Russia Lasting to the End of WW1?

Tongera

Hi, what would it take for the Russians to last to the end of WW1 with a POD of 1900? By lasting i mean staying in the war with the Germans, Austro-Hungarians and Ottomans until they all surrender or a truce happens, with all Entente members lasting as well.

Also, how far can the Russian army advance against the Central Powers? Or how can they prevent the advance of Central Powers army if they can't advance?

Also, what can Russia get from the war? I assume it would get a fair bit due to its role in the war?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Well, you can have the sides realize peace is better than war and make a tough to swallow peace, but that is probably not what you are looking for. ;)

It is basically food and rail transport. In the harvest period of 1916, Russia was down to 65% of the ration levels in St. Petersburg (near starvation level), then the winter came and they basically ran out of food. No government survives having no food in its capital.

So you need a bigger ability to build rail cars and the like. And you need more farmers, which means smaller % of male population in the army. So you need a industrial plan combine with total overhaul of army. And you idea of advance is exactly the problem. Russia to last longer has to attack less with its much smaller army. Basically, for Russia to hope to survive until the end of 1918 with a POD post-1913, you have to go on the defensive and stay on the defensive. But this likely cripples France. Sometimes the only way to win the game is to not play the game.
 

Deleted member 1487

Tongera said:
Hi, what would it take for the Russians to last to the end of WW1 with a POD of 1900? By lasting i mean staying in the war with the Germans, Austro-Hungarians and Ottomans until they all surrender or a truce happens, with all Entente members lasting as well.

Also, how far can the Russian army advance against the Central Powers? Or how can they prevent the advance of Central Powers army if they can't advance?

Also, what can Russia get from the war? I assume it would get a fair bit due to its role in the war?
Click to expand...

US doesn't enter the war and thus the war ends in 1917 before the Bolshevik revolution. Boom.:eek:
 

Deleted member 1487

RGB said:
...?

Based on what are you saying that? An expectation that Germany will win within the year?
Click to expand...
Because without the US unsecured loans the Entente will run out of money, especially Italy and Russia, which, when they signal their intention to drop out of the war, they will bring the French and British with them, as the US isn't able to replace them.
 

Geredis

I'd say the main POD has to be Nicholas II not replacing Kokovtsov with Goremykin. Goremykin was utter unsuited, unwilling, for the Prime Minstership, and his appointment basically hastened the dissolution I think...not in the sense, I think, that it made Revolution more likely, as much as the fact that his appointment and leadership utterly shattered an otherwise fragmented government. I also think that the various reforms from 1905-1912 had to be more fully realised in order to ensure Russia remains intact.

Exactly what that means, and what the constitutional monarchy would look like after, though, is another matter.
 
La Rouge Beret

La Rouge Beret

Or an easier POD Russia negotiates an agreement for Turkey to remain neutral. Russia's main supply line remains open, avoids problems with food and receiving foreign capital.
 

ModernKiwi

BlondieBC said:
...

It is basically food and rail transport. In the harvest period of 1916, Russia was down to 65% of the ration levels in St. Petersburg (near starvation level), then the winter came and they basically ran out of food. No government survives having no food in its capital.

....
Click to expand...

That was down to crap economic management by the Russian Government. Rampant inflation plus fixed government prices for grain meant that a lot of peasant farmers took land out of circulation rather than grow grain at a loss.

Had there been a proper system of war-time taxation plus bonds etc. to soak up inflation, much of that wouldn't necessarily have come to pass. Of course that may have hurt various members of the nobility so it was rather unlikely to happen...
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Tongera said:
What exactly made him more competent overall compared to his successors?
Click to expand...

He was not a genius or anything, but certainly seemed more talented and less corrupt than anyone else. The improvement in Russian combat power in 1916 is largely due to his administrative abilities. But he did not approve of Rasputin and this simple fact sealed his fate.
 

Bee

Tongera said:
What exactly made him more competent overall compared to his successors?
Click to expand...

Anaxagoras is right. Polivanov took over after the miserable year 1915, during which Russia had fallen back from Poland leaving most of their heavy artillery behind. In 1914 and -15, combat effectiveness and moral had been badly affected by the lack of guns, ammunition and other supplies. Polivanov's achievement was to rebuild the army and arm it. The best evidence for his ability is that Russia was able to launch the Brusilov offensive in 1916. His failing, like that of a number of other able men of the time, was not to be able to keep the confidence of Nicholas, because he would not pander to Rasputin so the empress was against him.

To keep Russia in the war? If only the Russians had a crystal ball -- Germany, which seemed so unbeatable in the east, was in fact in serious trouble and only lasted another year. Less metaphysically, if the northern commanders had launched a simultaneous attack with Brusilov, the offensive could have succeeded. Or, to take the exact opposite approach, Russia could have sat back and waited for the Germans to be starved out. And, of course, anybody would have made a better Czar and Czarina than Nicholas and Alexandra.
 

Tongera

While i know that the Romanovs were Absolute Monarchists, i thought that they delegated duties to their ministers. What could the Czar and Czarina have done?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Tongera said:
While i know that the Romanovs were Absolute Monarchists, i thought that they delegated duties to their ministers. What could the Czar and Czarina have done?
Click to expand...

Not allowed an ignorant lunatic make most major decisions regarding critical military and governmental appointments.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Bee said:
To keep Russia in the war? If only the Russians had a crystal ball -- Germany, which seemed so unbeatable in the east, was in fact in serious trouble and only lasted another year. Less metaphysically, if the northern commanders had launched a simultaneous attack with Brusilov, the offensive could have succeeded. Or, to take the exact opposite approach, Russia could have sat back and waited for the Germans to be starved out. And, of course, anybody would have made a better Czar and Czarina than Nicholas and Alexandra.
Click to expand...

The Russians did attack the Germans in the North, and had gains. You can have fewer troops sent to reinforce Brusilov, and instead stay North to attack. It gives the Russians extra gains, but it does not save Russia. The harvest of 1916 is already planted, and you are either increasing or keeping the same the level of Germans loss. The Tsar still falls, but you might change who takes power in the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top