Battle of Lodz what if

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Hmm I thought you were the one leaning towards still having the KuK Second Army make its wide swing (which took a while to implement while more efficient than Russian RR the Austrians are not as good as the Germans)

The best of best cases goes like this. When things come undone both Schiedemann's Second Army and Plehve's Fifth Army fall back towards Lodz. With a major German counterattack pinning him it is hard for Plehve to fall back rapidly. So there is a battle around Lodz between German Tenth and Russian Second Army (with Russian First Army probably with a new commander) trying to reenter the fray sort of like OTL. The German Tenth Army drives the Russians out of Lodz before Plehve arrives what you get is Fifth Army and what's left of Second Army and maybe even a corps of First Army crushed between between the two German armies near Piotrkow.

OK there is now a point that needs to be raised about Tannenberg. Most the prisoners who were taken by the Germans were captured by von Francois' I Army Corps who used unconventional tactics. Furthermore Samsonov went into a deep depression and did little to breakout. I do not see the same happening to von Plehve. So I expect the pocket to leak more than it did at Tannenberg. However if the Germans take most of the Russian artillery then 40,000 or so Russian soldiers low on supplies trying to reach Warsaw is a modest disappointment.

One thing to add is that exposure casualties on both sides are likely to be high.

Indeed they will be high. It would probably impact the Russians more, being so far from supply lines, but as to the overall strategic effects, would it resonate down the line so far as to force the Russians to abandon the siege of Przemysl? Also, given the difference in Russian and German gauge rail and the destruction of rail lines by the Germans in their pull back, would the German armies be able to take Lodz before the Russian could retreat? Also, would or could the Germans/Austrians use the captured Russian stocks of artillery provided they captured enough ammo/could manufacture it themselves?
 
Indeed they will be high. It would probably impact the Russians more, being so far from supply lines, but as to the overall strategic effects, would it resonate down the line so far as to force the Russians to abandon the siege of Przemysl? Also, given the difference in Russian and German gauge rail and the destruction of rail lines by the Germans in their pull back, would the German armies be able to take Lodz before the Russian could retreat? Also, would or could the Germans/Austrians use the captured Russian stocks of artillery provided they captured enough ammo/could manufacture it themselves?

You do know that in OTL Limanowa was going on in early Dec. There is an interesting question as to whether not moving Second Army butterflies away Limanowa.

If most of Second and Fifth Army are destroyed then what the Germans do next seems painfully obvious to me. Tenth Army chases Russian First Army east and tries to take Warsaw and invest NovoGeorgievsk. Ninth Army comes crashing down on the right flank of Evert's Fourth Army (there is some question about whether Woyrsch Group follows Tenth Army or Ninth Army). Even if Ruszki anticipates the German strategy it looks like the Russian line is going to get rolled up.
 
So Whe move a few [German] Commanders, and advance the transfer of several troop formations.
So Instead of the Germans attacking the Russians, and losing a Whole Bunch of Soldiers, The Russians attack the prepared Germans and lose the Whole Bunch of Soldiers.
By the beginning of 1916, the Russian side of the Front is on the verge of Collapse.

I sounds to be like whe have advanced the Russian leaving the War by about a year.
If Russia leaves the war a year before OTL, ?What does this do to the French Front?
 
Have you ever looked at Pollard BTW? He is a notch more interested in the Eastern Front than most Anglocentric WWI historians. One of his quirks is he is a big fan of Ruszki who was in charge of NW Front at this time. I do not totally agree with this but Ruszki did have his moments and tended to err on the side of caution.

He's online at

http://www.ibiblio.org/HTMLTexts/Al..._Short_History_Of_The_Great_War/contents.html

I find him interesting, especially as he was writing in 1919/20, so is pretty free from hindsight, and despite the passions of the time seems to stay reasonably detached..
 
Last edited:
So Whe move a few [German] Commanders, and advance the transfer of several troop formations.
So Instead of the Germans attacking the Russians, and losing a Whole Bunch of Soldiers, The Russians attack the prepared Germans and lose the Whole Bunch of Soldiers.
By the beginning of 1916, the Russian side of the Front is on the verge of Collapse.

I sounds to be like whe have advanced the Russian leaving the War by about a year.
If Russia leaves the war a year before OTL, ?What does this do to the French Front?


Probably no withdrawal to the Hindenburg line. With Russia out, the Germans have enough troops to defend their existing front. So the Michael offensive (or its ATL equivalent) starts from a considerably more advanced position.

Also, unrestricted submarine warfare is probably delayed many months, if not averted altogether. So no US intervention in April 1917
 
Also, unrestricted submarine warfare is probably delayed many months, if not averted altogether. So no US intervention in April 1917
Can we please lay that fiction to rest? Unrestricted subwar did not bring the U.S. into the war. Sinking Lusitania did not bring the U.S. into the war. The Zimmermann Telegram did that: that is, the promise to Mexico. Unless you've countered the British blockade (tho more German success earlier will balance some of it), you get U.S. intervention around the same time regardless, for the same reasons: Germany wants to interfere with U.S. supplies to the Brits & French. (In WW1, there won't be any convenient Japanese attacks on Hawaii...)
 
Can we please lay that fiction to rest? Unrestricted subwar did not bring the U.S. into the war. Sinking Lusitania did not bring the U.S. into the war. The Zimmermann Telegram did that: that is, the promise to Mexico.

And what was the purpose of the ZT? It was to tie up US forces on the Mexican border so that (in the event of a US declaration of war on Germany) they could not be sent to Europe.

And why did the Germans anticipate such a DoW? Because they were about to initiate unrestricted u-boat warfare, and were resigned to the likelihood of this leading to war with America.

Why do you suppose that Count Von Bernstorff (the German Ambassador in Washington) upon receiving the news that USW was to commence, immediately ordered that all German ships in US ports must be rendered unfit for service? Because he knew darned well what the consequences would be, and had to stop the ships from being used against Germany when they fell into American hands.


Unless you've countered the British blockade (tho more German success earlier will balance some of it), you get U.S. intervention around the same time regardless, for the same reasons: Germany wants to interfere with U.S. supplies to the Brits & French. (In WW1, there won't be any convenient Japanese attacks on Hawaii...)


And the only way to interfere was by unrestricted u-boat warfare. And once American ships (as distinct from British ones with some American passengers) started getting sunk, a de facto state of war would exist, and the formal DoW just a matter of time.

Or so Germany supposed. Actually, in one of history's little jokes, that trade was about to be drastically interfered with by shortage of money, as Britain had run out of property in the US for use as collateral against American loans, and unsecured loans were not on offer while America remained neutral. Had they not started USW (or had limited it to armed merchantmen, which President Wilson would have tolerated) financial problems would have cut deeper into Allied imports than the u-boats managed to do. Quite literally, the Germans shot (or torpedoed) themselves in the foot.

As for the Lusitania, where did I make any mention of it? I don't recall suggesting that it had any particular relevance to events in 1917.
 
And what was the purpose of the ZT? It was to tie up US forces on the Mexican border so that (in the event of a US declaration of war on Germany) they could not be sent to Europe.

And why did the Germans anticipate such a DoW? Because they were about to initiate unrestricted u-boat warfare, and were resigned to the likelihood of this leading to war with America.
Well, no, actually. The idea was to divert U.S. resources, which were already being sent to the Allies (& not Germany...). Of course, Wilson couldn't conspire to have Japan attack Pearl Harbor...:rolleyes:
Why do you suppose that Count Von Bernstorff (the German Ambassador in Washington) upon receiving the news that USW was to commence, immediately ordered that all German ships in US ports must be rendered unfit for service? Because he knew darned well what the consequences would be, and had to stop the ships from being used against Germany when they fell into American hands....And the only way to interfere was by unrestricted u-boat warfare.
Huh? This had already been delcared against hostile ships; it never applies (nor does it now) against neutrals. It only means sinking without warning & not adhering to the "cruiser rules". And I'd call Bernstorff's action prudent precaution in case of war.
And once American ships (as distinct from British ones with some American passengers) started getting sunk, a de facto state of war would exist, and the formal DoW just a matter of time.
If the U.S. is seizing German ships, a state of war already exists, or it wouldn't be happening.:rolleyes: And if U-boats are shooting neutral American ships, that is a de facto (if not de jure) declaration of war. USW has damn all to do with it.
...or had limited it to armed merchantmen, which President Wilson would have tolerated...
Don't be so sure. If they were sinking neutral U.S. ships, they were either declaring war, or pirates.
Actually, in one of history's little jokes, that trade was about to be drastically interfered with by shortage of money, as Britain had run out of property in the US for use as collateral against American loans, and unsecured loans were not on offer while America remained neutral.... Quite literally, the Germans shot (or torpedoed) themselves in the foot.
Agreed.
As for the Lusitania, where did I make any mention of it? I don't recall suggesting that it had any particular relevance to events in 1917.
That's the usual connection to USW. If you mean none, I'll withdraw that one.
 
Well, no, actually. The idea was to divert U.S. resources, which were already being sent to the Allies (& not Germany...). Of course, Wilson couldn't conspire to have Japan attack Pearl Harbor...:rolleyes:

Yet the US had been doing that since the war began,a nd tyhere had been no ZT. Thast came when, and only when, the Germans decided to revert to USW.

If the U.S. is seizing German ships, a state of war already exists, or it wouldn't be happening.:rolleyes: And if U-boats are shooting neutral American ships, that is a de facto (if not de jure) declaration of war. USW has damn all to do with it.

That may have been true of the earlier period of USW, but when the Germans resumed it in 1917 they expressly included the sinking of neutral (including American) ships in the "package". Indeed, Admiral Holtzendorff specifically included the anticpated scaring off of neutral ships (ie deterring them from coming to Allied ports) in his estimate of the impact on British imports. (See Devlin "Too Proud to Fight"). And even the German government could see what would happen once they started torpedoing American ships.
 
Top