Discussion: The Brusilov Offensive of 1916

[Mad Reloader]

Since this other historical-discussion forum I used to moderate at has mysteriously vanished without a trace, will start this thread HERE:

Subject: The Brusilov Offensive 1916.

(For those of you NOT familiar with the First World War, this was Tsarist Russia's last offensive. Within nine months, the Tsar was deposed, and in less than nine months after that, Lenin and the Soviets were in charge)

A genuine watershed of the First World War.

Floor is now open to discuss the minutiae of that campaign....

(I am imagining that Azzafox will of course argue the Tsarist Russian viewpoint, and I will start with the Central Powers rebuttals)

[gspsonny03]

This would have been a major rout by the Russians, if they could have got General Evert off his duff long enough to get involved in the battle plan. Frankly I'm amazed General Brusilov didn't shoot him for insubordination. If you're counting men lost, it's hard to tell who won, although the Russians did manage to take Austria-Hungary effectively out of the war.

[Mad Reloader]

I'd say that the end result of Brusilov was more on the order of both Austria-Hungary AND Russia taking themselves out of the war.

Brusilov was Russia's last offensive of any consequence. Remember that by the end of the winter of 1916-17 the Tsar was deposed, and after that brief "Kerensky Summer", only a few months remained before the October Revolution and Brest-Litovsk, permanently shutting down Russia in the 1st World War. Austria-Hungary outlived Tsarist Russia by about a year, not folding up like a house of cards until November 8th 1918.

But: from that point onwards, the Konig-und-Kaiser's army pretty much went on life-support. (German remarks about "We are fighting handcuffed to a corpse" started from that date). The Eastfront of WW1 was now pretty much handled at the command level by Germans, as although the Austro-Hungarian Army was still posessed of regiments and battalions capable of combat effectiveness, (12th Sturmbattalion & Infantry Regiment 100 as an example) their field-grade and senior officers had proven themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt to be completely lacking. Reports starting with Hans von Seeckt and finally from Army Group South underscored this point.

For the last 15 or so months of the war, the only theatre in which Austria-Hungary was managing to perform adequately pretty much on their own was the Italo-Alpine front. But what the Brusilov offensive was to Russia, the Vittorio-Veneto campaign was to Austria-Hungary. (Though the complete collapse took days to weeks rather than months to go into effect)

Which led to the very unsusual situation of Austria-Hungary losing The War at their --approximate-- greatest extent of expansion (As of November 1918, NO A-Hungarian territory as of the July 1914 borders was held by Allied troops, they in fact had almost reached Venice in their equally ill-fated Final Offensive. Galician Ukraine was a separate political entity, granted full independence by Vienna, though the Polonia Restitutia issue had not been adequately resolved and for fiscal 1917-18 it ended up being run as a puppet regime from Berlin, to the dismay of Josef Pilsudski & crew who had prior to Aleksandr Kerensky's tenure in Russia enjoyed the support--albeit somewhat conditional--of the Vienna government.)

This is what, IMHO a combination of attrition and dangerously incompetent leadership (which was incapable of fully learning the lessons of modern warfare) can lead to.

It just happened to "kill" Tsarist Russia 15-18 months sooner.

[gspsonny03]

True, but the offensive wasn't necessarily the reason Russia's effectiveness started to decline, that was more due to their detereriorating economic and their political situation at home. Their high body counts didn't help either. It was very demoralizing for the troops.
Brusilov really did modernize warfare of that era. It carried over into tha next world war. The specialized units used to blow open holes in enemy lines for the advancement of the rest of the army. The shock tactic instead of the human wave tactic. Soften up the enemy instead of committing all your forces at a particular time. The Germans were very good learners from this tactic.
You've got me on some of the other things you mentioned. I'll bow to your knowledge. because frankly I just don't know.

[Mad Reloader]

Think we may have gotten our wires crossed, GSP--

After Brusilov 1916, Austro-Hungarian combat effectivenes never was quite the same {excluding the Italo-Alpine front}

But after Brusilov 1916, Tsarist Russia had pretty much lost the war.

What if Aleksandr Kerenski'i (using the Old Russian spelling in this post) had politely informed the Allies in the spring of 1917 that "Declaring an Armistice with the Central Powers -- domestic situation critical -- no longer able to continue in the fight -- Best of luck with Kaiser Wilhelm and all."

(In short, an earlier version of Brest-Litovsk! Without V. I. Lenin.)

This goes back to a point broached in an earlier discussion here. The default "Grand Strategy" of World War One was attrition.

Woody Wilson and his grandiose scheme for a League of Nations and those "14 Points" caught Kaiser Bill & co's official attention.

Let us suppose that, with Russia dropping out about 6 months earlier--Germany would in all likelihood been not quite as interested in the little scheme that was going to be eventually tweeked by England & France into a de-facto surrender.

IMHO, we'd be looking at the following in regard to the remaining major players from 1917 on:

Britain: Suffering from shortages and rapidly running out of men. (there's a reason why there was talk of a Lost Generation in the 1920's)
Belgium: Also running out of men (draft age lowered to 15!!!)
France: Not quite as critically low on personnel, but getting frayed at the edges
Italy: Going bonkers about the fact that it was proving nigh-on impossible to prevail against the less-than-brilliantly led Austro-Hungarian army on the Alpine front there (Che infame! This is SOOO embarrasing!)

Austria: Sufficient warm bodies on hand (unlike France, and especially unlike Britain & Belgium) and sufficient arms/ammunition (unlike Russia) but starting to run short in OTHER areas (by mid-late 1918 starting to resemble the CSA as far as equipages and such)
Germany: Feeling the pinch from the blockade, but holding up far better on almost every other count, and possessed of some of the best officers of the timeperiod (From Brigadier-General Hans von Seeckt all the way down to 1st Lieutenant Erwin Johannes Rommel).

If Kerenski'i and Russia had bailed early, there's a distinct possibility that a TRUE armistice could have been acheived at some point in 1918 or 1919.

Everyone but the USA was starting to get really really tired by October 1918 the way things historically turned out... Wouldn't have been TOO much longer under this alternative scenario before they, too flashed on winding things down, but with the Western Front Allies in a less demanding position.

"About zee reparacions, Monsieur.."
"Get bent, Herr Clemenceau. Ve owe you and your army of mutineers -- or the Belgian schoolboy army -- or the English who are now starting to use REALLY TALL girls -- nichts!"
"How about my League-o-Nations???"
"Shut up, Wilson."
"Vait, eine moment bitte -- I, Emperor Karl, like this idea. Think we'll do it in my part, get Pilsudski & the Ukies and these new Baltic states to sign...maybe someday give the Czechs and Croats and Bosnia Commonwealth status...."

Meanwhile, Dolfo Hitler eventually finds work as an editorial cartoonist for a newspaper in Vienna....

[AZZAFOX]

Um I dont think I can be bothered arguiung for the CZAR, not after seeing a documentery on the vile Rasputin and another Documentary on Queen Victoria.

Mad was it Queen Victoria's duaghter Vicky who married he stupid and overly inbred Tzar Nicky or have I confused my information, because in the Queen Victoria Documentary it was said she was to lay historical witness to the Deaths of her husband, nephews(in other Royal families) and the death of her Daughter to the Bolshevics.

[Mad Reloader]

I usually make somewhat of a distinction between those actually doing the fighting & the dying in WW1 and the Royal or elective Head of State who decrees that the brave boys go off and die for King & Country / God & Country, etc. Also their Officers Commanding.

For Russia:

Nicky: Dangerously inbred and about as sharp as a hammer.

General Brusilov: Possibly one of the best pre-revolutionary era commanders they had.

Average "Ivan Ivanovich" Tsarist Russian Soldier. Maybe not the brightest or most educated of lads, poorly supplied, insufficiently trained, but as of June 1916 still had his heart in the fight.

For Austria:

Franz-Josef: Though an octogenarian workaholic, still whip-smart and clever enough to make decent appointments to highest commands.

Archduke & General Josef von Alcsut: Apparently had almost all of The Late Prince Rupert's failings, and apparently few of his good points. For Gospodin Brusilov, the best possible opponent to be up against given the circusmstances

Average "Otto the Austrijanski" K.u.K. soldier: Not that much better educated than his Russian counterpart, slightly better equipped ca. 1916, and unfortunately trained rather unevenly. Though stirrings of pan-Slavist Nationalism had begun to manifest themselves, only IR 36 and IR 91 had been seriously affected in their loyalty & combat effectiveness by that date.

What IMHO made the whole thing a donnybrook was a combination of von Alcsut's cronies' overconfidence in their defenses--mixed with Gospodin Brusilov's belated discovery that his commanders in the field were not able to exploit most of the gains that they had made versus the Austrijanskis--and that Kaiser Bill's Njeimacku might have been stretched a little thin but they were STILL the same folks that kicked butt at Tannenberg and helped save the day for all the poor Ottos (and Stefans & Stans & Vajkos) who were suffering under the auspices of officers still not quite able to do 20th Century Warfare yet.

Can't blame "Ivan Ivanovich" for the ultimate failure of Brusilov... the poor guy didn't have what he needed to score the victory.

The SECOND Brusilov, under Aleksandr Kerenski'i -- different story!