Bismark and Lenin

[Ninja_Sher]

I heard that during WWI Otto Von Bismark ( 1st Fuehrer of Deutscheland ) helped Lenin get back to Russia and oust the Czars. I could not help thinking was the Fuehrer a marxist too?

[The_Sadukar]

I'm sorry to say this, but first of all Bismark was, as far as I remember, in no position of power during the first world war. He resigned prior to it since he foresaw the madness of such a war. But what's more important. Never once while he was chancelor did he use the titel "F

[HasimirFenring]

In fact, Bismarck died in 1898 (and certainly wasn't the F

[thomas]

bismarck was forced to resign by wilhelm because he imposed too many restrictions (such as germany having a weak navy)

[Mahdi]

The Kaiser's refusal to let him go out and kill all the communists might have had something to do with it too....

[Caid Ivik]

I heard that during WWI Otto Von Bismark ( 1st Fuehrer of Deutscheland ) helped Lenin get back to Russia and oust the Czars. I could not help thinking was the Fuehrer a marxist too?

State of education in Canada must be worse as I was told... But WW1 Germany was also influenced by marxism, that is for sure, altough in unorthodox way. General Ludendorff found some of its principles as perfect for war economy.

[ps501]

I believe that you are correct, that in WWI it was the deal with Lenin and Germany that ultimately took Nicholas II out of power and ultimately led to his (and most of his family, except Alexi and Anastia, whos bodies were never found) execution as the white army was approaching the red position where Nicholas II was being held. 

Lenin then signed a peace treaty with the Germans afterwards- and began the civil war between the Red and the White Army (if I'm recalling my history correctly)

Of a rather interesting and a somewhat unrelated note, is that technically Nicholas II abocated (if I'm spelling that word correctly) the throne, technically leaving Alexi as the Tzar of Russia.  Technically if a decendent of either of the children (assuming they survived the massacre) were found, they would, by right of succession, be the true and lawful leader of Russia.  Not that this is a likely probability.

[Edric O]

I heard that during WWI Otto Von Bismark ( 1st Fuehrer of Deutscheland ) helped Lenin get back to Russia and oust the Czars. I could not help thinking was the Fuehrer a marxist too?

1. Otto Von Bismark was quite dead at the time of WW1... He died in 1898.

2. The term "F

[Edric O]

I believe that you are correct, that in WWI it was the deal with Lenin and Germany that ultimately took Nicholas II out of power

Not true; Nicholas II abdicated in February 1917, long before the communist revolution in October. He was replaced by a Provisional Government made up of liberals and social democrats, and Russia became a republic. Lenin's October Revolution overthrew the Provisional Government, not the Czar.

It's impossible to say what the Provisional Government would have done and how Russia would have ended up if the October Revolution hadn't taken place.

Lenin then signed a peace treaty with the Germans afterwards- and began the civil war between the Red and the White Army (if I'm recalling my history correctly)

Lenin (well, it was actually Trotsky, since he was Commissar for War at the time) signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in the spring of 1918 to make peace with the Germans. But the terms of the treaty were very bad for Russia (it was reduced to the borders of present-day Russia, with Belarus and Ukraine becoming German protectorates), which gave the Russian monarchists (the "Whites") - who were mostly army officers - an excuse to turn against the Bolshevik government and start the civil war. Lenin and the Bolsheviks later cancelled the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and re-declared war on Germany, but the civil war continued anyway. The civil war kept going for over 2 years after the Germans were defeated and WW1 ended.

Technically if a decendent of either of the children (assuming they survived the massacre) were found, they would, by right of succession, be the true and lawful leader of Russia.

First of all, the only true and lawful leaders of any country are those who are elected in free and fair democratic elections by the people. Monarchs and aristocrats are no more than the degenerate descendants of ancient warlords who conquered and enslaved their people by force.

Second of all, in any case, the Romanovs are not the lawful rulers of Russia any more than the Queen of England in the lawful ruler of America.

[Caid Ivik]

Kerenskij's government remained in fight, so abdication of the emperor had no practical effect. Actually, he went to the war with Germany unwillingly. It was also practical for mensheviks to hold as much men on front as possible, as communist cells were already recruiting much from desserters and peasants. Germans bought Lenin using his lust for power. His "revolution" was only a symbolical act then, as Red Army cells were already large. When the peace was signed, only few cossacks remained loyal to monarchy, so the civil war was decised sooner than it started. About Romanov dynasty and their heirship, I know not how it was there, but ie in Austrohungarian empire were Habsburgs officially elected, so if they wouldn't give title up voluntarily, they would be de iure on throne still yet...

[ps501]

.

First of all, the only true and lawful leaders of any country are those who are elected in free and fair democratic elections by the people. Monarchs and aristocrats are no more than the degenerate descendants of ancient warlords who conquered and enslaved their people by force.

Second of all, in any case, the Romanovs are not the lawful rulers of Russia any more than the Queen of England in the lawful ruler of America.

So wait a sec, your saying that Castro isn't the legal lawful leader of Cuba?  Because he wasn't elected?  So.. Who is the correct and lawful leader of Pakistan?  ...  So Saddam is the lawful leader of Iraq (Since was "re-elected" with 100% vote just before the war?...  What about the current Iraqi President who just was elected?  Now we have two lawful presidents of Iraq? (since Saddam still says he is the President)?

I think the true leaders are the ones that the people support, regardless of how they came into power.  (IE the cuban population formed a majority, they could oust Castro, but they haven't, so therefore they accept him, and his goverment as the lawful ruler of Cuba, regardless of how he came into power)

I'm not here to defend (wars, monarchies, etc) Was just trying to point out that technically, The Tsar's were the lawful leaders of Russia, and that when Nicholas II abdicated the throne, technically his son, by rite of succession, became the Tsar...  Though in researhcing this, it does appear that he abdicated in in March, not Feb.  (www.answers.com)  "Nicholas was forced to abdicate (Mar. 15, N.S./Mar. 2, O.S.) at Pskov after the Duma had appointed a provisional government composed mainly of moderates; it was headed by Prince Lvov and included Milyukov and Kerensky."  All that being said, I think its highly unlikely that if an heir were proven to exist that the Russians would take back a Tsar, and that person probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on... unless by chance he could convince the people and form a majority, that he was indeed the lawful leader, created yet another Russian Civil war (or perhaps just held a absolute power vote), and then if s/he won, then by popular support she/he would become the lawful leader.

[Anathema]

The Habsburgs were elected as rulers of the HRE, never of Austro-Hungary. The HRE was disbanded by Franz II, so there's no legal claim to it.

[Caid Ivik]

Title was a part of the dynasty, no matter if it was ment for whole Germany or just Austria. And it was the ame imperial title, which was based on tradition since Karl the Great, so whether it is HRE or Austria are just cosmetic details.

[Anathema]

The Habsburgs were HR emperors alongside rulers of Austria (and later Hungary). They were most certainly not the same titles. As a result, they had far more influence in their "homelands" of Austria because the HR emperors always had little power, whereas the "lower" rulers of the smaller kingdoms were the real leaders. When Franz II disbanded the Holy Roman Empire he forfeited that title, however he remained the lawful ruler of the much smaller Austro-Hungary.

[Caid Ivik]

But before that, Austria was only a duchy (or grand duchy). As most of Germany was ceasing loyalties to Habsburgs, it was logical, that title of "emperor" was ment only for Austria. He still held ie czech crown, a remaining kurfurst vote  ;D

[Anathema]

The title Holy Roman Emperor ceased to exist in 1806 when Franz II disbanded the Empire (his authority had already been systematicly undermined by Napoleon's efforts). At the same time he crowned himself with a new title, emperor of Austria- and he instantly became Franz I. I didn't know though he also was king of Bohemia.

[Ninja_Sher]

The title Holy Roman Emperor ceased to exist in 1806 when Franz II disbanded the Empire (his authority had already been systematicly undermined by Napoleon's efforts). At the same time he crowned himself with a new title, emperor of Austria- and he instantly became Franz I. I didn't know though he also was king of Bohemia.

I heard that Deutschland did not even exist as a country till Barbarosa united them, but he too was known as Holy Roman Emperor.

[Caid Ivik]

Imperial title was usually based on possession of crowning items, like crown or Longinus' lance. Karl the Great was an emperor of Franks, Otto III of HRE and Franz II of only Austria, but there was still one continuity of the title as "emperor". In papocaesarist system of the western feudal civilization was only one imperial title given.

[Anathema]

Charlemagne was king of the Franks and of the Langobards, later to be crowned Roman Emperor by the Pope.

Franz II was emperor of all of the HRE. A good way to picture it is to say Franz II of the HRE "died" when he disbanded his own empire, and Franz I of Austria "was born" at the same moment, of an all new Austrian empire.

How I love picking out all these historical inaccuracies ;)

(edit for Mahdi)

[Mahdi]

I was wondering who Karl the Great was.  Didn't connect to me that he was Charles the Great.

[Caid Ivik]

Charlemagne was king of the Franks and of the Langobards, later to be crowned Roman Emperor by the Pope.

Franz II was emperor of all of the HRE. A good way to picture it is to say Franz II of the HRE "died" when he disbanded his own empire, and Franz I of Austria "was born" at the same moment, of an all new Austrian empire.

Imperial title was originally (dh by Karl; altough we could say it is the western roman one) not bound for any country. When Karl died, title went to Lothar, short time it was even held by asturian "emperor". Peak of this was in kurfurst election system after death of Hohenstauffs, when seven distinct countries voted for a shared lord, and that lord had to conquer all lands after it. Would it not be then more correct to speak of Karel IV as emperor of Bohemia? Or Rudolph Habsburg as emperor of Switzerland? Slowly most kurfursts stopped voting, as the title was in hands of Habsburgs, where it remained until the 1918. Why should we make distinction in it?

[Anathema]

You just won't give up will you?

Lothar was the grandson of Karl the Great. Karl's only surviving heir was Louis so he received the whole empire, but Lois had three sons who outlived him and the empire was split in a western, midle and an eastern part. The middle one had Aken and Rome within its borders and was therefore the continuation of the empire, but was soon usurped by the eastern kingdom. This would become the HRE, and the western realm would become France.

But enough useless facts. Nothing you said changes the fact that the HRE has been dissolved by its last formal leader, and that the Austro-Hungarian empire is a different entity alltoghether.

[Caid Ivik]

Surely, whole administration had to be dissolved and rebuilt again, army as well, there was no continuity...  ::)

[Anathema]

There'd always an Austrian state, even within the HRE, with its own distinctive (local) administration and army. I'm going to stop it right here, no use talking to a brick wall.[c/]

[Caid Ivik]

I nearly thought you would explain me how perfectly decentralized HRE was in 18th century...