How long would a surviving Archduke Ferdinand delay WWI

[Tallil2long]

I think this significantly decreases the risk of Europe-wide war.

But it doesn't affect the determination of France and Russia to eventually settle Germany's hash, which I believe was a large factor (though not the largest) in bringing WW1 about.

Russia is going to continue backing the Serbs and trying to expand its influence in the Balkans, with Germany as the primary stumbling block. Many influential French leaders will still be burning to avenge their defeat of 1870-1 and get "their" territories back.

The only way for Germany to defuse these things is to utterly roll over and abandon itself to Franco-Russian desires -- a bit too much to expect of any Great Power.

Finally, this doesn't in any way address Germany's rather petty (but in terms of the national mores of the time, justified) grievance about not getting the respect that a Great Power deserved from fellow members of the Club. A strengthened Russia would certainly be a deterrent to Germany, but I don't know if it would be enough for Kaiser Bill to pull in his horns sufficiently to deny the French and Russians an eventual pretext for war.

 

[Tallil2long]

Aircraft development, I absolutely agree; I'm just not sure tanks wouldn't lag slightly, since the realization of the need for a tank to crush through trench lines might not be obvious, leading to some other possibilities in tank design and a lot more time spent exploring options. More armored cars, for instance.

I would definitely go with armored cars. There would be no recognized need for a slow machine able to cross trenches and flatten wire.

An armored car with slightly better cross-country mobility would fit in well with the ideals of how a war would be fought (largely open country warfare) and would be an intuitive analogue to horse cavalry once everybody realized how worthless that had become.

Half tracks I think would crop up in the mid 20's at the earliest.

I would be interested in an experimental force of armored cars, mobile artillery, and truck-borne infantry.

 

[MattII]

Aircraft development, I absolutely agree; I'm just not sure tanks wouldn't lag slightly, since the realization of the need for a tank to crush through trench lines might not be obvious, leading to some other possibilities in tank design and a lot more time spent exploring options. More armored cars, for instance.

Armoured cars get bogged down in mud, so I'd expect some sort of tracked armoured vehicle to appear sooner or later. Of course, they won't be 'breakthrough' vehicles like we saw in WW1, but that only improves matters, without a war giving everybody the wrong idea, the tactics for using tanks might get there sooner rather than later.

On Aircraft, if Sikorsky's Ilya Muromets' get to enter proper civilian service I could easily see a multi-faceted 'airliner war' developing in the late 1910s.

 

[elkarlo]

Once you get up to 1917, the power of the Social Democrats will have grown even further in Germany, and they're likely to be more interested in internal reform than international war.

By the same token, the German military was aware that their window to be able to defeat both Russia and France was closing, and they're unlikely to want to start a war they don't believe they can win.

That probably means that war is off the table until military technology increases to the point where . It might not happen even then. The development of the various Great Powers' internal politics, with the broad rise of a left that hasn't been suppressed with the excuse of wartime neccessity.

I think France, with it's stagnating demographics, and Russia with it's rotting govt, were going to slowly lose any edge they had on the CP. AH was still expanding it's econ and pop, and Germany as well.

While the UK, their econ was no longer the greatest in the world. And they were dependent on overseas profits to keep their economy going

 

[Captain Jack]

Russia is going to continue backing the Serbs and trying to expand its influence in the Balkans, with Germany as the primary stumbling block. Many influential French leaders will still be burning to avenge their defeat of 1870-1 and get "their" territories back.

I wouldn't be so certain about Russia continuing to back the Serbs. The situation in the Balkans was very fluid and Serbia had only recently become Russia's primary proxy. Until 1908 they were split between Serbia and Bulgaria and tried to support both. Afterwards they shifted decisively to Serbia. Another shift back toward Bulgaria is entirely possible if events play out right. For example, if Serbia provokes a crisis with Italy and Austria over Albania and said crisis comes close to causing a war, St. Petersburg might start to rethink its commitment to Serbia.

 

[Tallil2long]

I wouldn't be so certain about Russia continuing to back the Serbs. The situation in the Balkans was very fluid and Serbia had only recently become Russia's primary proxy. Until 1908 they were split between Serbia and Bulgaria and tried to support both. Afterwards they shifted decisively to Serbia. Another shift back toward Bulgaria is entirely possible if events play out right. For example, if Serbia provokes a crisis with Italy and Austria over Albania and said crisis comes close to causing a war, St. Petersburg might start to rethink its commitment to Serbia.

Certainly possible. Of course, depending upon how Serbia provokes the crisis, that might give us the war.

But even if Russia switches its backing to Bulgaria, that just emboldens Bulgaria to start crap. Of course, her grudges are not mainly against A-H, I suppose.

So yeah, that'd be a net improvement. Thanks for the info.

 

[LordKalvert]

.....

Russia ... will have completed a military build up (which will do them absolutely no good whatsoever) ....

..............................................................

Russia's only salvation would have been thousands more kilometres of railroads. More rails would allow Tsarist Armies to mobilize quick enough to stall the German invasion near the border.
Railways take many years to build. Russia's best hope of stalling a German invasion involves delaying (by several years) that invasion until Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc. can lay thousands more kilometres of rails. Then well-fed Russian soldiers dig in and wait for General Winter to finish off the German invaders.

First, the Russian building plan DID include thousands of miles of rails- about 5000 in fact. They would have been able to get about 560 trains a day into Poland rather than the 360 they did in 1914. They were making very rapid progress and they don't take that long to build

Second, the buildup increased not only the number of men but the firepower of the Russian divisions immensely. By 1917, they would have had artillery equal to that of a German division or about twice what they had in 1914

Finally, the adminsistrative reforms would have also speeded up the timetable considerably.

In the end, by 1917 the Russians would have had twice the troops with twice the firepower in Poland in three weeks. More than enough to ensure victory not only in Tannenberg but also in the Carparthians. If allowed to completion, the Russians would have been in Berlin and vienna about the time the Germans were reaching France

 

[LordKalvert]

Considering that Hötzendorf (the guy that weekly demanded a war with Serbia) was reapointed at FF´s insistence why would A-H be more peace oriented than OTL (barring the obvious cassus belli)?

Franz Ferdinand picked Conrad for his military not diplomatic expertise. He backed Conrad's reform of the Army but not his agenda. He also backed Arenthal hoping to improve relations with Russia only to see Arenthal botch the Bosnian annexation

The record on Ferdinand is pretty clear, He saw the problems of the monarchy to be internal and political and that war offered little benefit to Austria

 

[LordKalvert]

I wouldn't be so certain about Russia continuing to back the Serbs. The situation in the Balkans was very fluid and Serbia had only recently become Russia's primary proxy. Until 1908 they were split between Serbia and Bulgaria and tried to support both. Afterwards they shifted decisively to Serbia. Another shift back toward Bulgaria is entirely possible if events play out right. For example, if Serbia provokes a crisis with Italy and Austria over Albania and said crisis comes close to causing a war, St. Petersburg might start to rethink its commitment to Serbia.

The Russians saw the Serbs as a pawn to be used. They were something to check the Austrians with but could be sold out at anytime for the right price (i.e. the Straits or Bulgaria)

 

[Captain Jack]

The Russians saw the Serbs as a pawn to be used. They were something to check the Austrians with but could be sold out at anytime for the right price (i.e. the Straits or Bulgaria)

Well, yes, exactly. That's why any sufficiently severe crisis could push the Russians away from Serbia. But they have no use for a pawn that has ideas of its own. Little things they can, and did, tolerate but something major is going to force a re-evaluation of the relationship. My main point was that prior to 1908 Russia had not committed to making Serbia it's pawn. They were trying to balance Serbia and Bulgaria and weren't sure which one to back.

Bulgaria is the only alternative partner to Serbia. And make no mistake, the Russo-Bulgarian relationship would be much more of a partnership than it was with Serbia. A partnership dominated by Russia certainly, but Tsar Ferdinand was far to capable to allow his country to become a pawn of Russia.

 

[BooNZ]

The Russians saw the Serbs as a pawn to be used. They were something to check the Austrians with but could be sold out at anytime for the right price (i.e. the Straits or Bulgaria)

In reality, Russia was the pawn of Serbia - the Russians had no interest in Bosnia Herzagovina until Serbian indignation belatedly drove Pan-Slav fervour within Russia. Serbian international diplomacy and on-going territorial aspirations were entirely dependent on Russian militancy, and Russia dutifully obliged...

 

[BooNZ]

First, the Russian building plan DID include thousands of miles of rails- about 5000 in fact. They would have been able to get about 560 trains a day into Poland rather than the 360 they did in 1914. They were making very rapid progress and they don't take that long to build

Second, the buildup increased not only the number of men but the firepower of the Russian divisions immensely. By 1917, they would have had artillery equal to that of a German division or about twice what they had in 1914

Finally, the adminsistrative reforms would have also speeded up the timetable considerably.

In the end, by 1917 the Russians would have had twice the troops with twice the firepower in Poland in three weeks. More than enough to ensure victory not only in Tannenberg but also in the Carparthians. If allowed to completion, the Russians would have been in Berlin and vienna about the time the Germans were reaching France

By 1917 the Germans would have abandoned the Schlieffen plan, so the Russians would likely be facing 2-3 times as many Germans as 1914.

Before 1914 and Tannenburg, most overrated the potential of the Russian steamroller against the German Army, so your perceptions nicely illustrate the likely overconfidence of the Russian/French leadership who may not hesitate to provoke Germany.

The increased Russian infrastructure would enable them to feed a German meat grinder at a horrific rate...

 

[LordKalvert]

By 1917 the Germans would have abandoned the Schlieffen plan, so the Russians would likely be facing 2-3 times as many Germans as 1914.

Before 1914 and Tannenburg, most overrated the potential of the Russian steamroller against the German Army, so your perceptions nicely illustrate the likely overconfidence of the Russian/French leadership who may not hesitate to provoke Germany.

The increased Russian infrastructure would enable them to feed a German meat grinder at a horrific rate...

Tannenberg is overrated and underestimates the power of Russia considerably. The major cause of the defeat, a premature offensive caused by the need to relieve France, would have been avoided by the Germans going East. And as has been noted, the artillery advantage of the Germans would have been gone (and the Austrians even weaker than they were in 1914)

An Eastern offensive by the Germans would have led to their rapid defeat in 1917. The Russians would have been massed in numbers, dug in on their own territory and waited for the Germans (and their pathetic Austrian allies). After the German attacks break against the Russian lines , the Russian counteroffensive would sweep aside the demoralized survivors. Even a best case scenario for the Germans is the Russians engage in a slow, systematic withdrawal to the East drawing the Germans even further into the trap

To launch this insanity, the Germans would also have had to strip their Western frontier (which had little in the way of fortifications) and the French would easily have penetrated to the Rhine.

So by the end of September, the French would have been on the Rhine, the Germans fleeing Prussia while the Serbs, Romanians and Italians poured into the Hapsburg lands. Home by Christmas is likely to be home by Halloween

 

[LordKalvert]

Well, yes, exactly. That's why any sufficiently severe crisis could push the Russians away from Serbia. But they have no use for a pawn that has ideas of its own. Little things they can, and did, tolerate but something major is going to force a re-evaluation of the relationship. My main point was that prior to 1908 Russia had not committed to making Serbia it's pawn. They were trying to balance Serbia and Bulgaria and weren't sure which one to back.

Bulgaria is the only alternative partner to Serbia. And make no mistake, the Russo-Bulgarian relationship would be much more of a partnership than it was with Serbia. A partnership dominated by Russia certainly, but Tsar Ferdinand was far to capable to allow his country to become a pawn of Russia.

Oh quite true. Certainly in 1914, the Russians would have given serious consideration to an Austrian offer of a free hand in Bulgaria for a free hand in Serbia.

The Russians didn't give up on Bulgaria until the Second Balkan War when they saw an opportunity to reconcile with Romania (which would have been a very nice catch) and to a lesser extent Turkey. The problem with Bulgaria is that the Bulgarians also wanted Istanbul something Russia could never allow and no one could trust Ferdinand.

A Romanian/Serb alliance on the Austrian's southern frontier would have spelt the end of the Hapsburgs (especially if you can figure out how to keep Bulgaria at least neutral)

 

[BooNZ]

Tannenberg is overrated and underestimates the power of Russia considerably. The major cause of the defeat, a premature offensive caused by the need to relieve France, would have been avoided by the Germans going East. And as has been noted, the artillery advantage of the Germans would have been gone (and the Austrians even weaker than they were in 1914)

An Eastern offensive by the Germans would have led to their rapid defeat in 1917. The Russians would have been massed in numbers, dug in on their own territory and waited for the Germans (and their pathetic Austrian allies). After the German attacks break against the Russian lines , the Russian counteroffensive would sweep aside the demoralized survivors. Even a best case scenario for the Germans is the Russians engage in a slow, systematic withdrawal to the East drawing the Germans even further into the trap

To launch this insanity, the Germans would also have had to strip their Western frontier (which had little in the way of fortifications) and the French would easily have penetrated to the Rhine.

So by the end of September, the French would have been on the Rhine, the Germans fleeing Prussia while the Serbs, Romanians and Italians poured into the Hapsburg lands. Home by Christmas is likely to be home by Halloween

Who said anything about the Germans launching a general Eastern offensive? As previously stated, before the Russian Army actually went into action in 1914 it was overrated by everyone including the Germans. With no illusions of a quick war, the CP would settle in for a long one.

In the East, increased infrastructure would allow the Russians to feed increased numbers into synchronised offensives with the French (per doctrine). The Germans would be seeking to use its abilities of maneuver to inflict battles of annihilation (per doctrine).

In the West, it is unlikely the French would have enough heavy artillery or know how to best employ the same. France would need to pay for lessons in offensive doctrine in the usual currency. The French would have retained more of its industry, but probably would not have Great Britain as an active ally.

Difficult to see how A-H would be any weaker than OTL, given its military spending and manpower input in 1914 was proportionately the lowest of any 'great power' and its economy was one of the fastest growing. External threats are also likely to lead to greater military co-operation (pre-war) between A-H and Germany. OTL Germany had very little influence until A-H became desperate.

 

[LordKalvert]

Who said anything about the Germans launching a general Eastern offensive? As previously stated, before the Russian Army actually went into action in 1914 it was overrated by everyone including the Germans. With no illusions of a quick war, the CP would settle in for a long one.

In the East, increased infrastructure would allow the Russians to feed increased numbers into synchronised offensives with the French (per doctrine). The Germans would be seeking to use its abilities of maneuver to inflict battles of annihilation (per doctrine).

In the West, it is unlikely the French would have enough heavy artillery or know how to best employ the same. France would need to pay for lessons in offensive doctrine in the usual currency. The French would have retained more of its industry, but probably would not have Great Britain as an active ally.

Difficult to see how A-H would be any weaker than OTL, given its military spending and manpower input in 1914 was proportionately the lowest of any 'great power' and its economy was one of the fastest growing. External threats are also likely to lead to greater military co-operation (pre-war) between A-H and Germany. OTL Germany had very little influence until A-H became desperate.

Here we go again with your fantasies-

The Germans knew that they lacked the staying power and couldn't fight a two front war. They choose option west- destroy France before the Russians mobilize

Now, you argue that if the war is delayed until 1917, the Germans are going to change their entire strategy and wait to be attacked. That there is no such German plan to be found anywhere aside, just how can this result in a German victory?

The Russians would simply assemble their army in Poland at their leisure- the whole damn thing and the French would do the same forcing the Germans to divide their forces between the two fronts.

Once the Russians had their 120 divisions mobilized facing maybe forty German divisions and the Austrians, they would attack the weak linkage- the Austrians pushing them back quite easily (wasn't much of a problem in OTL so the massively larger Russian army of 1917 is going to have an easy time of it)

So what do the Germans do then? They could launch an attack out of East Prussia- which isn't likely to do very well against an entrenched Russian Army or try to form a new line with the remnants of the Austrians along the Carparthians.

Assuming they can do that, what good does it do? The Austrians have just lost a fifth of their population and have to deal with an even stronger Russia.

The neutrals would quickly take note- Austria and Germany are losing badly and they would pile on. Italy and Romania declare for the Entente, Turkey and Bulgaria neutral

Seriously, give us a scenario where the Germans and the Austrians stand a serious chance against the fully mobilized Russo-French forces. The Germans never thought they could do it

 

[LordKalvert]

I should add BooNZ:

Look at the French in the West- they are no launching their attacks against a much, much smaller German force (like half). They came close enough to prevailing in OTL that it isn't too hard to fathom what would have happened with half of the German Army in East Prussia-

The French would more than succeed against the depleted German lines and drive to the Rhine making the German war effort hopeless (the loss of the French iron mines alone would have ended the war in 1916)

And that's assuming they bother. If the Germans are being purely defensive, there's no need to fight them at all. Let the Russians and the eastern allies destroy Austria while the Germans sit in their trenches.

So now what do the Germans do? The Russians, Romanians, Serbs and Italians have divided Austria between them and the Russians can turn their full attention to the Germans

Seriously- the Defensive is not an option here. The Franco-Russians would just keep getting stronger and stronger. The only time the defensive would make sense is if there's a large relief army coming to your rescue (like if your France in 1914)

 

[Tonifranz]

I should add BooNZ:

Look at the French in the West- they are no launching their attacks against a much, much smaller German force (like half). They came close enough to prevailing in OTL that it isn't too hard to fathom what would have happened with half of the German Army in East Prussia-

The French would more than succeed against the depleted German lines and drive to the Rhine making the German war effort hopeless (the loss of the French iron mines alone would have ended the war in 1916)

And that's assuming they bother. If the Germans are being purely defensive, there's no need to fight them at all. Let the Russians and the eastern allies destroy Austria while the Germans sit in their trenches.

So now what do the Germans do? The Russians, Romanians, Serbs and Italians have divided Austria between them and the Russians can turn their full attention to the Germans

Seriously- the Defensive is not an option here. The Franco-Russians would just keep getting stronger and stronger. The only time the defensive would make sense is if there's a large relief army coming to your rescue (like if your France in 1914)

Looking at Plan XVII and how it worked for France, and the Russian performance against the Germans, I seriously doubt that France smashing itself against Alsace-Lorraine on a purely defensive Germany would perform much better than in OTL. And the Russian army, looking at it, were incompetent, and whenever they faced the Germans, lost.

So to me, the Russians would collapse in Revolution in an offensive war against Germany and Austria. If it cannot beat two corps in East Prussia with two armies in 1914 while almost all of the armies of Germany were in the west, how could, in 1917, face a much larger German Army? It could go to Galicia, but when Germany puts part of its forces to prop up the Austrians, the Russians are going to reel. Seriously, there is nothing in the Russian performance in WWI that tells me it could beat Germany! It couldn't beat Germany while most of the German forces were in the trenches in Western Europe, how could it win while most of it's forces are in the east?

All Germany has to do is to smash all Russian offensives, then wait for the Revolution to come. The Russians would sue for peace because they want to consolidate the revolution at home, and France would have to come to terms once their Eastern ally is no more and none of their offensives at Alsace Lorraine bore fruit.

 

[Halagaz]

So to me, the Russians would collapse in Revolution in an offensive war against Germany and Austria. If it cannot beat two corps in East Prussia with two armies in 1914 while almost all of the armies of Germany were in the west, how could, in 1917, face a much larger German Army? It could go to Galicia, but when Germany puts part of its forces to prop up the Austrians, the Russians are going to reel. Seriously, there is nothing in the Russian performance in WWI that tells me it could beat Germany! It couldn't beat Germany while most of the German forces were in the trenches in Western Europe, how could it win while most of it's forces are in the east?

All Germany has to do is to smash all Russian offensives, then wait for the Revolution to come. The Russians would sue for peace because they want to consolidate the revolution at home, and France would have to come to terms once their Eastern ally is no more and none of their offensives at Alsace Lorraine bore fruit.

Without a German-aligned Ottoman Empire to block the straits and cause massive shortages all around, a Russian revolution is unlikely to happen. And that's not taking into account their own military development scheduled for 1914-1917, which gave the pre-war German General Staff nightmares.

 

[BooNZ]

Here we go again with your fantasies-

The Germans knew that they lacked the staying power and couldn't fight a two front war. They choose option west- destroy France before the Russians mobilize

As previously stated (twice on this thread alone), before WW1, most over-rated the Russian Army - in reality, the Germans proved more than capable of fighting a two front war.

Now, you argue that if the war is delayed until 1917, the Germans are going to change their entire strategy and wait to be attacked. That there is no such German plan to be found anywhere aside, just how can this result in a German victory?

You state an improved rail network would enable Russia to mobilise more troops faster, therefore logically, Germany would have no expectation that it could quickly knock France out of the war on a timely basis.

"The German concept was to use their interior position to mass against one enemy, and then use their tactical superiority to defeat him. This would allow the Germans to once again use their interior position and rail mobility to mass against as second enemy, and so on..." Terrance Zuber

I never said it would automatically result in German victory, due to numerous potential butterflies. However, your assessment of Russians being in Berlin by Christmas 1917 is clearly ASB.

The Russians would simply assemble their army in Poland at their leisure- the whole damn thing and the French would do the same forcing the Germans to divide their forces between the two fronts.

Key words: simply + leisure

With the benefit of hindsight (in assessing Russian competence), I would be very nervous about amassing the Russian Army in the Polish Salient.

Once the Russians had their 120 divisions mobilized facing maybe forty German divisions and the Austrians, they would attack the weak linkage- the Austrians pushing them back quite easily (wasn't much of a problem in OTL so the massively larger Russian army of 1917 is going to have an easy time of it)

Massively larger army? The 1914 Russian army reforms would have ultimately increased its standing army by 400,000 men by 1917, but in absolute numbers by only 60,000 (i.e. it brought peacetime strength closer to wartime level). The German 1913 army reforms already scheduled an increase of 58,500 in absolute numbers for October 2014.

You also somehow assume in the face of a massive military build ups by Russia (France was close to maxed out) that Germany and A-H would do nothing. Germany and A-H had the capacity to further meaningful increases in resources and manpower available to its armies.

As previously stated, the Russian military build-up would likely improve military co-operation between Germany and A-H. OTL it verged on non-existent, but German influences led to significant improvements in A-H effectiveness later in WW1.

Conrad's absence in 1917 is likely to also enhance A-H early performance considerably...

So what do the Germans do then? They could launch an attack out of East Prussia- which isn't likely to do very well against an entrenched Russian Army or try to form a new line with the remnants of the Austrians along the Carparthians.

An uber-confident Russian steam roller adopting a defensive posture? How wide a defensive front would the Russians have to hold to prevent a Polish salient being pocketed, or merely threaten?

The neutrals would quickly take note- Austria and Germany are losing badly and they would pile on. Italy and Romania declare for the Entente, Turkey and Bulgaria neutral

A-H could do no worse than it did OTL. The most important neutral would be Great Britain, which is more likely to remain so.

Seriously, give us a scenario where the Germans and the Austrians stand a serious chance against the fully mobilized Russo-French forces. The Germans never thought they could do it

OTL including Great Britain, Belgium & Italy, all of which would be less likely to participate on the Russian side of things in 1917.