To avoid thread necromancy: Why did the CP beat Russia in WWI?

I agree with pretty much everything in this post. The one thing I'd note is that measured on a purely military, as opposed to holistic, analysis Russia winds up performing the best of all the Allies, but the political cost of this is what ultimately disintegrated the Tsarist state. Russia's armies did well in maneuver situations where their leadership tended to be better, their failings against Germany were exacerbated by the Lev Mekhlis types winding up fighting Germany where Russia's more competent generals usually wound up facing Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans.

I would disagree,

the best fighters were in the entente were the French (with the Canadians as a close 2nd)

the french army was regarded by the Germans as the hardest obstacle to overcome, and by the time they put a grown up in charge (petain) they had largely worked out the kinks and became a formidable fighting force where the British and Russians still had severe organizational and tactical flaws in their forces
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The Russian army of ww1 wasn't it's ww2 counterpart that could absorb 4 million losses and still keep coming; the political will wasn't there, nor was the society industrialized enough (no lend lease type paper over either) to just keep filling in the losses without catestrophic effects on production of arms and food

Agreed

Also remember the Final solution. The Germans treated minorities in Russia a lot better than the Russians did in WW1. In WW2, Romania had almost zero partisan issues.

It tends to get lost in the Hitler would never do that, but if Hitler had waited on the persecution of Poles and Jews in 1939/40/41 and acted like liberators in 1941 in the Ukraine, the Soviet people will to fight might have been broken. At a minimum, it would be a lot easier to break their will. Hitler had what amounted to a "take no civilian prisoner" policy, and it strengthened the Soviet will.

Or to put another way, imagine that Hitler had attacked but it was not the strong Soviet system of 1941, but the weak USSR of 1989. Just move the political will power back in time. Hitler might have well gotten near the gates of Moscow in October 1941, and a leader like Boris Yeltsin might have assassinate Stalin and signed a peace deal.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
And as far as bashing the UK, there's only so much truth to that. The UK had to raise huge inexperienced armies never having done that before, while France and Germany were used to the concept. Put enough inexperienced men against veterans and it ends badly every single time.

There is a lot of truth to it. The UK armies were not good. And I mean armies not individual men. In 1916, the UK had a 30% dud rate and were using shrapnel, not high explosive, shells to try to dig out bunkers. The USA started from a lower base, but by April 1919, we had plenty of shells. In fact, by April 1918, our shells worked. It was late 1915 that the British issue helmets. The USA started the war with helmets. The UK believe that the RN won wars, and ignored the Army needs for 100 years, and it showed. Just like in the Crimean war where France had much better units to start the war.
 
I would disagree,

the best fighters were in the entente were the French (with the Canadians as a close 2nd)

the french army was regarded by the Germans as the hardest obstacle to overcome, and by the time they put a grown up in charge (petain) they had largely worked out the kinks and became a formidable fighting force where the British and Russians still had severe organizational and tactical flaws in their forces

I certainly agree with this in terms of the overall war. France, after all, won in 1918 where neither Russia nor Germany would qualify as "winners." That in itself indicates France had the best *overall* army in the Allied side. However measured from the point of view of advances made and actual military accomplishments, only one member of the Allies captured entire Central Powers armies in the course of campaigns: Russia, which overall was the *weakest* of the Big 3 Allies.

It's really a historical paradox.

Agreed

Also remember the Final solution. The Germans treated minorities in Russia a lot better than the Russians did in WW1. In WW2, Romania had almost zero partisan issues.

It tends to get lost in the Hitler would never do that, but if Hitler had waited on the persecution of Poles and Jews in 1939/40/41 and acted like liberators in 1941 in the Ukraine, the Soviet people will to fight might have been broken. At a minimum, it would be a lot easier to break their will. Hitler had what amounted to a "take no civilian prisoner" policy, and it strengthened the Soviet will.

Or to put another way, imagine that Hitler had attacked but it was not the strong Soviet system of 1941, but the weak USSR of 1989. Just move the political will power back in time. Hitler might have well gotten near the gates of Moscow in October 1941, and a leader like Boris Yeltsin might have assassinate Stalin and signed a peace deal.

IMHO at least some of this had to do with the German Empire's leadership acting far more rationalistic than did the Nazi leadership. They were able to do things like set rational goals and look to exploit enemy weaknesses, instead of getting a massive dose of omnicidal hubristic Stupid Virus and assuming what doesn't work all that well in France will suddenly work well in Russia.

There is a lot of truth to it. The UK armies were not good. And I mean armies not individual men. In 1916, the UK had a 30% dud rate and were using shrapnel, not high explosive, shells to try to dig out bunkers. The USA started from a lower base, but by April 1919, we had plenty of shells. In fact, by April 1918, our shells worked. It was late 1915 that the British issue helmets. The USA started the war with helmets. The UK believe that the RN won wars, and ignored the Army needs for 100 years, and it showed. Just like in the Crimean war where France had much better units to start the war.

Well, at least part of the UK's problem was that it had never created any kind of mass army before WWI, and it showed through the entire war. The UK had previously managed to get by with relatively tiny armies and a powerful navy, when it needed both a massive, powerful army *and* a powerful navy it took it years to work all the kinks out. Unlike Russia, however, it did sustain the damage required to work them out.
 
capturing austrian armies... including entire corps made up with ethnic groups not exactly committed to the cause; isn't as impressive as the paper tally would make you think

i wouldn't rate these victories any higher than the Germans cold cocking Romania; victories against the B team don't count as much in the overall standings
 
*decides to avoid his Haig rehabilitation arguments. The force density "thing" giving the Russians an easier war of manouvere has been indicated.*

Right. As I see it:

-Political losses were the most important factor. The Central Powers didn't manage to march into Moscow, and probably never could have done before a unified, committed state. Relying on horses, carriages and railway lines (with different gauges) against WWI defensive firepower assured that. Political incompetence (especially the case once Nicky left for the front), combined with the addition of one V.I. Lenin and an already somewhat unstable situation at home before the war, ultimately defeated the Russians. This was only possible because the German leadership, even though it contained such inspired geniuses as Kaiser Wilhelm II (fortunately sidelined), was not completely insane.

-These political issues were exacerbated by Russian defeats. The loss of millions of men crippled harvests, damaged industries, and sapped the will to fight. So too did the loss of rolling stock. Losing these made it difficult for food to be transported to cities (this was particularly important in sapping popular support, with bread prices spiralling up), and supplies to the front line. Indeed, Brusilov's reason for adopting his innovative tactics was that he lacked sufficient artillery for the "old fashioned way". Once he managed to get enough shells, he returned to the old way, with bloody results.

As the Germans were the most consistently successful of all the Central Powers against the Russians, this leads them to be the most significant of their enemies in the field. I've given the reasons why Russia lost. I can't help but think that I've misinterpreted Snake's question somehow, but never mind. I usually do.

((EDIT: didn't want a thumbs down.))
 
To me the Russians lost because they just couldn't manage the war economy. While the Germans thumped the Russians several times the Russians were still fighting.

The problem is the Russians couldn't supply the armies in the field, the factories and feed the cities. The Germans had enough problems with this themselves, see German Railroad collapse winter 1917-18. It was made worse by the inflation problems that the Russians couldn't handle either. So you ended up with in the Russian cities, hearing of one defeat after another, food shortages, inflation problems, etc. This combined with the history of political repression that Russia had and one can wonder if it wasn't something of a miracle that they didn't implode sooner.

The thing about Lenin is while he was important don't overrate his effect either. The Tsar was tossed aside before Lenin left Switzerland.

Michael
 
capturing austrian armies... including entire corps made up with ethnic groups not exactly committed to the cause; isn't as impressive as the paper tally would make you think

i wouldn't rate these victories any higher than the Germans cold cocking Romania; victories against the B team don't count as much in the overall standings

I don't disagree with this. I'm simply noting that when say, the UK and France faced the B-Team in *their* own right, namely at Salonika, it didn't exactly have happy endings for them. Even here there's still a difference between Russia and the other Allies, the kind that would lead a military analysis of the war to conclude an exact opposite end to what did in fact occur.

I also think this applies more to the Brusilov Offensive than to 1914, where the problem was less quality of troops than the consequences of poor deployment and leadership on the part of the Austro-Hungarians leading to a massive reality ensues moment.

*decides to avoid his Haig rehabilitation arguments. The force density "thing" giving the Russians an easier war of manouvere has been indicated.*

Right. As I see it:

-Political losses were the most important factor. The Central Powers didn't manage to march into Moscow, and probably never could have done before a unified, committed state. Relying on horses, carriages and railway lines (with different gauges) against WWI defensive firepower assured that. Political incompetence (especially the case once Nicky left for the front), combined with the addition of one V.I. Lenin and an already somewhat unstable situation at home before the war, ultimately defeated the Russians. This was only possible because the German leadership, even though it contained such inspired geniuses as Kaiser Wilhelm II (fortunately sidelined), was not completely insane.

-These political issues were exacerbated by Russian defeats. The loss of millions of men crippled harvests, damaged industries, and sapped the will to fight. So too did the loss of rolling stock. Losing these made it difficult for food to be transported to cities (this was particularly important in sapping popular support, with bread prices spiralling up), and supplies to the front line. Indeed, Brusilov's reason for adopting his innovative tactics was that he lacked sufficient artillery for the "old fashioned way". Once he managed to get enough shells, he returned to the old way, with bloody results.

As the Germans were the most consistently successful of all the Central Powers against the Russians, this leads them to be the most significant of their enemies in the field. I've given the reasons why Russia lost. I can't help but think that I've misinterpreted Snake's question somehow, but never mind. I usually do.

((EDIT: didn't want a thumbs down.))

Nah, in this case this actually does make a lot of sense.

To me the Russians lost because they just couldn't manage the war economy. While the Germans thumped the Russians several times the Russians were still fighting.

The problem is the Russians couldn't supply the armies in the field, the factories and feed the cities. The Germans had enough problems with this themselves, see German Railroad collapse winter 1917-18. It was made worse by the inflation problems that the Russians couldn't handle either. So you ended up with in the Russian cities, hearing of one defeat after another, food shortages, inflation problems, etc. This combined with the history of political repression that Russia had and one can wonder if it wasn't something of a miracle that they didn't implode sooner.

The thing about Lenin is while he was important don't overrate his effect either. The Tsar was tossed aside before Lenin left Switzerland.

Michael

True, and Lenin himself was more of a co-opter of the existing growing power of the Soviets as rivals to the Provisional Government.
 
the entente's overall warfighting until 1917 was largely a string of failures and gigantic boondoggles

the first well handled (from a strategic and tactical sense) french attacks didn't occur till Petains summer 1917 Verdun attacks

the first well handled british attack (from a tactical sense; I have hard time seeing any clever British strategy in the entire war) was plumber's gnawing offensives in late 1917

for the russians? the austrians cut and ran a few times because they had just as many structural problems (if not more) than the russians themselves; otherwise they had nothing special to their credit against the germans for the entire war; hell the Bruislov offensive for as effective as it was in terms of pow's and territory cost the Russians hundreds of thousands of ultimately irreplaceable men; at best it was analagous to the spring offensive
 

BlondieBC

Banned
IMHO at least some of this had to do with the German Empire's leadership acting far more rationalistic than did the Nazi leadership. They were able to do things like set rational goals and look to exploit enemy weaknesses, instead of getting a massive dose of omnicidal hubristic Stupid Virus and assuming what doesn't work all that well in France will suddenly work well in Russia.



Well, at least part of the UK's problem was that it had never created any kind of mass army before WWI, and it showed through the entire war. The UK had previously managed to get by with relatively tiny armies and a powerful navy, when it needed both a massive, powerful army *and* a powerful navy it took it years to work all the kinks out. Unlike Russia, however, it did sustain the damage required to work them out.

Wilhelm was nationalistic, often naive, often unwise, but he was not evil by the standards of the day. Hitler was evil, who continued to slaughter Jews and Slavs even when it did not make military sense. Hitler was evil by the standards of either WW1 or WW2.

I am not criticizing the UK strategy in general over the 100 years of glory. It worked great, and maintaining a large army would have used a lot of resources that went towards building an industrial society. My criticism is more the last decade or so when they enter the alliance system. This changed the UK strategic military needs, and they UK should have either

A) Built the army and industrial infrastructure to fight a major land war, including peace time conscription. OR

B) Accepted that it was unwilling to build the larger army, and accept that where a Navy dominated, the UK ruled the seas, but it had no say in places like Poland or the Balkans.

IMO, Britain chose the middle path, and paid a heavy price for it. It is not unique for the time period though. Germany naval strategy was poorly though out, almost to the point of not having a plan besides building big, expensive ships. France should have considered better relations with Germany. Russia was overextended by 1905, and should have had very limited interaction with the Balkans. Russia telling the Serbs to behave better in the decade leading up to the war would have been in Russia best interests. And IMO, if the Great War is avoided, it is likely the the vast empire system still exists, although in a modified form, and place like France, UK, and Germany are still Great Powers. Well, at least 2 of them.

I do agree that not having a conscripted army in the previous 100 years is the issue. At least the USA had done a full mobilization in just beyond living memory.
 
In 1916, the UK had a 30% dud rate

A good many of those shells were manufactured in the USA. The nickname for a made-in-the-USA dud was a “Woodrow Wilson.”

It was late 1915 that the British issue helmets.

Only the Germans started the war with helmets, and the pickelhaube was almost worthless as a head protector. The British started issuing the Brodie helmet in 1915, while the French used the Adrian. However, the Germans didn't get the stalhelm into use until 1916.

The USA started the war with helmets.

The USA started the war with helmets because the it entered the war in 1917, almost two years after helmets were introduced.

The UK believe that the RN won wars, and ignored the Army needs for 100 years, and it showed.

The UK spent more money on its navy because it was an island nation that depended on overseas trade. While the relatively small size of the British Army reflected the traditional emphasis on the RN, it was also smaller because no one (outside of Kitchener and a few others) expected the war to last very long.

After 1902 the British underwent a series of reorganizations and reforms that left many observers believing it to be the superior of the two services. However, a lot of that pre-war effort ended up dead in Flanders or at Gallipoli, and those losses are reflected in the performance of the BEF.
 
the entente's overall warfighting until 1917 was largely a string of failures and gigantic boondoggles

the first well handled (from a strategic and tactical sense) french attacks didn't occur till Petains summer 1917 Verdun attacks

the first well handled british attack (from a tactical sense; I have hard time seeing any clever British strategy in the entire war) was plumber's gnawing offensives in late 1917

for the russians? the austrians cut and ran a few times because they had just as many structural problems (if not more) than the russians themselves; otherwise they had nothing special to their credit against the germans for the entire war; hell the Bruislov offensive for as effective as it was in terms of pow's and territory cost the Russians hundreds of thousands of ultimately irreplaceable men; at best it was analagous to the spring offensive

Actually they did have one thing: the Battle of the Vistula. There they had four armies against two German armies, and forced the German armies to retreat, while reaching their high-tide of the war relative to the Germans. Not even Hindenburg and Ludendorff could make *that* into a victory via the battle of the memoirs. Claiming the K.U.K. Armee cut and run is frankly put absurd and a smear on that army, it was outgeneraled, not prone to retreat without fighting.
 
Wilhelm was nationalistic, often naive, often unwise, but he was not evil by the standards of the day. Hitler was evil, who continued to slaughter Jews and Slavs even when it did not make military sense. Hitler was evil by the standards of either WW1 or WW2.

I am not criticizing the UK strategy in general over the 100 years of glory. It worked great, and maintaining a large army would have used a lot of resources that went towards building an industrial society. My criticism is more the last decade or so when they enter the alliance system. This changed the UK strategic military needs, and they UK should have either

A) Built the army and industrial infrastructure to fight a major land war, including peace time conscription. OR

B) Accepted that it was unwilling to build the larger army, and accept that where a Navy dominated, the UK ruled the seas, but it had no say in places like Poland or the Balkans.

IMO, Britain chose the middle path, and paid a heavy price for it. It is not unique for the time period though. Germany naval strategy was poorly though out, almost to the point of not having a plan besides building big, expensive ships. France should have considered better relations with Germany. Russia was overextended by 1905, and should have had very limited interaction with the Balkans. Russia telling the Serbs to behave better in the decade leading up to the war would have been in Russia best interests. And IMO, if the Great War is avoided, it is likely the the vast empire system still exists, although in a modified form, and place like France, UK, and Germany are still Great Powers. Well, at least 2 of them.

I do agree that not having a conscripted army in the previous 100 years is the issue. At least the USA had done a full mobilization in just beyond living memory.

Actually it was still in living memory at the time. Remember there was a very famous Gettysburg reunion on the part of veterans from both sides in 1915. The last ACW veterans died after WWII. The memory of the war was more real to the generations of the World Wars than it is now.
 
Top