Without a US intervention in WWI, what would have happened?

[sid guttridge]

Hi Igorn,

If it had not suffered repeated defeats, why was the Imperial Russian Army standing deep inside the country's borders when the 1917 revolutions took place?

And if it was so robust, why did the Imperial Russian Army fall apart so totally in 1917-18 that even though the Germans continued to advance into Russia you cannot quote a single case of it being defeated in those years?

The answer is that the Imperial Russian Army was a morally spent force as a result of expensive defeats and pyrrhic victories. As a result, its leadership had lost authority and just faded away, incapable of dealing either with its foes in the field or the enemy within.

What is not in doubt in all this is the courage and durability of the Russian soldier, but even his famous endurance has its breaking point.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Arne]

The answer is that the Imperial Russian Army was a morally spent force as a result of expensive defeats and pyrrhic victories. As a result, its leadership had lost authority and just faded away, incapable of dealing either with its foes in the field or the enemy within.

It took me some time to reflect about that. I think it is partly other way around.
It was just 9 years since the catastrophe of the Russo-Japanese war. If you read first hand accounts of more liberal eyewitnesses, you get the impression that the rus-jap war war lost mainly by the type of officer who let their units starve while wasting the the saved money for their personal pleasures.
In 1914 only few officers of a new breed where available in the imperial army. I think of people like Wrangel.
The old officers-corps of 1905 was bound to lose against any opponent. Even if in the time between 1906 and 1914 many improvements had been implemented, the spirit had not changed. I would even say any other army would have been at the edge of mutiny much earlier.
So I would give the credit for the expensive defeats like the first battle for the Masurian Lakes or the phyrric victories like the Dwina winter campaign of 1915/16(?) to the enior officers arogant approach to their subordinates welfare.

Igorn
On the other hand, you do not mention at all that from the finest stock of russian officers (which where also the best ones in the great war) the nucleus of the volunteer armies of 1919 was formed. There was never a russian army more loyal to their vision of russia (how questionable ever) then the officers squads and cossak sotnias of the voluntary armies.

[Igorn]

I think it is partly other way around. It was just 9 years since the catastrophe of the Russo-Japanese war. If you read first hand accounts of more liberal eyewitnesses, you get the impression that the rus-jap war war lost mainly by the type of officer who let their units starve while wasting the the saved money for their personal pleasures..

Source of information that the war was lost mainly by the type of officers who let their units starve ?

In 1914 only few officers of a new breed where available in the imperial army. I think of people like Wrangel.

What about General Brussilov, General Alekseev, General Denikin, General Kornilov or General Mannerheim ?

The old officers-corps of 1905 was bound to lose against any opponent. Even if in the time between 1906 and 1914 many improvements had been implemented, the spirit had not changed. I would even say any other army would have been at the edge of mutiny much earlier.

Please be carefull with wording. Kaizer German Army failed to defeat the Russian Army in 1914- Oct. 1917 and after first combats the war transformed into a trench or positional war without any hope for Kaizer to win. Front line was somewhere in Poland far away from Russian core territorries. Russian economy slowly were shifting to the production of military products. Germany was fighting on two fronts and couldn't sustain long-lasting war for attrition. Don't forget also that the Russian Army defeated Astro-Hungary forces in several occasions including famous Brussilov breakthrough of 1916.

So I would give the credit for the expensive defeats like the first battle for the Masurian Lakes or the phyrric victories like the Dwina winter campaign of 1915/16(?) to the enior officers arogant approach to their subordinates welfare. .

Arne, for your information, in the World War I,the German casualties on the Eastern (Ost) front (approx. 900,000 men) much superseeded German casualies on Western front. German Generals, who participated in this war gave a credit to the quality of a Russian solder, especially in the defensive warfare. The casualties Russian army suffered in the operations you mentioned though were high but were not critical and bearable for Russia. It is maybe for some other Army such losses would be fatal but not for the Russian Army. Almost all Russian territory in 1914-Oct. 1917 was under control of Russian Army and mobilization resource of Russian Army was much greater compared to Germany.

Best Regards from Russia,

[sid guttridge]

Hi Igorn,

If German casualties really were as low as "approx. 900,000 men" on the Eastern Front in WWI, this would amount to only a small proportion of Germany's total casualties of about 7,142,556.

On the other hand, Russia was responsible for the great majority of Austri-Hungary's total loss of 7,020,000 men.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Kitsune]

The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001.


World War I Losses

The number of known dead has been placed at about 10 million men, the wounded at about 20 million, distributed among the chief combatants as follows (round numbers): Dead / Wounded / Prisoner
Great Britain: 947,000 / 2,122,000 / 192,000
France: 1,385,000 / 3,044,000 / 446,000
Russia: 1,700,000 / 4,950,000 / 2,500,000
Italy: 460,000 / 947,000 / 530,000
United States: 115,000 / 206,000 / 4,500
Germany: 1,808,000 / 4,247,000 / 618,000
Austria-Hungary: 1,200,000 / 3,620,000 / 2,200,000
Turkey: 325,000 / 400,000

source: http://www.bartleby.com/67/1783.html


@Igorn: In German it is the Kaiser, with s, not the "Kaizer".

[Igorn]

If German casualties really were as low as "approx. 900,000 men" on the Eastern Front in WWI, this would amount to only a small proportion of Germany's total casualties of about 7,142,556. Sid.

Sid,

Approx. 900,000 dead Germans excluding wounded and POW. If the total casualties of dead Germans were approx. 1,808,000, this number does not look like a small proportion of Germany's casualties.

Best Regards from Russia,

[Schultz]

and if the number was 80,000,000 it still wouldnt matter the russians still lost, they gave up, live with it.


Schultz

[sid guttridge]

Hi Igorn,

You originally wrote 900,000 German "casualties" on the Eastern Front, not dead.

Have you got a source that specifies 900,000 dead?

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. Imopressionistically, it seems to me that 900,000 may be too high for a German dead figure on the Eastern Front, but may also be too low for a total casualties figure. Has anyone got Germany's own official casualty breakdown by front?

[Michate]

Sid,

Approx. 900,000 dead Germans excluding wounded and POW. If the total casualties of dead Germans were approx. 1,808,000, this number does not look like a small proportion of Germany's casualties.

Best Regards from Russia,

Not correct.

Including non-returning missing and some postwar dead soldiers the German casualties in dead soldiers were 2,037,000. Of them 418,000 dead were suffered at the Eastern front, while around 1,600,000 dead were suffered at the Western front, Italy and so on.

Source: Medical Report of the German army for the World War, Vol. 3, p. 139. Cited in Hans Linnenkohl: "Vom Einzelschuss zur Feuerwalze. Der Wettlauf zwischen Technik und Taktik im 1. Weltkrieg.", p. 214 ("From single shot to creeping barrage. The race between technology and tactics during the First World War").

Arne, for your information, in the World War I,the German casualties on the Eastern (Ost) front (approx. 900,000 men) much superseeded German casualies on Western front.

Just 2 letters: BS

[Igorn]

Sid,

I came across this info from several books including the “Fatal Decisions” of German General Bluementritt.

“All wars, which Russia led, were cruel and bloodshed. During the “Seven Years War” Fridrikh the Great learnt to respect combat worth of a Russian solder. Napoleon considered the Borodino Battle as the bloodiest battle out of all his battles. Russian-Turkey war of 1877-1878 was as cruel as the Russian-Japan war of 1904-05. Casualties were huge in these two wars. During the World War I we got acquainted closely with the Russian Tsar Army. I will give one unknown but significant fact: our casualties on the Eastern Front were much greater than our casualties on the Western Front in 1914-1918. At that time, Russian generalship was inferior to German and tactics of their huge armies were not flexible. But in defense warfare the Russian Army was distinguished itself by outstanding tenaciousness and endurance. Russians very quickly and effectively built fortifications and defense positions. Their solders demonstrated good skills in night warfare and combats in forests. A Russian solder prefers hand-to-hand combat. His natural needs are not big. But his capabilities to endure great hardships and deprivations are causing real surprise. That was a Russian solder, whom we learnt and were filled with respect ¼ centuries ago. Since than Bolsheviks systematically re-educated Russian youth and it was logically to assume that the Red Army became harder nut to crack than the Tsar Army… Many of our leaders strongly underestimated our new enemy. It occurred partially because they didn’t know neither Russian people nor a Russian solder. Some of our generals during World War I were located on the Western Front and never fought on the Eastern Front. They had no clue about geographical conditions of Russia and endurance of a Russian solder. But at the same time ignored numerous warnings of our prominent military specialist who new Russia..”

Siegfried Westphal, Werner Kreipe, Guenther Blumentritt, Fritz Bayerlem, Kurl Zeitzler, Bodo Zimmerman, Hasso von Manteuttel,THE FATAL DECISIONS, NEW YORK - 1956

Best Regards from Russia,

[sid guttridge]

Hi Igor,

Yup. You have a source, as I requested.

However, I still think that it is inherently unlikely to be accurate. For a start, only a minority of the German Army was ever on the Eastern Front in WWI and far greater densities of Allied manpower and firepower existed on the Western Front.

Has anyone got any hard statistics?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Kitsune]

I still have not found a comparative statistic of the losses on the western and eastern front.
Nonetheless, some links to sites about the Eastern Front:

http://www.richthofen.com/ww1sum2/

http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW1/theatresofwar.htm

[Michate]

Well, one very vague remark by some generals, who most probably did not have any access to archival sources and who are not giving any supporting figures etc. does hardly supercede the official medical report by the German army's medical branch giving a very detailed breakdown of casualty figures for type of casualties, any army, theatre, and period, which shows that just around 20% of all the German casualties weresuffred on Eastern front.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Michate,

Could you give further details of the source? I would like to look at it next time I am in the British Library.

Cheers,

Sid.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Igorn,

The Encyclopedia of WWI gives German losses on the Eastern Front in WWI as ±500,000 dead and ±1,000,000 wounded. Prisoners were few. If true, this would mean that the Russians inflicted less than a quarter of total German losses in WWI.

However, I would again draw attention to the fact that the great majority of losses the Russians inflicted did not fall on the Germans, but on the Austro-Hungarians. By contrast, the Anglo-French inflicted very few losses on the Austro-Hungarians.

A thought. Perhaps when Blumentritt wrote "our casualties" were heavier on the Eastern Front than on the Western Front, he was referring to the casualties of the Central Powers, not just those of Germany? That might conceivably be true.

Cheers,

Sid.