[WW1 AH] - Would a Central Powers Russia have risked an OTL collapse?

[Richter von Manthofen]

I don't even think this constellation would happen, and if it happened I doubt A-H would go for an attack-war like OTL (OTL they asked for Germanys help first) -

IF the war would happen there are further things to be defined - Italy probably would side with Germany-Russia - the OE would be on the Ententes side.

Austria would have to fight a defensive war, but have a longer frontline - but maybe habe fortifications along the BAvarian border and along the Sudeten. - But the war would certainly spell very very bad news for Austria/Hungary (but probably not instant collapse)

Britain could use Anzac/Indian troops to bolster the Ottomans (maybe even Austrians - by landing in Italy ???)

Germany would not instantly have 15 additional divisions - a part of the army would have to guard against a potential Austrian Attack into Germany - While BErlin is vulnerable from Poland, it is also vulnerable from the Sudeten... - its just in case.

So Germany would not be able to do any better initially than OTL... (even 15 divisions more does not mean instant victory in the west - logistics are the bottleneck you know...) - Would a blockaded Russia and supplied A-H make a difference? - Would Bulgaria still side with CPs or would they rather attack Serbia (sooner)

I don't think the war would be easy determined.

It probably would hinge on A-H can it hold out long enough (Carpathians/Sudeten) until it gets reinforced from the South (that is how long could Italy hold out if attacked from the South...)

But its an interesting mindgame " I might try to implement and play it as Axis and Allies 1914 scenario

Back to the original question - Depends on how the war resolves... - and thats still not fully determined...

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

That's an issue? The river warships are cheap and need few men, build three torpedo boats less for the HSF and you have more freed up funds and tonnage for river barges than you could possibly use on the Danube.

If the Germans do the investment in Russia they're obviously not doing any in A-H which will in turn boost Russias industry while retarding the development of A-H industry as Germany is (in this case would have been) traditionally the top destination for A-H exports due to geography and simplicity of logistics.

But German investments in Russia woudl mean the loss of french investments in Russia - instead going towards A-H - Each coin has two sides...

 

[anotherlurker]

Handwave, handwave, handwave

So you're saying the second largest navy in the world will have problems putting some dinghies on a river? Or that pre war investments and industrial development will go on as if nothing changed?

But German investments in Russia woudl mean the loss of french investments in Russia - instead going towards A-H - Each coin has two sides...

It's not the same though, there's no direct connection between A-H and France, any rail carried goods will have to go through Germany or Italy and the French industry is smaller than the German one as a customer for Austrian suppliers and they would not be selling the same goods as France has a different industrial makeup than Germany.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

Flat, with very good infrastructure, you can supply the invading army by ship on the Danube, it's part of the industrial heartland, and it's only 250 km until the palace in Vienna.

Nope - Upper Austria was rather underdeveloped - The Industry was mainly in Bohemia and the land around Vienna...

For defensive options A-H has a series of good river defenses - first the Inn - border, then Traun and finally the Enns - North of the Danube the territory is rough and the smaller rivers run North South

 

[RodentRevolution]

So you're saying the second largest navy in the world will have problems putting some dinghies on a river? Or that pre war investments and industrial development will go on as if nothing changed?


It's not the same though, there's no direct connection between A-H and France, any rail carried goods will have to go through Germany or Italy and the French industry is smaller than the German one as a customer for Austrian suppliers and they would not be selling the same goods as France has a different industrial makeup than Germany.

A-H goods would likely go via ship either through the Adriatic or the Black Sea, Sea of Marmara etc route. It was French investment that built up Russia to the point it frightened the Germans so much while German investment in A-H had results which you yourself have argued were rather disappointing. We have thus in this situation a slightly weaker Russia and a slightly stronger Dual-Monarchy. Even in the case of Russia rail transport was secondary (not useless but secondary) which is why the German blockade of the Baltic was a serious issue OTL.

As to shipping on the Danube if the Germans have artillery capable of taking out armed warships then then Skoda ought to be able to furnish artillery capable of sinking armed warships and one of the advantages the Austrians have is that a sunk warship is still a riverine obstacle which rather suits the defender in most scenarios.

 

[anotherlurker]

A-H goods would likely go via ship either through the Adriatic or the Black Sea, Sea of Marmara etc route. It was French investment that built up Russia to the point it frightened the Germans so much while German investment in A-H had results which you yourself have argued were rather disappointing. We have thus in this situation a slightly weaker Russia and a slightly stronger Dual-Monarchy. Even in the case of Russia rail transport was secondary (not useless but secondary) which is why the German blockade of the Baltic was a serious issue OTL.

The big issue for Russia was the blockade of the Black Sea and the wear and tear on the railways created by the war. Depending on how the Ottomans go there still can be a blockade of the Black Sea but the usage of the railways is going to be far less of an issue as the fighting will not take place in Russia and they will not lose as many men who needed to be replaced.

The French loans were not given for altruistic resons though, they were there to make the Russians fit for a war, meanwhile German investment in A-H was pretty much commercial as they saw no need to build it up as a military ally. Even a slightly stronger A-H and slightly weaker Russia make not much of a difference:

The situation in 1914 looks like this:
(Maddisons data, USD inflation calculator and different sources on 1913/14 arms spending)

As to shipping on the Danube if the Germans have artillery capable of taking out armed warships then then Skoda ought to be able to furnish artillery capable of sinking armed warships and one of the advantages the Austrians have is that a sunk warship is still a riverine obstacle which rather suits the defender in most scenarios.

Skoda did indeed produce naval artillery guns but again the Germans can make more and better ones.

 

[RodentRevolution]

The big issue for Russia was the blockade of the Black Sea and the wear and tear on the railways created by the war. Depending on how the Ottomans go there still can be a blockade of the Black Sea but the usage of the railways is going to be far less of an issue as the fighting will not take place in Russia and they will not lose as many men who needed to be replaced.

The French loans were not given for altruistic resons though, they were there to make the Russians fit for a war, meanwhile German investment in A-H was pretty much commercial as they saw no need to build it up as a military ally. Even a slightly stronger A-H and slightly weaker Russia make not much of a difference:



Skoda did indeed produce naval artillery guns but again the Germans can make more and better ones.

The issue is not that a Teuto-Russian alliance might win simply that it will not win quickly however. There will be a blockade of Russia if the British are involved and far more extensive than OTL as the British can cover all the open sea exits. On the other hand a major Russian export was grain which is good news for Germany given their record of appalling agricultural mismanagement they need all the extra food they can get and a loaf tastes so much nicer the less sawdust there is in it.

The railway positions matter for the pre-deployment and ongoing supply of troops, a lot of the railheads in Poland were purely military in intent if IIRC as they ended in Poland however a goodly portion of the network was subsidised by the active commercial network which connected (albeit indirectly due to the change in gauge) with the wider European one. There are however likely to remain fewer railways pointed at the Balkans simply because there is less commerce to help pay for their maintenance. The fact that fighting will not take place in Russia is logistically actually a further impediment though it does augur better for the lack of, successful, revolution in Russia.

As noted the French loans were to make their ally fit for war, Germany on the other hand does not build up its ally....most likely because they lack the capacity because let us face no one wants a lame duck on their team. Thus in this scenario Russia is slightly weaker...though under less pressure in its crucial western theatres so probably a net advantage, not however placing them in a ROFLstomp situation we still have all the factors, terrain, communications, weapons technology etc that led to a long war in Europe OTL.

 

[anotherlurker]

The issue is not that a Teuto-Russian alliance might win simply that it will not win quickly however. There will be a blockade of Russia if the British are involved and far more extensive than OTL as the British can cover all the open sea exits. On the other hand a major Russian export was grain which is good news for Germany given their record of appalling agricultural mismanagement they need all the extra food they can get and a loaf tastes so much nicer the less sawdust there is in it.

What's a quick victory though? OTL WW1 a quick victory would be 1916 but here home by Christmas is very much possible. I stand by what i've written first - that they can be in Vienna in a month, the issue is simply that A-H has no depth and not enough men to defend everywhere at the same time, they can chose what they wish to lose to be able to defend in force somewhere else, they're stretched far too thin. You can increase the peace time army but that means more funding to keep the same, rather mediocre, quality of the troops, nevermind the manpower needed..., you also might do away with the navy for extra money, Italy will love that.

The railway positions matter for the pre-deployment and ongoing supply of troops, a lot of the railheads in Poland were purely military in intent if IIRC as they ended in Poland however a goodly portion of the network was subsidised by the active commercial network which connected (albeit indirectly due to the change in gauge) with the wider European one. There are however likely to remain fewer railways pointed at the Balkans simply because there is less commerce to help pay for their maintenance. The fact that fighting will not take place in Russia is logistically actually a further impediment though it does augur better for the lack of, successful, revolution in Russia.

As the Germans will be more heavily trading with Russia here the railways will go all the way to Königsberg, Posen and Breslau though, to get more cheap resources and basic goods from Russia to Germany. A-H can not do what the Russians did though, build the railways a 100 km away from the border, Salzburg and Krakau are very important cities and right at the border, Lemberg and Innsbruck are just a stone throw away.

As noted the French loans were to make their ally fit for war, Germany on the other hand does not build up its ally....most likely because they lack the capacity because let us face no one wants a lame duck on their team. Thus in this scenario Russia is slightly weaker...though under less pressure in its crucial western theatres so probably a net advantage, not however placing them in a ROFLstomp situation we still have all the factors, terrain, communications, weapons technology etc that led to a long war in Europe OTL.

Exactly - no one wants a lame duck on their team, thus the French will not waste as much money on A-H as they did on Russia, A-H has no strategic depth to retreat, it's obvious for everyone looking at a map that they can not defend themselves against Russia and Germany at the same time, can not trade ground for time and retreat to defend somewhere else.

But wait, there's more! A-H also has the rather unique problem that it's military officers and soldiers more often than not speak different languages and can not really understand each other, the peace time army is well enough trained to work together but they're burned out by the end of the first month and have to be replaced with new ones who dont understand what their superiors are telling them to do. On top of that A-Hs mobilization pool is far lower as there's plenty ethnic resistence to conscription from the minorities.
1914 peace time strength:
A-H: 415.000
Germany: 840.000
Russia: 1.400.000

To give A-H a fighting chance you need to increase the army five fold, during peace time and only against two enemies.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

So you're saying the second largest navy in the world will have problems putting some dinghies on a river? Or that pre war investments and industrial development will go on as if nothing changed?

I find it strange you believe “some dinghies” is what is required. Gunboats and Monitors are a fully developed naval sphere of their own - different from coastal forces for instance. I’m trying (and failing) to find details of OTL WWI German riverine forces. So far I’ve been drawing a blank (my Conway for the period is at home) help would be appreciated. This, to me, requires the Germans to start from scratch from the point of the POD. They will, further PODs notwithstanding, enter the war inexperienced and in untested vessels. Will they, until the “Vienna campaign”, even identify the need for riverine forces? This means cost that OTL they didn’t have to sustain. Germany may have a strong economy and an expanding industrial base (best in Europe? Possibly) but it’s not a bottomless pit of cash.

It's not the same though, there's no direct connection between A-H and France, any rail carried goods will have to go through Germany or Italy and the French industry is smaller than the German one as a customer for Austrian suppliers and they would not be selling the same goods as France has a different industrial makeup than Germany.

You realise ‘investment’ in the discussion as is so far doesn’t mean goods shipped to the respective countries? We mean financial investment - capital for expansion and infrastructure, companies setting up factories and exporting expertise for example. Anyway, there was no direct rail connection between Russia and France OTL and didn’t stop the French so I don’t see the relevance. By 1900, the French had invested 692.3 million francs in Russia. No small sum.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

What's a quick victory though? OTL WW1 a quick victory would be 1916 but here home by Christmas is very much possible.

Exactly - no one wants a lame duck on their team, thus the French will not waste as much money on A-H as they did on Russia, A-H has no strategic depth to retreat, it's obvious for everyone looking at a map that they can not defend themselves against Russia and Germany at the same time, can not trade ground for time and retreat to defend somewhere else.

Laughable

 

[anotherlurker]

Laughable

The industrial heartland of A-H is 50 km away from the German border.
The industrial heartland of Russia is 900 km away from the German border.

The Germans could use a "Paris gun" type of artillery to bombard Prague all day long if they chose so, from deep inside Germany. Same with Innsbruck, Salzburg, Pilsen.

 

[RodentRevolution]

What's a quick victory though? OTL WW1 a quick victory would be 1916 but here home by Christmas is very much possible. I stand by what i've written first -

It would seem that you stand by what you wrote first because it has been completely debunked, as an actual Austrian pointed out the terrain in Austria includes numerous defensible river lines.

But wait, there's more! A-H also has the rather unique problem that it's military officers and soldiers more often than not speak different languages and can not really understand each other, the peace time army is well enough trained to work together but they're burned out by the end of the first month and have to be replaced with new ones who dont understand what their superiors are telling them to do. On top of that A-Hs mobilization pool is far lower as there's plenty ethnic resistence to conscription from the minorities.
1914 peace time strength:
A-H: 415.000
Germany: 840.000
Russia: 1.400.000

To give A-H a fighting chance you need to increase the army five fold, during peace time and only against two enemies.

I am getting the feeling you have not actually done any research on World War One battles nor the Imperial and Royal Army and its performance in that conflict. Further you are rather ignoring that it is not always possible to cram more soldiers into a given road space. This without mentioning that you are ignoring the fact that neither Germany nor Russia would be able to ignore other threats from the Entente and thus is not the KUK Army alone that they may concentrate.

The argument that a war which see AH swapped for Russia still being a long one is one that acknowledges the logistical, doctrinal and technological constraints of the time. The argument that it would be a short war is one that relies on ignoring them and then seems to require further handwaves.

The industrial heartland of A-H is 50 km away from the German border.
The industrial heartland of Russia is 900 km away from the German border.

The Germans could use a "Paris gun" type of artillery to bombard Prague all day long if they chose so, from deep inside Germany. Same with Innsbruck, Salzburg, Pilsen.

You do not actually know that much about the efficacy of the Paris Gun do you?

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Interesting claim, care to talk us through the terrain? I would expect you want to pay particular attention to rivers and river crossings and high ground overlooking the route of march.

This map explains it well. While the Alps would protect much of Austria, the place it doesn't protect is Vienna.

 

[anotherlurker]

It would seem that you stand by what you wrote first because it has been completely debunked, as an actual Austrian pointed out the terrain in Austria includes numerous defensible river lines.

I am from Austria as well, i've been both at the Austrian-German border as well as in Eastern Belgium and the Austrian-German one looks a whole lot easier to invade as it's flatter with less forests than the Belgian one and the Germans advanced very fast over Belgium.

I am getting the feeling you have not actually done any research on World War One battles nor the Imperial and Royal Army and its performance in that conflict. Further you are rather ignoring that it is not always possible to cram more soldiers into a given road space. This without mentioning that you are ignoring the fact that neither Germany nor Russia would be able to ignore other threats from the Entente and thus is not the KUK Army alone that they may concentrate.

Not any more or less than OTL, the same is true for A-H though, so trooops are needed at Serbia, Romania and Italy and the coast as well leaving them even less useable soldiers to defend the 2000 kilometer border with Germany and Russia.

This is OTL, the Germans were capable of advancing this fast, this far with the logistics they possessed and when faced with enemy heavy fortifications:
Invasion of Belgium: August 4
Battle of the Marne: September 5
Days: 32
Kilometers advanced: 250 kilometers or so

250 kilometers into A-H and you're in the middle of Vienna.

The Russians too put the A-H army in Galicia with their back to the Carpathian mountains in less than a month - Galicia has quite a few rivers as well.

The argument that a war which see AH swapped for Russia still being a long one is one that acknowledges the logistical, doctrinal and technological constraints of the time. The argument that it would be a short war is one that relies on ignoring them and then seems to require further handwaves.

You do not actually know that much about the efficacy of the Paris Gun do you?

A-H and Russia can not be randomly swapped for each other while keeping the war recognizeable.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

Concerning river monitors - I know that At least Austria Hungary had some - even relative modern ones... See Enns-class or older SMS Leitha IIRC there were 10 Rms during WWI in the A-H Donauflotille

 

[RodentRevolution]

I am from Austria as well, i've been both at the Austrian-German border as well as in Eastern Belgium and the Austrian-German one looks a whole lot easier to invade as it's flatter with less forests than the Belgian one and the Germans advanced very fast over Belgium.

Oh so you are just ignoring the terrain then.

Not any more or less than OTL, the same is true for A-H though, so trooops are needed at Serbia, Romania and Italy and the coast as well leaving them even less useable soldiers to defend the 2000 kilometer border with Germany and Russia.

The point thus being the A-H are unlikely to have spare troops to inspire any major offensives of their own. Given what happened to armies on the offensive in World War 1 this may actually prove a positive.

This is OTL, the Germans were capable of advancing this fast, this far with the logistics they possessed and when faced with enemy heavy fortifications:
Invasion of Belgium: August 4
Battle of the Marne: September 5
Days: 32
Kilometers advanced: 250 kilometers or so

250 kilometers into A-H and you're in the middle of Vienna.

Yes of course they marched straight through the teeth of the French army rather than going via the less defended route...oh wait. Just as I pointed out we needed to discuss stop lines beyond Salzburg because we can assume the Germans will manage to get beyond the first line of defence however we find they still experience the same diminution of offensive effect as they proceed into the teeth of what is likely to be layered Austrian defence thus in the case even in the case of the Marne battles where the main thrust of the German armies had been deliberately around the main defended avenue we again see a loss of offensive momentum. However as people have tried to point out the Germans have much less room for wide circling manoeuvres in any advance on Vienna.

The Russians too put the A-H army in Galicia with their back to the Carpathian mountains in less than a month - Galicia has quite a few rivers as well.

And again with every example you have a defender whose flanks can be turned in wide circling manoeuvres. This is not the case in Austria.

A-H and Russia can not be randomly swapped for each other while keeping the war recognizeable.

On the tactical and operational level the war is very recognisable. The battles will not be the same, the personalities will likely rapidly diverge as well, the politics will diverge and so on but it is likely that there will be a recognisable progression from the exact events with which we are familiar. That is why it is called Alternate History not Chaotic History.

 

[RodentRevolution]

Incidentally and everything else aside but just as they could actually lose Russia OTL the defeat of the Habsburgs does not signify the defeat of the Entente.

 

[Logothétes]

Wouldn't a 'Central Powers Russia' more or less mean that the Three Emperors League remained intact? That would require either a mid-1800s POD, or Bismarck somehow staying at the helm. Each of those options would result to a very different political climate compared to OTL 1914. There might not be a WWI at all, or at least not until the 20s.

 

[HunterX]

Wouldn't a 'Central Powers Russia' more or less mean that the Three Emperors League remained intact? That would require either a mid-1800s POD, or Bismarck somehow staying at the helm. Each of those options would result to a very different political climate compared to OTL 1914. There might not be a WWI at all, or at least not until the 20s.

Yes as Austria would never join an alliance hostile to both Germany and Russia. But the OP is suggesting a different scenario.

 

[Aphrodite]

Except that was because they were allied to the Germans who had cash enough to get some pretty awesome stuff for themselves but not a lot to spare elsewhere, here it is likely that the kind of French investment that went to Tsarist Russia OTL goes instead to the Dual-Monarchy. The French have centuries of spare cash but are poor in certain resources relatively speaking (mainly manpower) so it makes sense to build up their allies economically and incidentally militarily. There were clear advantages in peace and war to being allied to the French which is why Russia leapt that way OTL.

Germany and France invest heavily in Austria OTL and Germany invests heavily in Russia. Germany makes many valuable tariff concessions to Austria as well. Finally, these investments are by private individuals seeking private gain. The change in alliances won't change them much. Germany and Russia would need much lower defense spending than OTL likely to make up for any difference. Austria's increased defense spending is likely to seriously drain her economy quickly

If anything, economically Russia should benefit the most followed by Germany. If the Russians cut railroad spending because of the lack of foreign investment, the trans-siberian would be the first one cut. They spent over a billion rubles on it and then 3 billion more on the Manchurian War. There's another 2 billion spent on the 1905 revolution. If the Russians are forced to concentrate on Europe and India, they are going to be far far stronger

Italy is going to be very careful about going against much larger naval powers when it has a long coastline to defend, overseas colonies and a strong reliance on imports. The British and French could here offer large financial inducements rather than territorial ones. Plus for Italy the gamble is lower if its armies are fighting in AH and lose then they get driven back to the Alps rather than risking the valley of the Po say.

But would Austria, France and Britain still be so formidable at sea? OTl spending on new construction, is Austria, France and Britain- 34,000,000 pounds versus 26,000,000 pounds for Russia, Germany and Italy. If Austria abandons naval spending as suggested, the figures would drop to 30,000,000 pounds. A very small reed to grasp

Romania's army is not exactly brilliant and Romania picking Russia again is a strong inducement to Bulgaria who like some of its land back to joining the other side and their army is a lot tougher, they are also not so keen on the Serbs assuming the anti-butterflies keep the 2nd Balkan War on track...which they always seem to when it suits TTL's Germany according to you.

OTl, Russia devoted six divisions to watching Romania. If Romania turns hostile, likely here, than Austria would be forced to devote six divisions to watch the Romanians and free up six Russian divisions- a twelve division swing equal to a fourth of the Austrian army

Bulgaria is an opportunistic power. She has claims against everyone and will join the powers she thinks will win. Most likely is a deal with Russia at Turkey's expense