How long would a surviving Archduke Ferdinand delay WWI

[LordKalvert]

...and instead the Russians got Tannenberg. However, by 1917 the increased size of the Russian standing army, coupled with an improved rail infrastructure would likely lead to the Schlieffen plan being abandoned along with any illusions (among the CP) that the next war would be a short.

Exactly the point- the Germans knew that the Russian plans meant the end of the short war and the inevitable defeat of a long war. It makes it impossible for Germany to launch any offensive anywhere

A likely alternative strategy would be to look for a potential battles of annihilation, which are more likely in the East. To achieve success, such battles would be best fought on German territory or relatively close to the border. Thrusting offensives into the heart of Russia would clearly be self defeating.

Well, some sanity here. The Germans know that they can't force a decision on the Russians, nor can they do much with half their army on the Rhine. They are basically f***. The Russians aren't attacking Germany- they are going to knock out Austria first

In contrast to the CP powers that would be expecting a long war, the Russians might actually believe they can achieve victory by 'marching' all the way to Berlin (think Schlieffen plan in super slow-mo).

Nah, Vienna would make more sense (and the Silesean mines.) The French taking the Rhine would be nice

Refer above and consider the concepts of 'flank' and 'counterattack'.

You still haven't explained why the Russians are marching into Prussia when Austria is so much juicier of a target. Nor are you explaining how the Germans are going to strike at both Russia and France

Yeah, Tannenburg was a real nail biter

Showing your ignorance again? Tannenburg is caused by:

Zhilinsky dissipitating his forces
Rannemkepft not pressing his advantage
And everyone not waiting for the full mobilization- which your letting them do

OTL those French offensives did not go so good, while two thirds of the German Army was marching through Belgium.

Oh, well with the entire German northern wing moved to the East the French aren't going to be pulling back to deal with it are they?

Nor are they going to have to worry about the fortresses.

The adoption of fast firing artillery would be a significant force multiplier for A-H, providing 4x the rate of fire and vastly improved accuracy. The 1914 Russian reforms were to increase the number of artillery pieces per corps from 108 to 132 an increase of 22% - significant but not even in the same ballpark as the potential A-H improvements.

The Russian artillery advances are in the super critical heavy artillery section. They are bringing it up to the German level and no, the little advances of the Austrians aren't going to make much of a difference

As outlined above, the Germans would likely seek to have decisive battles as close to home as possible. Your suggestion that Russia should accumulate its forces in Poland would create a perfect opportunities, but I doubt even the Russians would be that foolish.

Your a real work here. The Germans are only going to be able to muster forty divisions in the East. The Russians will have 90. Then they move in and eliminate Austria and the Germans can come and get slaughtered in Russia or wait for the Russians to take Vienna

The Germans do not have to - the Russians and the French do.

Not the way the Germans saw it- which is why they went into France in the first place. IF they wait for the Russians and the French to mobilize, they are dead meat

Without the Schlieffen plan Belgium is firmly on the side lines. OTL neither Romania nor Italy had hair triggers and scarcely covered themselves in glory. Where did the Netherlands come from?

This is rich- of course Belgium stays neutral without the invasion. That was what I said- that Belgium was never allied to Russia. Your just inventing a new German plan (which has no historic basis) and deciding that everything will work to your fantasy

As fir Romania and Italy- they don't have to cover themselves in glory but they are coming in a lot sooner than your fantasy suggests. Romanian neutrality was only kept by King Carol. Without him, they are likely to join from the start. They certainly are joining the second things start to go bad for Austria which is week 2

A key advantage of the CP powers is that they would not be suffering from short war delusions.

Yes, and knowing that they have little to gain from a long war they might come to their senses and not start it

A 400,000 increase in the Russian standing army (i.e. pre mobilised) and improved Russian railway infrastructure would be convincing reasons not to commit 7/8 of the German army in the West. A shorter defensive line would also be easier to defend. Belgium will be firmly on the side lines.

You are handing all initiative to the Franco-Russian alliance and the defeat of the CP becomes inevitable. You seem totally ignorant of the fact that the Russians are mobilizing and get to choose who they attack. Why go after Germany instead of the weak link of Austria?

Not material

Yes but you can't grasp it

Reduced German naval expenditures, both because the naval race is lost and the need to focus on army, the increased Russian naval expenditure, increased Russian belligerence, colonial rivalry including the Great game, likely turnover of Grey & Crowe and hostilities likely to be initiated by Russians...

Yes, of course it is only ever going to be a short war

You really have a fertile imagination. Yes, there are strains in the Anglo-Russian relations because the accords over Persia are no longer feasible due to the internal situation.

That doesn't mean that either side is going to throw away their Entente. That Entente was reached for many reasons and the minor differences over Persia are not enough

Yes, German naval expenditures are falling- because of the increased pressure from Russia and France. If that let's up, the naval rivalry is back on Britain's back- her main reason for staying in the Entente

Finally, yes, the large Russian Navy is going to be a factor. If England loses Russia, she risks Russian-German accord and the threat to her fleet is decisive

Another reason not to let Persian issues dominate the alliance

 

[sloreck]

The problem with Russia has to do with the overall system - incompetence, corruption, the fecklessness of most of the nobility, and the Romanovs at the top. Absent the war which got the officers to do in Rasputin, he may be just another factor that bollixes up Russia. Good equipment, and more men, in the hands of a messed up system ameliorates things but does not solve it.

If we posit that its Russia/France against Germany/A-H and Germany has built up defenses in the west and lets France batter itself (no Schlieffen plan) Britain will not enter the war, therefore no blockade. If Russia goes for straits, then again have Ottomans with Germany/A-H, and if Britain not in the war then no Lawrence, no supported revolt, no campaign in Iraq etc - and also the longer the war is delayed the more the Otomans modernize.

a France/Russia/Serbia vs Germany/A-H/Ottomans in 1918-1920 is by no means a sure victory for France/Russia.

 

[BooNZ]

The Russians had weaknesses- no worse than France's. They crushed the Austrians without much trouble. If England and France had fought a decent war, it would have been over. As mentioned by so many here, the real problem of Tannenburg was that the Russians were attacking prematurely to save France. If they had been fully mobilized, the battle would never have been in doubt

In observing Russian military maneuvers in 1914, the German Intelligence assessment made the following observations:

“The Russian Army had been thoroughly reorganised. This included conscription, the composition of the larger units, mobilisation, troop stationing, management, officer training, regulations, tactics and training.

The Russian character set limits to the effectiveness of these reforms: disorganised work habits and lack of attention to detail, a tendency towards personal comfort, insufficient sense of duty, unwillingness to take responsibility, lack of initiative and the complete inability to use time wisely. This was offset by some degree by the fact that 90 per cent of the Russian population were peasants. They were strong, needed little, and were brave.They were also mentally slow and lacked initiative. The Russian soldier would however recover quickly from defeat and be capable of conducting a tenacious defence. He was loyal and eager and reliable.

Russian officers at all levels were poor trainers, and they had the Russians character faults in spades. They did not lack boldness, but their sense of duty and willingness to accept responsibility were lacking. Each level required close and continuous supervision by the superior level. They were cold-blooded and possessed good nerves, but also had a tendency towards personal comfort and were physically and mentally lazy; they were not resourceful and failed during unforeseen circumstances.Russian bureaucrats were corrupt.

Russian tactical doctrine had been modernised, but there was no evidence in the maneuvers of the last years that this had any effect on troop practice. Troop movements were exercised with ‘extreme slowness’. Russian leaders were not able to quickly exploit a favourable tactical situation. Troop-leading procedures – giving, transmitting and executing orders – broke down. Larger Russian units could not quickly transition from the defence to the offence or change the direction of march. Russian leadership incombat would be dominated by methodical slowness, waiting for orders and for neighbouring units, and attempting to operate according to standard, cookie cutter procedures.”
Terrence Zuber = the Real German War Plan 1904-14 = page 136

Tannenburg was not an isolated incident - refer also: Battle of Łódź; Battle of Limanowa; Second Battle of the Masurian Lakes; Gorlice–Tarnów Offensive; Lake Naroch Offensive; Baranovichi Offensive

Even those rare Russian successes such as the Brusilov Offensive and the Battle of the Vistula River resulted in twice as many Russian as CP casualties.

 

[BooNZ]

Funny how the Kaiser and his entourage who knew something of the situation didn't see it that way. That they know a lot more than an historian who's out in left field in his analysis shouldn't be a surprise

Only you could make Willy and Nicky actually look smart

I think we both know who has the much better sources. But stay in your dreamland where the Sultan and the Russians never cooperate and the Sultan is bussom buddies with Queen Victoria even when she's running around Europe trying to get him deposed

You seem fond of quoting Willy and Nicky and others out of context. In contrast, sitting on my desk at the moment:

• The Real German War Plan 1904-14 Terrence Zuber
• The First World War Germany and Austria Hungary 1914-1918 Holger H. Herwig
• The Arming of Europe and the Making of the First World War David G. Herrmann
• The Sleepwalkers - How Europe Went to War in 1914 Christopher Clark
• Dreadnaught Robert K Massie
• The Berlin-Baghdad Express Sean McMeekin
• After Clausewitz - German Military thinkers before the Great War - Antulio J. Echevarria II

The Sultan was long gone by 1914 and truly I was not aware Victoria was a runner

 

[BooNZ]

Oh, well with the entire German northern wing moved to the East the French aren't going to be pulling back to deal with it are they?

Nor are they going to have to worry about the fortresses.

The Frenchman full of holes were not going anywhere - if the French do not pull back then there are more Frenchmen full of holes, unless the Germans run out of bullets - or until such time as the French develop a decent offensive doctrine.

OTL - there were plenty of German fortresses on the French/German border, potentially more with the POD.

The Russian artillery advances are in the super critical heavy artillery section. They are bringing it up to the German level and no, the little advances of the Austrians aren't going to make much of a difference

Clearly you do not grasp the importance and significant of A-H having relatively few fast firing artillery. OTL it provided Russia with a huge early advantage over A-H. The Russian artillery arm was a relative strength, at least by German assessments.

Your a real work here. The Germans are only going to be able to muster forty divisions in the East. The Russians will have 90. Then they move in and eliminate Austria and the Germans can come and get slaughtered in Russia or wait for the Russians to take Vienna

OTL in 1914 A-H had the lowest level of mobilisation of all the great powers and mobilised approximately 50 divisions, 37 facing the Russians. The Germans had approximately 88 divisions in total. Germany and A-H had ample manpower and resources to increase those levels meaningfully in response to any perceived threat.

With fast firing artillery, German influence and without Conrad, A-H would fare much better than OTL - even without increases. If Russia commits 50 divisions against A-H, that leaves 40 Russian divisions to fend off 40 German divisions - good luck with that! Another 'Great Retreat' anyone?

Not the way the Germans saw it- which is why they went into France in the first place. IF they wait for the Russians and the French to mobilize, they are dead meat

Like OTL

This is rich- of course Belgium stays neutral without the invasion. That was what I said- that Belgium was never allied to Russia. Your just inventing a new German plan (which has no historic basis) and deciding that everything will work to your fantasy

Grosser Ostaufmarsch

Another reason not to let Persian issues dominate the alliance

GB was not in an alliance

 

[1940LaSalle]

Agree about Prohibition.

OTOH I don't see why Hughes would get in. Removing the war means that the election is fought entirely on domestic issues, and Wilson's domestic policies were popular. I suspect he'd carry all his OTL states, and maybe pick up IN, MN and WV in addition.

Not so sure about that: recall that Wilson had to play the "he kept us out of war" card and even so just barely squeaked by. Remove that and make him run on his domestic record only and I suggest he loses.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Not so sure about that: recall that Wilson had to play the "he kept us out of war" card and even so just barely squeaked by. Remove that and make him run on his domestic record only and I suggest he loses.

Except the only reason the GOP candidate was doing so well was due to supporting the pro-war crowd; the election in 1916 had less to do with domestic politics, and more to do with the war.

 

[LordKalvert]

Only you could make Willy and Nicky actually look smart



You seem fond of quoting Willy and Nicky and others out of context. In contrast, sitting on my desk at the moment:

• The Real German War Plan 1904-14 Terrence Zuber
• The First World War Germany and Austria Hungary 1914-1918 Holger H. Herwig
• The Arming of Europe and the Making of the First World War David G. Herrmann
• The Sleepwalkers - How Europe Went to War in 1914 Christopher Clark
• Dreadnaught Robert K Massie
• The Berlin-Baghdad Express Sean McMeekin
• After Clausewitz - German Military thinkers before the Great War - Antulio J. Echevarria II

The Sultan was long gone by 1914 and truly I was not aware Victoria was a runner

Of course, I have the actual diplomatic correspondence with the Kaiser' marginal notes attatched. I do think that men like Holstein, Bulow, Hohenlohe, Saurma and the Kaiser knew a little about German diplomatic thinking

Dreadnaught is a nice popular history with glaring inaccuracies

Terrance Zuber is known for making some pretty wild claims

You might also want to try Peter Gatrell The Last Argument of Tsardom (a really good read on Russian defense industry)

Mannings Bayonets before Bullets

Bridges Sadowa to Sarajevo (great read on Austrian Foregin policy)

But that's just some for starters

(Yes, the Sultan was long gone but the point remains- your understanding of the period was so warped that you had the Ottomans and the British allied against Russia when it was really more the Russians and the Ottomans against the British. That's why you couldn't understand the collapse of Austro-British relations and the rise of the Austro-Russian entente among many other errors you have committed)

 

[LordKalvert]

The Frenchman full of holes were not going anywhere - if the French do not pull back then there are more Frenchmen full of holes, unless the Germans run out of bullets - or until such time as the French develop a decent offensive doctrine.

OTL - there were plenty of German fortresses on the French/German border, potentially more with the POD.

First, the French are going to be in a much stronger position than your alluding too. After all, they would be fighting about half the Germans that they do OTL and can throw in their fortress forces as well. They don't have to get very deep- just around Metz and the entire German line is going to start crumbling. The Germans would be faced with retreat over the Rhine bridges or risking the destruction of their Western Armies

Second, there is no one in the German high command arguing for fortresses on the Western frontier. You've created a military doctrine and assigned it to the Germans without any indication that they would seriously even consider it

Clearly you do not grasp the importance and significant of A-H having relatively few fast firing artillery. OTL it provided Russia with a huge early advantage over A-H. The Russian artillery arm was a relative strength, at least by German assessments.

OTL in 1914 A-H had the lowest level of mobilisation of all the great powers and mobilised approximately 50 divisions, 37 facing the Russians. The Germans had approximately 88 divisions in total. Germany and A-H had ample manpower and resources to increase those levels meaningfully in response to any perceived threat.

With fast firing artillery, German influence and without Conrad, A-H would fare much better than OTL - even without increases. If Russia commits 50 divisions against A-H, that leaves 40 Russian divisions to fend off 40 German divisions - good luck with that! Another 'Great Retreat' anyone?

Seriously, a manpower race against Russia and France? Yes, the Austrians had some room to grow if their political system and economy would allow it (they wouldn't)

As noted, the Russian plans were for a massive increase in their field artillery bringing it up to the German level. So no, forty German divisions aren't going to do that great against the Russians standing on the defensive (who would have the equivalent of about twenty more in the fortresses.

Like OTL

Since the war OTL is much different than the one you propose, your allusions to it are rather desperate. If the Germans stand on the defensive, the Russians are allowed to mobilize completely before launching any attacks (see the difference here?) Furthermore, the Russians are given the opportunity to chose the place of the attack (see Austria) and that goes the same as OTL

Not only are you giving the Russians the initiative as to time and place, your giving them the internal lines allowing them to deal with Austria and then Germany

Even Haig and Joffre aren't that stupid

GB was not in an alliance

Nope, but you seem to have bought the official propaganda

 

[lounge60]

From:"Archduke Franz Ferdinand Lives!: A World without World War I",by Richard Ned Lebow:

It is August 2014,and the northeren hemisphere is experiencing a second month of exceptionally lovely weather.
Americans have just celebrated the one hundredth anniversary of the opening of Panama canal,hailed in retrospect along with his sister Suez Canal as transportation link that facilitated globalization and helped forge a century of peace.
Queen Elizabeth II is hosting Prince Harry and his German bride,Princess Elizabetha.
The Princess's father,younger brother of Kaiser,named her after the British Queen in recognition of the excellent between these two long intermarried families of constitutional Monarchs.
In Jerusalem under the authority of the Great Powers Condominium for the Holy Land,renewed clashes have occurred between Orthodox Jews and their Muslim counterparts at the Temple Mount.
In India the governor general Gurchuran Singh,is on holyday at hill station but has meet with rapresentatives of India's sporting and buisness elite for a briefing on their preparations for hosting next year's Commonwhealth Games.
They will hold events in all of India's major cities,from Dacca in the east to Karachi in the west.....

 

[jb3]

Its a common misconception that FF wanted a US of Austria; he did not. That was presented by a Romanian professor, which FF rejected. He was a massive conservative like Nicholas II of Russia, but hated the Magyar nobles and was trying to find a way around their power as part of the Ausgleich; he thought about a Third Crownland of Yugoslavia, but ultimately rejected it by 1907 as creating more problems than it solved. His plan upon his death was to refuse to be crowned in Hungary until they rewrote their constitution and if they refused he was going to launch the 1905 Plan U to coup the Budapest parliament and rewrite the constitution by force to allow for universal manhood suffrage in Hungary to break the lock of the Magyar nobility on parliament (only 5% of the population could vote, only nobles). By having all the non-Magyars voting, they were about 49% of the population of Hungary, and all the poor peasant Magyars voting too the nobles would lose control over the Hungarian half of the Empire and FF could then play divide and conquer with the ethnic groups in Hungary to get his way ruling the Dual Monarchy. It was a good plan if he could pull it off without starting a civil war, which I think he could have pretty easily, because so many Hungarian citizens hated the parliament of the nobles, despite their ethnic chauvanism propaganda in Hungary to divide and conquer the poor, whatever their ethnic group.

I agree with this. If FF could break the power of the Hungarian nobility and enfranchise a) Hungarians who loathed the nobility and b) the huge percentage of non-Hungarians in the Hungarian crownlands then he could have pulled it off.

As others have noted- the Russian succession is becoming a mess. Alexis is not long for the world and has little chance of producing any offspring in any event. Nicholas might relent and let his brother have the throne (like he does in 1917) or he might try and put his daughter on the throne. Not sure where that one's headed but giving the throne to his cousin is really unlikely.

There is no way Nicholas allows the Vladimir line (who he and Alexandra loathed) near the throne if Alexis dies before there is any war. He only abdicated to Michael so he could have Alexis near him (many scholars actually think NII abdicating on his son's behalf was illegal). Michael is married morgantically to a divorcee nobody particularly likes. If Nicholas has time to make a calculated decision he revokes the Pauline Laws (what one Tsar could do, another could undo) and makes GD Olga heir - something Alexandra had actually advocated when Nicholas was near death around 1900 before Alexis was born. A healthy heiress (and three sisterly spares - only one of whom according to DNA evidence of their bodies carried the hemophilia gene) with no Rasputin and no war going on with Russia's GDP growing at a massive rate (which it was) might change things. I know a lot of people say Russia was doomed but I actually think it took a world war and massive causalities to break things down. Without a war Nicholas II could have hobbled together long enough for Olga to take over and lead into a more constitutional form of government (based on what we know of her personality she didn't have the inclination or personality to be an autocrat).

 

[PandaRosa]

Without involvement in the Great War, even delayed, would the United States remain more isolationist in its policies? What of American society? We did have large groups of immigrants from Italy and eastern Europe, but outside the cities how much would the outside world affect average Americans? I can see young men restless for adventure signing up to go to Europe, an outlet for a lot of restless young energy.

 

[BooNZ]

Of course, I have the actual diplomatic correspondence with the Kaiser' marginal notes attatched. I do think that men like Holstein, Bulow, Hohenlohe, Saurma and the Kaiser knew a little about German diplomatic thinking.

From the departure of Bismarck onward, German diplomacy was a slow motion train wreck.

Dreadnaught is a nice popular history with glaring inaccuracies

Really? Care to name a few?

Terrance Zuber is known for making some pretty wild claims

I kind of concur - The facts he provides are gold, but some of his conclusions are a bit 'surprising'. However,his analysis is often thought provoking and a nice contrast to other more orthodox analysis.

You might also want to try Peter Gatrell The Last Argument of Tsardom (a really good read on Russian defense industry)

Skimmed through a lot of it - quite promising - "In Sukhomlinov’s view, the Russian Army suffered at least as much from deficiencies in organisation, as it did from financial restraints" and there is scant evidence those were rectified. The book notes the risk of Russian forces being trapped in the Polish salient.

I actually more interested in the 'opportunity costs' of Russia's military build up detailed in the book, especially as in relation to education and healthcare.

Mannings Bayonets before Bullets

I suspect as an alternative Breakthrough: The Gorlice-Tarnow Campaign, 1915 by the same author would be more on point.

Bridges Sadowa to Sarajevo (great read on Austrian Foregin policy)

Reads like Hansard and is light on references

 

[BooNZ]

First, the French are going to be in a much stronger position than your alluding too. After all, they would be fighting about half the Germans that they do OTL and can throw in their fortress forces as well. They don't have to get very deep- just around Metz and the entire German line is going to start crumbling. The Germans would be faced with retreat over the Rhine bridges or risking the destruction of their Western Armies

"...unless the French were to remain on the defensive, their central problem, according to Marchland, was the Metz-Diedenhofen fortress complex." Zuber pg 104 [that was in 1911]

According to a subsequent 12/13 German Intelligence assessment:

"An initial French offensive was considered extremely difficult - much more so than the German offensive - and therefore very unlikely unless the Germans committed significant forces to the East. The 3rd Department was implicitly saying that an Ostaufmarsch would assist and encourage a French offensive. If the French did attack, the most likely course of French action would be to attack both sides of the Metz (which was in fact Joffre's intent in Plan XVII). The attack on the French right between Metz and Strasbourg was extremely difficult and the left wing French armies would separated by those on the right by Metz. The further advance by the left would be in eccentric directions towards the Moselle and the Rhine, and would be blocked by those rivers. A French advance across the Upper Rhine into South Germany would be cut off."

Zuber - page 120 [German assessment 1912/13]

Second, there is no one in the German high command arguing for fortresses on the Western frontier. You've created a military doctrine and assigned it to the Germans without any indication that they would seriously even consider it

Yet OTL numerous German fortresses on the border were built - the "created" military doctrine is recorded in multiple primary sources - disregarding or ignoring common sense is one thing, you actively avoiding established facts repeatedly is getting pathetic!

Seriously, a manpower race against Russia and France? Yes, the Austrians had some room to grow if their political system and economy would allow it (they wouldn't)

In OTL 1914 the Russians had been building up their armed forces at pace for five years, while A-H had scarcely started to modernise its modest forces. From 1915 the Russians routinely outnumbered the CP powers 2-3 to 1 and still got smashed.

As noted, the Russian plans were for a massive increase in their field artillery bringing it up to the German level. So no, forty German divisions aren't going to do that great against the Russians standing on the defensive (who would have the equivalent of about twenty more in the fortresses.

False. The 1914 Russian program projected a 22% increase in artillery, a significant, but not massive increase. In absolute terms, the level of Russian manpower would remain essentially unchanged under the plan.

Russians would have in total about 120 divisions (36 of which being cavalry). If correct, those 20 divisions would be likely spread throughout obsolete forts from the Baltic and right around the Polish salient - a chocolate fireguard against super heavy howitzers. Meanwhile you have 10 Russian divisions left covering Bulgaria, the Caucuses and the East.

In contrast, the introduction of fast firing A-H artillery leads to a 400% increase in firepower, coupled with increased accuracy. Early Russian superiority in artillery (being fast firing) was instrumental in its early successes against A-H. In 1917 or later, that qualitative advantage does not exist.

Nope, but you seem to have bought the official propaganda

Subtitles please