So let's say in this hypothetical scenario that Germany declares war on Russia in August 1914 for some reason. There are no alliances nor treaties with other countries. Both countries still have same military size and strength as they did OTL. What would happen? How would the war end? Who would win?
Who would win in 1914 if it was Germany vs. Russia only?
- Thread starter Shadow1080
- Start date
Deleted member 1487
In this unlikely scenario Germany would win given her level of industrialization. The sticky point was the Russians then would turtle up behind their forts rather than their OTL strategy which got them into such serious trouble. Though the Russians have a serious manpower advantage they were quite weak in production and administration, so would simply be unable to cope with the firepower that Germany could bring to bear, especially once the initial stocks of shells ran out (the Germans were the quickest of everyone to organize production IOTL, the Russians the slowest). However it would be a long, bloody war, but going by the OTL examples the Russians would have a pretty serious disadvantage in performance. The only wrinkle is the likelihood that Brusilov and the commanders in the South, the best of the Russian generals, would be able to fight the Germans here, which they largely did not IOTL. Perhaps they would be more professional and able to somewhat blunt the Germans on the defensive. Of course without the Western Front the Russians would have to face the full weight of the German army, rather than the smaller fraction of it compared to OTL. Plus Germany wouldn't be blockaded and by some estimates that cut their industrial potential by up to 50%
This is very implausible if not ASB scenario. You would need early POD that there wouldn't be any alliance systems and still situation with Germany and Russia is exactly same.
But let's say that with ASB intervention other great powers don't care any shit and only Germany and Russia are fighting. It probably woeuld be decisive German victory. Germany had better army, higher industrial level, lesser internal troubles and more of railroads. So Germany probably should manage take same what it did in OTL.
But let's say that with ASB intervention other great powers don't care any shit and only Germany and Russia are fighting. It probably woeuld be decisive German victory. Germany had better army, higher industrial level, lesser internal troubles and more of railroads. So Germany probably should manage take same what it did in OTL.
If we reverse the assumptions of Moltke and hand him the one-front war in the East instead, then I would predict a rather costly but manageable German victory. Here I assume A-H is side lined too, so you benefit from the full weight of the Russian Armies opposed opposite the full German Army. Russia has a manpower reserve greater than Germany but lacks weaponry or the ability to expand, replace or sustain losses in vital equipment, moreover Russia would be forced to import these and munitions, potentially levelling but I will assume not fast enough. If the battles are in maneuver on the open terrain of Russia the Germans are playing to their strength and should be better able to win more of these battles. If Germany is forced to extend fully into Russia and overcome fortifications, losses go up but German heavy artillery can dismantle fortifications in time. And if Russia strikes first, Germany plays to its even stronger suit, fighting on interior lines and shifting to find battles it can win in detail as Russian forces clog themselves into relatively predictable routes. I do not underestimate that Russia has some good leaders, brave and capable men, many of them, but Russia lacks depth of talent, in this attrition war within a maneuver war the Germans have the edge over time to more readily respond to the shift between defense to offensive to maneuver and back. Russian logistics are simply dismal, the system itself is just not robust or responsive enough to excel. Germany is best in a short violent war played on the other teams home ground where it can inflict higher damage and move to points that when lost unravel the enemy's will to continue, they are next best where they lure one into the pockets for enveloping counter attacks, they are weakest in a long sustained attrition war, but the later may not develop sufficiently to balance the industrial capability of Germany versus the expansive but still agricultural Russians. The Germans were respected for a reason, they were likely the best land power one versus one at the time, and economically they are the equal of any other power, even Russia was not yet developed in enough depth to beat them in such a highly artificial scenario. Thus the reason alliances became both vital and destabilizing, they contained Germany but opened the thinking to taking her on. In 1914 the locker room bravado prevailed and the Franco-Russian combine with Britain virtually assured jumped at the chance, it still took four years, mass death and all the treasure to bring the Germans to the table, leaving Europe a broken remnant of itself.
I chose stalemate because while the Germans could take Poland and Lithuania, Latvia and possibly even Estonia, they'd start running into rapidly growing logistical problems once they advance deeper into Russia proper, with their logistics train growing ever longer while the Russian one becomes equally shorter. The vastness of Russia will work in its favour, as will its climate. Colonel Mud and General Winter are not called the most effective Russian officers for no reason after all.
General Winter doesn't work very well against revolutions. Colonel Mud would provably turn Bolshevik after the second round of defeats.
Riain
Banned
Given the German objectives would likely be limited to taking Poland and the Baltics I think Germany would win pretty easily in a couple of campaigning seasons. Where the rubber hits the road in the trenches of the front lines the Germans are so much better than the Russians that any attempt to defend a piece of ground the Germans can reach will end in a tactical defeat for the Russians and advance by the Germans.
What do you mean by win? If it’s just a conventional war, than the Germans will almost certainly win. If they’re trying to conquer Russia, than they’re going to lose.
Deleted member 1487
I'd check on the historical campaigns. Largely logistics wasn't a serious problem all things considered. Part of the problem of planning for Barbarossa in WW2 was that the Germans were able to penetrate very deeply into Russia via rail without issue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Faustschlag
Deleted member 1487
Narrow frontage? It was quite a bit longer than the OTL western front, while manpower was secondary to firepower and coordination as the fighting in Poland IOTL demonstrated. The Russians badly outnumbered the Germans throughout 1914, but routinely got stomped. They of course did better when defending from their forts, but still suffered quite badly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_the_Masurian_Lakes
Germany had 700 000 men in 25 corps, and initially mobilized c. 3 100 000 reservists.
Russia had 1 400 000-strong standing army + initial mobilization of 3 100 000 reservists.
3 800 000 Germans.
4 500 000 Russians.
Considering these initial numbers, the military geography of the Eastern Front and the fact that Russia would have all of her best commanders available for a single front, I'm still rooting for a stalemate after a horrible loss of life for both sides.
Deleted member 1487
I'm just saying look at the loss ratios of OTL and tell me how long that Russian superiority in numbers will last, especially when they hit the ammo famine they had IOTL by 1915.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Retreat_(Russian)
Deleted member 1487
Not necessarily at least on the surface level. A-H was involved IOTL and Russia was on the offensive, which they were notoriously bad at early on, but ITTL they'd be on the defensive, which was their forte. The onus is on the Germans to attack, which means attacking into the Russian fort system, which largely did not get tested until after the Russian field armies were beaten outside of them; the forts fell without sufficient support because the field army was already trashed and forts tend not to be able to stand up to field armies on their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Forts_in_Poland
Last edited by a moderator:
Riain
Banned
Given the German superiority in the open field, and how their regular heavy field artillery was able crack Russian forts I can't see that combining the field army with the forts will add up to considerably more than the sum of its parts. Sure, together they will be a tougher nut to crack than they were individually, but individually they were so bad that together they will merely a notch or two above that low level.
What would the Germans want out of this war? What's left of Poland and the Baltic States, or even go up towards Finland? Or are their eyes to big and want to go for everything that is not Russia it's self?
Like everyone else says, Germany would win. but honestly i don't think 'win easily' is a strong enough term. Germany dominated Russia with the eastern front as a sideshow. it sent a previously unpopular but stable regime into revolution and civil war, took the western, vital parts of the empire, and that was still while reinforcing two other idiotic allies.
if it were Russia and Germany only, i think it might actually go better for russia in the long run, if only because they stand literally no god damn chance
if it were Russia and Germany only, i think it might actually go better for russia in the long run, if only because they stand literally no god damn chance