The European War (28-7-1914 / 25-9-1914)

Please imagine a little twist of fate when in 1914, the list of Russian commanders were made known and when commander of the first army is made known, being Alexei Brusilov.

So when in the end of august the first and second army are advancing in EastPrussia it is Samsonov advancing on the south and Brusilov in the north. In Gumbinen he defeated the Germans and the Germans retreated westwards, in panic. Brusilov ordered the reconaissance force on horses (planes which had this purpose were solely sent to Galicia by some reason) to follow the retreat as close as possible. After a few hours the reconaissance troups returned and said the Germans were fleeing. Brusilov ordered his troops to advance as fast as possible.

The Germans tried to retreat further, but were being attacked by a combined first and second Russian army. Ludendorff brought a message to Berlin that the Eastern front was collapsing calling for troops from Belgium brought to the East Front.

The German head of staff knew that the Schlieffen plan had failed and recommended Wilhelm II to sue for peace.

So if all this happened would we indeed have a WWI which lasted only a few months, everything being over with Christmas? Or would the Germans have something else in store....
 
No ideas?

Or is eveybody tired of WWI plots.

So what happens if the Germans are pushed back in East Prussia?
 
Was Brusilov naturally talented, or was he observant and capable of absorbing the correct lessons of 2 years of war? If he was overly brilliant he could make a difference, but if he was a good learner that makes him better than a lot of other generals in WW1 but that wouldn't give him any particular advantage in 1914.
 
Was Brusilov naturally talented, or was he observant and capable of absorbing the correct lessons of 2 years of war? If he was overly brilliant he could make a difference, but if he was a good learner that makes him better than a lot of other generals in WW1 but that wouldn't give him any particular advantage in 1914.

I don't really know if he was a genius. But I have read somewhere that when he was in Galicia with his 8th army, he did make use of roconnaisance planes which stood to his disposal. Now, it is a riddle to me why Rennenkampf halted at Gumbinen, waiting for a day before he went on marching westwards at a very slow pace. What was the reason for that??? So I think that a slightly more proactive leader would chase the Germans and in that case we wouldn't have a Tannenberg as we know it, but on the contrary, the Germans could have been in panic (which they were not far away from actually) and be beaten by the combined 1st and second army.

I know the Russians had other problems, lack of communication, lack of ammunition, but it seems to me that, in the scenario I described, the gamble to advance in East Germany after a few weeks, surprising the Germans in the process, could have been a winning strategy.
 
The man behind Brusilov's success in 1916 was - Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, the Austrian CoS, who had removed all good and reliable units from the eastern front to Italy - for his own offensive.
Other than this surprise success against the Austrians in 1916, there is nothing that would point to Brusilov being an outstanding commander. His record for 1917 is rather modest.
 
The man behind Brusilov's success in 1916 was - Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, the Austrian CoS, who had removed all good and reliable units from the eastern front to Italy - for his own offensive.
Other than this surprise success against the Austrians in 1916, there is nothing that would point to Brusilov being an outstanding commander. His record for 1917 is rather modest.

You do much injustice to the man in question. On the contrary it was the freedom of choice he obtained in 1916 which led to the partial success of the Brusilov Offensive.

In 1917 the Russian army was falling apart. nothing to do with the actions of Brusilov.
 
May be, but the fact remains that the Austro-Hungarian front line opposite Brusilov's units had been thinned out to the extreme. Conrad had moved everyone and everything that seemed combatworthy to Italy. What remained was - just crap.
Any Russian general would have scored against these units, which either surrendered on contact or ran away.
 
May be, but the fact remains that the Austro-Hungarian front line opposite Brusilov's units had been thinned out to the extreme. Conrad had moved everyone and everything that seemed combatworthy to Italy. What remained was - just crap.
Any Russian general would have scored against these units, which either surrendered on contact or ran away.

You may be true although Wikipedia has very positive things on Brusilov.

Any way, this is not what I intended to discuss with this thread.

The question is: If a Battle of Tannenberg is avoided and, the German forces were further pushed back into Germany, would the the inevitable panic lead to surrender, sue for peace or would the Commanders of the German army continue to fight with other means.

What would happen.
 
Tannenberg was a bonus for the Germans, but hardly pre-planned. The idea was to send part of the army east after victory in the west and restore the situation. The Germans 'knew' that the Russian armies wouldn't/couldn't advance beyond the Vistula.
IOTL, the OHL messed up victory in the frontier battles with campaign victory and intended to send six army corps east. (But thinking twice, they only sent two - which arrived too late for Tannenberg). - Sending six or eight corps then would mean success for the Entente campaign plan, i.e. diverting sufficient German forces to the east so that no German victory in the west was possible.
In total terms, the differences to OTL wouldn't be that grave: No Marne, because the weakened Germans in the west switch to the defensive earlier. East Prussia as a whole 'liberated'. - The Russian forces were no match for the Germans, for lack of heavy artillery and some other reasons.
 
Top