The Most Impressive Prediction of All Time

I've always been impressed when people can truly predict the future. Perhaps it's from my years working as a professional investor at hedge funds, but when someone makes a concrete, explicit prediction— particularly one that is highly contrarian and non-consensus at the time (which is the only way to make truly outsized returns in the market)— I sit up and take notice. The world is filled with people who try to indicate after the fact that they, of course, knew and predicted some outcome would happen, and that it was even obvious at the time.

But usually you will find if you do more digging that, for every such claim, there are often 3+ more predictions they made that turned out to be totally false. Or, they predicted something which, at the time they actually took an explicit stand that could be objectively judged later on, their prediction was already obvious to most people and "priced in" to the market. Or, that they made an impossibly vague and imprecise prediction, with lots of hedging and qualifications, to cover a much larger range of possible outcomes (making the predictions much less actionable).

Of course, it also isn't so impressive if the thing you are predicting is not of any practical importance in the world, such as predicting ahead of time that a particular indie musician will become a lot more popular in future years. A rough proxy to how practically important a prediction is might be to pose the question "How much money could you make based on that prediction being correct if you had control over a large pool of capital?" Although even that is limited, since it generally requires that you make predictions over a short enough time horizon that it is going to be practically actionable in the market.

Before I tell you about what I believe is clearly the "most impressive prediction of all time," it would be helpful to establish a rigorous framework for evaluating that claim and also to compare it to other potential runner-up candidates throughout history. So here is what I believe to be a pretty straightforward framework: to be considered "impressive," a prediction must demonstrate the following attributes (you'll have to excuse my many examples taken from recent events and financial markets, since these are the things that most readily come to mind for me given my experience):

It has to be precise enough to rigorously, objectively judge its correctness over time. That is, it has to make concrete predictions that can be assessed in a way that most observers would agree is convincing; it can't be overly broad in nature, and it should have some timeline attached to it. So predictions that are cryptic or vague and which could, horoscope-like, be applied to many different situations in the distant future (e.g., the "predictions" by Nostradamus about the rise of Hitler and Napoleon), would be excluded. This criterion is not necessarily just a binary measure: the more specific and detailed the predictions are, the more impressive. Of particular note are a series of contingent predictions, where the second and third predictions only make sense if the first prediction comes true. This is akin to a parlay bet, where someone predicts a whole series of events, such as the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishers in a horse race. The smaller the probability is of getting the prediction right simply by chance, the more impressive it is, all other things being equal.
It has to be about something truly important in the world, that has great consequences for many people and across large and diverse geographic areas. In addition to the "market profit" test described earlier, another way to measure importance might be to pose the question "if the person making the predictions were a highly respected advisor to powerful world leaders at the time who could exert significant influence on the course of events, to what extent would the prediction change their thinking and their ultimate course of action on world important events?" The more these tests obviously apply to a prediction, the more impressive the prediction is.
It can't be based on secret knowledge that is known only to the predictor and a small group of other individuals; we are obviously not so impressed when a stock market operator makes a windfall based on insider information, and the same thing applies to predictions in general: they should be based on knowledge and information that is generally available in the world, though not necessarily properly understood by many people.
- For example, very few people understood the true future importance of deep learning and neural net research back in 2009, but the people developing these ideas were certainly not trying to hide this information, and in fact it was readily available in the form of research papers, presentations, and even open source code to anyone who was interested in the topic and could understand the rapid improvements and the potential of these approaches. Similarly, we wouldn't be as impressed if Truman predicted the surrender of Japan in 1945 the day before the Hiroshima bombing, simply because he was privy to secrets that very few had access to at the time.
The more non-obvious and contrarian the prediction is at the time, the more impressive it is. If you predicted that Covid would be a huge deal in February of 2020, then you could have purchased put options on cruise line stocks and similar trades and made an absolute fortune. If you made that same prediction in April, the chance to profit from that prediction was dramatically reduced. In a sense, the most impressive predictions aren't just the ones that you think are likely that other people simply aren't even thinking about or considering, but those where tons of smart and informed people are thinking intensely about the same things and have access to the same information and data, but where most of them come to believe a view that is diametrically opposed to your view.
- I recall back in 2016 chatting with the "political expert consultant" people at large investment banks like Morgan Stanley and hearing over and over about how it was so obvious that Hillary was going to win a crushing victory that it was almost pointless for them to speculate about which stocks might move the most in the event of a Trump win ("I'll give you to 20 to 1 odds she wins" is a direct quote from one of them!). As a result, even though I thought Trump's chances were more like 50-50, that insight was enough to place several extremely asymmetric bets that would (and did) pay off handsomely if he won, but were already priced such that, if he lost, they wouldn't go down by very much. Even though the early Covid and Trump victory predictions were solid, impressive predictions, the fact is, many people did indeed make such predictions, some of them publicly (although in percentage terms, these were still highly non-consensus takes at the time); what is even more impressive is when a prediction is made by only one or at most a handful of people in the entire world at the time, and it ends up being true.
The prediction should come true for the "right reason"; i.e., the situation actually does evolve according to the logic and reasoning laid out in the original prediction. And in order for this test to apply, the prediction must of course lay out the reasoning in depth rather than just make a prediction without context or explanation.
- Someone telling you in 2014 to buy Nvidia stock and simply saying "trust me, it's going up" is just not as impressive or persuasive as someone who lays out a highly detailed argument that involves the unappreciated potential of crypto-currency proof-of-work demand and the coming AI explosion and Nvidia's dominant position in that area. And conversely, if someone proposed purchasing Moderna stock in 2019 based on their known drug pipeline at the time and basic valuation arguments, that wouldn't be as impressive as someone making an argument in January of 2020 specifically based on what was known about Covid by frontline scientists and how Moderna was uniquely positioned to move quickly with an MRNA vaccine.

There are surely other criteria we could add to this list, but they would likely have sharply diminishing value, since these attributes capture the vast bulk of what should make a prediction impressive. Now, you might expect that if someone did make a prediction that obviously scored extremely highly across every one of these requirements, that this person and their predictions would be well known to everyone, at least as a sort of pop culture touchstone like Nostradamus (most people probably can't tell you about his predictions in any real detail, but at least know that he was a person who is said to have predicted a lot of things accurately). But in this case you would be wrong, since my candidate for the most impressive prediction of all time came from a person who is practically unknown in the West except for a relatively small group of historians and people interested in niche subjects. The person I'm thinking of is named Pyotr Durnovo, and he was an Imperial Russian government official who lived from 1842 to 1915.

We will discuss more about him later and how his life experience may have prepared him to be able to make such an impressive prediction, but the short version of it is that he initially studied to be in the Navy and served there for around a decade, and then became the Director of Police for the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the entire Russian Empire under Tsar Alexander III. Later, he served as the Minister of the Interior under Tsar Nicholas II (the one who was ultimately executed with his family by the Bolsheviks in 1917 during the Russian Revolution).

So what is this prediction he made, anyway, and why is it so impressive? Well, in 1914, six months prior to the outbreak of World War 1, Durnovo wrote a truly remarkable ~7,600-word memorandum for Tsar Nicholas II and his top 2 or 3 ministers, which we know was given to them, since it was found in Nicholas' papers and later published in 1922 by communist historians after the revolution. If they had only read it carefully and took its warnings more seriously, the world we live in today might look very different! So what did this memorandum say exactly? If you'd like to read it in its entirety in English, which is well worth doing, you can see it here.

But I will describe its contents here, and why it was all so impressive. First of all, it carefully laid out a logical argument about the state of the world, and then proceeded to make a very large number of predictions— nearly every single one of which ended up coming true in the coming years.

For one, it predicted an imminent war on the horizon, which he ultimately blamed on the collision course between England and Germany, which were the two greatest industrial powers at the time. This was certainly not some earth shattering or special prediction; a lot of people predicted some kind of big conflict, and it was often said that "war was in the air" at the time. In fact, Otto von Bismarck famously said back in 1888 that "One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans," which is often viewed as particularly prescient given the importance of the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in setting off World War I.

It's how he analyzed the situation, and then used that reasoning to predict the exact groupings of countries that would participate in the conflict and on which side, and how the situation would evolve from there, that is so impressive.

Essentially, Durnovo made a classic balance of power type argument: Germany and England were increasingly competing for world domination across the seas (i.e., Germany was rapidly building a Navy to challenge the British Navy), in terms of manufacturing and trading internationally, in terms of colonial possessions, etc. But there was an essential aspect of stalemate between them: England was still basically untouchable on the sea given their dominant Navy, and pretty much invulnerable to invasion because of that, while Germany was the dominant land power in Europe, and essentially invulnerable to the British on their home territory (although vulnerable in terms of their international trade and colonies).

As a result, he argued, both the English and the Germans would be forced to put together alliances of the other great powers. In short, Durnovo argued that the English would naturally end up allying with the French and the Russians (with later help from the US), and that Germany would end up allying with Austria-Hungary and Turkey (which indeed happened, just as he predicted).

His predictions about alliances and national behaviors were almost unbelievably specific and ran counter to the conventional wisdom of the time:

He predicted that Italy would not side with Germany despite being part of the Triple Alliance, and would instead join the opposing side if victory seemed likely, seeking territory from both Austria and Turkey. This is exactly what happened; Italy joined the Allies in 1915 after negotiating for territorial concessions.
He predicted that Romania would remain neutral until it was clear which side would win, then join the victorious side to claim territory. This also came true— Romania entered the war in 1916 on the Allied side after significant Russian successes.
Most surprsingly, he predicted that Bulgaria would side against Serbia and by extension against Russia, despite Russia being Bulgaria's historic liberator from Ottoman rule— a prediction that seemed almost unthinkable to most observers at the time. This came true exactly as he foresaw, with Bulgaria joining the Central Powers in 1915.
He correctly predicted that Serbia and Montenegro would side against Austria, while Greece would likely remain neutral until the outcome was more or less predetermined.
He predicted unrest among Muslims in the Caucasus and Turkestan (which occurred).
He predicted the possibility of Afghanistan moving against Russia (which happened in 1919).
He predicted serious complications in Poland (the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921)
He predicted an uprising in Finland if Sweden joined Germany (Finland did declare independence in 1917)

This is already like getting an incredibly specific parlay bet exactly right— a bet that includes a few underdog picks with really long odds. If he did that alone, the memo would already be up there in the list of greatest predictions ever. But he went much further, starting with his forecasts of how the actual war itself would develop. One of the notable aspects of Durnovo's memorandum was his sophisticated understanding of how industrial capacity and technological readiness would determine military outcomes in the coming war. This was particularly impressive because in 1914, most military thinking was still focused on traditional factors like troop numbers, cavalry, and fortress defenses, but Durnovo believed that the nature of warfare had fundamentally changed in a way that was not yet appreciated by most observers.

First, he made several key predictions about German military capability that were at least somewhat non-consensus at the time:

Level of Preparation:

He warned that "Germany's war preparation will exceed all expectations"
He predicted that the degree of its preparedness would "probably exceed our most exaggerated expectations"
This proved strikingly accurate— Germany's initial military performance shocked even its own allies

Understanding of Modern Warfare: Durnovo grasped that modern war would be fundamentally different because:

It would require sustained industrial production of ammunition and equipment
Technical innovation during the war would be crucial
Railway and logistics infrastructure would be as important as front-line troops
Heavy artillery and machine guns would be decisive weapons

He also exactly articulated Russia's many weaknesses going into any conflict (probably many people in the Russian government understood at least some of this at the time):

Industrial Base Problems:

He highlighted the "embryonic state of our industry"
He predicted Russia would be unable to make up shortfalls through domestic production
He understood that closing of the Baltic and Black Seas would prevent importing needed supplies
He recognized that dependence on foreign industry would create "a series of difficulties hard to overcome"

Specific Military Deficiencies:

He identified exact categories where Russia would prove deficient:

Ammunition supplies (which led to the "shell famine" of 1915)
Heavy artillery (which proved devastating when facing German guns)
Machine guns (leaving Russian infantry at a massive disadvantage)
Fortress defenses (leading to the fall of key fortresses like Przemyśl)
Railway capacity (causing critical supply problems)

Technical Innovation:

Durnovo made a particularly sophisticated observation about technological innovation during wartime:

He noted that "every war has invariably been accompanied by new developments in military technology"
He predicted Russia's technical backwardness would prevent it from adopting these innovations
This proved true as Russia struggled to match German technical developments in areas like artillery, aircraft, and chemical warfare

His analysis of the Triple Entente's military limitations was also extremely prescient, to the point where it's almost like he had already read a history book on WW1 before it happened:

England's Limited Role:

He predicted England would be "hardly capable of taking broad participation in a continental war"
This turned out to be accurate during the first years when Britain's small professional army could make only limited contribution
He understood that naval power alone wouldn't be decisive in a continental war

France's Demographic Problem:

He predicted France would be forced into defensive tactics due to its limited population
He understood that France, "poor in human material," couldn't sustain major offensive operations
This prediction was validated by France's reliance on defensive strategies and fortifications

Burden on Russia:

He correctly predicted that "the main burden of war will undoubtedly fall on us"
He understood that Russia would be forced to serve as "the battering ram, breaking through the very thickness of German defense"
This proved tragically accurate as Russia suffered the highest casualties among Allied powers

He also showed tremendous insight into how non-European powers would approach the war, included forces which most observers weren't focused on much at the time:

Japan's Approach:

Correctly predicted Japan would primarily seek to seize German colonies
Understood Japan would not commit to major continental operations
Predicted Japan would extract economic concessions for neutrality

America's Evolution:

Predicted America would initially remain neutral
Understood that American entry would eventually be crucial
Recognized that America was "essentially" hostile to Germany while Japan was only circumstantially so

Despite his being so bullish on Germany's success early in the war (and so bearish on Russia militarily), he ultimately believed that Germany would still end up losing the war because it would drag on and the combined industrial output of England and the US would prove to be overwhelming to German forces. To back up this view, he offered a very sophisticated analysis of industrial capacity and economic warfare:

The Naval Blockade:

He understood that England's true power lay not in its army but in its ability to strangle German maritime trade
He predicted that while Germany could try to counter this through submarine warfare, it wouldn't be enough to prevent economic strangulation
He foresaw that Germany's loss of world markets would prove devastating to its war effort

Industrial Competition:

He grasped that the combined industrial might of Britain and America would eventually overwhelm Germany
He understood that Germany's initial technological and industrial advantages would erode over time as the Allies ramped up production
He predicted that Germany's inability to access global markets and resources would prove decisive in a long war

The Time Factor:

Unlike most observers who expected a short war, Durnovo understood the conflict would drag on
He predicted that Germany's initial advantages would be offset by the growing industrial capacity of its opponents
He foresaw that Germany's position would become increasingly untenable as the war lengthened

Economic Consequences:

He predicted that defeat would mean the destruction of German competition in world markets
He understood that England's primary war aim was to eliminate Germany as an industrial and commercial rival
He foresaw that peace terms would be dictated from the perspective of England's economic interests

What makes these predictions particularly insightful is that in 1914:

Most military observers expected a short war of decisive battles
Few understood how industrial capacity would determine the outcome
Almost no one anticipated how economic warfare through blockade would shape the conflict
The idea that America's industrial might would prove decisive was not widely considered

Durnovo thus demonstrated an extraordinarily modern understanding of how economic and industrial factors would ultimately prove more important than initial military advantages. He grasped that modern warfare had become a contest not just of armies but of entire industrial economies— a concept that most military and political leaders wouldn't fully understand until much later in the war. This analysis also shows why Durnovo was so adamant that Russia should avoid war with Germany: he understood that Russia would suffer the highest casualties while fighting for a victory that would primarily benefit Britain economically. The tragic irony is that he correctly predicted both Germany's initial military dominance (which would devastate Russia) and its ultimate defeat (which Russia wouldn't survive to see).

A couple more predictions he got right which would turn out to have huge consequences after the war:

He predicted that even if victorious, Russia would be forced to take massive war loans from allies and neutral nations, leading to economic bondage to creditors that would be worse than any previous dependence on German capital. This came true— Russia's war debts to Britain and France were enormous and became a major point of contention.
He predicted that Germany's defeat would mean England would exploit the situation to destroy German maritime trade and industry, attempting to reduce it to an agricultural country— which aligned closely with the harsh economic terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

If all of that weren't already so ridiculous to get right, he went way beyond all that to realize that, regardless of who won, the war would lead to "social revolution" in both the defeated AND victorious countries, starting with the losing side and then spreading to the winners. This was perhaps his most extraordinary prediction, as it came true in spectacular fashion:

Russia, despite being on the winning side, experienced the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917; we will go into much more detail about these predictions below.
Germany, after losing the war, experienced the German Revolution of 1918-1919; Durnovo predicted that unrest and revolution would be specifically tied to economic factors and class interests rather than purely political ones: he outlined how German workers would turn against the agricultural interests that had dominated pre-war German policy once defeat cut off their export markets and industrial employment, and this exact dynamic played out in the German Revolution of 1918-1919.

Now, you might object here that "Well, it's not that crazy to believe there might be a revolution in a country which suffered massive losses in a catastrophic war; lots of people might have predicted that." But the thing is, Durnovo went so far beyond merely predicting that there would be a Russian Revolution. He basically predicted every contour of the Revolution, the driving forces behind it, how it impacted different segments of Russian society, and how it would all unfold, step by step!

He specifically predicted that any revolution in Russia would be socialist rather than purely political in nature, because "the Russian commoner, peasant and worker alike does not seek political rights, which are both unnecessary and incomprehensible to him." Instead, he predicted the peasants would demand land redistribution and workers would demand capital and profits— exactly the slogans that the Bolsheviks would later use to gain popular support. What makes these predictions even more impressive is that they went against virtually every informed opinion of his time. In 1914, the idea that the Russian Empire— a vast, centuries-old monarchy backed by a massive army, a powerful church, and a deeply traditional peasant society— could completely collapse into socialist revolution seemed absurd to almost everyone.

Even dedicated revolutionaries like Plekhanov (often called the "Father of Russian Marxism") believed Russia would need to go through a lengthy period of capitalist development before socialist revolution was possible. Most Marxist theorists, both in Russia and abroad, viewed Russia as far too backward and agrarian for socialist revolution. They believed Russia would first need to experience a bourgeois democratic revolution that would develop capitalism, create a large industrial working class, and only then, perhaps decades later, would conditions be ripe for socialist revolution.

Yet Durnovo identified with astounding precision and detail why this conventional wisdom was wrong. His analysis centered on several key insights:

The Fundamental Nature of Russian Popular Consciousness: Durnovo argued that "the Russian masses undoubtedly profess the principles of unconscious socialism." He understood that the Russian peasant tradition of communal land ownership (the mir system) and deep skepticism of private property created a psychological predisposition toward socialist ideas. While Western Marxists saw Russia's peasant tradition as an obstacle to socialism, Durnovo recognized it could actually facilitate revolutionary change.
The Impossibility of Liberal Democracy in Russia: He made the extraordinary claim that "political revolution in Russia is impossible, and any revolutionary movement will inevitably degenerate into socialist revolution." His reasoning was profound: "Our opposition has no one behind it, it has no support among the people, who see no difference between a government official and an intellectual."

This insight went against what virtually every Western observer and most Russian liberals believed. The common assumption was that Russia would follow a path similar to the French Revolution— first overthrowing absolutism in favor of constitutional democracy. But Durnovo understood that Russian peasants and workers had no interest in Western-style political liberties:

"The Russian commoner, peasant and worker alike does not seek political rights, which are both unnecessary and incomprehensible to him. The peasant dreams of receiving someone else's land for free, the worker of obtaining all the capitalist's profits and capital, and their aspirations do not go beyond this."

This proved to be exactly correct— when revolution came, the liberal Provisional Government that tried to establish constitutional democracy found itself with virtually no popular support, while the Bolsheviks' simple slogans of "Peace, Land, and Bread" resonated deeply.

The Catalyst of War: He also precisely identified how war would serve as the catalyst for revolution. He outlined the exact sequence:

Military setbacks would inevitably occur
These would be blamed on the government
The government would make fatal concessions to liberal opposition forces
This would weaken state authority at exactly the moment when socialist agitation was increasing
The army, "having lost its most reliable cadre composition," would be unable to maintain order

This is exactly how events unfolded in 1917. The Tsar's authority was fatally undermined by military failures, leading to his abdication in favor of the Provisional Government, which then found itself unable to maintain order as socialist forces (particularly the Bolsheviks) gained strength.

Understanding the Army's Role: Durnovo made another crucial observation that almost everyone else missed: that the army, far from being a reliable bulwark against revolution, could actually facilitate it. He noted that the army would be "captured largely spontaneously by the general peasant aspiration for land." This proved prophetic— the peasant soldiers of the Russian army indeed proved highly receptive to revolutionary ideas, particularly the promise of land redistribution.

One of his most specific predictions was that the regular officer corps, the primary supporters of the Tsarist regime, would be decimated in the fighting. This would leave an army led by wartime officers recruited from the intelligentsia, which again turned out to be exactly right.

Virtually no one else in the entire world, with the possible exception of Lenin, saw this possibility so clearly. Even Lenin, writing in January 1917, famously said "We of the older generation may not live to see the decisive battles of this coming revolution." But of course, Lenin's predictions are far less impressive here, because they came after the war had already gone disastrously wrong and conditions were ripe for mass upheaval— not back in 1914, when everything seemed calm!

So how was Durnovo able to accomplish this incredible feat of prediction? Obviously, he was a genius of the first order, which is perhaps not so surprising given that he was a close relative of the famous Tolstoy family. But raw IQ is certainly not enough, nor is being well informed and knowledgeable. What kind of man could see so clearly what virtually everyone else missed? He was a complex character whose very contradictions likely enabled his extraordinary insights; he was, at the same time:

A conservative police chief who often expressed liberal thoughts in private
A supposed reactionary who opposed anti-Semitic measures and defended Jews
A cynical operator who nevertheless would help others when he could
A man capable of both strict officialdom and surprising gentleness
A high official who preferred informal interactions (his subordinates would warn visitors not to address him as "Your Excellency")

These contradictions suggest someone who wasn't bound by conventional ideological frameworks or social expectations— a crucial trait for seeing beyond accepted wisdom. He also had a wide range of professional experience that prepared him to see things in a multi-faceted, sophisticated way, as by 1915, he had done the following:

Naval officer (9 years of far-sea cruises)
Military legal training
Assistant Prosecutor in various parts of Russia
Director of Police Department for 10 years
Assistant Minister of Interior under multiple ministers
Minister of Interior
Member of State Council

This combination of experiences was extraordinary and atypical to say the least:

His naval and legal background gave him insight into the military, maritime trade, and the Russian legal system.
His prosecutorial work exposed him to conditions across Russia, not just in the big cities.
His police work gave him unparalleled insight into social discontent and the strategies and thinking of professional revolutionaries like Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky.
His ministerial positions showed him the workings (and limitations) of state power.

He also occupied a unique position as both an insider and an outsider:

He was from old nobility but not wealthy or particularly influential
He reached high office but was temporarily dismissed in disgrace (a sordid story in which Durnovo had his secret police officers search the private letters of a foreign ambassador— inside an embassy building no less— so they could steal love letters sent by Durnovo's mistress to the ambassador; when the ambassador complained to Tsar Alexander III, he was furious, ordering his minister to "remove this swine within twenty-four hours.")
He was a conservative who often disagreed with other conservatives
He understood both state power and its limitations

This dual perspective may have freed him from the groupthink that afflicted both conservative and liberal circles. He could see the weaknesses of both the regime and its opposition. Also, the fact that he had already experienced a massive scandal and lost everything perhaps made him "braver" to speak uncomfortable truths to people in power. He was also towards the end of a fairly long life by the standards of the day— he died the year after he wrote his memorandum at the age of 70.

So again, he probably thought he had little to lose, and was genuinely worried about the future of the state he loved and served his entire life. The tragedy is that Durnovo's very complexity— the trait that enabled his insight— may have limited his influence. He was too conservative for liberals, too pragmatic for conservatives, too cynical for idealists, and too realistic for romantics. The very qualities that allowed him to see clearly may have made it harder for others to take his warnings seriously.

The tragedy is that Durnovo's warning went unheeded. Had Russian leadership understood, as he did, that war with Germany risked unleashing forces that would destroy the entire social order, they might have acted differently in 1914. Instead, his memo must qualify as the greatest example in history of someone accurately predicting not just that a revolution would occur, but precisely how and why it would unfold in ways that defied conventional political theory.

This level of insight into fundamental social and political dynamics, combined with the ability to see how they would play out against the stress of war, puts Durnovo's analysis in a class by itself. While others made various predictions about war and revolution, no one else seems to have grasped with such clarity exactly how Russia's unique social conditions would interact with military conflict to produce an unprecedented type of revolution that would reshape the 20th century. And he didn't just make claims in a vacuum; his arguments are the result of clear, logical deduction. He wasn't just making random guesses— each prediction followed from a careful analysis of the underlying social, economic, and political dynamics at play.

Unfortunately, Durnovo's memo wasn't just an academic exercise— it was an urgent warning to Tsar Nicholas II about the existential risks Russia faced by entering a war against Germany. He explicitly warned that Russia was unprepared for a major war, lacking sufficient military supplies and industrial capacity. He predicted that military setbacks would lead to blame being placed on the government, and that if the government made concessions to the opposition, it would fatally weaken itself just as socialist elements were emerging. This is precisely what happened— the Tsar's authority was fatally undermined by military failures, leading to his abdication in March 1917, followed by the Bolshevik seizure of power in November of the same year.

What makes his memorandum so extraordinary is not just the number of accurate predictions, but their specificity and the detailed reasoning provided for each one. Unlike Bismarck's famous but rather general prediction about war coming from "some damned foolish thing in the Balkans," Durnovo laid out specific chains of causation that would lead to specific outcomes. And unlike Marx's predictions about the inevitable victory of socialism, which were rather open-ended about timing and specific mechanisms, Durnovo identified precise triggers and pathways by which social revolution would emerge from the specific circumstances of a European war.

When we look back at the framework for evaluating predictions laid out at the beginning of this article, Durnovo's memorandum scores ridiculously highly on every single criterion:

Precision - His predictions were highly specific and included detailed causal mechanisms rather than vague generalities.

Importance - He was predicting some of the most consequential events of the 20th century— WWI, the Russian Revolution, and the collapse of the European monarchical order.

Public Information - His analysis was based entirely on publicly available information about economic, social and political conditions, not on any special insider knowledge (although he arguably knew more than most about revolutionary forces brewing within Russia from his position as head of the police force)

Non-obvious - His predictions ran completely counter to the prevailing wisdom of the time, which saw war as a way to strengthen rather than destroy the existing order.

Right Reasons - Events unfolded almost exactly according to the causal mechanisms he described, particularly regarding how military setbacks would lead to revolution.

Thus, I believe I'm wholly justified in crowning his memorandum as "The Most Impressive Prediction of All Time." It's hard to even imagine all the ways the modern world would look different today if the Tsar had taken all of it seriously and believed it. He probably could have sat down with his first cousin, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and figured out some kind of deal that would work for everyone (including the King of England, who was also closely related to both Nicholas and Wilhelm!). Instead, he and his entire family were executed by firing squad in the snowy forests of Russia and his entire society went up in flames, and tens of millions of lives were lost— even excluding those who died in WWII, a direct consequence of WWI.

What I find the most bewildering about this subject is that almost no one in the US or Europe, except if they are a historian or an avid reader of history books (I first encountered Durnovo in Stephen Kotkin's 2014 biography of Stalin), seems to have even heard about Durnovo! If you search his name on YouTube, there are basically no videos about him or his memorandum. I was so surprised when I first learned about the actual details of the memo, and just how much he got right, that I could hardly believe it. Hopefully, his story can now be known to many other people, and his incredible legacy as a legend among predictors can gain the appreciation it deserves.

I hope you enjoyed reading this article! If you work with long, complex documents like Durnovo's memo, then you might find my new Website, fixmydocuments.com, to be very useful. You can quickly upload any document, such as the original Durnovo memo, in any format (PDF, Word, plaintext, etc.) and get back nicely formatted markdown that can be easily edited and shared right there in the browser.

But that's not all— starting with your original source document, you can easily generate a large variety of additional document types with no intervention (although you can also edit these documents too in the page if desired). Some of these generated document types are truly vast transformations from the original source document. For example, look at these documents I generated from the original Durnovo memo:

The Most Impressive Prediction of All Time

Tags:

Jeffrey Emanuel

Related Posts

What I Learned from Making the Python Backend for YouTube Transcript Optimizer

Introducing Our New Next.js Blogging System with Tailwind CSS

Next.js GitHub Markdown Blog: A Modern Approach to Technical Blogging