So, the old boy almost managed to become the first Russian Pow from Austria, not mentioning since when. So, I wondered, which war actually. Now check this:
When three different Governments ruled Russia back than which one was at war with Austria.
Technically, all three governments were at war with Austria-Hungary
at some point, as the state of war did not officially end until early 1918. However, they each had a very different relationship with the conflict:
The Imperial Government (Tsar Nicholas II): Initiated the war. The Tsar personally declared war on Austria-Hungary in July 1914. His government actively conducted major military operations, such as the successful invasion of Galicia in 1914 and the devastating Brusilov Offensive in 1916.
at some point, as the state of war did not officially end until early 1918. However, they each had a very different relationship with the conflict:
The Imperial Government (Tsar Nicholas II): Initiated the war. The Tsar personally declared war on Austria-Hungary in July 1914. His government actively conducted major military operations, such as the successful invasion of Galicia in 1914 and the devastating Brusilov Offensive in 1916.
The Provisional Government (Alexander Kerensky): Inherited the war and chose to continue it to honor Russia's alliances with Britain and France. In July 1917, it launched the "Kerensky Offensive" specifically targeting Austro-German forces in Galicia. The failure of this offensive was a primary factor in the government's eventual collapse.
The Bolshevik Government (Vladimir Lenin): Seized power with the promise to end the war. While they immediately called for a ceasefire (the Decree on Peace) in November 1917, they remained technically at war for several months during tense negotiations. Fighting briefly resumed in early 1918 (Operation Faustschlag) before the Bolsheviks finally signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918, officially ending the war between Russia and the Central Powers (including Austria).
In summary, the Tsarist and Provisional governments were actively fighting to win, while the Bolsheviks were primarily focused on negotiating a way out.
How chaotic would you call Russia in those days and where there inner conflicts? I think the Romanovs were shot by the Bolshevist, right?
Russia during the period of 1914 to 1918 was extremely chaotic due to the immense strain of World War I, which exacerbated existing social and economic tensions and led to multiple revolutions and a full-scale civil war.
The Chaos and Internal Conflicts
The entry into World War I in 1914 initially sparked a wave of patriotism, but military defeats, inadequate supplies, massive casualties (around 2 million soldiers killed by 1917), and severe food and fuel shortages quickly led to widespread discontent. This dissatisfaction culminated in the February Revolution of 1917, which forced Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate and ended the 300-year Romanov dynasty.
The subsequent Provisional Government struggled to maintain stability and, by November 1917, was overthrown by Vladimir Lenin's Bolsheviks in the October Revolution. This seizure of power by the Bolsheviks triggered the devastating Russian Civil War (1918–1922/1923), which was a multi-party conflict between:
The "Reds": The Bolshevik Communist forces.
The "Whites": A collection of anti-Bolshevik forces, including monarchists, liberals, military officers, and other socialists, who were aided by several foreign powers including Britain, the US, and Japan.
Various other factions: Including anarchist groups and national minorities fighting for independence.
The civil war was marked by intense violence and terror on both sides, resulting in an estimated 7 to 12 million casualties, mostly civilians, from fighting, disease, and famine.
The Fate of the Romanovs
The civil war was marked by intense violence and terror on both sides, resulting in an estimated 7 to 12 million casualties, mostly civilians, from fighting, disease, and famine.
The Fate of the Romanovs
Yes, your understanding is correct: the Romanov imperial family was executed by the Bolsheviks. After the Tsar's abdication, the family was placed under house arrest and eventually moved to the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg. As White Army forces approached the city in the midst of the Civil War, local Bolshevik authorities, likely on orders from Lenin in Moscow, decided to prevent the family from being rescued and potentially becoming symbols of the counter-revolution.
On the night of July 16–17, 1918, Tsar Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra, their five children, and four of their servants were brutally shot and bayoneted to death in the house's cellar. Their bodies were then hidden in a nearby forest, mutilated to prevent identification. This execution effectively sealed the end of imperial rule in Russia.
How likely do you consider False Flag actions enforcing successfully that chaos back in those days comparable to Hitlers SS attacking villages claiming the Polish would aggravate a war?
In the context of 1914–1918, "False Flag" operations (staged attacks to justify a specific action) were less common as a direct trigger for war than they were in the 1930s (like Hitler’s Gleiwitz incident). However, the chaos in Russia was deeply manipulated by covert state-sponsored operations and agents provocateurs that served a similar purpose: destabilizing the state from within.
In the context of 1914–1918, "False Flag" operations (staged attacks to justify a specific action) were less common as a direct trigger for war than they were in the 1930s (like Hitler’s Gleiwitz incident). However, the chaos in Russia was deeply manipulated by covert state-sponsored operations and agents provocateurs that served a similar purpose: destabilizing the state from within.
While they may not have used the exact "attack a village" tactic you mentioned, the following actions successfully "enforced" the chaos:
1. German Strategic Destabilization (The "Sealed Train")
Instead of attacking a village, Germany "attacked" the Russian government by injecting a revolutionary catalyst. In 1917, the German high command provided Vladimir Lenin with safe passage in a "sealed train" from Switzerland back to Russia.
The Goal: Germany knew Lenin’s Bolsheviks would advocate for an immediate end to the war, which would allow Germany to move its armies to the Western Front.
The Funding: Germany sent over 50 million deutsche marks in gold to fund Bolshevik propaganda, effectively financing the very chaos that led to the collapse of the Russian war effort.
2. The Okhrana and Agents Provocateurs
The Tsarist secret police (Okhrana) mastered a dangerous tactic: infiltrating revolutionary groups with agents who were ordered to organize terrorist acts to justify police crackdowns.
Yevno Azef: This high-ranking revolutionary was actually an Okhrana double agent. He successfully organized the assassination of the Russian Minister of the Interior to maintain his "cover" and to ensure the government had a reason to suppress radicals.
Police Unions: The Okhrana set up state-controlled labor unions to monitor workers. One of these unions, led by Father Gapon (an alleged agent), organized the march that led to the Bloody Sunday massacre in 1905, which acted as a major catalyst for the later 1917 revolutions.
3. Comparison to Hitler’s "Gleiwitz Incident"
The Gleiwitz incident in 1939 was a pretext for external invasion (claiming Poland attacked Germany). In contrast, the manipulations in Russia between 1914 and 1918 were primarily:
Internal Provocations: To justify domestic repression.
Subversive Support: Foreign powers (Germany) funding internal dissidents (Bolsheviks) to trigger a domestic collapse.
Both tactics utilized deception to achieve a military or political goal, but the Russian chaos was driven more by infiltration and subversion than by staged border incidents.
Instead of attacking a village, Germany "attacked" the Russian government by injecting a revolutionary catalyst. In 1917, the German high command provided Vladimir Lenin with safe passage in a "sealed train" from Switzerland back to Russia.
The Goal: Germany knew Lenin’s Bolsheviks would advocate for an immediate end to the war, which would allow Germany to move its armies to the Western Front.
The Funding: Germany sent over 50 million deutsche marks in gold to fund Bolshevik propaganda, effectively financing the very chaos that led to the collapse of the Russian war effort.
2. The Okhrana and Agents Provocateurs
The Tsarist secret police (Okhrana) mastered a dangerous tactic: infiltrating revolutionary groups with agents who were ordered to organize terrorist acts to justify police crackdowns.
Yevno Azef: This high-ranking revolutionary was actually an Okhrana double agent. He successfully organized the assassination of the Russian Minister of the Interior to maintain his "cover" and to ensure the government had a reason to suppress radicals.
Police Unions: The Okhrana set up state-controlled labor unions to monitor workers. One of these unions, led by Father Gapon (an alleged agent), organized the march that led to the Bloody Sunday massacre in 1905, which acted as a major catalyst for the later 1917 revolutions.
3. Comparison to Hitler’s "Gleiwitz Incident"
The Gleiwitz incident in 1939 was a pretext for external invasion (claiming Poland attacked Germany). In contrast, the manipulations in Russia between 1914 and 1918 were primarily:
Internal Provocations: To justify domestic repression.
Subversive Support: Foreign powers (Germany) funding internal dissidents (Bolsheviks) to trigger a domestic collapse.
Both tactics utilized deception to achieve a military or political goal, but the Russian chaos was driven more by infiltration and subversion than by staged border incidents.
I asked about the theoretical success rate, not about historic facts, please.
If we look at the "success rate" of such operations in high-tension environments like 1914–1918, the probability of them working is extremely high, often nearing a certainty.
If we look at the "success rate" of such operations in high-tension environments like 1914–1918, the probability of them working is extremely high, often nearing a certainty.
In a stable society, a False Flag is hard to pull off because there is trust in institutions and a functioning press. But in "those days" in Russia, several factors made False Flag actions and staged provocations almost theoretically foolproof:
1. The "Confirmation Bias" of a Divided Public
When a country is already on the brink of civil war, people stop looking for the "truth" and start looking for "proof" that their enemies are evil.
If a village was attacked (like your SS/Polish example), a Bolshevik would immediately believe the Tsar did it, and a Monarchist would immediately believe the Bolsheviks did it.
Success Rate Factor: In a polarized society, a False Flag doesn't need to be convincing; it just needs to be convenient.
2. Information Blackouts and Rumor Mills
In 1914–1918, there were no satellite feeds or instant communications.
The gap between an event happening and the news reaching the public was a "Goldilocks Zone" for manipulation.
A government or a revolutionary group could stage an event, control the initial narrative for 48 hours, and by the time the truth came out, the political damage (an uprising or a declaration of war) was already irreversible.
3. The "Infiltration" Success Rate
In those days, the line between an activist and an agent was nonexistent.
If you send an agent to burn down a grain silo while wearing the uniform of the "other side," the success rate for causing chaos is almost 100%.
In a hungry, desperate population, people act on emotion and survival. They don't wait for a forensic investigation; they riot.
4. The "Feedback Loop" of Chaos
The most successful False Flags in that era weren't designed to win an argument; they were designed to end all arguments.
Once a staged attack happens, the "victim" retaliates for real.
Once real retaliation begins, the "False" part of the flag no longer matters—the war is now real. This makes the "success" of the provocation self-fulfilling.
The Bottom Line:
Theoretically, if you had a group of well-funded operatives in 1917 Russia, their "success rate" for triggering a riot or a local conflict via a False Flag would be near-total. The environment was a "tinderbox" where the identity of the person holding the match was far less important than the fact that a fire had started.
AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more
When a country is already on the brink of civil war, people stop looking for the "truth" and start looking for "proof" that their enemies are evil.
If a village was attacked (like your SS/Polish example), a Bolshevik would immediately believe the Tsar did it, and a Monarchist would immediately believe the Bolsheviks did it.
Success Rate Factor: In a polarized society, a False Flag doesn't need to be convincing; it just needs to be convenient.
2. Information Blackouts and Rumor Mills
In 1914–1918, there were no satellite feeds or instant communications.
The gap between an event happening and the news reaching the public was a "Goldilocks Zone" for manipulation.
A government or a revolutionary group could stage an event, control the initial narrative for 48 hours, and by the time the truth came out, the political damage (an uprising or a declaration of war) was already irreversible.
3. The "Infiltration" Success Rate
In those days, the line between an activist and an agent was nonexistent.
If you send an agent to burn down a grain silo while wearing the uniform of the "other side," the success rate for causing chaos is almost 100%.
In a hungry, desperate population, people act on emotion and survival. They don't wait for a forensic investigation; they riot.
4. The "Feedback Loop" of Chaos
The most successful False Flags in that era weren't designed to win an argument; they were designed to end all arguments.
Once a staged attack happens, the "victim" retaliates for real.
Once real retaliation begins, the "False" part of the flag no longer matters—the war is now real. This makes the "success" of the provocation self-fulfilling.
The Bottom Line:
Theoretically, if you had a group of well-funded operatives in 1917 Russia, their "success rate" for triggering a riot or a local conflict via a False Flag would be near-total. The environment was a "tinderbox" where the identity of the person holding the match was far less important than the fact that a fire had started.
AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more
#noblessoblige #jedi #trainbodyandmind
We need another coltoural revolution like Eye for an Eye, Love your next, Fight an Inner Jihad which is Make your Mind YOURFUCKINGSELF!!! #provos
