|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Dec 9, 2018 23:12:10 GMT
What if the Central Powers opted to attack Russia first during WWI instead of France? The Schlieffen Plan called for a first strike against France, but failed to take into account of the rapid Russian mobilization. So would knocking Russia out first be helpful to the Central Powers? Unlike WWII, the German Empire might actually sponsor separatist movements in the Baltic, Belorussia and Ukraine.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836 
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Dec 9, 2018 23:31:41 GMT
What if the Central Powers opted to attack Russia first during WWI instead of France? The Schlieffen Plan called for a first strike against France, but failed to take into account of the rapid Russian mobilization. So would knocking Russia out first be helpful to the Central Powers? Unlike WWII, the German Empire might actually sponsor separatist movements in the Baltic, Belorussia and Ukraine.
It might depend on the exact butterfly but probably better for Germany than a French 1st plan. If no invasion of Belgium there's at least a chance of Britain staying out and if it still enters the war on the EP side its likely to be with less enthusiasm and probably more discontent in Ireland. Also such a plan would take some of the pressure off Austria, which was rather left hanging by the French 1st move, coupled with the incompetence of Conrad, its senior general. Furthermore if the French still have their plan XVII in place they will take huge losses as OTL and possibly persist with such attacks to try and relieve the pressure on the Russians.
On the down side the Germans aren't going to occupy Belgium and NE France which gave it rich lands to loot and denied the French their primary industrial region. Also they face the danger of overstretch if the Russians fall back into their interior, even more than in 41-43 as they have no mobile units - other than cavalry - for either quick advancing or supplying troops. Plus if the Russians are on the defensive and the Germans advancing into the interior I think Russian moral will hold up longer.
I doubt that German propaganda would be that effective in the Orthodox areas of the country, such as Belorussia or the Ukraine. However in the Baltics and Poland there would be possibilities. Especially if the Austrians led in the latter location as the Poles mistrusted the Germans nearly as much as the Russians.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Dec 10, 2018 1:14:31 GMT
I get the feeling that if Germany went for Russia in 1914-15, they might also face guerrilla attacks from Russian cavalry and irregular units as well. Because the Germans will attack in August, their timing would also be awful because of the incoming winter season.
On the other hand, a neutral UK and maybe a neutral US would have also made it easier for the Central Powers to manage their conflict with Russia and France. Moreover, no UK entry into WWI would mean a different outcome in the Balkan Front, as Serbia would probably be steamrollered without a Bulgarian entry. In addition, I might even be tempted to say that the Ottomans would gleefully join the war if Russia is being struck first.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Dec 10, 2018 9:15:33 GMT
I get the feeling that if Germany went for Russia in 1914-15, they might also face guerrilla attacks from Russian cavalry and irregular units as well. Because the Germans will attack in August, their timing would also be awful because of the incoming winter season. On the other hand, a neutral UK and maybe a neutral US would have also made it easier for the Central Powers to manage their conflict with Russia and France. Moreover, no UK entry into WWI would mean a different outcome in the Balkan Front, as Serbia would probably be steamrollered without a Bulgarian entry. In addition, I might even be tempted to say that the Ottomans would gleefully join the war if Russia is being struck first.
Not sure what effect British neutrality would have on the Serbian conflict other than that the Galliopi campaign may have delayed Bulgarian entry into the CPs. The Ottomans by some reports were signing treaties of alliance with Germany before the assassination of FF and with Russia at war were always likely to pile in against them, although British neutrality might have speeded this up a bit. Even so its generally reported as a rogue action by the Goeben, now flying the Ottoman flag, that pulled them into the war.
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Dec 10, 2018 10:10:08 GMT
The British wouldn't have remained neutral. OTL, they used Belgium as a fig leaf to join the war, but failing that, there would have been something else.
The Germans however would have had a very different war. They would see immense forces drawn to fight the French on their border (and retain screening forces on the Belgian one of course, in case the French try something funny. It would see the front against the Russians being quite a bit stronger however (although, not by that much. The French army still was huge and powerful). These extra forces would have made the early fighting easier, and could see the Austrians doing better as well. Of course, there would also be some issues. With the Germans focusing on Russia, they might not have victories such as Tannenberg (but then again, there was the cult of the offensive).
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Dec 10, 2018 16:03:07 GMT
The British wouldn't have remained neutral. OTL, they used Belgium as a fig leaf to join the war, but failing that, there would have been something else. The Germans however would have had a very different war. They would see immense forces drawn to fight the French on their border (and retain screening forces on the Belgian one of course, in case the French try something funny. It would see the front against the Russians being quite a bit stronger however (although, not by that much. The French army still was huge and powerful). These extra forces would have made the early fighting easier, and could see the Austrians doing better as well. Of course, there would also be some issues. With the Germans focusing on Russia, they might not have victories such as Tannenberg (but then again, there was the cult of the offensive).
I'm not sure about Britain not staying neutral in this scenario. Even OTL with the invasion of Belgium providing both a legitimate casus belli, moblising public opinion and mollifying the Irish Catholics you still had a long and heated debate and two cabinet ministers resigning their posts. As I think Grey reminded the French while the war started Britain has some unofficial agreements with the French, chiefly by military groups there was no actual alliance commitment.
I'm not saying that Britain won't join the EP but that its not certain and if they do its likely to cause a fair bit of divisions and possibly further inflame the situation in Ireland.
Although one factor that might bring them in by the back door could be if Japan decides to go to war with Germany, to take over their interests in the Pacific and China. If Austria in turn declared war on Japan there might be an commitment under our alliance with Japan. Also if Japan was grabbing those German possessions Australia and New Zealand, who were already concerned about Japanese power would be worried about them getting too close. OTL there was a bit of a race and an agreement that the empire got the ones south of the equator, including their claim to part of New Guinea and the important phosphate producer of Nauru. They could put pressure on Britain to join the war to prevent the Japanese getting too close or just possibly Australia might do a dow on Germany itself, which would set up an interesting political conundrum for the empire.
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Dec 10, 2018 16:16:16 GMT
The British wouldn't have remained neutral. OTL, they used Belgium as a fig leaf to join the war, but failing that, there would have been something else. The Germans however would have had a very different war. They would see immense forces drawn to fight the French on their border (and retain screening forces on the Belgian one of course, in case the French try something funny. It would see the front against the Russians being quite a bit stronger however (although, not by that much. The French army still was huge and powerful). These extra forces would have made the early fighting easier, and could see the Austrians doing better as well. Of course, there would also be some issues. With the Germans focusing on Russia, they might not have victories such as Tannenberg (but then again, there was the cult of the offensive).
I'm not sure about Britain not staying neutral in this scenario. Even OTL with the invasion of Belgium providing both a legitimate casus belli, moblising public opinion and mollifying the Irish Catholics you still had a long and heated debate and two cabinet ministers resigning their posts. As I think Grey reminded the French while the war started Britain has some unofficial agreements with the French, chiefly by military groups there was no actual alliance commitment.
I'm not saying that Britain won't join the EP but that its not certain and if they do its likely to cause a fair bit of divisions and possibly further inflame the situation in Ireland.
Although one factor that might bring them in by the back door could be if Japan decides to go to war with Germany, to take over their interests in the Pacific and China. If Austria in turn declared war on Japan there might be an commitment under our alliance with Japan. Also if Japan was grabbing those German possessions Australia and New Zealand, who were already concerned about Japanese power would be worried about them getting too close. OTL there was a bit of a race and an agreement that the empire got the ones south of the equator, including their claim to part of New Guinea and the important phosphate producer of Nauru. They could put pressure on Britain to join the war to prevent the Japanese getting too close or just possibly Australia might do a dow on Germany itself, which would set up an interesting political conundrum for the empire.
It's not an absolute certainty, but a casus belli can always be found, and there are some pretty major interests at stake. There wasn't an actual alliance commitment, but the French had been given the impression that there was one. The problem with Grey was that he tended to work independently of the rest of the government and he had made some promises. The Japanese backdoor might be an option yes, but if I'm not mistaken, the Anglo-Japanese alliance cares about being declared war upon. The Brits really didn't want to get drawn into a stupid war in the far east. But then again, it could give a good argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Anchises on Dec 13, 2018 14:48:08 GMT
The four biggest effects are:
1) Austria-Hungary is MUCH stronger than IOTL. By 1916/1917 they probably have solved the problems of the Common Army to a satisfactory degree. Starvation and economic devastation is a much smaller issue than IOTL.
2) France fights a very different war. Instead of defending their soil, they will repeatedly attack into strong German defenses. There is a realistic chance of a German counterattack shifting the frontlines into French soil.
The French economy is better off but French offensives IOTL were mostly disastrous. A well defensible and well manned German line might be too much in 1914/1915.
3) Russia is in for a disaster. Instead of a substandard German army, ITTL they probably face two or three well-trained and equipped armies. Their historical performance indicates a massive disaster in waiting.
4) Britain and the Ottoman Empire are wildcards and depend on the finer circumstances of a TL.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Dec 13, 2018 15:23:35 GMT
The four biggest effects are: 1) Austria-Hungary is MUCH stronger than IOTL. By 1916/1917 they probably have solved the problems of the Common Army to a satisfactory degree. Starvation and economic devastation is a much smaller issue than IOTL. 2) France fights a very different war. Instead of defending their soil, they will repeatedly attack into strong German defenses. There is a realistic chance of a German counterattack shifting the frontlines into French soil. The French economy is better off but French offensives IOTL were mostly disastrous. A well defensible and well manned German line might be too much in 1914/1915. 3) Russia is in for a disaster. Instead of a substandard German army, ITTL they probably face two or three well-trained and equipped armies. Their historical performance indicates a massive disaster in waiting. 4) Britain and the Ottoman Empire are wildcards and depend on the finer circumstances of a TL.
Some queries.
1) From what I've read the early heavy losses were crippling for Austria not just because of their size but also they hit the regular army and those loyal to the regime especially hard as they were the ones serving. As such even with somewhat less losses early on Austria will still have problems, especially while Conrad is in charge although they might be markedly better off if Italy doesn't join the EP and also if Serbia is knocked out faster, either because Austria is able to send more forces against them or probably more likely Bulgaria joins the CPs earlier.
2) Initial FRench tactics were very poor and some of their commanders were very slow learning. However some, especially Foch did learn and also there was a great desire to liberate the occupied territories that drove the 1915 and planned 1916 offensives. While there will still be an incentive to attack to take the pressure off Russia this may not be as damaging a driver as rather than freeing French soil and people its to tie down/kill German forces rather than occupy territory. As such the sort of tactics some French commanders developed could be reasonably effective in hurting the German army. Its still potentially very tough for France but not necessarily as critical as your assuming.
3) Similarly once they recognise that the prime German and Austrian forces are committed against them and they in turn don't need to take pressure off the French the drivers for the Russians are much different. Especially if its seen before the war which way Germany is going as instead of so much effort on railways the Russians might establish more fortifications, rather than let what they had become largely obsolete. Also whether or not they do that they can fall back towards Russia proper and its going to be difficult for the Germans to inflict a killing blow. About the only place where they might be able to force the Russians to stand and fight is the Baltic coast and approaches to Petrograd [as it became early in the conflict] if the regime decides it need to stand and fight for that. Even so there is some useful defensive terrain although the overwhelming naval superiority the Germans are likely to have will be a problem in non-winter months.
4) The Ottomans are almost certain to join the war anyway. They had some negotiations with Germany before fighting started and their greatest rival is Russia so, especially with British neutrality I can't see them staying neutral. Doubly so if the Goeben still goes to Constantinople rather than the Adriatic. The two powers that would be unclear would be Britain - does it stay neutral or join the EP and if so when and Italy which is still likely to stay neutral initially but given early German successes against Russia and the Ottoman moves could decide on the CPs rather than the EP. Although this would need really need to be a decision made while Britain is still neutral as otherwise Italy's trade, coastal traffic and long coastline as too vulnerable to a EP with naval superiority in the Med, which could well be the case.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by Anchises on Dec 13, 2018 16:11:15 GMT
The four biggest effects are: 1) Austria-Hungary is MUCH stronger than IOTL. By 1916/1917 they probably have solved the problems of the Common Army to a satisfactory degree. Starvation and economic devastation is a much smaller issue than IOTL. 2) France fights a very different war. Instead of defending their soil, they will repeatedly attack into strong German defenses. There is a realistic chance of a German counterattack shifting the frontlines into French soil. The French economy is better off but French offensives IOTL were mostly disastrous. A well defensible and well manned German line might be too much in 1914/1915. 3) Russia is in for a disaster. Instead of a substandard German army, ITTL they probably face two or three well-trained and equipped armies. Their historical performance indicates a massive disaster in waiting. 4) Britain and the Ottoman Empire are wildcards and depend on the finer circumstances of a TL.
Some queries.
1) From what I've read the early heavy losses were crippling for Austria not just because of their size but also they hit the regular army and those loyal to the regime especially hard as they were the ones serving. As such even with somewhat less losses early on Austria will still have problems, especially while Conrad is in charge although they might be markedly better off if Italy doesn't join the EP and also if Serbia is knocked out faster, either because Austria is able to send more forces against them or probably more likely Bulgaria joins the CPs earlier.
2) Initial FRench tactics were very poor and some of their commanders were very slow learning. However some, especially Foch did learn and also there was a great desire to liberate the occupied territories that drove the 1915 and planned 1916 offensives. While there will still be an incentive to attack to take the pressure off Russia this may not be as damaging a driver as rather than freeing French soil and people its to tie down/kill German forces rather than occupy territory. As such the sort of tactics some French commanders developed could be reasonably effective in hurting the German army. Its still potentially very tough for France but not necessarily as critical as your assuming.
3) Similarly once they recognise that the prime German and Austrian forces are committed against them and they in turn don't need to take pressure off the French the drivers for the Russians are much different. Especially if its seen before the war which way Germany is going as instead of so much effort on railways the Russians might establish more fortifications, rather than let what they had become largely obsolete. Also whether or not they do that they can fall back towards Russia proper and its going to be difficult for the Germans to inflict a killing blow. About the only place where they might be able to force the Russians to stand and fight is the Baltic coast and approaches to Petrograd [as it became early in the conflict] if the regime decides it need to stand and fight for that. Even so there is some useful defensive terrain although the overwhelming naval superiority the Germans are likely to have will be a problem in non-winter months.
4) The Ottomans are almost certain to join the war anyway. They had some negotiations with Germany before fighting started and their greatest rival is Russia so, especially with British neutrality I can't see them staying neutral. Doubly so if the Goeben still goes to Constantinople rather than the Adriatic. The two powers that would be unclear would be Britain - does it stay neutral or join the EP and if so when and Italy which is still likely to stay neutral initially but given early German successes against Russia and the Ottoman moves could decide on the CPs rather than the EP. Although this would need really need to be a decision made while Britain is still neutral as otherwise Italy's trade, coastal traffic and long coastline as too vulnerable to a EP with naval superiority in the Med, which could well be the case.
Steve
1) If Galicia isn't lost the economic situation in Austria is much better. Not losing the core of the Common Army gives A-H a stable foundation to build a modern army. IOTLs late war Austrian formations actually were very capable but completely demoralized and burnt out. If A-H doesn't get trashed in 14/15/16 they have all the needed ressources and manpower to pack a nasty punch. 2) The interesting question is: If France acts very agressive in 1914, against a well entrenched and better prepared German opponent, would we see a successful German counteroffensive into France? Sure, there wouldn't be the deep penetration of IOTL but there is serious potential for France to impale itself on the German defenses only to face a nasty counterattack. The German Army grew considerably so forces in the West are likely to recieve substantial reinforcements. By 1915 the Germans could be on the offensive. Also it ia interesting to consider where a hypothetical BEF would be deployed on this Western Front. 3) Russia is likely to use a plan similiar to OTL. Not invading Eastern Prussia seems to be not in line with general strategic thought. Also lets not forget that, on paper, the Tsarist Army still would have been able to ensure a favourable balance of forces against three German armies. A initial disastrous invasion of Eastern Prussia seems likely to me. Poland itself has tremendous economic, political and military value for Russia. Just evacuating it in 1914 would cause severe problems. Losing the Polish fortresses would trigger an earlier munition crisis and the loss of prestige would seriously undermine the Tsar. Most devastating would be the loss of the Polish industries though. Polish factories were instrumental for the Russian railway system. The irreplacable loss of spare parts production for trains was a main cause for the Russian transportation crisis. This transportation crisis was one of the main causes of the February Revolution. 4) Agreed. I completely forgot to mention Italy. |
|
perkeo
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 25
Likes: 6
|
Post by perkeo on Feb 19, 2019 3:40:47 GMT
The huge advantage of a Russia first is the diplomacy: Germany can lean back and wait for the DOW rather than having to accelerate escalation due to the critical timingbof the conflict. They can give Russia more time to declare first until the doctrine of the time forces them to launch their attack. France will certainly have to choose an entry that makes it difficult to play the innocent victim, even more so Britain.
As for Britain, yes I agree a pretext can be found, but it’s not just about entering the war. They also have to keep up morale- and after any victory find political support for punitive measures against Germany. The TOV is going to deteriorate even faster ITTL.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Feb 19, 2019 11:01:59 GMT
The huge advantage of a Russia first is the diplomacy: Germany can lean back and wait for the DOW rather than having to accelerate escalation due to the critical timingbof the conflict. They can give Russia more time to declare first until the doctrine of the time forces them to launch their attack. France will certainly have to choose an entry that makes it difficult to play the innocent victim, even more so Britain. As for Britain, yes I agree a pretext can be found, but it’s not just about entering the war. They also have to keep up morale- and after any victory find political support for punitive measures against Germany. The TOV is going to deteriorate even faster ITTL.
Fully agree that Britain is going to find it harder to both join the war and also maintain morale when it gets very, very bloody. If France isn't too stupid it might not have to however.
If Britain is involved for a couple of years or more then the key points on the treaty would be whether: a) Russia survives as either an imperial or democratic state rather than a basket-case pariah. If so the final terms might be less severe as with Russia still active there's less chance of Germany starting another war. [It will still be seen as the CPs starting the war because i) the initial attacks were against Serbia and ii) they lost].
b) Whether the US joins the war, especially if its under Wilson.
However after the bloodbath that WWI is still likely to be for all the major countries there's likely to be serious restrictions on Germany and possibly more so than OTL, depending on how it ends. The big difference is that barring some drastic swing in the balance of power, Germany is far less likely to be able to change the treaty by military means.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Feb 19, 2019 20:39:34 GMT
This is based on my assumption that Germany would attack Russia first by invading Russian Poland, just so we're clear on it. Kinda like a 1914 version of Operation: Barbarossa. However, the German Army of 1914 wouldn't make the same mistakes as the OTL Wehrmacht did in WWII.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Feb 19, 2019 22:20:24 GMT
This is based on my assumption that Germany would attack Russia first by invading Russian Poland, just so we're clear on it. Kinda like a 1914 version of Operation: Barbarossa. However, the German Army of 1914 wouldn't make the same mistakes as the OTL Wehrmacht did in WWII.
Its not going to be anything like as brutal to the assorted Slavic groups and is likely to pick up some support from the Baltic populations and ironically given OTL quite possibly the substantial Jewish population.
However the Russian and very likely also the other Orthodox groups are going to be a lot more supportive to the Russian empire than many were initially in 41 and in the event of a German invasion of Russia there will be a rallying around the nation, church and monarchy.
Also the German army is facing much greater problems than OTL in WWII. There are virtually no motorised units and very primitive a/c so fast breakthroughs are going to be limited to the speed that infantry can march. Cavalry can go somewhat faster but are very vulnerable to infantry if they outdistance their own. Possibly even more so their going to have problems keeping the vital artillery anywhere near a moving front and that's probably the greatest advantage the Germans have over Russia.
Railways will help somewhat but are thinner on the ground and need to be converted to standard gauge, even without any sabotage by retreating forces or raids by guerillas, Cossack's etc.
This will be even worse if the Russians know of this change in German strategy before the invasion, which is almost certain to happen. Then they would probably spend less on railways into the region and more on defenses and upgrading fortifications. They won't be charging to attack the bulk of the German army and quite possibly not greatly against the Austrians either. As said in earlier posts that will be good for the Austrians in the short term but even better for the Russians. They can pull back eastwards, both lengthening the logistical lines of the CPs forces and the entire front.
Its still possible that the Germans can win in the east, especially if Nickolas loses his nerve and/or is offered a very moderate peace. However its also quite likely that the battle will wage for at least as long as OTL and over a substantially greater area, stretching the Germans very thin and bleeding them very heavily. Also that it could end with some serious disasters for them. Not going to be a single campaign disaster as in 1812 but over 2-3 years Germany could lose as great a proportion of its manpower as Napoleon did. The one advantage the Germans might have, presuming that Britain stays neutral, is that a German collapse in the east is likely to lead to a negotiated peace as I doubt the Russians will have the resources, especially if largely cut off from allies and as the CPs retire to a shorter line, to march deep into the German heartland.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Feb 21, 2019 2:27:25 GMT
There's also the Baltic German minority there as well, though given the conflict, the Tsarist authorities there might do to the Baltic German minority the same way Stalin did with the North Caucasians and Crimean Tatars that were suspected of collaboration, as well as what happened to the German population outside Germany after 1945. The Jewish population within the Pale of Settlement would actually greet the Germans as liberators, and there were some Jews who fled from Russia to Germany after the 1905 Revolution.
Another thing too is that if the Ottoman Empire had also joined WWI on the side of the Central Powers in a Russia First scenario, they would quickly take some Georgian and Armenian territory, but might end up failing to capture the entire Caucasus region. IOTL, Enver Pasha led an Ottoman force that fought a disastrous losing battle in Sarikamish that resulted in a huge Russian victory, primarily because of his incompetence. Also, the Russians could supply arms to Armenian resistance groups if they chose to revolt against the Ottomans.
|
|
