WI: Russia Defeated in Early 1915

Well, in 1918 Russia had a government which explicitly repudiated the old obligations and agreements.
Yet they kept supporting the Allies (they knew they would need aid and abandoning France and the UK would lose them a great deal of it) and thought they had more support among the people than they actually did; Kerensky prayed a victory would rally people to him and supporting the Allies would keep international support. They were also desperate (and the Germans demanded their pound of flesh after years of horrid losses suffered) which they knew couldn't be granted without outrage. Those now in authority had no real leadership experience while struggling in a chaotic amalgam of political forces. By 1918, it's lose-lose with no one sure what to do. But 1915, it's still early enough to keep things rational and acceptable.
 
Yet they kept supporting the Allies (they knew they would need aid and abandoning France and the UK would lose them a great deal of it) and thought they had more support among the people than they actually did; Kerensky prayed a victory would rally people to him and supporting the Allies would keep international support. They were also desperate (and the Germans demanded their pound of flesh after years of horrid losses suffered) which they knew couldn't be granted without outrage. Those now in authority had no real leadership experience while struggling in a chaotic amalgam of political forces. By 1918, it's lose-lose with no one sure what to do. But 1915, it's still early enough to keep things rational and acceptable.
I’m afraid that you are confusing Provisional Governtment (overthrown in November 1917) with the Bolsheviks who got out of war and signed Peace of Brest
 
The Provisional Government questioned pulling out of the war and decided to throw their support behind their allies rather than the people (and we saw what happened there). It's not outside the realm of possibility that someone sane would realize the futility of keeping this going (and Lenin kept claiming his was a new government to get out of Russia's old debts and commitments; he was popular because this was what the people wanted). If the state is coming apart at the seams, Russia will cave or else the Revolution is coming which will end it. Russia alone isn't surviving this war victorious without changes on the Western Front.

Russia needs to win to avoid Revolution; caving in against the will of the population to German terms (The population in 1915 didn't want to surrender and give territory and reperations to the CP) and the army conscripts being ticked off while they are holding onto rifles and are organized is just asking for trouble.
 
Yes, it is before Italy’s entry.

Italy most likely stays out seeing that the Central Powers have one main front to handle. A neutral Italy ensures that supplies and food can get to the Central Powers. Unless the Germans due something monumentally stupid (like bring the U.S. into the way) then the Allies might seek peace by mid-late 1916.
 
I’m afraid that you are confusing Provisional Governtment (overthrown in November 1917) with the Bolsheviks who got out of war and signed Peace of Brest
The Provisional Government kept fighting (foolishly) and the Bolsheviks negated all debt and pulled out. I know that, though I'll admit to getting confused by numerous posters bringing up the revolving governments from 1917-1920. If anything people are throwing together the Tsarist, Provisional, and Bolshevik governments when what we should be talking about is Nicholas' government since we're talking about 1915. It's like asking what Teddy Roosevelt would do but assume he'd follow Wilson's lead. I'm seriously getting headaches from posters saying, "Russia would never surrender," rather than do a thought exercise regarding a poor hand in WWI and Nicholas doing the smart thing and cutting his losses (losing rebellious Finland and Poland allowing Russia to focus and reform).
 
Russia needs to win to avoid Revolution; caving in against the will of the population to German terms (The population in 1915 didn't want to surrender and give territory and reperations to the CP) and the army conscripts being ticked off while they are holding onto rifles and are organized is just asking for trouble.
The people win if Nicholas admits he has failed, abdicates in the wake of his failure, and the people are given a say in government to avoid such mistakes again (the Duma granted greater authority). Russia fighting on was the wrong thing to do and even the Russians knew that but fought on because they thought they owed that to their allies. Fighting on was never in their interest and the Bolsheviks realized that which is what garnered them support.
 
The people win if Nicholas admits he has failed, abdicates in the wake of his failure, and the people are given a say in government to avoid such mistakes again (the Duma granted greater authority). Russia fighting on was the wrong thing to do and even the Russians knew that but fought on because they thought they owed that to their allies. Fighting on was never in their interest and the Bolsheviks realized that which is what garnered them support.

Considering its the GOVERNMENT who's deciding to make the negotiations, though, even if your idealistic statement is fully accurate (which dosen't quite mesh up with what I've read on the subject) its irrelevent. The Russian Army will keep fighting the Centeral Powers if their two armies are in contact with one another and if demobalizing the population without the shield of victory would bring down the government, they have nothing to lose by fighting on and hoping to turn things around should the situation not be hopeless (Which in the OP it isen't: Russia still has plenty of space before her vital areas are intruded upon, and both she and her allies have men and bullets to use to crack the Germans. Particularly if the Russians were beleiving their allies about what was going on on the Western Front).
 
Considering its the GOVERNMENT who's deciding to make the negotiations, though, even if your idealistic statement is fully accurate (which dosen't quite mesh up with what I've read on the subject) its irrelevent. The Russian Army will keep fighting the Centeral Powers if their two armies are in contact with one another and if demobalizing the population without the shield of victory would bring down the government, they have nothing to lose by fighting on and hoping to turn things around should the situation not be hopeless (Which in the OP it isen't: Russia still has plenty of space before her vital areas are intruded upon, and both she and her allies have men and bullets to use to crack the Germans. Particularly if the Russians were beleiving their allies about what was going on on the Western Front).
Idealistic? I said best case scenario.

The reality, as an earlier post of mine stated following the OP's opinion of the Hapsburgs doing better, the Germans having a more crushing victory at Tannenberg, and the Ottomans pushing north of the Caucasus would be Russia realizing how foolish the war was. If France and the UK can't make progress on the Western Front and, as the Russians scream for relief as Rumania and Bulgaria join in for their pounds of flesh, the British foolishly pursue Gallipoli proving they can't accomplish anything in the immediate future, then the Russian Army will fight on? You mean like 1917 onward as they went defensive and then mutinous when the Provisional Government showed they could care less about the suffering of it's soldiers? I bet the Russians sought an end to the Russo-Japanese War because they knew the war was turning in their favor (not because discontent threatened the Empire).

Sure, soldiers happily keep marching to death when they realize their government has no idea what it's doing and discover sacrifice means nothing.

Is the point of this thread to pursue the OP question or to just keep stating ad nauseum, ''States don't quit but fight on 'til the end?" That is the idea Europe grasped until modern war proved otherwise and a state like Russia, on the verge of revolution as it was, you think it would hold? If Germany sees Russia crumbling, you think they wouldn't go on the defense in the West to pursue the defeat of Russia? That means no futile waste of German lives in 1915 as they push aggressively East in what may evolve into combined operations with the Austrians followed by opportunists (especially after the losses in the Race to the Sea)?

If you guys think Russia won't falter, that's fine; foolish, but fine. Governments are only valid as long as the people respect it. Ask Nicholas and Kerensky.
 
Last edited:
Idealistic? I said best case scenario.

I was speaking in terms of your claims to the thoughts/attitudes/ect. of the broader Russian population. People don't like admitting (even to themselves) that strongly held pricipals, decisions they made in great passion, great sacrifices, broad and long standing cultural beliefs ect. are wrong, especially when the environment around them is saturated with information trying to enforce those beliefs, you're surronded by comrades you don't want to let down, ect.

he reality, as an earlier post of mine stated following the OP's opinion of the Hapsburgs doing better, the Germans having a more crushing victory at Tannenberg, and the Ottomans pushing north of the Caucasus would be Russia realizing how foolish the war was. If France and the UK can't make progress on the Western Front and, as the Russians scream for relief as Rumania and Bulgaria join in for their pounds of flesh, the British foolishly pursue Gallipoli proving they can't accomplish anything in the immediate future, then the Russian Army will fight on? You mean like 1917 onward as they went defensive and then mutinous when the Provisional Government showed they could care less about the suffering of it's soldiers? I bet the Russians sought an end to the Russo-Japanese War because they knew the war was turning in their favor (not because discontent threatened the Empire).

You vastly overestimate the amount and objectivity of the information available to the average Ivan (Or Franz, or Pierre, or Tom for that matter). They don't have perfect information on the entirety of the war effort; or even general information of everywhere that isen't being filtered heavily through censorship and pro-Us spin, included casulity figures highly slanted in one's own direction. Given the particularly hard censorship, low density of press, and broad illerteracy among the Russian peasentry and the sheer geographic spread of the fronts they were fighting on, this was even more accute for them. As far as most people are concerned, maybe the Teutronic nations are pushing hard but they're paying DEARLY in blood for every step (The big French spin during the early years of the war, with all the papers and offical figures reporting the Germans were running through their manpower pool much faster than the Entente was.) and if Russians have any idea of what's going on in the West its going to be what they're getting from their allies and so will beleive the enemy is getting ground down. There's still plenty of plausability to opptomistic claims/What People Want to Hear in 1915, especially given the food and transport infastructure system that REALLY produced the major urban unrest in Russia hasen't happened yet and worse conditions on the front won't affect that. To draw some words from Sheman, a hostile population needs to feel the "hard hand of war" before they start wanting peace, and the army won't walk off as long as they beleive the conflict is going on and their homeland is in danger, which nations making bold advances and stating intentin to carve off "pounds of flesh" would certainly create. As for the Russo-Japanese War, the fact the budget was being strained to the limit and the fact the navy was at the bottom of the sea, while the Army was a force who's bayonets were set to picket the throne rather than being poised to overthrow it, made the advantages of giving up on a few highly peripheral interests worth it for insuring the survival of the government/state Remember, Nicholas's promises about reform went out the window once he felt he had the power to re-enforce his Aboslutism.

Sure, soldiers happily keep marching to death when they realize their government has no idea what it's doing and discover sacrifice means nothing

Again, iavailablity of information. Also, there's the assumption that the generals will keep trying to throw them into suicidal charges against an advancing enemy (And these would be a failure constantly; a dubiosu statement at best given that advantages being on the strategic defensive with counter attacks had over strategic offensive, particularly when within your own territory and with WW I technology). Your statements require the the Russian brass to have misplaced their brains en-mass (And before you cite French obsession with the Cult of the Offensive on the German presence on their front, let me remind you the French army had a strong economic motivation to get the Germans off their main industrial resource centers)

If you guys think Russia won't falter, that's fine; foolish, but fine. Governments are only valid as long as the people respect it. Ask Nicholas and Kerensky.

Incorrect. Governments are only valid as long as they retain dominance over the application of force in their juristiction. Nicholas and Kerensky fell when the people with guns turned them away from the crowds and towards the government, partially because they had to give their usurpers guns in order to point them at the crowd (Kerensky fell victim to that one)
 
I'm not sure if the revolution would happen so quickly.

Germany might need to inflict some heavier losses or change the strategic situation. Like maybe an early Operation Albion (Naval Invasion of Estonian Islands) which presents a flank threat on Russia's frontlines, opens the road for an attack on Riga and supplying through it afterwards. But the most important aspects could be the threat against St Petersburg which could really scare Russia.

Romania might be encouraged to jump into the Central Powers side. It was slipping away from them rapidly OTL, but with Russia doing so badly they might try it now. If timed and planned well they could turn the Russian southern flank. But their army wasn't great in terms of performance.

These two combined could roll the frontier back much further, bringing the frontlines deeper into Russia. And a threat to St Petersburg, even if still unrealistic in actuality could bring Russia to the table.
 
Last edited:
I was speaking in terms of your claims to the thoughts/attitudes/ect. of the broader Russian population. People don't like admitting (even to themselves) that strongly held pricipals, decisions they made in great passion, great sacrifices, broad and long standing cultural beliefs ect. are wrong, especially when the environment around them is saturated with information trying to enforce those beliefs, you're surronded by comrades you don't want to let down, ect.



You vastly overestimate the amount and objectivity of the information available to the average Ivan (Or Franz, or Pierre, or Tom for that matter). They don't have perfect information on the entirety of the war effort; or even general information of everywhere that isen't being filtered heavily through censorship and pro-Us spin, included casulity figures highly slanted in one's own direction. Given the particularly hard censorship, low density of press, and broad illerteracy among the Russian peasentry and the sheer geographic spread of the fronts they were fighting on, this was even more accute for them. As far as most people are concerned, maybe the Teutronic nations are pushing hard but they're paying DEARLY in blood for every step (The big French spin during the early years of the war, with all the papers and offical figures reporting the Germans were running through their manpower pool much faster than the Entente was.) and if Russians have any idea of what's going on in the West its going to be what they're getting from their allies and so will beleive the enemy is getting ground down. There's still plenty of plausability to opptomistic claims/What People Want to Hear in 1915, especially given the food and transport infastructure system that REALLY produced the major urban unrest in Russia hasen't happened yet and worse conditions on the front won't affect that. To draw some words from Sheman, a hostile population needs to feel the "hard hand of war" before they start wanting peace, and the army won't walk off as long as they beleive the conflict is going on and their homeland is in danger, which nations making bold advances and stating intentin to carve off "pounds of flesh" would certainly create. As for the Russo-Japanese War, the fact the budget was being strained to the limit and the fact the navy was at the bottom of the sea, while the Army was a force who's bayonets were set to picket the throne rather than being poised to overthrow it, made the advantages of giving up on a few highly peripheral interests worth it for insuring the survival of the government/state Remember, Nicholas's promises about reform went out the window once he felt he had the power to re-enforce his Aboslutism.



Again, iavailablity of information. Also, there's the assumption that the generals will keep trying to throw them into suicidal charges against an advancing enemy (And these would be a failure constantly; a dubiosu statement at best given that advantages being on the strategic defensive with counter attacks had over strategic offensive, particularly when within your own territory and with WW I technology). Your statements require the the Russian brass to have misplaced their brains en-mass (And before you cite French obsession with the Cult of the Offensive on the German presence on their front, let me remind you the French army had a strong economic motivation to get the Germans off their main industrial resource centers)



Incorrect. Governments are only valid as long as they retain dominance over the application of force in their juristiction. Nicholas and Kerensky fell when the people with guns turned them away from the crowds and towards the government, partially because they had to give their usurpers guns in order to point them at the crowd (Kerensky fell victim to that one)
Because a year of losses in the Russo-Japanese War kept the people happy, then being embarrassed by the Hapsburgs in 1908 over Bosnia made the government look competent, and finally the increasing irritation the people had in a Tsar making bad choices seeking demanded reform that was swept away by momentary nationalism for a war...that is now seeing the same mistakes and the fringe of the empire unraveling.

These are serfs granted freedom...but left in debt, workers abused and shot when they demand better rights, families watching their sons die in foolish conflicts.

You're focusing on a single war. I'm focusing on a generation watching their leader making increasingly bad decisions threatening the fabric of their state. Yeah, they'll support the sacrifice of more foolishness.
 
Last edited:
Because a year of losses in the Russo-Japanese War kept the people happy, then being embarrassed by the Hapsburgs in 1908 over Bosnia made the government look competent, and finally the increasing irritation the people had in a Tsar making bad choices seeking demanded reform that was swept away by momentary nationalism for a war...that is now seeing the same mistakes and the fringe of the empire unraveling.

These are serfs granted freedom...but left in debt, workers abused and shot when they demand better rights, families watching their sons die in foolish conflicts.

You're focusing on a single war. I'm focusing on a generation watching their leader making increasingly bad decisions threatening the fabric of their state. Yeah, they'll support the sacrifice of more foolishness.
Was just about to make this exact same point... Nicholas cannot hide that he is losing yet another war from his people, some way word will get out, and even worse for him, as more and more of Russia’s breadbaskets in Ukraine fall to the Central Powers as they push further and further as the Russians fall back to avoid further destruction, the people will get hungry and start to crave food, and the people getting hungry is one of the main sources of many revolutions in history...

While yes the revolution may not be immediate, Russia’s disasters and Germany’s lack of a need to keep so many men to face the Russians (men who could be sent to the trenches) could change the course of the war in my opinion.
 
In the Pacific Rim, would the earlier defeat suggest to the Britian, France and the USA that Russia could not hold onto rising powers of Germany and Balkans alone? A consequence would be allowing Japan to control the whole Sakhalin island while the revolution and civil war in Russia were imminent or am I overthinking?
 
In the Pacific Rim, would the earlier defeat suggest to the Britian, France and the USA that Russia could not hold onto rising powers of Germany and Balkans alone? A consequence would be allowing Japan to control the whole Sakhalin island while the revolution and civil war in Russia were imminent or am I overthinking?
This is possible in my opinion, yet at the same time the British seemed rather committed to preserving Russia's territorial integrity, and would probably try to convince Japan not to attack due to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. At the same time, if Britain lets Japan attack Russia, Russia may blame Britain as Britain and Japan are allies.

And yes, an early fall of Russia would create enormous alarm in France and Britain. Possibly the most successful outcome for Germany in this case would be, as with what happened in 1917, French troops mutiny en masse, which the Germans take advantage of with a massive attack using the new veterans from the East. This sparks a mass rout in the entire Allied line, and eventually even to the fall of France.
 
Because a year of losses in the Russo-Japanese War kept the people happy, then being embarrassed by the Hapsburgs in 1908 over Bosnia made the government look competent, and finally the increasing irritation the people had in a Tsar making bad choices seeking demanded reform that was swept away by momentary nationalism for a war...that is now seeing the same mistakes and the fringe of the empire unraveling.

These are serfs granted freedom...but left in debt, workers abused and shot when they demand better rights, families watching their sons die in foolish conflicts.

You're focusing on a single war. I'm focusing on a generation watching their leader making increasingly bad decisions threatening the fabric of their state. Yeah, they'll support the sacrifice of more foolishness.

You seem to be missing my main point, so I'll state it directly and simply: so long as a large, organized, well armed military exists, if it is brought off the front it will be THE decisive factor on who wins the political power struggle. If the dominant faction at the time (the government who would have the authority to sign a peace and bring the army home) feels theres a good chance that factor won't act in their favor and their position at home is too shakey to dependably rebuff their opposition, than it's political suicide to end the war, so they won't sign a peace until they feel it is safe to do so. Lenin got around this problem not by assuring that force was loyal to him, but breaking it by his "neither war nor peace" policy and sacrificing the security of Russia as a whole... which when Germany called his bluff meant he had to give them everything they wanted so he could use the Soviet military power to smash his now disorganized opposition.
 
You seem to be missing my main point, so I'll state it directly and simply: so long as a large, organized, well armed military exists, if it is brought off the front it will be THE decisive factor on who wins the political power struggle. If the dominant faction at the time (the government who would have the authority to sign a peace and bring the army home) feels theres a good chance that factor won't act in their favor and their position at home is too shakey to dependably rebuff their opposition, than it's political suicide to end the war, so they won't sign a peace until they feel it is safe to do so. Lenin got around this problem not by assuring that force was loyal to him, but breaking it by his "neither war nor peace" policy and sacrificing the security of Russia as a whole... which when Germany called his bluff meant he had to give them everything they wanted so he could use the Soviet military power to smash his now disorganized opposition.
Which only makes the situation worse for the Russians. If they keep trying to hold on to their disaster of a frontline, fighting against German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Romanian, and quite possibly even Swedish troops, as more and more Russian land falls the Germans will keep demanding more and more territory while also more and more of their troops can get sent to fight in the Western Front and win a super-Verdun. Basically, if Germany has less commitments in Russia, but the Russians still keep the war going, Germany can kinda return to the Schlieffen Plan with some of their Russian troops to defeat France, and then go back to Russia. No matter what way you put it, the more Petrograd loses and loses and loses and loses the more Berlin benefits. The only way the Allies can win will be if America enters, unlike in OTL where they had potential to win on their own, but nonetheless Russia will still lose. Really, no matter what way you put it, Russia's situation doesn't get much better. The Czar was overthrown by elements of his own military, what says that won't happen quicker in a period where he does even worse?
 
You seem to be missing my main point, so I'll state it directly and simply: so long as a large, organized, well armed military exists, if it is brought off the front it will be THE decisive factor on who wins the political power struggle. If the dominant faction at the time (the government who would have the authority to sign a peace and bring the army home) feels theres a good chance that factor won't act in their favor and their position at home is too shakey to dependably rebuff their opposition, than it's political suicide to end the war, so they won't sign a peace until they feel it is safe to do so. Lenin got around this problem not by assuring that force was loyal to him, but breaking it by his "neither war nor peace" policy and sacrificing the security of Russia as a whole... which when Germany called his bluff meant he had to give them everything they wanted so he could use the Soviet military power to smash his now disorganized opposition.
And you're missing reality: not seeking peace destroyed the Russian state. The US could easily have kept fighting the Vietnam War but the public didn't want it. Russia, if facing such a general collapse would not survive if it simply held hoping for the Allies to save them. Wars are not unconditional surrender. It is practically a sport to the Europeans moving the boundaries from conflict to conflict. That is why I mentioned the Russo-Japanese conflict. The Russians could have won it over the long haul but if victory seems too costly, the public will steal your ability to continue the war. So if the Russians lost roughly 2-3 armies, are in retreat all along the front, and no one is coming to save them...they will keep fighting?
 
Top