WI: No Brusilov Offensive?

One would think the Russians would attack elsewhere, perhaps they decide to attack the Germans in Poland to regain lost territory and drive a wedge between the Germans and Austrians, to attack the Germans directly to relieve Verdun.

The result will be larger German casualties, but eventually the offensive will peter out, and it will probably not have the same devastating results as the OTL Brusilov offensive had. OTL, the Brusilov offensive hit the Austrians just as they were recovering from the devastating losses of 1914 and 1915 and were at their weakes as Conrad had moved the best troops west to attack Italy.

When the Russian offensive in Poland peters out and Somme and Verdun winds down, the Germans and Austrians will probably look into a counter-offensive. Retaking what the Russian offensive retook is probably going to be it, especially as the forces the Germans OTL sent to help the Austrians with the Brusilov offensive are going to be available for this (or are already there, being sent to reinforce against the Russian offensive). Especially if the Russian offensive hit at the seams of the Germano-Austrian respective areas.

So, a major offensve akin to the brealthrough at Gorlice-Tarnow can perhaps be in order. It is not impossible that this can be co-ordinated with a Romanian entrance into the war - on the side of the Central Powers - and a Ottoman offensive in Trabzon. If Romania can be asked to join, the Bulgarians have nothing to do but guard Thessaloniki, and the Romanians nothing but attacking in Moldavia.

If four nations attack at the same time, Russia will be in for a world of hurt, even if Moldavia is good defensive terrain and the Ottoman offensive in Trabzon gets nowhere.
 
Romania joining the Central Powers would at least make the King happy. :p

Perhaps what could happen is that Nicky could have been slightly less sane and during the Lake Naroch Offensive have another area attacked as well?
 
One would think the Russians would attack elsewhere, perhaps they decide to attack the Germans in Poland to regain lost territory and drive a wedge between the Germans and Austrians, to attack the Germans directly to relieve Verdun.

The result will be larger German casualties, but eventually the offensive will peter out, and it will probably not have the same devastating results as the OTL Brusilov offensive had. OTL, the Brusilov offensive hit the Austrians just as they were recovering from the devastating losses of 1914 and 1915 and were at their weakes as Conrad had moved the best troops west to attack Italy.

When the Russian offensive in Poland peters out and Somme and Verdun winds down, the Germans and Austrians will probably look into a counter-offensive. Retaking what the Russian offensive retook is probably going to be it, especially as the forces the Germans OTL sent to help the Austrians with the Brusilov offensive are going to be available for this (or are already there, being sent to reinforce against the Russian offensive). Especially if the Russian offensive hit at the seams of the Germano-Austrian respective areas.

So, a major offensve akin to the brealthrough at Gorlice-Tarnow can perhaps be in order. It is not impossible that this can be co-ordinated with a Romanian entrance into the war - on the side of the Central Powers - and a Ottoman offensive in Trabzon. If Romania can be asked to join, the Bulgarians have nothing to do but guard Thessaloniki, and the Romanians nothing but attacking in Moldavia.

If four nations attack at the same time, Russia will be in for a world of hurt, even if Moldavia is good defensive terrain and the Ottoman offensive in Trabzon gets nowhere.

And this is again where Lake Naroch comes in. The debacle for Russian arms there made most-all the Russian generals see it as pointless to attack the Germans again and again if all that would happen is that Russian armies lose with appalling losses even when they heavily outnumber the Germans and fire more artillery than the Allies of 1914 put together (which again points to the seemingly blindingly obvious point that it's quality use of quantity, not quantity in itself). Brusilov was the only general after that to be just fine with attacking the Central Powers.
 
The reason why I started this topic was to see if there was a way to essentially have an earlier February Revolution. However, I didn't want it to happen by having Russia doing Verdun en mass. That's why I thought perhaps if Russia didn't try much of anything in the way of Offensives it could happen.

However, this is becoming quite tangled for me as I don't want to have a Russia that -somehow- pulls its head out of its ass, just merely a Russia that doesn't try another major offensive as the (Russian) bloodshed would make my story likely unworkable without ASBs...

So again, WI Brusilov simply did not become the Commander of the Southwestern Front and instead another General in the area such as Lavr Kornilov or Anton Denikin?
 
If the Russians do nothing, there's a few consequences.

1. Romania does not join. They joined because during the Brusilov offensive, it looked like Austria was going to collapse.
2. The Austrians are far, far better off. So are the Russians, but the Austrians gain the most.
3. The Romanian campaign is butterflied. This leaves the forces of Bulgaria, Germany and Austria that took it out available for other operations.

The big question is what do the Central Powers do instead of Romania and the counter-attacks and efforts in the Brusilov offensive? An attack in the east? An early Caporetto? Attack on Thessalonika to eliminate the Entente bridgehead? Attack against the Italians in Albania?

Even with the extra 600 000 men that were OTL lost in the Brusilov offensive, the Russians are in for a world of hurt. The Romanov state rested pretty much upon the prestige of the army (as did Hohenzollern Germany and Habsburg Austria). Once it was clear that the army were incapable of winning the war, the state essentially lost its legitimacy. The Russian army lost prestige from the failure against Germany, but could pride itself with gutting the Ottomans and the Austrians. If the Central Powers launch an offensive late 1916 or early 1917, the Russians will probably break.

Turmoil might actually happen at the same time, or even earlier, in this scenario. The breaking of Austria, the victory and the entrance of Romania bought the Russians time 1916.
 
The reason why I started this topic was to see if there was a way to essentially have an earlier February Revolution. However, I didn't want it to happen by having Russia doing Verdun en mass. That's why I thought perhaps if Russia didn't try much of anything in the way of Offensives it could happen.

It could quite easily have happened anyway - see

http://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/memoir/FrAmbRus/pal3-03.htm

At the end of October 1916, a general strike broke out in Petrograd. Two army regiments barracked nearby were called out, but when ordered to fire on the strikers they fired on the police instead.

In the end, the Cossacks restored order, but WI they hadn't? Had they mutinied (as they would in March) or there had been more army regiments involved, enough to fight the Cossacks off, the whole thing might have spiralled out of control. If Petrograd falls into the hands of rebels, other towns are likely to follow, and the soldiers at the front, depressed by the failure of their recent offensive, will surely join in. So things go much as they would actually do four months later.

This could have some major butterflies. The Germans aren't yet committed to USW, and if there seems to be hope of Russia dropping out, Bethmann may well win at least a postponment. A longer shot is whether newspaper reports of red flags flying over Petrograd give a modest shot in the arm to the Socialist canddiate for POTUS, which would be most ly at Wilson's expense, and perhaps just enough to tip CA and NH into the Hughes column.

Also, probably, Lenin et al return to Russia that much sooner than OTL. Do we get a "bourgeois" revolution in November and a Bolshevik one in March, rather than vice versa?
 
The big question is what do the Central Powers do instead of Romania and the counter-attacks and efforts in the Brusilov offensive? An attack in the east? An early Caporetto? Attack on Thessalonika to eliminate the Entente bridgehead? Attack against the Italians in Albania?

They'd most likely attack Russia simply because out of the options (Russia, Thessalonika or the Italians) the Russians were the greatest threat. Though with the Eastern Front being quiet the Central Powers could very well do other things.

At the end of October 1916, a general strike broke out in Petrograd. Two army regiments barracked nearby were called out, but when ordered to fire on the strikers they fired on the police instead.

Interesting, I didn't know this! :D

A longer shot is whether newspaper reports of red flags flying over Petrograd give a modest shot in the arm to the Socialist canddiate for POTUS, which would be most ly at Wilson's expense, and perhaps just enough to tip CA and NH into the Hughes column.

I think it wouldn't help Benson much, perhaps it would hurt him. Regardless, he and Debs still would just be footnotes in American history. :p

Also, probably, Lenin et al return to Russia that much sooner than OTL. Do we get a "bourgeois" revolution in November and a Bolshevik one in March, rather than vice versa?

Lenin would indeed become a headache at the very least for the Russian Government...
 
I think it wouldn't help Benson much, perhaps it would hurt him. Regardless, he and Debs still would just be footnotes in American history. :p..


Agreed on the latter point. I was considering the possible indirect effect on Wilson's vote.

In 1912, the Socialist candidate (Debs) took over 79,000 votes in California, but in 1916 Benson got only 43,000, with the lost votes almost certainly going to Wilson, since few Socialist voters would have been likely to switch to the Republicans. In New Hamppshire, the squeeze was less dramatic, but still substantial, from 1980 for Debs to 1318 for Benson.

Wilson's 1916 pluralities were respectively 3774 and 56 (not a misprint) so it would only require the Socialists to retain a very modest portion of their OTL losses in order for CA and NH to shift columns. I am not suggesting that any significant number would switch to the Socialists, merely that slightly fewer might switch from them, ie if the exciting news from Petrograd (only days before the election) encouraged some wavering Socialists to give their party one more go. If they held an extra one-fifteenth of their 1912 vote (about 5000 votes in CA and 130 in NH) and Wilson doesn't make it up elsewhere, that's more than enough to give both states to Hughes. He then wins 271-260.
 
I had misread you, I thought you had said that Benson could have become President in 1916 in this scenario, sorry! :eek:

After a bit of reading on the election on Wiki, it appears Hughes while in California didn't visit the Governor of California who happened to be in the same hotel as Hughes at the time. Say Hughes actually notices the Governor and gets his (more active) endorsement combined with a slightly more united Socialist Party and you have Hughes winning.

I don't want to derail the thread to start talking about Hughes, but lets do that anyway! :D Outside of wanting to expand the military (how much?) and decrying the American intervention in Mexico I can't find much on what Hughes would likely do Foreign policy wise. Any suggestions?
 
I don't want to derail the thread to start talking about Hughes, but lets do that anyway! :D Outside of wanting to expand the military (how much?) and decrying the American intervention in Mexico I can't find much on what Hughes would likely do Foreign policy wise. Any suggestions?

Hughes kept his cards very close to his chest, speaking about "upholding American rights" on the high seas, but being carefully vague about whether he meant German u-boats (which hadn't done anything really horrendous lately) or retaliating against British blacklisting of US firms and interception of mails.

This wasn't really a matter of choice. Hughes needed to win both the pro-Entente northeast and the isolationist midwest, so had to be very careful what he said. Too hard on Germany and he'd be branded as a warmonger, like TR. Too soft, and TR might lead a revolt. Given how divded his party was, the remarkable thing is not his defeat but the smallness of it.

As to what he'd have done, he would have been in a race against time. If Wilson carried out what was reportedly his plan, and stepped down immediately rather than waiting till March, that still leaves only weeks before Germany adopts USW, and makes war all but inevitable. About the only chance of avoiding it is

a) to put US merchantmen into convoys, in which case few if any get sunk, or

b) to use British activities as an excuse to stop US merchantmen sailing to British ports, so that few if any will run into u-boats.

However, there is no evidence that Hughes planned to do either, and once American ships start getting torpedoed, it's hard to see how ar can be avoided. Once war comes, he will of course increase US armed forces, probably much as Wilson did.
 
As to what he'd have done, he would have been in a race against time. If Wilson carried out what was reportedly his plan, and stepped down immediately rather than waiting till March, that still leaves only weeks before Germany adopts USW, and makes war all but inevitable. About the only chance of avoiding it is

a) to put US merchantmen into convoys, in which case few if any get sunk, or

b) to use British activities as an excuse to stop US merchantmen sailing to British ports, so that few if any will run into u-boats.

Well, if the Germans didn't restart USW, then would Hughes just sit back and take a breather? From there, what would he do, just create a few more peace time Army divisions and wonder about Woman Suffrage and Mexico? :)

I'm somewhat surprised that the butterflies spread so fast ITTL, but then again it is a major war.
 
Well, if the Germans didn't restart USW, then would Hughes just sit back and take a breather? From there, what would he do, just create a few more peace time Army divisions and wonder about Woman Suffrage and Mexico? :).

If USW is butterflied away, that is entirely possible, though he might put greater emphasis on the Navy than the Army, Mexico he'll probably wind up as fast as he decently can.

He could very well fight for women's suffrage. OTL, the Republicans voted overwhelmingly for the 19th Amendment, and President Wilson's main contribution was to deliver enough Democratic votes to provide the two-thirds. If it gets rejected TTL for lack of Democratic support, Hughes might want this as his election issue for 1920.

One wild card is whether he embargoes the export of food. Between a poor 1916 harvest and massive purchases by the Allies, food prices are going through the roof, and there are bread riots in New York and elsewhere in early 1917. Wilson, re-elected largely by the farm states, was unwilling to halt exports, but Hughes, who has swept all the industrial north bar Ohio, can't afford to turn the cities against him, and may well feel differently. That would be a heavy blow to the Allies.
 
Wilson, re-elected largely by the farm states, was unwilling to halt exports, but Hughes, who has swept all the industrial north bar Ohio, can't afford to turn the cities against him, and may well feel differently. That would be a heavy blow to the Allies.

Excellenttttt..... Muhahaha! :D

cough Would this be a bad time for me to say I need someone fluent in Russian to help translate some things I don't trust Google with? cough
 
Top