with his wife, in the city of Sarajevo. Five weeks later the world was at war.

Almost a century later, the negative consequences of that awful event are still being felt, not just in the Balkans, but around the world.

The world war that started with a single shot on a hot summer's day led within a few short years to the collapse of the continental European empires-the Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian. Soon after their fall, the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire fell. The victorious British and French empires lasted longer, but fell as a direct consequence of the Second World War, which in itself was a direct consequence of the First World War.

And almost all the wars since, those that have been fought and those that are being fought, as well as those still to come, can trace their origins back to Sarajevo.

Prior to that fateful day in 1914, there was little sign that this would be the fate of the 20th century. In 1913 the Romanovs celebrated the tercentenary (300th-year anniversary) of their dynasty, traveling throughout the Russian empire, basking in the adulation of millions of their subjects. The Bolshevik leader, Vladimir Lenin, gave up all hopes of revolution. Four years later, most of their subjects were glad to see the Romanovs go. Europe's longest reigning monarch, Franz Joseph II of Austria-Hungary, had been emperor since 1848, previously the most tumultuous year in Europe's modern history. He was well loved by his subjects. His generally benevolent liberalism enabled 11 different nations to live peacefully within one empire.

Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany was also popular at the outbreak of war. His German empire, the Second Reich, was only a little over 40 years old and had been the great economic miracle of the early part of the new century. Germany's economy had grown substantially and now rivaled that of the German Kaiser's cousin, King George V of England. Germany had even acquired colonies, just like Britain, and had a great navy set to rival the British Royal Navy.

Only the Ottoman Empire seemed weak. It had been that way for well over a hundred years. "The sick man of Europe" was how the empire had been described. The slowly disintegrating empire had been causing problems in the Balkans for decades as different ethnic groups successfully rebelled and demanded independence. But recently, the empire had appeared to stabilize and the British, in particular, saw a need for it as a buffer against Russia and an essential presence in the Middle East, an area of concern to the British, in need of preserving a peaceful lifeline to India and the Far East.

On the eve of World War I, the five greatest international powers were Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and Austria (the United States could have been one, but was not that actively involved in international affairs at that time).

Germany's 19th century "Iron Chancellor," Otto von Bismarck, had remarked that security came with being "one of three in a world governed by five." His foreign policy goal had been to secure Germany's future in alliance with Austria and Russia. Wilhelm II didn't like so prominent a political figure taking some of the limelight away from him, so he removed Bismarck. Germany then entered on a more unpredictable course, often clashing with neighbors and potential allies. By 1914, Germany was one of two in a world governed by five. They gambled and lost.

But not before the Ottoman Empire had entered into an alliance with Germany and Austria. This alliance had not been a foregone conclusion. The Turks could easily have gone the other way, siding with the Allies. British Intelligence in the area at the time left much to be desired. Mistakes were made and the Turks sided with Berlin. This was a major turning point in world history as the negative consequences of that decision still dominate our news almost every night.

The domination of these empires prior to the Great War of 1914-18 did not create a perfect world, hence the frustrations that led to the war in the first place. However, it would be difficult to claim that anything better has replaced them.

Let us now examine the consequences of the end of these empires in Europe, the Middle East and the rest of the world.

European consequences

All of the great empires had one thing in common-they were all multi-ethnic. Indeed, one of the dictionary definitions of "empire" is "a state uniting many territories and peoples under one ruler" (Collins, 1982). The same dictionary also defines "empire" as "an extensive social or economic organization under the control of a single person, family or corporation."

One of the contributory factors to the slow decline of the Ottoman Empire was its multiplicity of ethnic groups. Many of these, for ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural reasons, wanted to be rid of their Turkish rulers. Greece rebelled successfully in the early part of the 19th century and formed its own nation, although many Greeks still remained outside the territory of Greece.

Austria had a similar problem with different ethnic groups. Hungarians had been granted their own parliament and a "dual monarchy" was set up, in which the Austrian emperor was also king of Hungary, thereby uniting the two countries, but theoretically giving Hungarians their own independence and equal status. Other ethnic groups seemed content within the empire, at least as long as the empire gave them security and the prospect of economic advancement.

For thousands of years, it had been common in Europe for peoples of different ethnic backgrounds to be ruled over by peoples of other ethnic backgrounds, often without prejudice or discrimination. But increasingly throughout the 19th century, with increased education and a growing awareness of their own culture and history, people wanted to rule themselves.

The collapse of the empires enabled this to happen. Ethnic feelings rose to the surface, with seemingly every single ethnic group wanting self-rule. This was difficult to accomplish, however, as the various ethnic groups had all been mingling freely while they were part of their former empires. How could territory be divided into new countries when neighbors on the same street wanted to be part of different nations? High population density and attachment to ancestral lands makes it very difficult to simply transplant people. This problem was to dominate the 20th century and is still not resolved.

Does the Bible have anything to say about world affairs and what will take place in the future? In describing the events that would take place before His second coming and the establishment of the Kingdom of God, Jesus Christ prophesied that "nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom" (Matthew 24:7). The Greek word here for "nation" is ethnos, the same root word from which we get the term ethnic. This 20th century scourge, the rise of ethnic consciousness, was prophesied almost two thousand years ago. It has been the primary cause of the proliferation of "wars and rumors of wars" (verse 6).

Just take one country in central Europe, carved out of the ruins of the Austrian Empire, and note the continuing tragedy of the last century. After the fall of the Habsburgs, the Czechs and Slovaks were united as Czechoslovakia. However, two million Germans resided in the country, providing Hitler with an excuse to annex part of the country in 1938, to be followed by further annexation a few months later. The Czechs were generally opposed to Hitler, but the Slovaks were supportive.

Later the Russians moved in and dominated the country for 40 years. A return to democracy in 1989 could not keep the country together, and the two peoples separated in 1994.

There are ethnic minorities in most European countries, many of which want "independence" or to be united with another nation. Macedonia right now is on the verge of war, as its Albanian minority wants to break away and unite with a greater Albania. NATO troops, mostly from Britain, have been sent there in the hope of preserving the peace. This is another consequence of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

All of the countries that came out of the former empires have ethnic minorities that are dissatisfied and would like a significant change of borders or a political rearrangement. This trend has only been exacerbated by the rise of the European Union, as the EU enables small states to have their own national government, but to also be a part of something bigger. The trend is set to continue.

Another negative consequence of the collapse of the empires in Europe was the rise of dictators. Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini would not have been possible without the fall of the monarchies. American historian Virginia Cowles, in her 1963 biography, The Kaiser, relates that in 1930 "the new Chancellor, the Catholic leader Doctor Heinrich Bruning, was strongly in favor of restoring the monarchy as a means of preventing Hitler from capturing the support of the right wing" (p. 423).

In Russia, the fall of the czar in February 1917 led to hopes of a liberal democracy. This lasted only a few months. The Bolsheviks took power in October, giving birth to the world's first communist nation. After World War II Russia was able to dominate all of Eastern Europe for over 40 years. The Cold War divided the world into two opposing nuclear blocs for decades and held back the economic development of much of the planet.

Political backwater now threat to world peace

"The Middle East…was of only marginal concern" to the European powers at the beginning of the 20th century. "Few Europeans of Churchill's generation knew or cared what went on in the languid empires of the Ottoman Sultan or the Persian Shah." So writes David Fromkin in his book A Peace to End All Peace (1989, pp. 24-25). It is difficult to comprehend how unimportant the Middle East was prior to World War I. "Most of the Middle East still rested, as it had for centuries, under the drowsy and negligent sway of the Ottoman Empire, a relatively tranquil domain in which history, like everything else, moved slowly" (ibid., p. 25). This was all to change with the British-sponsored Arab Revolt, British entry into Jerusalem in December 1917 and the subsequent fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Following World War I, world leaders met in Paris to determine the destiny of the post-war world. The Treaty of Versailles created new nations in Europe and the Middle East. The Turkish Empire gave way to new Arab states under European domination (British and French), and the British were given a mandate to govern Palestine. The borders of the modern Middle East were drawn up at the peace conference. The consequences were accurately predicted by British Field Marshal Earl Wavell who described the peace treaty as "a peace to end all peace," the inspiration for Fromkin's title. This followed the popular description of the war as "the war to end all war."

It is interesting to note here that much of Bible prophecy relates to the end-time events immediately leading up to Christ's return. At this time, prophecy shows us that the Jewish people would have their own homeland again, in the same area as it had been two thousand years ago. The creation of the modern nation of Israel was a direct consequence of Sarajevo. Far from being a "political backwater" (ibid., p. 24), the region is now at the center of world geopolitics and poses the single greatest threat to world peace. As the Bible said it would be, it is again at the center of the international stage.

Zechariah 14:1-4 shows that Jerusalem will be fought over immediately prior to Christ's second coming. The book of Hosea shows Judah (the Jews) and Israel falling in the same month: "Now shall a month devour them with their portions" (Hosea 5:5-7, KJV). Ancient Israel fell more than a century before Judah. This prophecy is for our time. Luke 21:20-24 shows Jerusalem falling to gentile armies in these end-time events. This suggests Israelite domination prior to gentile invasion. Jerusalem came under Israelite control at the end of December 1917. The Jewish state of Israel took control of the whole city in June 1967 after a 19-year period, during which the Old City was under the control of Jordan.

Even the Gulf War of 1991 was a direct consequence of Sarajevo. Iraq claimed Kuwait because the latter was a part of the same Turkish province as Iraq during Ottoman rule. Iraq itself was set up under British protection at Versailles. The British-appointed king and his descendants were imposed on the people. The monarchy was overthrown in 1958. Subsequent developments led to Saddam Hussein seizing control of the country. French involvement in Lebanon and Syria following World War I directly led to Syria's present domination of the area.

International consequences

Internationally, the direct consequence of Sarajevo was decolonization. The collapse of the continental European empires led eventually to Europe's demise and the end of the British, French and other colonial empires. Many of the wars that are now being fought in Third World countries are ethnic conflicts between different tribes that had peaceful coexistence forced upon them by their former colonial masters. One third of all the nations in Africa are involved in such wars as different factions struggle for power.

There are similar wars being fought in other areas of the world.

One result of all this conflict is the massive and unprecedented movement of people that is taking place. Hundreds of millions of refugees have been forced to leave their own countries to live in others. Ironically, this often leads to further ethnic tension in host countries. Western democracies are not immune to this problem. Confronted with an alarming increase in the numbers of asylum seekers and illegal economic migrants, citizens are increasingly fearful of being swamped by peoples of different cultures. This is resulting in a rise of extremist movements in Western nations.

Economically, the collapse of these empires has taken its toll. At one time, most peoples around the world were linked to an empire and received the benefits of trade and investment that often came with that. Now, many are alone and struggling to survive. Today we think of "globalization" as a new development, yet the old empires wove an intricate network of trade and investment that brought material advantages to all their citizens. "There is plenty of evidence that, in several ways, international economic links were closer in the 19th century than in much of the 20th," pointed out the British news magazine The Economist (August 25, 2001, p. 61).

Where will it all end?

Gavrilo Princip is hardly a household name today, but he certainly should be remembered as one of the most significant people of the 20th century and perhaps the one who had the single greatest impact upon world events. It was he who fired the shots that killed the Austrian Archduke and his wife, Sophie, on that fateful day in 1914, the trigger that started World War I, which in turn led to World War II. Princip died of tuberculosis in an Austrian prison four years later.

A century of instability has followed that will culminate in the end-time events that precede the establishment of the Kingdom of God. "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one" (Zechariah 14:9, KJV). WNP