Russian invasion of East Prussia (1914), Russian victory what if?

[Sunforged General]

What would be the effects of a Russian Victory in their invasion of East Prussia, Germany, in 1914? This was certainly possible as the invading Russian Army was more than 3 times larger than the German defending force. 800,000 Russians vs 250,000 Germans. Perhaps with more Co-operation between the invading Russian armies, more Aggressive Russian Generals, and the Russians using codes in their communications to conceal information from the Germans (something the Russians did not do in real life in this battle), with these things the Russians likely would have won.

But what happens then? Do the Germans fall back to the Vistula river (Something they actually considered doing). Do they move more armies away from France and to the east (and risk getting pushed out of France and the French recovering their industrial centers in the north east, which accounted for 40% of French steel and coal). Do the Germans consider suing for peace, since the Russians are now within striking distance of Berlin?

The Germans losing eastern Prussia would be a crushing blow to morale, since Eastern Prussia is (part of) the historical heart of the German Reich. Meanwhile the Russians still have their armies, as they are victorious, that means they weren't (partially) encircled and destroyed. These still whole armies could, with some preparation, help toward a potential push toward the Oder river.

 

[Jopa79]

A short answer, a Russian victory in East Prussia would had made Russia more stronger and complicated the independency trends of the Baltic States and one in the Nordic Countries.

 

[Gurkhal]

To me the most obvious effects are that more German troops are pulled from West to East and most importantly that the Germans have less ability to aid the Austrians so the Russians can keep hammering them even more severely. With the Russians positioned to strike deeper into Germany, the German ability to move forces between fronts or ability to choose a strategy for themselves might be diminished.

And losing East Prussia, the home of the Prussian Junker class, would likely have shaken the German officer corps and morale to a significant degree. Not to mention boosting Russian enthusiasm for the war with significant victories over both Germans and Austrians to make the headlines within the very first months of the war. A great and needed boost to the Tsar's political position.

One thing in my opinion however is that most likley a Russian victory in East Prussia without Tannenberg would still have been bloody and taken time. The German general who wanted to retreat was dismissed from his post due to this and his replacements fought the Russians, and those German soldiers would not disappear and would get reinforcements from the West that were already on the way when Tannenberg happend, if I've understood things correctly.

There might even be a chance that the Russians and Germans would essentially bog themselves down in East Prussia and little real gain would be made for a long time by either side. Kind of similar to the back-and-forth in Poland that was to follow in the actual course of events.

Although almost no matter how if turns out, a Russian victory in East Prussia is a disaster for the Central Powers and might make countires like the Ottomans and Bulgaria re-think if they really want to get onboard this particular ship, hence weakening the Central Powers even further.

 

[Kovax]

…..and then looking at the post-armistice, Russia remains under Czarist control after his success, while the Communists take control in a shattered Germany. The rest of the 20th Century ends up looking nothing like the one we know.

 

[Geriander]

Prussia wasn't very strategically important and Germany had already withdrawn enough troops from the Western Front that in the case of a defeat, they could have formed a new defensive line along the much shorter front that results from losing it. In real life that re-positioning wasn't necessary but in this situation it could prove vital.

Probably Germany would end up fighting a longer battle in the East and they may have ended up collapsing before Imperial Russia.

 

[Herbert West]

Lulz at all the butterflies in this thread.

While Tannenberg was a reasonable victory, the Russian front was a see-saw for a good two years after it. It was not a be-all end-all, and its a massive stretch to assume that shuttling troops for 100 miles less is what makes Germany yield.

 

[Geriander]

Lulz at all the butterflies in this thread.

While Tannenberg was a reasonable victory, the Russian front was a see-saw for a good two years after it. It was not a be-all end-all, and its a massive stretch to assume that shuttling troops for 100 miles less is what makes Germany yield.

I was thinking that pushing the front 100 miles more would make Germany yield. On the other hand Russia may have fallen to revolution without losing as much territory as in real life due to their longer supply lines,

 

[Herbert West]

I was thinking that pushing the front 100 miles more would make Germany yield. On the other hand Russia may have fallen to revolution without losing as much territory as in real life due to their longer supply lines,

You must be sarcastic.

 

[Geriander]

You must be sarcastic.

No... what am I missing?

Attacking was more expensive in men and resources so, having lost Prussia early in the War, Germany would need to spend more men and resources to occupy as much territory as they did IRL.

Russia on the other hand would be fighting more of the war with their opponents having shorter supply lines so that would cause some disadvantage to them.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Not much tbh, It does not remove Russias strategic problems. They would be stopped elsewhere then.
It also would force Germany to be strictly defensive in the West which might or might not be advantageous.

I can also hardly see a morale blow here for the German officier corps, quite the opposite. If they had no reason to fight tooth and nails before they had one now.

 

[Herbert West]

No... what am I missing?

Pretty much everything about strategy, tactics, and the overall industrial and political situation of WWI.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Lulz at all the butterflies in this thread.

While Tannenberg was a reasonable victory, the Russian front was a see-saw for a good two years after it. It was not a be-all end-all, and its a massive stretch to assume that shuttling troops for 100 miles less is what makes Germany yield.

I would tend to agree. In 1918, Germany was suffering privation and near collaps and still managed to field a near war winning offensive. To believe that a poorly led and poorly equipped russian force could push a defeat in 1914 is fanciful. For Russia to push victory in 1914 would require a number of historical changes for the 100+ years following Napoleon's defeat

 

[Henry IX]

The major impacts would be:

1. A major increase of the effectiveness of Russian actions. This is due to the survival of the forces involved in Tannenberg, which were primarily made up of current serving officers and enlisted men. The new armies raised to replace the losses at Tannenberg were minimally trained reservists and new call ups, with a very low calibre of NCOs and junior officers. In addition, the Russians struggled to replace the lost artillery. The Russian losses at Tannenberg were literally unreplaceable in 1914-15. With the (now experienced) forces involved in the actions in East Prussia to serve as cadres for the new forces being raised the Russians are far less likely to be the punching bag they were for the Germans in 1915.

2. The Russians have far more freedom of operation in Poland. With the Northern flank of the Polish salient now secure the Russians can attack the Austrian flank in Galicia without worrying about at attack into their flank and rear. This would cause the Austrians to have to stretch their forces much thinner.

3. Less German support for the Austro-Hungarians. With their territory occupied by the Russians, the Germans would be far less likely to lend the Austrians forces, which is a real issue for the Austrians as they tended to perform poorly when not supported by Germans units.

The Germans were too committed to the Schlieffen Plan to reinforce the East significantly before they did in OTL, so minimal change in the Western Front in 1914. However, the Germans would likely mount a stronger offensive in the east in 1915 to recover East Prussia.

The overall impact of this would likely be a much earlier Austrian collapse, as they would likely take a beating in 1914-15 before the Germans can intervene, possibly even to the extent that Serbia is not conquered, as the Austrians could be too overstretched to divert sufficient forces to a secondary front.

 

[Sunforged General]

I would tend to agree. In 1918, Germany was suffering privation and near collaps and still managed to field a near war winning offensive. To believe that a poorly led and poorly equipped russian force could push a defeat in 1914 is fanciful. For Russia to push victory in 1914 would require a number of historical changes for the 100+ years following Napoleon's defeat

Poorly led? Maybe (If Brusilov had been in charge of the Invasion of Prussia in 1914, the Russians would become a serious threat to Berlin). But poorly equipped? You are thinking of the 1915 and later Imperial Russian Army. The Russian Armies that were lost at Tannenberg and other battles in Prussia were as well equipped as the Germans, the Russians for example had more machine guns than the Germans, and a comparable number of Artillery. The loss of these formations put the Russians in a position where they had to raise new armies quickly and these new armies thus were poorly trained and equipped. These were the Russian armies of 1915 and later that did so poorly.

If the Russian armies survive and are able to occupy parts of Eastern Prussia, this means you have better equipped and trained Russian armies entrenched on German soil. Claiming this is an unlikely scenario is absurd, considering the Russians outnumbered the Germans more than 3 to 1. The Loss of Eastern Prussia also puts the Russians in a position where they can use the Vistula river as a barrier vs the Germans, and now if the Germans try to focus an offensive vs the Russians in 1915, they'll have to cross a large river under fire, and fight a Russian army that is better equipped than the ones they faced in real life.

The Russian offensive into Eastern Prussia was no joke. Maximilian von Prittwitz had considered retreating to the west of the Vistula river, abandoning all of East Prussia, "Prittwitz's panic affected Moltke, who feared that Berlin itself could now be threatened by the advancing Russians."

 

[Sunforged General]

Not much tbh, It does not remove Russias strategic problems. They would be stopped elsewhere then.
It also would force Germany to be strictly defensive in the West which might or might not be advantageous.

I can also hardly see a morale blow here for the German officier corps, quite the opposite. If they had no reason to fight tooth and nails before they had one now.

Many German officers had large amounts of lands in Eastern Prussia. The loss of those lands would surely be a blow to moral. Not to mention a blow to food supplies, Germany is already not self sufficient when it comes to food, even before they lose their prime agricultural lands in the east.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Yes.

But what if GREEK warriors, the greatest warriors of the Twentieth Century, marched up through the Balkans and joined forces with the Bolsheviks, and with their combined might marched to the Rhine?

Today, the economy of Europe would be run by Greece; and the CHEKA would have tourist locations open throughout Siberia for those who complained about OP Greek Warriors upsetting the balance of power in Europe.

Isn’t that how alternative history works?

 

[Easy-Kill]

Poorly led? Maybe (If Brusilov had been in charge of the Invasion of Prussia in 1914, the Russians would become a serious threat to Berlin). But poorly equipped? You are thinking of the 1915 and later Imperial Russian Army. The Russian Armies that were lost at Tannenberg and other battles in Prussia were as well equipped as the Germans, the Russians for example had more machine guns than the Germans, and a comparable number of Artillery. The loss of these formations put the Russians in a position where they had to raise new armies quickly and these new armies thus were poorly trained and equipped. These were the Russian armies of 1915 and later that did so poorly.

I think you may have misread me - where did I comment about the composition of Russian forces? My comment was aimed principally at the resilience of the Germans to stand up to such attacks. Perhaps you could address those parts rather than reply to something I didn't write?

 

[Sunforged General]

I think you may have misread me - where did I comment about the composition of Russian forces? My comment was aimed principally at the resilience of the Germans to stand up to such attacks. Perhaps you could address those parts rather than reply to something I didn't write?

Perhaps reread your own post. You claimed the Russians were poorly equipped and poorly led. And with this you Infact commented of the composition of the Russian forces, commenting on their Quality.

As for "German Resilience" we have only to look at the Battle of Gumbinnen, where ""The uncharacteristic sight of defeated German soldiers streaming mob-like to the rear really unnerved Prittwitz" Then we have Maximilian von Prittwitz, showing such immense "Resilience" that he wanted to retreat all the way to the Vistula River, more than 100 kilometers to the west. His panic was so extreme that the German high Command started to fear that Berlin was in danger.

 

[Sunforged General]

Yes.

But what if GREEK warriors, the greatest warriors of the Twentieth Century, marched up through the Balkans and joined forces with the Bolsheviks, and with their combined might marched to the Rhine?

Today, the economy of Europe would be run by Greece; and the CHEKA would have tourist locations open throughout Siberia for those who complained about OP Greek Warriors upsetting the balance of power in Europe.

Isn’t that how alternative history works?

You are in the minority if you think the Greeks weren't among the greatest fighters in the 20th century.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

You are in the minority if you think the Greeks weren't among the greatest fighters in the 20th century.

You opened up an entire thread on that subject during your last visit. I saw no one but you make that claim, and saw many dispute it because it is a specious judgement at best.

Your posting record demonstrates a stated preference for pretend history and playing “what if”. Forgive me if I prefer examining the consequences of events the way they happened.

German military doctrine from von Schleiffen down was designed to suck Russian armies into E Prussia and destroy them in detail.

It does not matter how many more machine guns your army has over the enemy when your troops are untrained in how to use them, your logistics are poor, and your reconnaissance nonexistent. Especially when you are staring at Paul Hindenburg and his attack dog Ludendorff on the other side reading your wireless communications broadcasts at the exact same time you are.

The result, on the General Staff’s war game table and in the field, is the Battle of Tannenberg ending with the Russian commander committing suicide rather than face the result of his total incompetence back home.

However, what if Suvarov with Kutuzov at his side rose from their graves to lead the battle and have the First Guards Armored Army with TO&E from 1945 at their disposal! There is your next pretend history thread. Enjoy.