WI - Best Russian Empire in WW1?

[twistedirregular]

What was the best the Russian Empire could do in World War 1? If Russia had adopted a more defensive position against the Central Powers and limited itself to small-scale offensives with occasional large-scale offensives, how would this change its performance?

Bonus Question/Challenge: Could the White Russian forces have won the Russian Civil War? How?

 

[LordTerra]

Not an expert on the Eastern front but if Russia is a lot more cautious with it's strategies then it's good for them in the short term and bad in the long term. Russia's offensive's tied up a lot of German troops in east Prussia and Poland, Austro-Hungarian troops in Galicia and the Carpathian mountains to prevent Russia from entering the Hungarian plains and once the Ottomans entered the Causacus front.

Without those large offensive's required large amounts of troops to defend against those divisions are heading to the western front in a stronger push against France, into the Balkans putting more pressure against Serbia and Montenegro and depending on if any Balkan nations enter then Ottoman troops will be going into the Balkans or towards Egypt which means either the Balkans is a lost cause for the Allies or the UK will be committing troops that could go elsewhere to Egypts defence because even a potential threat to the Suez Canal is going to be treated like a knife at the jugular.

Better for Russia cause it avoids lots of death and less social unrest, but not good because it's Allies will be picked off one by one leaving Russia standing alone with two options. Either to make a unfavourable peace that while not very costly it's likely to cause a lot of social unrest and cripple, if not destroy Russia's image as Champion of the Slavs and leave them with strong enemies on the border and pissed off Allies abroad who will see it as Russia starting the war to defend Serbia and then leaving them out to dry.

Or fight alone against Germany, Austro-Hungary, the Ottomans and the other minor nations that join the Centrals for profit which will likely cause them just as much, if not more bloodshed then OTL which will end in a even more humiliating defeat, though the Reds may be less likely to rise in this case because the Conservative regimes of the Central Powers which are still strong in this world aren't going to want a Communist and Blood thirsty Russia near them and whatever satellites they carve out.

EDIT: While the UK is likely to make a negotiated peace once France and Serbia are gone, possibly on the ideals Status Quo because the UK can't invade the CP and the CP can't invade the UK. The UK keeps the colonies while Germany is left to do what the want on the continent, which will be a bitter pill the UK will have to swallow. Maybe Perfidious Russia/Moscow becomes the saying in TTL.

 

[twistedirregular]

Not an expert on the Eastern front but if Russia is a lot more cautious with it's strategies then it's good for them in the short term and bad in the long term. Russia's offensive's tied up a lot of German troops in east Prussia and Poland, Austro-Hungarian troops in Galicia and the Carpathian mountains to prevent Russia from entering the Hungarian plains and once the Ottomans entered the Causacus front.

Without those large offensive's required large amounts of troops to defend against those divisions are heading to the western front in a stronger push against France, into the Balkans putting more pressure against Serbia and Montenegro and depending on if any Balkan nations enter then Ottoman troops will be going into the Balkans or towards Egypt which means either the Balkans is a lost cause for the Allies or the UK will be committing troops that could go elsewhere to Egypts defence because even a potential threat to the Suez Canal is going to be treated like a knife at the jugular.

Better for Russia cause it avoids lots of death and less social unrest, but not good because it's Allies will be picked off one by one leaving Russia standing alone with two options. Either to make a unfavourable peace that while not very costly it's likely to cause a lot of social unrest and cripple, if not destroy Russia's image as Champion of the Slavs and leave them with strong enemies on the border and pissed off Allies abroad who will see it as Russia starting the war to defend Serbia and then leaving them out to dry.

Or fight alone against Germany, Austro-Hungary, the Ottomans and the other minor nations that join the Centrals for profit which will likely cause them just as much, if not more bloodshed then OTL which will end in a even more humiliating defeat, though the Reds may be less likely to rise in this case because the Conservative regimes of the Central Powers which are still strong in this world aren't going to want a Communist and Blood thirsty Russia near them and whatever satellites they carve out.

EDIT: While the UK is likely to make a negotiated peace once France and Serbia are gone, possibly on the ideals Status Quo because the UK can't invade the CP and the CP can't invade the UK. The UK keeps the colonies while Germany is left to do what the want on the continent, which will be a bitter pill the UK will have to swallow. Maybe Perfidious Russia/Moscow becomes the saying in TTL.

So what could be done to make sure Russia survives in both the short and long term? For the defense-oriented Russia scenario I proposed earlier, I was thinking that could be done initially from 1914-15 as the Russians focused on further building their industry and training new troops while becoming more and more offensive in 1916. Could a temporary peace be established so that the Russian leadership (preferably Tsarist) deals with their domestic issues and rebuilding the military before coming back roaring in 1917-18 as the Americans join WW1?

 

[twistedirregular]

EDIT: While the UK is likely to make a negotiated peace once France and Serbia are gone, possibly on the ideals Status Quo because the UK can't invade the CP and the CP can't invade the UK. The UK keeps the colonies while Germany is left to do what the want on the continent, which will be a bitter pill the UK will have to swallow. Maybe Perfidious Russia/Moscow becomes the saying in TTL.

As for the UK, could it provide more support for the Russians - perhaps alongside the Americans who send financial and material support - so as to create a deadlock between the CP and Russia?

 

[BooNZ]

What was the best the Russian Empire could do in World War 1? If Russia had adopted a more defensive position against the Central Powers and limited itself to small-scale offensives with occasional large-scale offensives, how would this change its performance?

Through 1914 the Russian 1st and 2nd armies could have defended competently against the German 8th Army, while the A-H military could have been hit harder and slightly earlier. The limitations of logistics and organization mean A-H will not be knocked out, but Germany will need to commit additional forces to the east to prop up its only significant ally - similar to OTL. I think 1915 might be less one way traffic if the two best equipped Russian armies (being the 1st and 2nd) are substantially intact - Russia loses less badly.

 

[twistedirregular]

Through 1914 the Russian 1st and 2nd armies could have defended competently against the German 8th Army, while the A-H military could have been hit harder and slightly earlier. The limitations of logistics and organization mean A-H will not be knocked out, but Germany will need to commit additional forces to the east to prop up its only significant ally - similar to OTL. I think 1915 might be less one way traffic if the two best equipped Russian armies (being the 1st and 2nd) are substantially intact - Russia loses less badly.

So have the Russians focus on knocking Austro-Hungarian forces out of the war and primarily defending against the Germans? If AH is knocked out, then German resources are going to be spread thin in occupying Austria and attempting to put down revolts by pro-Russian minorities (Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, etc.).

 

[BooNZ]

So have the Russians focus on knocking Austro-Hungarian forces out of the war and primarily defending against the Germans? If AH is knocked out, then German resources are going to be spread thin in occupying Austria and attempting to put down revolts by pro-Russian minorities (Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, etc.).

A-H demonstrated itself to be resilient during WW1, so I doubt the early destruction of A-H was a realistic option. However, A-H could have been far more dangerous if it had not been maimed in the opening months of the war by the bear. The winter of 1914/15 turned into a costly battle of attrition between A-H and Russian forces, so any savings in that area will also strengthen A-H to a similar extent (I assume).

OTL the most obvious Russian blunder was the attempt to invade East Prussia. Otherwise the main problem with Russian performance was the qualitative issues, which cannot be easily resolved. OTL from 1915 the Russians did adopt a two tiered approach to the CP powers (i.e. tended to defend against the Germans and to be more assertive against A-H).

 

[twistedirregular]

A-H demonstrated itself to be resilient during WW1, so I doubt the early destruction of A-H was a realistic option. However, A-H could have been far more dangerous if it had not been maimed in the opening months of the war by the bear. The winter of 1914/15 turned into a costly battle of attrition between A-H and Russian forces, so any savings in that area will also strengthen A-H to a similar extent (I assume).

OTL the most obvious Russian blunder was the attempt to invade East Prussia. Otherwise the main problem with Russian performance was the qualitative issues, which cannot be easily resolved. OTL from 1915 the Russians did adopt a two tiered approach to the CP powers (i.e. tended to defend against the Germans and to be more assertive against A-H).

What if the Russians had chosen not to invade East Prussia but dug in around Poland for the inevitable onslaught?

 

[BooNZ]

What if the Russians had chosen not to invade East Prussia but dug in around Poland for the inevitable onslaught?

Good question. Like I said in the earlier post, Russia would likely enter 1915 with the Russian 1st and 2nd armies substantially intact.

However, this choice would be entirely contrary to the [in vogue] cult-of-the-offensive and Russian treaty commitments to the French, which the Russians continued to treat seriously even after suffering horrific casualties years into the war.

 

[twistedirregular]

Good question. Like I said in the earlier post, Russia would likely enter 1915 with the Russian 1st and 2nd armies substantially intact.

However, this choice would be entirely contrary to the [in vogue] cult-of-the-offensive and Russian treaty commitments to the French, which the Russians continued to treat seriously even after suffering horrific casualties years into the war.

If the 1st and 2nd armies remain intact, how does this affect the war?

Could something be done to change this cult-of-the-offensive attitude? Perhaps a more devastating loss in the Russo-Japanese War changes something in the Russian High Command's mind. As for commitments to France, could the Russians convince the French that they're in no position to attack the CP too much and that defense on the Eastern Front is much more important?

 

[Jiraiyathegallant]

IIRC, Russia made many preventable mistakes with their economy. Banning Alcohol, price controls that contributed to shortages, a bad bond system, seizing productive German owned farms, and mistakes operating their rail system during the war. Perhaps I’m misremembering?

If they sort out some of those issues, they might come up with slightly more supplies for their military and civilian economy, perhaps enabling them to inflict higher losses on their enemies and lasting longer themselves.

 

[twistedirregular]

IIRC, Russia made many preventable mistakes with their economy. Banning Alcohol, price controls that contributed to shortages, a bad bond system, seizing productive German owned farms, and mistakes operating their rail system during the war. Perhaps I’m misremembering?

If they sort out some of those issues, they might come up with slightly more supplies for their military and civilian economy, perhaps enabling them to inflict higher losses on their enemies and lasting longer themselves.

If the 1905 Revolution manages to allow for more political concessions to be ceded to the peasantry and intelligentsia, the Russian government may become more domestic-minded and could receive more support once it becomes involved in World War 1.

 

[BooNZ]

What was the best the Russian Empire could do in World War 1?

Let Serbia swing - a wider war is averted - Okhrana can effectively deal with any domestic fall out in Russia.

 

[twistedirregular]

Let Serbia swing - a wider war is averted - Okhrana can effectively deal with any domestic fall out in Russia.

So Russia remains neutral in any conflict between Serbia and AH? Does this give it time to more effectively and hurriedly modernize its armed forces?

 

[Jiraiyathegallant]

What if Russia functionally ignores their navy beyond rebuilding it to a basic level following 1905?

Most of their foes that truly threaten their country and regime can only be fought on land. Could they put some of that money into their rails, Army, or anything that would be more useful in WWI?

 

[twistedirregular]

What if Russia functionally ignores their navy beyond rebuilding it to a basic level following 1905?

Most of their foes that truly threaten their country and regime can only be fought on land. Could they put some of that money into their rails, Army, or anything that would be more useful in WWI?

Perhaps if the Russian Army secures victories against the Imperial Japanese Army in 1905-06 but this may lead to a split in the Russian Armed Forces similarly to the Japanese.

More development of logistical and communications infrastructure as well as arms industries would definitely help the Imperial Russian Army in World War 1.

 

[BooNZ]

So Russia remains neutral in any conflict between Serbia and AH? Does this give it time to more effectively and hurriedly modernize its armed forces?

OTL Russia was spending more on its military in proportional and absolute terms than any other major power since circa 1908. It's armed services were already reasonably modern, it's weakness was its underlying industry, corruption and the qualities of its manpower. By 1917 it would have introduced universal education, so those structural issues would have been worked through by say 1941...

 

[twistedirregular]

OTL Russia was spending more on its military in proportional and absolute terms than any other major power since circa 1908. It's armed services were already reasonably modern, it's weakness was its underlying industry, corruption and the qualities of its manpower. By 1917 it would have introduced universal education, so those structural issues would have been worked through by say 1941...

So more extensive development of Russian industry - and maybe moving it further into Russia proper - would happen?

 

[BooNZ]

So more extensive development of Russian industry - and maybe moving it further into Russia proper - would happen?

To be able to fight a truly effective war Imperial Russia only needed one thing - time, about 3 decades. The ongoing correction of Russia's structural weaknesses started long before WW1 and there was no quick fix.

 

[BooNZ]

What if Russia functionally ignores their navy beyond rebuilding it to a basic level following 1905?

Most of their foes that truly threaten their country and regime can only be fought on land. Could they put some of that money into their rails, Army, or anything that would be more useful in WWI?

Agreed, I believe the Russian naval expenditure ordinarily equated to about 25% of its total military budget, through the necessity of maintaining multiple fleets in different theatre. I vaguely recall the naval budget was projected to reach closer to 30%, which seams ridiculous given Russian defense requirements.