What if the Austro-Hungarians put the Eastern Front first?

[DanF]

I am not sure if you are interested, but this might help with determining number of extra divisions. Feel free to ignore.

Using the book: World War I Databook. Here is a list of Divisions formed by Austria-Hungary OTL. Considering A-H lost 950,000+ men in 1914 OTL the number of Divisions (15,000 per) formed by A-H can obviously be a lot higher in any timeline they take less losses in.

List of all Austria-Hungary Divisions formed & disbanded Oct/1914 to end 1915 - OTL
Unit Date Location
49 renamed Pustertal 5/15 Italy – Carnic Alps
50 10/14 Serbia than Italy 5/15
Kornhaber renamed 51 Honved 11/14 Russia
52 10/14 Russia disbanded 1/15
53 8/15 Serbia
54 10/14 Pflanzer-Baltin Group
55 10/14 Russia than Hoffman Corps in 1/15
56 10/14 Pflanzer group reduced to brig. 12/14
Goiginger renamed 57 10/14 10/14 Serbia than Italy 5/15
58 3/15 Italy
59 3/15 Bosnia than Italy 7/15
60 11/14 Serbia disbanded 12/14
61 5/15 Serbia than Italy 7/15
62 7/15 Russian than Serbia 9/15
70 Honved renamed Gendarmerie 6/15 Rumania
90 5/15 Italy – Tirol
91 5/15 Rohr Group disbanded 11/15
92 5/15 Rohr Group than Carnic Alps 10/15
93 5/15 Italy
94 5/15 Italy – Carnic Alps

If the number of Divisions are increased compared to OTL then getting enough artillery would most likely be an issue. However, there are a varity of ways to address that. OTL according to the book Economic of World War 1 A-H did not put in any order for Artillery in 1914, so that could be changed. They could also buy artillery from Germany who at the beginning of the war would probably love it if A-H had a bigger army. Since each A-H divison against Russia means less German soldiers are needed against Russia. Lastly, a more successful A-H army would also gain more seized Russian and Serbia guns (I think they had the french 75s), and they would not lose as many A-H artillery as they did OTL due to mass surrenders in Serbia and Galicia.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I am not sure if you are interested, but this might help with determining number of extra divisions. Feel free to ignore.

Using the book: World War I Databook. Here is a list of Divisions formed by Austria-Hungary OTL. Considering A-H lost 950,000+ men in 1914 OTL the number of Divisions (15,000 per) formed by A-H can obviously be a lot higher in any timeline they take less losses in.

List of all Austria-Hungary Divisions formed & disbanded Oct/1914 to end 1915 - OTL
Unit Date Location
49 renamed Pustertal 5/15 Italy – Carnic Alps
50 10/14 Serbia than Italy 5/15
Kornhaber renamed 51 Honved 11/14 Russia
52 10/14 Russia disbanded 1/15
53 8/15 Serbia
54 10/14 Pflanzer-Baltin Group
55 10/14 Russia than Hoffman Corps in 1/15
56 10/14 Pflanzer group reduced to brig. 12/14
Goiginger renamed 57 10/14 10/14 Serbia than Italy 5/15
58 3/15 Italy
59 3/15 Bosnia than Italy 7/15
60 11/14 Serbia disbanded 12/14
61 5/15 Serbia than Italy 7/15
62 7/15 Russian than Serbia 9/15
70 Honved renamed Gendarmerie 6/15 Rumania
90 5/15 Italy – Tirol
91 5/15 Rohr Group disbanded 11/15
92 5/15 Rohr Group than Carnic Alps 10/15
93 5/15 Italy
94 5/15 Italy – Carnic Alps

If the number of Divisions are increased compared to OTL then getting enough artillery would most likely be an issue. However, there are a varity of ways to address that. OTL according to the book Economic of World War 1 A-H did not put in any order for Artillery in 1914, so that could be changed. They could also buy artillery from Germany who at the beginning of the war would probably love it if A-H had a bigger army. Since each A-H divison against Russia means less German soldiers are needed against Russia. Lastly, a more successful A-H army would also gain more seized Russian and Serbia guns (I think they had the french 75s), and they would not lose as many A-H artillery as they did OTL due to mass surrenders in Serbia and Galicia.

Thank you for all the information you've provided. I'd be curious to see how many of those divisions were formed from scratch as opposed to created from Landsturm brigades combined together or combined with new brigades. AH had far fewer training personnel and trained reserves than Germany, so had difficulty creating new formations. Also, IIRC building new artillery wasn't the bottleneck for AH, as they formed large numbers of new batteries in 1914 alone (~200 with modern pieces), but the lack of shells (due to lack of explosive materials) and rushed training of replacements and new formations meant that they were generally combat ineffective. You are right though about captured artillery, especially as the Russian guns were superior to her unmodernized pre-war stocks of heavy guns. The Serbs had about 100 French 75's, but they defended them to the death and in both scenarios I'm exploring, there won't be much of an opportunity to capture any. OTL the Serbs even dragged the guns over the mountains into Albania as their men were dying of cold and starvation for the symbolism that they still had their arms. Interestingly enough, they also dragged along their AH prisoners (the poor bastards), who calling 'miserable', as one author has, is a vast understatement.

Buying from Germany was a major issue that AH had in 1914-1915; she expected to be able to do so, as had been the method pre-war, but Germany had a limit of production too and needed everything for her own army. It wasn't until December 1914 that AH got any explosive materials from her ally, at which point her shell production quadrupled. AH really depended on her ally for just about anything above and beyond their meager domestic production, which was abysmal until late 1915, but Germany could not give it because of her own shortages. Here it would still be a major problem, so, though I see existing formations getting all the replacements they need in contrast to OTL, they won't be able to expand much because of their limited trained manpower base, lack of artillery shells, and general dependency on Germany for much of her...everything.

 

[DanF]

Thank you for all the information you've provided. I'd be curious to see how many of those divisions were formed from scratch as opposed to created from Landsturm brigades combined together or combined with new brigades. AH had far fewer training personnel and trained reserves than Germany, so had difficulty creating new formations. Also, IIRC building new artillery wasn't the bottleneck for AH, as they formed large numbers of new batteries in 1914 alone (~200 with modern pieces), but the lack of shells (due to lack of explosive materials) and rushed training of replacements and new formations meant that they were generally combat ineffective. You are right though about captured artillery, especially as the Russian guns were superior to her unmodernized pre-war stocks of heavy guns. The Serbs had about 100 French 75's, but they defended them to the death and in both scenarios I'm exploring, there won't be much of an opportunity to capture any. OTL the Serbs even dragged the guns over the mountains into Albania as their men were dying of cold and starvation for the symbolism that they still had their arms. Interestingly enough, they also dragged along their AH prisoners (the poor bastards), who calling 'miserable', as one author has, is a vast understatement.

Buying from Germany was a major issue that AH had in 1914-1915; she expected to be able to do so, as had been the method pre-war, but Germany had a limit of production too and needed everything for her own army. It wasn't until December 1914 that AH got any explosive materials from her ally, at which point her shell production quadrupled. AH really depended on her ally for just about anything above and beyond their meager domestic production, which was abysmal until late 1915, but Germany could not give it because of her own shortages. Here it would still be a major problem, so, though I see existing formations getting all the replacements they need in contrast to OTL, they won't be able to expand much because of their limited trained manpower base, lack of artillery shells, and general dependency on Germany for much of her...everything.

How much more manpower would need to go to replace losses? I ask because the 61 starting Divisions are only 915,000 men and OTL 3.35 Million men were mobilized in 1914. If you consider over 1 Million men died or were captured OTL. Even if they form all 20 Divsions above that is only 300,000 additional men. Actually, now I am curious where all the all the manpower went OTL? I know losses were high, but A-H also was mobilizing throughout the war (almost 2 Million more by the end of 1915 alone). I wonder how many non-Division troops the A-H had? The only benefit A-H might get with fewer losses is less troops are called up after 1914, which would at least significantly help economically. If A-H were to mobilize only 6.5 million instead of 8 million from 1914-1918 then their male workforce (male workforce is alot more important in A-H at this time) would end the war larger then it was 1915 OTL. This is significant, because 1915 was the best year for the A-H economically with Hungary's GDP actually growing, and Austria only shrinking due to losing Galicia.

That stinks on the A-H's shell problems. It is funny I made the same assumption that A-H made, in that Germany would be able to provide their ally with the necessary armaments.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

So, are we going to see a situation where A-H has actual training units in the rear for the increased manpower who then deploy fully trained up Divisions as they are ready for the field? I ask because the 61 starting Divisions are only 915,000 men and OTL 3.35 Million men were mobilized in 1914. If you consider over 1 Million men died or were captured OTL. Even if they form all 20 Divsions above that is only 300,000 additional men. Actually, now I am curious where all the all the manpower went OTL? I know losses were high, but A-H also was mobilizing throughout the war (almost 2 Million more by the end of 1915 alone). I wonder how many non-Division troops the A-H had?

That stinks on the A-H's shell problems. It is funny I made the same assumption that A-H made, in that Germany would be able to provide their ally with the necessary armaments.

A fair bit. Assuming you mean just the formed infantry and cavalry divisions, there were of course a number of independent brigades (30+), corps and army troops, supply troops-etappen zone, fortress and security troops, pioneers/sappers/engineers, and of course the marsch units and the later mobilized territorials. But in 9-10 months there were 2.25 million casualties minimum, which gutted the trained officers, ncos, and combat troops. By April 1915 there were only ~15% of the prewar infantry left and the Landsturm were considered the best troops in the army.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

TTL's Losses as of January 1st 1915

AH (all fronts):
Total- 791,000

died-286,000
wounded-432,000
captured-63,000


Russian (all fronts):
Total-1,670,000

died-681,000
wounded-592,000
captured-397,000
Significant number of wounded captured, poor medical services and sanitation resulted in high deaths from illness/infection

Serbia:
total-183,000

died (including civilians from typhus)-115,000
wounded-59,000
captured-9,000

Germany (east front):
total-310,000

died-68,000
wounded-217,000
captured-25,000

Eastern Front January 1st

 

[DanF]

A fair bit. Assuming you mean just the formed infantry and cavalry divisions, there were of course a number of independent brigades (30+), corps and army troops, supply troops-etappen zone, fortress and security troops, pioneers/sappers/engineers, and of course the marsch units and the later mobilized territorials. But in 9-10 months there were 2.25 million casualties minimum, which gutted the trained officers, ncos, and combat troops. By April 1915 there were only ~15% of the prewar infantry left and the Landsturm were considered the best troops in the army.

Thanks, I knew the losses were bad (though I really misunderstood how bad), but your 9-10 Month losses of 2.25 Million explains everything to me. They lost almost half of what the just over 5 million mobilized from 1914 to the end of 1915 in less than a year. In some ways is amazing they still were able to keep both a workable morale in the military, and field an effective fighting force with so many losses. That independent brigade count strikes me as high, was there a huge advantage in the A-H military to having so many brigades?

In your TTL looks like A-H is roughly 200K better than OTL. How does the German number stack up compared to OTL?

 

[von Adler]

Germany also had major problems with ammunition production until they could synthesize nitrates as they were cut off from the South American sources. Russia's situation was even worse. IIRC, the Russian guns were restricted to two shells per day unless a major offensive was planned or an enemy breakthrough was imminent and of the ~6 million men in uniform, only ~4 million had rifles.

This TL leaves the Habsburgs far, far better off and collaterally, the Germans as well. I am wondering how the increased casualties for the Russians and the increased need for troops facing the Austrians (as they are stronger) makes a difference against the Ottomans. IIRC, the Ottoman weakness in the Caucasus allowed the Russians to cripple the Anatolian coal production and coastal shipment infrastructure, which hurt the Ottoman war effort seriously. Are they capable to do so under these circumstances?

Edit: As for artillery, the Austrians have all the artillery they OTL lost in Galizia, especially Przemysl. Most of it is obselete, but can be passed down to second line formations while the regular troops receive new artillery. The Austrians did well during the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive, so they were able to rebuild their losses pretty well OTL (it was not until Brusilov that their army was completely broken), ITTL they should have more time (since the Russians are weaker, there's no need to push to save Przemysl, which gutted the army again OTL) and more NCOs and officers still alive to rebuild their army. They have also been victorious, which should improve morale and corps de esprit quite a bit.

 

[DanF]

Germany also had major problems with ammunition production until they could synthesize nitrates as they were cut off from the South American sources. Russia's situation was even worse. IIRC, the Russian guns were restricted to two shells per day unless a major offensive was planned or an enemy breakthrough was imminent and of the ~6 million men in uniform, only ~4 million had rifles.

This TL leaves the Habsburgs far, far better off and collaterally, the Germans as well. I am wondering how the increased casualties for the Russians and the increased need for troops facing the Austrians (as they are stronger) makes a difference against the Ottomans. IIRC, the Ottoman weakness in the Caucasus allowed the Russians to cripple the Anatolian coal production and coastal shipment infrastructure, which hurt the Ottoman war effort seriously. Are they capable to do so under these circumstances?

I thought the German firm BASF began Haber nitrate production in 1913?

The timeline has not addressed the Black Sea, so it should be a Russian lake effectively speaking (a few Ottoman ships with the Russians raiding the commerce). The Black Sea fleet capitol ships were 5 Pre-Dreadnoughts, and in mid-1915 they would gain two Dreadnoughts. The Goeben is a Battlecruiser and the Breslau is only a light cruiser. Those ships together could cause a problem for 1 maybe 2 Russian Pre-Dreadnoughts, but more than that would most likely mean the sinking of the German-Turkish ships. It is for that reason that the Russians tended to sail all five as one fleet knowing that the German ships could not touch them.

However, the wildcard this TTL did bring up is when Wiking said Romania expands trade. Now you could have Ottoman Ships flying under Romanian flags, or even actual Romanian ships sailing between Constanta and Constantinople. This would put Russia and the French and British subs that sneak into the Black Sea in a bind. They could sink the Romanian flagged ships, but that might push Romania to declare war on Russia. Her army might not be the best, but right now the last thing the Russians need is 500,000 more men to fight against.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

That independent brigade count strikes me as high, was there a huge advantage in the A-H military to having so many brigades?

Flexibility?

In your TTL looks like A-H is roughly 200K better than OTL. How does the German number stack up compared to OTL?

AH numbers are actually 459,000 better than OTL. They lost 1.25 million by January 1st OTL.
Germany (after some mods) is 219,000 better off, because of a number of changes.

I thought the German firm BASF began Haber nitrate production in 1913?

It did but there were no production facilities until 1915 IIRC.

However, the wildcard this TTL did bring up is when Wiking said Romania expands trade. Now you could have Ottoman Ships flying under Romanian flags, or even actual Romanian ships sailing between Constanta and Constantinople. This would put Russia and the French and British subs that sneak into the Black Sea in a bind. They could sink the Romanian flagged ships, but that might push Romania to declare war on Russia. Her army might not be the best, but right now the last thing the Russians need is 500,000 more men to fight against.

I forgot that even OTL during the war the Hungarians blocked Romanian trade to a degree, so I might need to change this.

Germany also had major problems with ammunition production until they could synthesize nitrates as they were cut off from the South American sources. Russia's situation was even worse. IIRC, the Russian guns were restricted to two shells per day unless a major offensive was planned or an enemy breakthrough was imminent and of the ~6 million men in uniform, only ~4 million had rifles.

True, but Entente trade did ease this during late 1914. Plus there were large stocks in forts not counted in the field army totals, but since a number of forts have fallen, these have been lost.

This TL leaves the Habsburgs far, far better off and collaterally, the Germans as well. I am wondering how the increased casualties for the Russians and the increased need for troops facing the Austrians (as they are stronger) makes a difference against the Ottomans. IIRC, the Ottoman weakness in the Caucasus allowed the Russians to cripple the Anatolian coal production and coastal shipment infrastructure, which hurt the Ottoman war effort seriously. Are they capable to do so under these circumstances?

Indeed. I had not really considered the Ottoman benefits, so I will need to look into that more; do you have any links on that subject?

Edit: As for artillery, the Austrians have all the artillery they OTL lost in Galizia, especially Przemysl. Most of it is obselete, but can be passed down to second line formations while the regular troops receive new artillery. The Austrians did well during the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive, so they were able to rebuild their losses pretty well OTL (it was not until Brusilov that their army was completely broken), ITTL they should have more time (since the Russians are weaker, there's no need to push to save Przemysl, which gutted the army again OTL) and more NCOs and officers still alive to rebuild their army. They have also been victorious, which should improve morale and corps de esprit quite a bit.

Very true, and the gunners will all still be around. The quality of replacements both due to the lack of training personnel and low morale (men went into combat expecting to lose) degraded their effectiveness after 1914; distrust of their leader's competence also hurt. Here both will be less of a problem. Artillery and munitions will be at acceptable after the first half of 1915. For now the preservation of Galician grain and horses plus the safeguarding of rolling stock should mean they are light years ahead of OTL.

 

[DanF]

It did but there were no production facilities until 1915 IIRC.

AH numbers are actually 459,000 better than OTL. They lost 1.25 million by January 1st OTL.
Germany (after some mods) is 219,000 better off, because of a number of changes.


I forgot that even OTL during the war the Hungarians blocked Romanian trade to a degree, so I might need to change this.

However, the wildcard this TTL did bring up is when Wiking said Romania expands trade. Now you could have Ottoman Ships flying under Romanian flags, or even actual Romanian ships sailing between Constanta and Constantinople. This would put Russia and the French and British subs that sneak into the Black Sea in a bind. They could sink the Romanian flagged ships, but that might push Romania to declare war on Russia. Her army might not be the best, but right now the last thing the Russians need is 500,000 more men to fight against.

Haber Process began Industrial production 1913 in the Oppau plant. The process was created in 1909 (I think BASF bought it in 1910), but it took until 1913 for the first plant to come online. So, Germany has at least one plant, but this process is not that quick so it probably was not until 1915 like you mentioned above that Germany's needs were meet. http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/about-basf/history/1902-1924/index

400K for Austria that could be big in ensuring all units are full strength as mentioned earlier, and potentially provide some extra forces for the future Serbia invasion. With A-H doing better in this thread will Bulgaria be more likely to want to work with them, or will they still demand the Germans run the invasion?

How useful would an extra 200K be to the Germans? I know they are many times regarded as quasi-supermen. However, the German high command favored the Western Front, so if they do have extra man power I am assuming much of it would be transferred there. Considering we are in the later 1914 early/1915 time period would throwing an extra 200K make a difference, or would they just run up the causalities in some fruitless battle for inches? I ask since my knowledge of Germany during the war is very limited.

In regards to the Romania trade, "I Failed" on this one. I got this and the counterpoint Thread mixed up. In the counterpoint thread that is a legit statement, but here in this thread you had not said Romania increased trade with the Central Powers. I hang my head in shame, and will go add the comment to the other thread.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

400K for Austria that could be big in ensuring all units are full strength as mentioned earlier, and potentially provide some extra forces for the future Serbia invasion. With A-H doing better in this thread will Bulgaria be more likely to want to work with them, or will they still demand the Germans run the invasion?

Though the Bulgarian king had personal problems with both the Germans and AHs, here without the losses of OTL, I don't see a problem with AH command. especially Eugene. The Germans will have a role though.

How useful would an extra 200K be to the Germans? I know they are many times regarded as quasi-supermen. However, the German high command favored the Western Front, so if they do have extra man power I am assuming much of it would be transferred there. Considering we are in the later 1914 early/1915 time period would throwing an extra 200K make a difference, or would they just run up the causalities in some fruitless battle for inches? I ask since my knowledge of Germany during the war is very limited.

They will be necessary in the East, so no transfers, but here, with the East secure, Falkenhayn will head West. That means limited reinforcements at best. Whether that battle will be fruitless is a matter of debate.

Here is a hint of the next topic:

 

[von Adler]

Another interesting question is Gallipoli ITTL. I think the Entente will see the need to open up the straits and possibly remove one of Russia's enemies (the Ottomans) even higher ITTL, however, the Ottomans have probably not lost ~250 000 men and most of their pre-war officers in the Caucasus campaign and will thus be better off to face the Entente. They had their best troops, best commanders and were very close to their best infrastructure and supply sources OTL - if/when Bulgaria joins, they might actually take the Ottomans up on their OTL offered divisions (the Ottomans had huge problems transporting and supplying troops in Caucasus and Palestine, so they offered to lend the Bulgarians some divisions against Serbia and the Salonika Army OTL).

I look forward to hearing more on this TL.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Another interesting question is Gallipoli ITTL. I think the Entente will see the need to open up the straits and possibly remove one of Russia's enemies (the Ottomans) even higher ITTL, however, the Ottomans have probably not lost ~250 000 men and most of their pre-war officers in the Caucasus campaign and will thus be better off to face the Entente. They had their best troops, best commanders and were very close to their best infrastructure and supply sources OTL - if/when Bulgaria joins, they might actually take the Ottomans up on their OTL offered divisions (the Ottomans had huge problems transporting and supplying troops in Caucasus and Palestine, so they offered to lend the Bulgarians some divisions against Serbia and the Salonika Army OTL).

I look forward to hearing more on this TL.

Something similar happened to the Ottomans, so that won't help, but those men were not their best or really even anything but new replacements for units destroyed in the Balkan wars. The real veterans were saved for European Turkey. Wait and see what happens at Galipoli, but it might be a few posts before that comes up. For tomorrow we will see what happens in the East and might even get a sneak peak with plans for Serbia and the West.

 

[DanF]

Well this update was filled with a lot of foreshadowing. A new Gallipoli and a German offensive 8 months ahead of OTL. Looks good!

Will the Ottoman's 57th Regiment make the same heroic stand, or will they at least do something as equally Noble?

I would like to again lobby for Charles Stephen as King of Poland. For no other reason then I would love to see how the Poles in France and the Poles in Russia react to the Central Powers creating a Kingdom of Poland. Though, I doubt this would happen I would love to see stories of Polish troops in mass crossing the trench line in the Western Front to the German side. Saying we are Poles and we are here to fight with you and for the Kingdom of Poland. Not to mention how quickly would the U.S. recognize Poland, especially considering both Senators from Illinois would lobby hard for it (Chicago has the largest Polish population outside of Warsaw).

Wiking, not to add any burden on you, but if you have any extra time would you consider giving updates on the other major fronts Western and Ottoman campaigns? I ask because of your earlier comments with the East secure the Germans would turn West. I am curious to see how the additional manpower helps them there. As I said earlier my knowledge of Germany during the war is limited, and my opinions of the Western front are alas biased to the common misconception of it being a war for inches. This is part of the reason I enjoyed your Moltke v2 timeline as it gives me a better understanding of the Western front beyond the popular myth.

Thanks for the update.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

So far the Caucasus and West are pretty much convergent, so no real changes for now there. Galipoli will still occur as OTL, at least until a certain point. As to the Polish issue, that is touchy and that was probably the reason that no real resolution was reached on the issue OTL until 1916. I don't know enough about the issues and history of the debate to really get into that, but perhaps we can work something out ITTL, as the Poles are likely to be much more AH friendly with their victories and the clearing of most of Poland of Russian forces early on, not to mention the relative minor destruction to Polish cities and towns. Of course the Russians will engage in a bit of scorched earth, so the Poles aren't going to be very happy about that. However, they won't be happy to be a vassal of Germany or AH...

As you all can see based on my map from yesterday Falkenhayn decided to approve Hindenburgs' 2nd Masurian lakes with the 10th army. Already stronger than OTL (thanks to less casualties to the prewar army) with less frontage, the 10th army added significant strength to the German positions in the East. With the Russians already bashed up from the previous offensive several weeks earlier, the addition of more German forces, plus their siege artillery train, causes them to flinch and pull back quicker than they could have resisted. This is probably a good thing, because it preserves their strength more than otherwise, especially as they avoid encirclements. However morale is falling, as the men 'bug out' and flee from the heavy German guns and crushing assaults. As they rally though, they fight well and stiffly, especially as the German artillery lags behind in the winter weather. Especially around the Augustow woods Russian resistance fiercely checks German advances. However Northwest Front command pulls the men back because of their perception of German abilities, rather than the facts on the ground. The Nieman river becomes the barrier to hold on. The German are frustrated, having failed to really crush the Russians as anticipated. Prisoner counts are low, as are captured materials, but the body count is still respectable. German losses are considerably lower, but still not light.

For the moment the front line has been shortened and now rests on a good natural frontier, allowing the Germans to lengthen the line. As part of an agreement with the AHs (Falkenhayn's initiative- ITTL his relationship with Conrad is better as is AH-German relations) the Germans will take over more of the line for the period it takes to crush Serbia and transfer AH forces back East. Then the AHs will take over more and free up German units for the West Front offensive Falkenhayn has planned. ITTL AH (read Conrad) is more aware the danger of the Russian steppe being an endless frontier to occupy and bog down in, thanks to having to deal with the longer supply lines early on, so he is more amenable to Falkenhayn's West Front initiative. He also understands the need to crush Serbia and needs it himself to placate the politicians and restless home front, which demands Serbia, the cause of the war, be dealt with.

Additionally the Entente invasion of the Galipoli peninsula, the pressure is on to open up supply lines to them. Furthermore Bulgaria, which has witnessed Russia's repeated defeats and Serbia's refusal to negotiate regarding Macedonia now is willing to fight for the Central Powers. Italy is starting to get restless and the victory over Serbia should be a good way to calm them down, as both Germany and AH agree. Turkey offers troops to the AH-Bulgarian invasion of Serbia too, which is all coordinated by Archduke Eugene, though it takes some negotiating over the winter to get the Bulgarians to agree. The plan is for simultaneous assaults all over Serbia's borders, which offers the possibility to trap their armies in a pocket in the center of the nation, something Putnik, the Serb commander fears, but with Belgrade in the north, he cannot, for political reasons, properly guard the Bulgarian frontier.

 

[DanF]

Thanks for at least considering the Polish question... Here is a quick rundown of the major players and dates:

Josef Pilsudski was commander of the Austrian Polish Legion and effectively worshiped by his men. He was the driving force in the creation of Poland OTL. His original plan was to have the Central Powers beat Russia, and then have the rest of the Entente beat the Central Powers. For him everything went according to plan. He was the Chief of State of Poland upon its Indenpendence. NOTE: Thought he was originally fighting for Austria he withdrew his support in 1917.

Archduke Charles Stephen was a Polish speaking Habsburg, who had two daughters married to the important Polish families of Radziill & Czartoryski. He also had a Ukrainian speaking son (Archduke Wilhelm) that at one time was pushed as a potential King of Ukriane. Also, his two son-in laws were Russian officers fighting for Russia during the war. As a Habsburg he could not take a crown unless the head of the family agreed something Kaiser Charles I did not agree to. Charles harbored his own ideas on Poland.

Act of November 5, 1916 was a joint document stating that Kaiser William II and Kaiser Franz Josef supported the creation of a Kingdom of Poland. It also essentially, made this Poland a puppet of the Central Powers.

Polish Wehrmache founded 10 April 1917 it was essentially a quasi-Polish army under German command. The whole thing fell apart in July during the Oath Crisis, when the Polish army was supposed to swear an Oath of Loyalty to Kaiser Wihelm II and not Poland or a Polish King.

Polish National Committee fromed in Paris in August 1917 to advocate for the Polish cause. They would gain recognition of Poland from the Entente and even form the Blue Army in June 1917. Interesting enought the commander of the Blue Army Jozef Haller was actually the former commander of the 2nd Brigade in the Austrian Polish Legions. After the Peace of Brest-Litovsk Polish forces (Polish Legion & Former Polish-Russian troops) were fighting in the Ukriane trying to expand the borders of the future state of Poland. This did not go over well with the Central Powers, so Jozef and many of his troops switched sides.

I hope this useful &/or helpful, and thanks for the consideration and update.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Thanks for at least considering the Polish question... Here is a quick rundown of the major players and dates:

Josef Pilsudski was commander of the Austrian Polish Legion and effectively worshiped by his men. He was the driving force in the creation of Poland OTL. His original plan was to have the Central Powers beat Russia, and then have the rest of the Entente beat the Central Powers. For him everything went according to plan. He was the Chief of State of Poland upon its Indenpendence. NOTE: Thought he was originally fighting for Austria he withdrew his support in 1917.

I was mostly aware of all this, but Pilsudski was actually just one of several leaders within the Polish legion; he just was more ambitious and successful, so history has taken more notice of him. The Russians also promised a united (ie with German and AH Polish lands) independent state within the Russian empire, so the Polish legion was actually shunned in Congress Poland OTL, which embittered and focused the men all the more. What I am lacking is intimate knowledge of the German-AH debate about creating Poland and what held them back for so long, as well as what their worries were/intentions toward such a state. We have a broad outline thanks to wikipedia, but there is much left to really write convincingly and deeply about the issue. I had the same problem with Franz Ferdinand for some time when trying figure out his intentions toward Empire upon his ascension to the throne. I'd like to know more about Charles Stephen too, though it seems the Poles were gearing up to marginalize him like the Finns did with their German monarch OTL.

At this point it seems that there was a number of problems foreseen by the creation of Poland, as once the cat was out of the bag Galicia would be seen as Polish by the inhabitants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Poland_(1916–1918)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Legions_in_World_War_I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Charles_Stephen_of_Austria

 

[DanF]

I was mostly aware of all this, but Pilsudski was actually just one of several leaders within the Polish legion; he just was more ambitious and successful, so history has taken more notice of him. The Russians also promised a united (ie with German and AH Polish lands) independent state within the Russian empire, so the Polish legion was actually shunned in Congress Poland OTL, which embittered and focused the men all the more. What I am lacking is intimate knowledge of the German-AH debate about creating Poland and what held them back for so long, as well as what their worries were/intentions toward such a state. We have a broad outline thanks to wikipedia, but there is much left to really write convincingly and deeply about the issue. I had the same problem with Franz Ferdinand for some time when trying figure out his intentions toward Empire upon his ascension to the throne. I'd like to know more about Charles Stephen too, though it seems the Poles were gearing up to marginalize him like the Finns did with their German monarch OTL.

At this point it seems that there was a number of problems foreseen by the creation of Poland, as once the cat was out of the bag Galicia would be seen as Polish by the inhabitants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Poland_%281916%E2%80%931918%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Legions_in_World_War_I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Charles_Stephen_of_Austria

Sorry, I did not provide any new knowledge. In regards to Galicia there were two schools of thought. One camp was in not giving up any land, as that is what the war was effectively about. This camp is effectively the Franz Joseph loyalist camp. However, there was a collection of Austrian Germans that hoped with a formation of a separate Polish state (ruled by a Habsburg) that they would take Galicia. This would effectively make Germans the dominate group in the Austrian half of the dual-monarchy, effectively mirroring the Hungarians are in the other half. This is from the book Last Years of Austria-Hungary.

In regards to why it took so long I remember reading that Wilhelm II felt maybe a German prince should rule instead of a Habsburg since Germany did all the work. The discussions about the army were drawn out, and the above mentioned how powerful would the monarch be (constitutional vs autocratic). Also, I believe Kaiser Charles I wanted to be crowned King of Poland and suck up a bunch of Polish land to use as a power base to offset the Hungarians. Sort of like a northern Trialism, but I doubt the believability of the last piece. Alas I do not have any good references for this paragraph as it is only from memory.

Again, I am sorry I could not be more helpful.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Sorry, I did not provide any new knowledge.

Again, I am sorry I could not be more helpful.

No need to be sorry, you've been plenty helpful.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Conquest of Serbia

Starting March 21st the forces had been arrayed against Serbia and the offensive was launched all over the front. After massive artillery preparation with the heaviest weapons in the AH arsenal, barges filled with infantry hit the target beaches across the Danube and overwhelmed Serbian forces, weakened by disease and suppressed by artillery and gun boats fire. Belgrade was subjected to special attention, which wrecked its defenses. AH forces swept over the Serbs guarding the north of their nation.

Further south a similar situation played out as the combined Bulgarian and Turkish armies shattered the weak detachments arrayed against them. Driving hard and fast into the rear of the Serb forces, their resistance crumbled, closing the escape routes of the forces to the north. Their flight south found them encountering Bulgarian divisions prepared for a fight, which pocketed a major part of these forces. Though dedicated elements managed to slip out of the trap, most of the Serb armies were surrounded and captured. The survivors were marched north instead of entrained. The many of the wounded fell out, dying on the side of roads, while the rest found themselves destined for concentration camps with the political classes of their nation. Bringing with them typhus and other diseases, the prison camps became death camps for many. Heaps of corpses would have to be burned to prevent the further spread of the disease, but the attrition rates of these prisoners remained high. In the face of such horrors the nationalistic Serb resistance died with these men.

The limited numbers of soldiers that reached the Albanian border still had much struggle ahead. Now in the month of May, these men didn't have to deal with the winter any longer, but the marauding tribesmen of the local population were not friendly to these small groups and hunted them during their flight. Perhaps 15,000 made it to the coast alive where they had to wait for evacuation by the British. They would eventually form a symbolic division after being supplemented by Serb emigrants for places like the US, serving in at Salonika. The Entente managed to land forces at Salonika, provoking a crisis in Greek leadership, which, after a coup involving the French, resulted in the Prime Minister deposing the king and allowing British and French troops to land. This small detachment was later joined by forces evacuated from Gallipoli, as the attempt to force the straights were wound down in the face of Bulgarian reinforcements and German munitions pouring in through the recently opened rail line to Istanbul.

The Russians also launched an offensive to help the Serbs by attacking near Kowel, finally succeeding in capturing the city and holding it in the face of AH counter attacks. Earlier attempts to take it in January and February had failed bloodily, but Ivanov's forces had learned from their mistakes and managed to take advantage of AH weakness to pull off a much needed victory. In March attacks were launched in Bessarbia to retake Chotin, but these failed in the face of superior leadership at all levels among the Pflanzer-Baltin group.

After the collapse of Serbia, Conrad decided rather than making peace with Montenegro as Falkenhayn had 'suggested' he would assert his nation's interests by conquering it. This further delayed the release of troops to the Eastern Front, pushing Falkenhayn's planned Western offensive back into June. This turned out to be fortuitous, as the French launched their another offensive in May in Artois.

With the release of forces from the Serbian front several changes were made in the East, including upgrading Pflanzer-Baltin's group to the 7th army and reinforcing it with mountain troops, reforming the 5th army under Tersztyanszky north of the AH 1st to free up German troops for the West, and upgrading army group Rohr along the Italian frontier to the 6th army. Archduke Eugene stayed in Serbia as the General Governor with Landsturm units to enforce AH rule. In Poland the Polish legion was withdrawn from the front to form an expanded Polish Defense Force for service at the front, but in the meantime all Pilsudski's military organizations united to begin forming a military organization near Warsaw and recruit from Congress Poland. This of course was done under the auspices of the Germans and AH, as neither trusted the man to work independently.