Challenge: German-Russian Dual Alliance in WWI, AND have it be defeated

It's the best way to defeat the alliance, without doubt. But I think that it would take too much time to help Austria, who would need support in the first weeks of the war, when fronts are still fluid. With a pressure on Alsace-Lorene the germans could lack enough manpower to drive deep into austrian territory. If the war turns into a trench warfare Austria has a sporting chance to survive for a while, but it's not sure that will be the case. IRRC during OTL WW1 the eastern front knew much more movement than the western front.



Sorry, I meant Russia' western front, id est Austria :D. The problem for A-H in this scenario is to survive: the pressure of german and russian armies combined would be too much for her, that's why I think that Austrian best chance would be a strong offensive toward Germany, aimed to the Rhine region to, eventually link up with the french. Mind you, I'm not saying that would be easy or else...




AB, you should remember that the military mindset in this period is quite conservative and hostile to innovations in terms of tactics and strategies. Much of the bloodshed of WW1 was due to this.
To tell you the truth, having three fronts seem a lot to me and even two doens't really smell of roses, especially one with Russia (lots of manpower). And I'm not even willing to touch that keg of gunpowder that are the Balkans...

As for the whole issue of military investments, I think that Germany, ITTL, would develop more her land army rather the navy (so slightly reducing one of the reasons of UK hostility), while the OTL german investments into the Ottoman empire would be probably devolved to Russia and Italy, though I can't quantify them right now.

Why,,,

the Navy league was one of the strongest factions in the Imperial gov't... Empire, colonies, prestige...you know that old bag. of Which Willie himself was a strong supporter.

As to investments...some would still go to these areas as they would want to have some influence in them and not leave it all to the French and Brits. Besides, commercial opportunities can't be ignored either.
 
Why,,,

the Navy league was one of the strongest factions in the Imperial gov't... Empire, colonies, prestige...you know that old bag. of Which Willie himself was a strong supporter.

Agreed, but if Austria is a possible enemy and is going through a process of military renovation, as we suppose, I think that the land army would receive more attentions than OTL.

Kaiser Wilhelm would surely pursue a prestige policy trough colonies, that could even bring to the war itself, but not to the point of negletting the safeness of Germany.
 
Agreed, but if Austria is a possible enemy and is going through a process of military renovation, as we suppose, I think that the land army would receive more attentions than OTL.

Kaiser Wilhelm would surely pursue a prestige policy trough colonies, that could even bring to the war itself, but not to the point of negletting the safeness of Germany.

Cornelius

That seems rather strange to me. Even a drastically reformed Austria would seem drastically weaker than Russia to most people. As such an alliance with Russia and hostility to Austria would surely seem less threatening that the reverse. [Especially since the degree of the reforms will probably not be appreciated by outsiders, especially not the autocratic powers if they seen the Austrians allowing minorities more power]. As such you might expect Germany to feel less threatened on land and hence be willing to commit more resources to the naval race. [Britain should still have enough to win that although it might trigger a bigger effort from Britain pre-war and could prompt the sort of moves GZ suggests with a pre-war conscription]. About the only reason Germany would have to feel more concerned about a Franco-Austria rather than a Franco-Russian alliance is that Austria's geographical position enables it to threaten more of Germany and more quickly. Suspect the Germans would respond to this by a defencive cover of the relatively short border in the west while a major offensive against Austria, chiefly into Bohemia to pin if not defeat the Austrian main forces.

Steve
 
stevep, that leads to an interesting question.

That strategy, AH first, sounds like it might be interpreted as getting Russia more gains earlier while leaving Germany to face a fully mobilized France(and UK). Might this go over poorly in Berlin?
 
Question: As I am to understand it, in OTL France had roughly 80% of its industry occupied, with Germany focusing on attacking Austria to attempt to knock IT out first, what does all this extra economic potential do? (ok that might be a lie, I read a book that mentioned this in passing Utility of Force, the actual loss of such things as steel 58% and coal 40% wikipedia (better source ? :p) still its a LOT of industry occupied).
 
There's been a lot of talk on the big players, but how's it going to affect those caught in the middle (Persia, Afghanistan, China)? If Afghanistan sides with one side against the other in Afghanistan, that will likely turn the battle. Or what if they decide to be indiscriminately aggressive to invaders?
 
stevep, that leads to an interesting question.

That strategy, AH first, sounds like it might be interpreted as getting Russia more gains earlier while leaving Germany to face a fully mobilized France(and UK). Might this go over poorly in Berlin?

Grimm Reaper

The thing I was thinking of was that Germany would seek to attack Austria rather than France because the Austrians, especially if they have reformed their military pose a greater threat. From Bohemia they could threat a wide slice of Germany, including Silesia, Upper Saxony and Bavaria. As such its difficult to protect against this defencively, since the Germans can't cover every way they might be attacked without risking being weak everywhere, especially since they must guard against attacks from France. Coupled with the bias toward offensive actions by all armies at the time I would expect Germany to plan to strike hard and fast into Bohemia to at least pin if not defeat the Austrians and threaten their industrial heartland while screening against France using the powerful fortresses on the relatively short front there.

As such I would expect Germany to make such a move. Given the formidable terrain, plus the advantages that the technology of the time gives to the defencive, plus ideally a dramatically improved Austrian army I could see the Germans getting a very bloody nose. Not enough to break Germany, especially since many of the same factors would mean that if the Austrians counter-attacked they would have to face many of the same problems. However could see the initial German plans badly dented and Germany possibly put on the defencive until Russian forces arrive to put additional pressure on the Austrians. [This might also be a reason for Italy being pressurised by its allies, presuming it joins the fray that early, to make attacks in the Tyrol which could again mean heavy losses for the central powers].

In the event of a central powers victory I would think Germany would expect Bohemia as the major prize it would expect to win, along with possibly Austria itself. Russia would be more interested in gains at Hungarian expense or possibly further east. Hence I could see diverging interests here and possibly initially Russia would not plan on major attacks west of Hungary and Germany would not expect/want them further east.

Steve
 
Question: As I am to understand it, in OTL France had roughly 80% of its industry occupied, with Germany focusing on attacking Austria to attempt to knock IT out first, what does all this extra economic potential do? (ok that might be a lie, I read a book that mentioned this in passing Utility of Force, the actual loss of such things as steel 58% and coal 40% wikipedia (better source ? :p) still its a LOT of industry occupied).

Kal'thzar

Its a good point, especially in a long war. Amazing how France, despite those losses and the big military role it played as the major western ground power, became the major producer of armaments for the allies. Without those losses they are going to be able to produce even more. [There is a counter argument that it was the desperate situation after the early losses that provided the political will and public support for the massive development of the new armaments factories that occurred. However even if this motivation is not present they will have a lot more capacity for production]. Not just industrial capacity. There was a sizeable population and the agricultural capacity wasn't insignificant either.

Also part of the reason why the French were so determined to attack continually on the western front was to regain the lands and populations lost. [A-L was a factor in this but the lands occupied in 1914 was significantly larger].

As such expect France, once it accepts it will be a long war, could be very influential in the industrial field. Furthermore, barring those lands avoiding devastation later in the war France is likely to be richer and more successful post-war without the destruction its industrial heartland occurred in OTL.

Steve
 
There's been a lot of talk on the big players, but how's it going to affect those caught in the middle (Persia, Afghanistan, China)? If Afghanistan sides with one side against the other in Afghanistan, that will likely turn the battle. Or what if they decide to be indiscriminately aggressive to invaders?

karl2025

I think the latter is the most likely. Hope the British would have the sense to use Afghanistan as a buffer and commit the Indian army and other forces to the support of the Ottomans further west, or the Japanese further east - presuming both are members of the alliance. Can't see any serious chance of any sort of offensive into central Asia and would love the Russians to try forcing an invasion of India.:D

Steve
 
That seems rather strange to me. Even a drastically reformed Austria would seem drastically weaker than Russia to most people. As such an alliance with Russia and hostility to Austria would surely seem less threatening that the reverse.

About the only reason Germany would have to feel more concerned about a Franco-Austria rather than a Franco-Russian alliance is that Austria's geographical position enables it to threaten more of Germany and more quickly.

I would say that the whole question revolvs around this. A-H is in the position to deal a lot more damage to Germany than Russia OTL. The reverse is also true. The collapse of any of this two powers early in the war would dictate the evolution of the whole conflict. This is why I think that this WW1 could be a far more mobile war and, maybe, quicker than ours.

As for the Austrian strategy, I would use Bohemia like a fortress to lure as many german troops as possible there, staging feints towards Berlin, while the main attack would be directed toward the Rhine, hopefully to link up with the french. In the east you could fight a retreating war, trying to use the carpathians mountains to the full. The italian border is the easiest to defend given the geographical position.
 
I would say that the whole question revolvs around this. A-H is in the position to deal a lot more damage to Germany than Russia OTL. The reverse is also true. The collapse of any of this two powers early in the war would dictate the evolution of the whole conflict. This is why I think that this WW1 could be a far more mobile war and, maybe, quicker than ours.

As for the Austrian strategy, I would use Bohemia like a fortress to lure as many german troops as possible there, staging feints towards Berlin, while the main attack would be directed toward the Rhine, hopefully to link up with the french. In the east you could fight a retreating war, trying to use the carpathians mountains to the full. The italian border is the easiest to defend given the geographical position.

Cornelius

Pretty much in agreement except that:
a) I would say the A-H is in a position to do a lot more damage quickly than Russia. Given its population and other resources I would say Russia would have to be the greater threat overall of the two over an extended conflict. [Even then don't forget OTL that Russia was less of an immediate threat because A-H took most of the early Russian weight. If say A-H had been neutral or the Russians had gambled on A-H being unable to attack in strength and thrown everything directly at eastern Germany?:eek:]

b) The suggested programme for A-H would probably be the best likely in the time period. Personally I wouldn't go for any attack deep into Germany at this stage, unless you totally mauled the Germans attacking into Bohemia and though there was hope of catching them on the rebound. However that is very much using the advantage of hindsight as very few people - virtually none in the military - really predicted what the conflict would be like.

Steve
 
karl2025

I think the latter is the most likely. Hope the British would have the sense to use Afghanistan as a buffer and commit the Indian army and other forces to the support of the Ottomans further west, or the Japanese further east - presuming both are members of the alliance. Can't see any serious chance of any sort of offensive into central Asia and would love the Russians to try forcing an invasion of India.:D

Steve

Let the Afghanistan be the purveyors of British and French arms and supplies to the Central Asians who will probably still revolt at the first sign of conscription in Russia being lifted from the Islamic population. Persia will simply slip the Russian yoke in the north if they can
 
I would say that the whole question revolvs around this. A-H is in the position to deal a lot more damage to Germany than Russia OTL. The reverse is also true. The collapse of any of this two powers early in the war would dictate the evolution of the whole conflict. This is why I think that this WW1 could be a far more mobile war and, maybe, quicker than ours.

As for the Austrian strategy, I would use Bohemia like a fortress to lure as many german troops as possible there, staging feints towards Berlin, while the main attack would be directed toward the Rhine, hopefully to link up with the french. In the east you could fight a retreating war, trying to use the carpathians mountains to the full. The Italian border is the easiest to defend given the geographical position.

Well I am going to agree on your shorter war scenario.

For the alliance...if Germany has to surrender or seek an armistice then Russia will shortly have to follow suit and hope that it gets at least decent terms as it cannot possibly expect to succeed by itself. If its A-H instead that seeks the armistice and terms then its still likely that France and Britain will be able to defend much better if Germany has pursued a A-H first strategy. So I'm not sure they would be that quick, it depends on what triggers the conflict in the first place, that also will determine whether A-H seeks terms quickly or fights to the end. Loss of Bohemia and Galicia and even near breakthroughs in Tyrol or the Carpathians are probably going to have them putting out feelers for an armistice if the whole thing that has been started by events that are not in their direct interest.

As for A-H strategy...The mountainous terrain would be the best place for them to attempt to deter or inflict as many casualties as possible on any German or Russian offensives. So yes Bohemia, the Carpathians and the Tyrol/Dolomites would be best for that, so feints from these regions or attempts to draw the alliance offensives there would work if they have prepared for a defensive war in those areas. There would probably be resistance to conceding Galicia to the Russians to gain time for a comprehensive offensive against Germany in combination with the French to knock them out early ( assuming Italy has remained neutral or found a reason to at least to weigh their options carefully ) I would have though something into Bavaria in the upper Danube towards the Maim to link up with the French and secure the Lower Rhine and the Ruhr . Even a short war is going to inflict massive casualties on both sides though. That could determine terms at the armistice. Conceding Galicia at the first would really depend on how strong the Germany first faction in the military is and how much influence they have in a reformed Austria - Hungary Commonwealth/Federation that embraces its minorities more favourably. Such a federation may as a prerequisite have better relations to the south with Serbia if they have curbed their desire for direct expansion into B-H and settled on independence instead or favoured some kind of union with Serbia instead with the prid pro quo being a Commercial or tariff union with The A-H state instead. That would change the dynamics in the Balkans as well viz a viz the Ottoman Empire in Europe. The Serbs will be focused west in its own Yugoslav state of some kind with B-H and Montenegro rather than south. A more developed A-H state with stronger industrial and commercial potential would be capable of making their own loans to Balkan interests, or minor Balkan principalities or states to gain greater influence ( they did make them to Bulgaria so its not impossible for them to do so and probably likely) The Ottomans are probably likely to favour A-H over the Russians if the A-H state is more indirect in their approach.

As to mobility on the eastern front...I don't think so...Even A-H while larger than the French front with Germany is substantially less than the Russia's western Front with the Central powers and much of it is mountainous or has the possibility of offering a mountain defense all of which would seem to point to a situation that would after time be somewhat less fluid than OTL. Casualties there will eventually become as horrendous as the Western Front for Germany/Russia and the A-H state, something which also would seem to favour a shorter war. Only Russia has the man power reserves, but even they will grow restless as the casualties mount for few gains and social unrest could be the result in Russia if the Tsar's government is not careful.
 
Top