AHC: Failed Brusilov Offensive

With the PoD in 1916, how can this happen?

Once we have a PoD, I'm also curious about effects: For example, is it safe to say Romania will hold off on joining the war? Will the Russian Revolution come earlier? And how does this change things in Germany; does Falkenhayn stay in office? And how do these and other changes affect the course of the war?

Perhaps Brusilov attacks north instead of south? I do remember reading once upon a time that there was some indecision about where the Russian attack should strike. As we know, Brusilov went for the southern option, but I have always been interested in what would have happened had he attacked the Germans instead. Perhaps the Germans do even better than they did historically? Perhaps a fear that the Germans can march on St. Petersburg (or Petrograd, as it was called during the war) would motivate Brusilov to go with the northern option.

Could have some interesting effects on the western front, More German divisions could be available at Verdun and the Somme.

King Nazar said:

Could have some interesting effects on the western front, More German divisions could be available at Verdun and the Somme.

Click to expand...

Well, it depends; if the offensive still starts in June, and the Somme begins as OTL, then it may be awhile before troop movement butterflies kick in (unless, of course, the Russians are fully repulsed by July, which is stretching it). And of course, if the Russians focus on the north as Franz suggested, the Germans may be even more stretched in the short term.

Another option is that General Alexei Brusilov does proceed with the southern option for his attack, as per otl. However, in this alternate attack, he is not able to keep his plans a secret from the Austrians. In some cases, the Russians advanced to within 69 meters of the first line of the AH first trench line in secrecy before launching their attack. So, perhaps even just replacing Archduke Josef Ferdinand as commander would do the trick. Apparently he was a genuine incompetent. Now, another Habsburg commander who had a very deserved good reputation even on the part of German commanders was Archduke Eugen. He was on the Italian front, but because Archduke Karl was there, the heir to the throne superceded him. In otl it was worked out that Archduke Eugen would stay and have an ancillary role; in this timeline, the gods of war give him command of the southwestern front.

So, due to the Austrian Army being more alert, Russian activity in the area is noticed, and preparations are made for an imminent attack. It will still be a massive battle, but if they are more prepared, they have the power to stymie the Russian attack until the Germans arrive to help: 39 infantry divisions and 10 cavalry divisions vs. 40 Russian infantry divisions and 15 cavalry divisions.

Related question -- if the Western Front is largely unaffected this early, how badly would the Russians need to be doing by August to prevent Romania from signing the treaty (joining the Allies) on the 17th of said month?

Another, even later possible PoD -- supposing Austro-Hungarian forces (maybe the Hungarians in particular?) were able to hold their position during Kostiuchnowka? (From what I read, the Polish forces seem to have a glowing performance, but could they have been better reinforced, say?)

John Fredrick Parker said:

Related question -- if the Western Front is largely unaffected this early, how badly would the Russians need to be doing by August to prevent Romania from signing the treaty (joining the Allies) on the 17th of said month?

Another, even later possible PoD -- supposing Austro-Hungarian forces (maybe the Hungarians in particular?) were able to hold their position during Kostiuchnowka? (From what I read, the Polish forces seem to have a glowing performance, but could they have been better reinforced, say?)

Click to expand...

The Austro - Hungarian forces were seriously hamstrung by having Archduke Josef Ferdinand as their Commander. Somebody else - Archduke Eugen, as I suggested? Might have played things differently to make that a possibility.

As to Romania - if it appears that Brusilov has failed to crack the Austrians, I believe the Romanians will stay neutral.

I don't know much about Ferdinand specifically, but I understand that a big factor in Russian success was that they used a very short artillery barrage before attacking, which was necessitated by a lack of shells since other commanders withheld theirs from Brusilov. Ironically, higher-ups intervening to make sure he has the ammunition he needs may actually hinder Brusilov by convincing him to go with a longer bombardment that would further ruin the element of surprise. Wasting shells that could be used elsewhere wouldn't help the overall Russian situation, of course.

TRH said:

I don't know much about Ferdinand specifically, but I understand that a big factor in Russian success was that they used a very short artillery barrage before attacking, which was necessitated by a lack of shells since other commanders withheld theirs from Brusilov. Ironically, higher-ups intervening to make sure he has the ammunition he needs may actually hinder Brusilov by convincing him to go with a longer bombardment that would further ruin the element of surprise. Wasting shells that could be used elsewhere wouldn't help the overall Russian situation, of course.

Click to expand...

I forgot about that fact re: the shortened artillery barrage. Perhaps General Evert (who was antagonistic towards Brusilov) is able to convince Czar Nicholas that the regular artillery practice is a must. Nicholas II knew very little about the military, so if Evert produced a convincing argument, surely the Czar would likewise insist on a longer barrage. This would have the added bonus of annoying Brusilov and complicating things for him; it seems that the two commanders really did not like each other very much.

In OTL, Evert deliberately delayed the follow through thrust that was critical for the attack against the Austrians. Had he done what Brusilov wanted, very likely the Russians would have ended up on the Hungarian plain and that would have knocked Austria out. Echoes of Samsonov and Rennenkamp, anybody? So, if Brusilov does not get his way entirely with regards to the campaign (ie, he is made to utilize the standard barrage) that would serve to alert the Austrians that an attack is coming.

OK, let's look at some butterflies -- to start, does this mean the "Eastern Front" isn't moved west, or even pushed further east by August? I imagine the Western Front (Verdun and the Somme) is unaffected through at least July, and we already know Romania won't jump in (at least for now); also, the Third OHL doesn't come to power (again, at least not for the moment). What about the Russian home front; does Petrograd rebel earlier? Any thoughts on other potential effects in the following months? (After getting into these questions, we can also look at 1917 and how the Great War plays out and possibly end TTL.)

A couple of thoughts regarding butterflies, and I admit that I am not a military man. So, perhaps my suggestions are flotsam. Be that as it may, if the Brusilov campaign fails and the AH Army weathers the attack and keeps most of its strength, they will counterattack the Russian forces and regain the final easternmost portion of Galicia, retaking Tarnopol. If they have the strength, I guess they would take Proskurov.

A Brusilov failure will cause the Russian armies to be repositioned further east in view of the catastrophe which has occured in the southwest. So, if the Austrians take Proskurov, the Germans can move against Rowno and Sarny.
In this case Romania will probably come into the war against Russia because it looks like Austria is going to survive, and it is an opportunity to get Bessarabia which is also a goal.

Franz Josef II said:

In this case Romania will probably come into the war against Russia because it looks like Austria is going to survive, and it is an opportunity to get Bessarabia which is also a goal.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be a little tricky with the Queen being from British royalty?

John Fredrick Parker said:

Wouldn't that be a little tricky with the Queen being from British royalty?

Click to expand...

Well, Bessarabia was a desired piece of real estate - obviously, they would rather get Transylvania but that is not going to happen in this scenario. Not when Austria has taken the hardest punch Russia can throw, and is still standing. It's better to get something than nothing.

Conrad chokes on a pretzel on autumn 1915 and plans for Strafexpedition are cancelled, leaving the most combat-worthy units of the Dual Monarchy to the Eastern Front. With available reserves and better forces at their disposal, A-H is able to give the Russian attack a bloody nose.

Franz Josef II said:

Well, Bessarabia was a desired piece of real estate - obviously, they would rather get Transylvania but that is not going to happen in this scenario. Not when Austria has taken the hardest punch Russia can throw, and is still standing. It's better to get something than nothing.

Click to expand...

Does neutrality really have so little going for it? I would think the Romanian government could likely decide it's just not worth the cost (in blood, in treasure, and in royal family conflict) to get a piece of land that's not even that high up in Romania's wish list. I had thought the Allied sympathizers were fairly strong by August 1916, which would make joining the CP around that time difficult (but not continued neutrality, especially in the circumstances we're discussing).

Romania was still at least technically allied to the Central Powers, however much the mood of both the populace and the government was drifting towards the Entente. If declaring war on Russia seemed safe enough (ie, they are reasonably certain Russia is not going to be able to steam roll them) then I could see them doing it. Perhaps as the Russian Front collapses post Brusilov failure, the Germans suggest to Romania that if they want to collect any spoils, a demonstration of good faith is necessary.

The Brusilov Offensive basically did fail. It brought down the Russian government and started the chain of events that led to Russia leaving the war. It was a victory in a purely military sense but the whole thing killed the Russian war effort.

Franz Josef II said:

Romania was still at least technically allied to the Central Powers, however much the mood of both the populace and the government was drifting towards the Entente. If declaring war on Russia seemed safe enough (ie, they are reasonably certain Russia is not going to be able to steam roll them) then I could see them doing it. Perhaps as the Russian Front collapses post Brusilov failure, the Germans suggest to Romania that if they want to collect any spoils, a demonstration of good faith is necessary.

Click to expand...

Ah, so I guess it comes down to just how damaged the Russian lines are.

eliphas8 said:

The Brusilov Offensive basically did fail. It brought down the Russian government and started the chain of events that led to Russia leaving the war. It was a victory in a purely military sense but the whole thing killed the Russian war effort.

Click to expand...

So, if the offensive were also a military failure, that would have little effect on the timing to the revolution?

If the military campaign is an unmitigated disaster, then very likely the discontent that has been seething until now at all levels of Russian society will boil over. "Nicky" has pissed away the loyalty of the Duma, the Aristocracy, the Army, and the Imperial Family. The common people who have already suffered tremendous privations have even more justification (supplied by the Bolsheviks) to hate Nicholas and the Establishment.

In this case, with the Front collapsing - at least temporarily - there will probably be riots in St. Petersburg which I doubt the Army will put down. So we may see a revolution a year early.

How soon til butterflies reach the western front?