WI: No Brusilov Offensive?

Bartholome de Fonte

Hello,

I recently was considering varying PODs for Russia in the First World War, and the one I am finding to be the most interesting would be if there was no Brusilov Offensive. The implications could be potentially immense, the tactics developed by Brusilov were copied by the Germans later and other (not) amazing things! Being more serious, while the Offensive did work, it killed half a million Russians, and the gains didn't last too long.

So lets say that either General Ivanov (somehow) keeps command of Southwestern Front or is replaced with someone about as proactive as him as Brusilov is deathly sick or something. What exactly would happen? Would the Domestic front be any better? (I personally doubt that it would, but still.) Any relevant input would be grand!

Cheers
 

Catspoke

Interesting. If the Russians don't do Brusilov (I am assuming they decide they are just to weak to support the allied war effort with any more offensives and try to just hold the line):

a) If the Russians continue to hold the line without attacking can Czarist Russia survive??? (I think so.)

b) Rommania is still neutral. Falkenhayn survives. Big POD because Falkenhyn does not screw up the economy like Ludendorf and is probably smart enough to avoid unrestricted sub war war with USA.

c) If the Germans figure out the Russians are not attacking I imagine they won't attack either. The eastern front sort of shuts down.

d) What should Germany and Italy do? Nothing they can do is apparently war winning by 1916. (Maybe pick on Italy?).
 

Bartholome de Fonte

Catspoke said:
Interesting. If the Russians don't do Brusilov (I am assuming they decide they are just to weak to support the allied war effort with any more offensives and try to just hold the line)
Click to expand...

That is essentially what I am thinking, men like Ivanov and Alexei Evert get more power in the decision making...

a) If the Russians continue to hold the line without attacking can Czarist Russia survive??? (I think so.)
Click to expand...

Only would happen if the Tsar (wisely) sought peace.

b) Rommania is still neutral. Falkenhayn survives. Big POD because Falkenhyn does not screw up the economy like Ludendorf and is probably smart enough to avoid unrestricted sub war war with USA.
Click to expand...

Erich von Falkenhayn didn't die, he lived till 1922. He did however mess up greatly with the battle of Verdun. If the Russians were out of the war, the Germans would likely not see the need for antagonising the Americans.

d) What should Germany and Italy do? Nothing they can do is apparently war winning by 1916. (Maybe pick on Italy?).
Click to expand...

I doubt Italy would pick on Italy. ;) The Germans and Austro-Hungary would likely turn their attention onto Italy next though.
 

Craigo

Novak said:
Erich von Falkenhayn didn't die, he lived till 1922. He did however mess up greatly with the battle of Verdun. If the Russians were out of the war, the Germans would likely not see the need for antagonising the Americans.
Click to expand...

He means that Falkenhayn would not have been sacked without Brusilov (I disagree).
 

AdA

Brusilov

Let me just point out that Brusilov innovation was attacking along a broad front, therefore denying the defender the classic WW1 advantage of faster mobility for it's reserves along interior (railway) lines. This is totally different from german penetration tactics. In essence, Brusilov ideas were used, consciously or not, in the final allied offensives of the war and would be used in plan 1919. They were also used by the PLA in Korea, again, maybe not consciously.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Catspoke said:
d) What should Germany and Italy do? Nothing they can do is apparently war winning by 1916. (Maybe pick on Italy?).
Click to expand...

The High Seas Fleet is not doing much, what about an amphibious operation near St. Petersburg? No idea if it would work, but the Germans control the Baltic, and operations nearer to the capital puts a lot of pressure on the Tsar. There is also the example of the Crimean War and the British Fleet in gun range of the capital.
 

Deleted member 1487

Craigo said:
I'll go further - even if the Germans somehow win at Verdun, Falkenhayn is out by New Year's Day 1917.
Click to expand...

I'm not nearly as sure about that. Still if he does survive his is post until then the coal crisis is averted and the increases that Ludendorff was looking for happen anyway because of the incrimental increases that Falkenhayn had worked out with the war ministry.
Still, without Romanian entry Falkenhayn could probably weather the storm again, provided he shuts down Verdun at the same time even without the Brusilov offensive.

Also the only way Brusilov wouldn't have attacked is if the Russia decided to attack the Germans in the north along the Dvina again, which was supposed to be the plan anyway, which Brusilov was to support! Instead his success meant he was given reinforcements he didn't want to expand his offensive. This was also the reason he supported the Bolsheviks in the civil war, because he realized the disasterous incompetence of the Czarist system.
 

Bartholome de Fonte

AdA said:
-snip-
Click to expand...

Yes, the tactics developed by Brusilov either would be made or not ITTL, I suppose it would be later on, perhaps the Germans create it? (They certainly loved major Offensives in WWI...)

BlondieBC said:
The High Seas Fleet is not doing much, what about an amphibious operation near St. Petersburg? No idea if it would work, but the Germans control the Baltic, and operations nearer to the capital puts a lot of pressure on the Tsar. There is also the example of the Crimean War and the British Fleet in gun range of the capital.
Click to expand...

There was OTL's Operation Albion, but I dunno if the Germans would try it if they didn't control the land in Estonia, which they perhaps wouldn't.

wiking said:
I'm not nearly as sure about that. Still if he does survive his is post until then the coal crisis is averted and the increases that Ludendorff was looking for happen anyway because of the incrimental increases that Falkenhayn had worked out with the war ministry.
Still, without Romanian entry Falkenhayn could probably weather the storm again, provided he shuts down Verdun at the same time even without the Brusilov offensive.
Click to expand...

If you so think so, sure. Again, I barely know anything on the guy.

Also the only way Brusilov wouldn't have attacked is if the Russia decided to attack the Germans in the north along the Dvina again, which was supposed to be the plan anyway, which Brusilov was to support! Instead his success meant he was given reinforcements he didn't want to expand his offensive. This was also the reason he supported the Bolsheviks in the civil war, because he realized the disasterous incompetence of the Czarist system.
Click to expand...

This is implying Brusilov is in control of the South-West Front, which wouldn't be happening ITTL as it is the POD. So without Brusilov, the fronts would in the hands of less proactive men like General Alexei Evert I'm assuming. Would the Eastern Front just wind down with little combat, or would the Germans try to make an Offensive there? I am not too heavily into military matters, thus I made this thread.
 

kalamona

BlondieBC said:
The High Seas Fleet is not doing much, what about an amphibious operation near St. Petersburg? No idea if it would work, but the Germans control the Baltic, and operations nearer to the capital puts a lot of pressure on the Tsar. There is also the example of the Crimean War and the British Fleet in gun range of the capital.
Click to expand...

would not work


the baltic sea in ww1 (and in ww2) was a small pond for submarines, small crafts and mines

very dangerous waters for any big ship
 

Devolved

Novak said:
Hello,

I recently was considering varying PODs for Russia in the First World War, and the one I am finding to be the most interesting would be if there was no Brusilov Offensive. The implications could be potentially immense, the tactics developed by Brusilov were copied by the Germans later and other (not) amazing things! Being more serious, while the Offensive did work, it killed half a million Russians, and the gains didn't last too long.
Click to expand...

The British, French and Italians would want to know why the Russians had broken their promise to mount an offensive in 1916.

In WW1 the belligerents usually kept to their agreements even if it was sometimes against their own best interests.

The consequences of no Brusilov offensive would be an unravelling of the Entente, humiliation for Czar Nicholas and the reduction and perhaps cutting off of the Allied aid that was being sent to Arkhangel and Vladivostok.

Another side effect is that the Austrians don't get a a large part of their army destroyed and are able to stay in the war longer.

Any German offensives are dealt with by the Russians more easily as they have more men and equipment to plug any gaps and mount counter attacks.
 

Deleted member 1487

Novak said:
This is implying Brusilov is in control of the South-West Front, which wouldn't be happening ITTL as it is the POD. So without Brusilov, the fronts would in the hands of less proactive men like General Alexei Evert I'm assuming. Would the Eastern Front just wind down with little combat, or would the Germans try to make an Offensive there? I am not too heavily into military matters, thus I made this thread.
Click to expand...

The Russians have to attack in the East by treaty. If not in Ukraine, the in the north. The Russians had the capability to attack, but the options were bleak against the Germans.
The Germans and Austrians were already attacking elsewhere, they just want the Eastern front to idle.
 

Bartholome de Fonte

Devolved said:
-snip-
Click to expand...

A successful Lake Naroch battle as Snake Featherston said could do the trick. Though it would likely give the Russians nothing more than temporary gains, would it not gain the ire of the German reinforcements from the West?

Snake Featherston said:
This requires a more successful Lake Naroch battle, which requires effective Russian co-ordination of all arms in that battle.
Click to expand...

And how could that happen? :)
 

Snake Featherston

Banned
Novak said:
And how could that happen? :)
Click to expand...

It would require a Russian army that took serious steps to repair its defects in the wake of the 1915 defeats, which would admittedly change the entire outlook of the Russian army in 1916. Lake Naroch was launched to relieve the French in Verdun, so if the Russians somehow manage to square the circle of co-ordinating their infantry and artillery there, so that their artillery really did do them some good, then 300,000 Russians would be able to inflict severe damage on 70,000 Germans and regain territory, and the psychological shock of a major Russian victory over German troops would in itself provide some relief for Verdun. If that engagement works, Tsarist generals as a whole will be more eager to attack, and that means Brusilov's offensive might still happen but as one part of a sequence of general offensives, not the only one in the entire front.

The problem is to get the Russian army to actually want to improve its defects and not create the myth of shell-shortage.
 

Bartholome de Fonte

Snake Featherston said:
-snip-
Click to expand...

This is why I try to avoid military PODs, far too complex for me. I'm again thinking it would just be easier to have Brusilov out of action for some health related reason. Let's just roll with the idea Brusilov is not able to take the command for some reason, who would likely replace General Ivanov as Commander of the South-Western Front?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top