What if the Brusilov Offensive was more successful?

[Pericles]

The Brusilov Offensive is an interesting potential turning point for the Russian Empire and the Allies to do better in WWI. The Offensive, while producing impressive results against the Austro-Hungarians, did not matter much for the Russians in the long-term. I'd be interested to see what other historians have to say, this is what Orlando Figes gives as the reason for its strategic failure-

If Evert and Kuropatkin had followed up Brusilov's advance with their own promised attacks on the Western and North-Western Fronts, the enemy might have been pushed back and the course of the war changed entirely. Hindenburg later confessed that with a second offensive, "We (would have been) faced with the menace of a complete collapse." According to the original war plan, Brusilov's Front was cnsidered secondary to both Evert's and Kuropatkin's. Yet neither of them were prepared to attack. To be fair, their task would have been much harder than Brusilov's. For they would have had to fight the German troops, which were much stronger than the Austro-Hungarian forces whom Brusilov had overcome on the South-Western Front. But their vanity was also a factor: the increased risk of defeat made them all the more afraid of losing their precious reputations. Perhaps the real blame lay with Stavka. Alexeev had served under Kuropatkin and Evert during the Japanese War and was still too frightened of them to force them to attack. The Tsar also indulged the cowardly generals-they were favourites of his court-and ignored Brusilov's daily requests to order an offensive.

Such military stupidity was largely to blame for the slowdown of Brusilov's offensive. Instead of starting a second offensive Stavka transferred troops from the north to Brusilov's front. They were not enough to maintain the momentum of his offensive, however, since the Germans, with their position eased by the inactivity of Evert and Kuropatkin, were also able to transfer reinforcements to the south.

How differently could it have gone? Would an attack against the Germans have been able to achieve a breakthrough or at least divert enough of their strength to boost Brusilov against the Austro-Hungarians? The Germans were a more formidable opponent after all and the Russian army had deep weaknesses. At the same time, 1916 looked like a great opportunity for the Allies, with the Central Powers facing intense pressure on their different fronts. What could the Russians have achieved with a better coordinated offensive?

In the long-term, could this have enabled the Allies to win the war earlier and with Russia as one of the victors? That obviously has huge implications for Russian politics, though I suspect an eventual revolution against the Tsar was inevitable by 1916 anyway. Looking even further ahead, what might the post-war world order have looked like in such a scenario?

 

[Samsonov]

The Russians had attacked in the North earlier in the year in the lake Narock offensive and it had been a disaster. If the attacked again then, unlike in the south, they would not be employing Brusilov's tactics and would not be facing such a disorganised force (I believe many AH officers were away hunting when Brusilov attacked). As such, I suspect more attacks in the North would have also gone badly.

However, by attacking again in the north, both less Russians and less Germans would be transferred south. I guess that gives a net help to Brusilov though his attack would still run out of steam eventually even given this.

 

[The Galaxy]

If Evert and Kuropatkin had attacked in the north as planned then the transfer of troops to the south by the Germans would not have been possible. AH might have been knocked out, the whole war might end earlier and these events may prevent the second 1917 Russian revolution and perhaps even the first 1917 revolution.

When Romania joins then it will not be overrun, and Russian troops will not need to reposition to the Romanian front.

Romania had food and fuel, both of which were needed for the Central powers and Russia, in the original time line the Central powers got these resources, in this alternative timeline Russia and Romania will get them, which increases the pressure on Germany and decreases it on Russia.

Another what if is if Romania had joined at the start of the Brusliov offensive, just that alone even without Evert and Kuropatkin attacking in the north on the planed date would have drastically changed everything.

Here is a video from the youtube channel The Great War that points out some of these things.

Starts at 5:20

 

[Fries]

That obviously has huge implications for Russian politics, though I suspect an eventual revolution against the Tsar was inevitable by 1916 anyway.

I very much agree.

Some sort of bourgeois revolution against the frustratingly reactionary and neo-feudal system of the Russian Empire was inevitable in any case. The rise of industrial capitalism in the country and foreign liberalizing influences---mostly from France, the UK, and the US---led to the creation of bourgeois revolutionary (or at least anti-reactionary) movements like the Kadets, Mensheviks, the connected Nihilist and Anarchist movements, and even led some proletarian revolutionary organizations like the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries to ally with them. What a more successful Brusilov campaign and an earlier end to the war might mean, though, is a later Russian Revolution. If the Russian Empire continues to industrialize, then bourgeois and proletarian movements will only grow in tandem with a middle and working class.

This completely shuts down the October Revolution: the October Revolution's main driving force was the proletariat and middle class's---two brand new classes in the underindustrialized Russia---dissatisfaction with the Kerensky government's campaign to continue the war. Without the Kerensky Campaign to delegitimize the Provisional Government, the Bolsheviks and Left SRs will only be popular with radicalized portions of the proletariat. Lenin might even die before this later Revolution, although we would get a completed version of State and Revolution I'd love to read.

When the bourgeois revolution does happen, I can imagine it going down one of two roads: instituting a British or German-esque monarchy, enforced perhaps with the abdication of Nicholas, or the creation of a liberal republic. In my opinion, the second is more common given that a reformist revolution failed spectacularly in 1905. A proletariat revolution either doesn't happen or happens later: and, in all likelihood, is probably defeated by a more internationally receptive, publicly legitimate, and industrialized liberal regime.

In the former case, the Bolsheviks and Left SRs making up the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party) would likely continue to campaign as a revolutionary vanguard party. They might be banned, or they might skirt by, and they'd probably do relatively well in elections for a time. When Lenin dies, I think three people are the best contenders for his successors: Sergey Kirov, Lev Kamenev, and Joseph Stalin. Stalin and Kirov are ideologically orthodox Leninists who would continue Lenin's policies (and are also popular in the party), while Kamenev was a kingmaker and a backroom dealer who was also well-versed in Marxism. I think Kirov is the most likely simply because he's young and charismatic: he was seen as many to be Stalin's successor before Kirov was shot and killed by Leonid Nikolayev: probably because Nikolayev was pissed that he was expelled from the VKP(b) and because he thought Kirov had an affair with his wife. Stalin comes after Kirov for the same reasons---he wasn't as popular but definitely had a keener eye for politics---and Kamenev comes in last, but it could really go either way. Some other contenders include Nikolai Bukharin and Grigory Zinoviev, and some combination of these five could even come to control the party. An alliance between Stalin, Kirov, and Bukharin is certainly not out of the question.

 

[Pericles]

So while it's possible there wouldn't have been a breakthrough, if there was how would it have gone down and do we have any ideas for an alternate timeline of WWI?