The early deaths of Franz-Joseph - 1896, 1906, or 1911

[raharris1973]

What if Franz-Joseph died early of natural causes, a flu or cold turned into fatal pneumonia, or a non-nefarious accident, years earlier than OTL, leading to the enthronement of his nephew Franz-Ferdinand in 1896 at the age of 32, 1906 at the age of 42, or the summer of 1911 at the age of 46?

Scenario 1 - 1896 (after May 1896, when FF became heir presumptive) - What is the new, young Emperor's impact on the Empire, and the interplay of his influence and any residual influence of Empress Sisi during her time left (which could be extended by butterflies). Does it have any effect of the Ausgleich cost-sharing negotiations of 1897? What about the Austro-Russian agreements of 1897 and 1903?

And what about the rocky start that will be his courtship and marriage issues? Would he start of his reign with a morganatic marriage? His relationship with Sophie Chotek was a known scandal already. Will he be forced to choose the throne or Sophie in the first instance or be passed over in anger rather than get the morganatic marriage option?

Assuming he is Emperor, was his anti-Italian prejudice formed and strong enough to mess with renewal of the Triple Alliance in 1903?

Scenario 2- 1906 (let's say after the Nov, 1906 appointment of Conrad Hotzendorff and Aerenthal) - What is the new Emperor Franz Ferdinand's impact on the Empire? In particular the Ausgleich cost-sharing negotiations of 1907? Or the disposition of Bosnia and the Sanjak of Novi-Pazar in 1908?

Scenario 3 - 1911 (let's say before 1 August of that year) - What is the new Emperor Franz-Ferdinand's impact on the Empire? Particular on its foreign policy towards the Italo-Ottoman War and the Balkan Wars?

 

[Buba]

Very interesting questions. Sadly I know too little to contribute
IMO the sooner FJ pops his cogs the better for A-H.
Simply making A-H spend as much per capita on its military as Germany ten years before 1914 would be a history changer.
Hitting French, British or Russian spending levels?
WOW!
Now, how to say "unstoppable A-H military steamroller" in German or Hungarian?
Of course FF may turn out to be just as bad as FJ ...
Nevertheless there is quite high potential for canon going out the window entirely. E.g. this site would be in German and we would look at such ASB scenarios where the Dual-Monarchy collapses around 1918.

BTW - is there a site with some sort of "Ausgleich for dummies" summary of each of those agreements?

As to the Bosnian Crisis of 1908 in general and disposition of Sanjak of Novi Pazar in particular - I suspect that Bosnian Crisis or not the rivalry between A-H and Russia still runs as in OTL and the Balkan Wars still happen as they did (triggered by Italo-Ottoman War and Russian assistance).
Its fate complicates the post-war settlement somewhat.

Another question - with FF in power in 1903 - is Vienna's reaction to the Serbian coupe and regicide same as in OTL or different? Maybe intervention to keep the Obrenovic dynasty on the throne? That butterflies away the Sarajevo assassination, doesn't it?

 

[stevep]

raharris1973

Like Bubba I don't know enough to say in detail. From what I have heard he was distinctly hostile to the power of the Hungarian aristocrats and the problems they caused the empire so you could see fireworks if he gained power prior to those Ausgleich cost-sharing negotiations of 1897 you mention. Believe he was even proposing some sort of triple monarchy, seeking to bring in a Slavic element to win more loyalty from them and also as a weapon against the Hungarians. Might also - remember reading this somewhere but can't remember for sure if it was him advocating it - push for a much wider franchise in Hungary to break the power of the aristocrats and large landowners by giving more power to the poorer elements, Hungarian as well as Slavic and other.

I can't see Austria matching Britain or Germany in per capita military spending as its so much poorer overall and really needs to spend on infrastructure, educations and other development rather than purely military issues.

On Bubba's last point I can't see the OTL Sarajevo assassination as likely as he's unlikely to visit the region in the same period and circumstances. Simply too many butterflies even for a 1911 POD. Plus for an earlier two would he actually agree to annex BosniaHG as happened OTL in 1908 IIRC? That could go some way to moderating things in the area and was I believe another factor in the run up to the Balkan Wars.

Anyway initial thoughts.

Steve

 

[sillygoose]

What if Franz-Joseph died early of natural causes, a flu or cold turned into fatal pneumonia, or a non-nefarious accident, years earlier than OTL, leading to the enthronement of his nephew Franz-Ferdinand in 1896 at the age of 32, 1906 at the age of 42, or the summer of 1911 at the age of 46?

Scenario 1 - 1896 (after May 1896, when FF became heir presumptive) - What is the new, young Emperor's impact on the Empire, and the interplay of his influence and any residual influence of Empress Sisi during her time left (which could be extended by butterflies). Does it have any effect of the Ausgleich cost-sharing negotiations of 1897? What about the Austro-Russian agreements of 1897 and 1903?

And what about the rocky start that will be his courtship and marriage issues? Would he start of his reign with a morganatic marriage? His relationship with Sophie Chotek was a known scandal already. Will he be forced to choose the throne or Sophie in the first instance or be passed over in anger rather than get the morganatic marriage option?

Assuming he is Emperor, was his anti-Italian prejudice formed and strong enough to mess with renewal of the Triple Alliance in 1903?

Scenario 2- 1906 (let's say after the Nov, 1906 appointment of Conrad Hotzendorff and Aerenthal) - What is the new Emperor Franz Ferdinand's impact on the Empire? In particular the Ausgleich cost-sharing negotiations of 1907? Or the disposition of Bosnia and the Sanjak of Novi-Pazar in 1908?

Scenario 3 - 1911 (let's say before 1 August of that year) - What is the new Emperor Franz-Ferdinand's impact on the Empire? Particular on its foreign policy towards the Italo-Ottoman War and the Balkan Wars?

For scenario 1 or 2 yes, FF was very interested in playing hardball with the Hungarians and probably would have gone ahead with Plan U (written up under FJ), the invasion of Budapest and toppling of the Hungarian parliament to force a new constitution on them. That would have meant equal representation for everyone in Hungary rather than basing voting rights on property value and that would have broken the lock of the Magyar nobility on the government. Changing the constitution would fix the political problems of A-H, but might cause a civil war. Still, better to get it out of the way early on that later. Also FF was not in favor of a triple crown monarchy, he wanted to revert to the single crown and even get rid of parliaments entirely, but knew that was unfeasible, so was willing to settle for changing the Hungarian constitution.

I'm honestly not sure about the Austrian-Russian agreements, but given Russia's pan-Slavic proto-Fascism and Balkan ambitions the issue would more be about Russia than FF or A-H:

The Rebirth of Pan-Slavism in the Russian Empire, 1912–13

The Balkan Wars and the territorial changes that ensued spurred the rebirth of Pan-Slavic activities in Russia. Scrutinizing the entanglements among Russian foreign policy, diplomacy, and public opinion, this chapter describes how officials and civilians—far...

link.springer.com

Pan-Slavism — EGO

This article introduces Slavic unity concepts of the "long" 19th century based on Russian imperial Pan-Slavism and democratic national Austro-Slavism. In the 20th and 21st centuries, references to "Slavism" also functioned as an instrument of (cultural) political mobilization. When...

ieg-ego.eu

As to the situation in the Balkans, I think FF would be against adding any more territory given the issues facing the Empire already.

Scenario 3 sees FF more focused on internal issues. He was actually a peace-nik and wanted to avoid war at nearly all cost due to his fears the empire would implode if they participated in a major war. In fact a big reason the war even happened in 1914 was the head of the peace faction was killed before the debate for war even started.

 

[ATP]

If there would be triple monarchy - AH could survive lost WW1 war.
Otherwise - war later then 1914,but still would occure.Austria would spend more money,but Russia would grown stronger/Germany belived that after 1916 they would beat them/ , so WW1 about 1920 mean Allies victory with Russian empire intact.
Wkich probably lead to German- AH- England against Russia + France WW2.

 

[Buba]

Considering that the Hungarian franchise was 1% of the population (male population? total population?) I imagine that FF could find support among the disenfranchised masses for any "at bayonet-point" restructuring of the Crown of Szent Istvan.
Mind you - between c.1880 and up to WWI the franchise in the UK was 40% of the male population.

 

[stevep]

Scenario 3 sees FF more focused on internal issues. He was actually a peace-nik and wanted to avoid war at nearly all cost due to his fears the empire would implode if they participated in a major war. In fact a big reason the war even happened in 1914 was the head of the peace faction was killed before the debate for war even started.

That would make WWI, in anything like the form we know it extremely unlikely. Germany wouldn't risk war with France and Russia without Austria and if Russia from ~1916 onward got too aggressive it would push Britain into the opposing camp, especially if as a result of the pressure from the east Germany made up with Britain.

Russia of course will always be a colossus with feet of clay as long as its as backward and autocratic as under the Romanov's so its ability for aggressive war in Europe is likely to be less than many might think - although some fools in St Petersburg/Petrograd may well not understand that.

 

[Buba]

As to the situation in the Balkans, I think FF would be against adding any more territory given the issues facing the Empire already.

An obscene, perverse concept would be going max TriUne (Kraina, Croatia, Dalmatia, Bosnia, Kustenland, some bits and pieces of Karynthia and Styria) and adding Serbia to the resulting Kingdom of Croatia ...

if Russia from ~1916 onward got too aggressive it would push Britain into the opposing camp, especially if as a result of the pressure from the east Germany made up with Britain.

Like I've said before in other threads - the UK re-examining its options in the later half of the decade, after the 1915/6 elections is IMO very likely.
Tories are free of those murky, under the table, unreported to Parliament deals the Liberals had made with the French, the French and Russian are going through a crazy battleship building craze ...

I've read that Borodino class battlecruisers were to be based in Bizerta (Algeria), something I'm sure even saner minds than Churchill's could get excited about. Even if not true, by end of decade France and the Baltic Fleet will have over twenty battleships.

 

[sillygoose]

That would make WWI, in anything like the form we know it extremely unlikely.

Agreed.

Germany wouldn't risk war with France and Russia without Austria and if Russia from ~1916 onward got too aggressive it would push Britain into the opposing camp, especially if as a result of the pressure from the east Germany made up with Britain.

Agreed. A-H would be purely defensively minded IMHO. This could theoretically prevent the worst of the A-H/Russian antagonism if they avoid the 1908 Bosnian situation. So war might be off the table entirely unless Russia opts to start it.

Russia of course will always be a colossus with feet of clay as long as its as backward and autocratic as under the Romanov's so its ability for aggressive war in Europe is likely to be less than many might think - although some fools in St Petersburg/Petrograd may well not understand that.

I'm not 100% convinced of that. Russia was rapidly industrializing and in 1914 started its great expansion of the army. At this point the technical stuff that would leave Russia behind was still in its infancy and without WW1 Russia could theoretically overcome its traditional backwardness eventually. If it doesn't fall into the middle income trap. The Czar would at some point have to give up on autocracy (arguably the reason WW1 was pursued by the Russians, which they did largely initiate the sequence of events that caused the war, was due to increased agitation for a constitutional monarchy a la Britain, I have sources to back that up), which would help, same with French technological help and the same or increased German trade and outsourcing of cheap manufacturing industry (Russia was becoming Germany's China). Plus the more that Europe needed Russian food, oil, metals, etc. the more Russia would prosper and increase its trade surplus. Much like how modern China is per capita still quite poor relative to the West the sheer size and resources would give it an overall massive economy eventually.

It's just a question of whether the Russian government seeks foreign adventures to avoid the nobility giving up its privileged economic position.

 

[raharris1973]

My initial thoughts going in -

Scenario 1 - 1896
Best-case - Franz-Ferdinand wank. F-F reforms the empire, and builds good relations with Russia (while maintaining excellent relations with Wilhelm) through agreements in 1897 and 1903 to keep the Balkans, "on ice". In 1903, this includes acting, with Russian permission, against the Serbian regicides, since its is in "his", western, "half" of the Balkans (Romania and Bulgaria being the Russian "half"). He cold-shoulders the Italians in the Triple Alliance re-negotiations of 1903, but at the same time, encourages the Willy-Nicky correspondence, which broadens into the Willy-Nicky-Franky letters, and when Nicky looks for a Bjork-like alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary over the Far East, Franky and Willy with Franky's encouragement goes for it. This leaves France as frustrated, non-exclusive, fourth ally.

Worst-case - Franz-Ferdinand tries to reform the empire and uses leverage during Ausgleich negotiations in 1897 to do it. The Hungarians rebel, and F-F rallies counter-revolutionary forces of other groups. The Hungarians are on the path to losing, but fighting lasts long enough to be called a civil war, and for Romania, Serbia, and Italy to intervene over border areas, and then the Germans to intervene on behalf of F-F, and then Russia and France to intervene to counter Germany. We have an early WWI with the Triple Alliance and CP's starting off disorganized and divided against themselves, but at least the British are not intervening on the Franco-Russian side. But things look bleak for the Austro-German side to come out of the conflict with everything it had at the beginning.

Scenario 2 - 1906

Best-case Franz-Ferdinand wank. F-F reforms the empire, and builds good relations with Russia (while maintaining excellent relations with Wilhelm). The Young Turk revolution of 1908 forces him to resolve the status of Bosnia, ultimately through annexation, but the personal correspondence he establishes with Nicholas via Wilhelm helps F-F and Nicholas keep better control over Aehrenthal and Isvolski handle their bargaining and announcements of moves and promises with more tact and consistency, allowing negative publicity to be handled without ultimatums and bullying. F-F's reforms also remove Magyar fiscal obstruction to decent military and other public investments.

Worst-case - Franz-Ferdinand tries to reform the empire and uses leverage during Ausgleich negotiations in 1907 to do it. The Hungarians rebel, and F-F rallies counter-revolutionary forces of other groups. The Hungarians are on the path to losing, but fighting lasts long enough to be called a civil war, and for Romania, Serbia, and Italy to intervene over border areas, and then the Germans to intervene on behalf of F-F, and then Russia and France to intervene to counter Germany. We have an early WWI with the Triple Alliance and CP's starting off disorganized and divided against themselves, and worse, the British, having recently concluded a convention with Russia, are taking a pro-Franco-Russian stance, threatening to poach German colonies or Copenhagen the German fleet. Things look bleak for the Austro-German side to come out of the conflict with everything it had at the beginning.

Scenario 3 - 1911

Best-case Franz-Ferdinand wank. F-F reforms the empire, and strives to conciliate Russia and support the Balkan status quo. It's not easy because of where things were left off with the Bosnian crisis. His domestic pro-Slavism may be seen as a positive however in Russia. The country really testing his nerves, and the nerves of his close friend Conrad Hotzendorff, however, is Italy, a so-called "ally". Italy is insisting on going to war with the Ottomans, even at risk of destabilizing the Balkans, despite Austrian mediation proposals that would give Italy practical control over Tripoli under Ottoman suzerainty. F-F, on taking the throne and command of state affairs, gets quite direct with the Italians that the mediation proposal is the best deal he can support for Rome, and he can't support an Italian war on Turkey. By this point, the Italian government is too far committed to its warlike course to back-down and issues its ultimatum, declaration, and attack in September.

F-F and Hotzendorff are livid about Italian recklessness. F-F agrees to Conrad's previously stated advocacy for war to crush Italy, and launches several weeks preparation to launch an ultimatum, DoW, and attack over the border before the mountain passes freeze .

Austria attacks Italy in late October or early November, citing as its excuse Italy's refusal to cease its unprovoked aggression against Turkey. Fighting Italy is something that almost all nationalities in the Austrian empire can agree on. Austria's attacks into Venezia make it impossible for Italy to reinforce Tripoli, and Austria soon forms an alliance and joint Army and Navy planning with the Ottomans. This deters and contains any potential aggression by Armies and Navies of the Balkan states.

When the war finally ends in 1912, Austria wins in the settlement a restoration of the Ottoman status quo, an indemnity from the Italians, a demilitarized zone in Lombardy and Venezia, and, most cruelly, the hand-over of Italy's colonial trophies, Somalia, which goes to Austria, and Eritrea, which is split between Austria and Abyssinia, which joins the Austro-Ottoman side by 1912.


Worst-case - Franz-Ferdinand tries to reform the empire strives to conciliate the Russians but is confronted immediately with the Italo-Ottoman crisis upon taking the throne. Despite F-F's mediation and warnings, the Italians go to war in September. F-F and Conrad resolve on war against Italy. Despite conciliatory moves towards Russia, Nicholas is too weak to resist Russian ministers who insist that Russia must mobilize and cannot let Austria crush Italy, and must use this opportunity to humiliate Austria, win a new ally, and gain revenge for the Bosnia crisis. The French, seeing a similar opportunity, and unlike in the Morocco instance earlier in the year, seeing a crisis where Russia has skin in the game, do nothing to discourage Russian mobilization.

The Austrian attack on Italy is followed by Russian mobilization, then German mobilization, then French, then German attack on Belgium and France, then Russian attack on Germany and Austria (and the Ottomans), then British declaration of war on Germany.

 

[stevep]

Agreed.


Agreed. A-H would be purely defensively minded IMHO. This could theoretically prevent the worst of the A-H/Russian antagonism if they avoid the 1908 Bosnian situation. So war might be off the table entirely unless Russia opts to start it.


I'm not 100% convinced of that. Russia was rapidly industrializing and in 1914 started its great expansion of the army. At this point the technical stuff that would leave Russia behind was still in its infancy and without WW1 Russia could theoretically overcome its traditional backwardness eventually. If it doesn't fall into the middle income trap. The Czar would at some point have to give up on autocracy (arguably the reason WW1 was pursued by the Russians, which they did largely initiate the sequence of events that caused the war, was due to increased agitation for a constitutional monarchy a la Britain, I have sources to back that up), which would help, same with French technological help and the same or increased German trade and outsourcing of cheap manufacturing industry (Russia was becoming Germany's China). Plus the more that Europe needed Russian food, oil, metals, etc. the more Russia would prosper and increase its trade surplus. Much like how modern China is per capita still quite poor relative to the West the sheer size and resources would give it an overall massive economy eventually.

It's just a question of whether the Russian government seeks foreign adventures to avoid the nobility giving up its privileged economic position.

On this last point very doubtful. There was a raw growth of the Russian economy but by some measures it was only just about keeping ahead of the population growth. Also a lot of the basis for a powerful military is already beyond imperial Russia as it requires decently trained and motivated people. The vast bulk of the population were still largely illiterate and innumerate peasants and while they might make brave and hard fighting troops their going to be little more than cannon fodder without a markedly wider spread of education.

Ditto similarly with a lot of industrial and other economic activities. The Russian elite were on a similar level to those in the west in terms of education but many of the rest weren't anywhere near. This is a gulf that will only grow as the century passes until Russia really sorts out a systematic and reliable education system, which in itself will then take the best part of a generation at least to work through. China is a poor example here as there has been a massive shift from rural to urban and also in education, neither of which were looking likely to happen soon in 1900-1914 Russia without massive social and political change.

I take your point that Russia like Germany has internal interests that might welcoming a conflict with neighbours. However as we're discussed elsewhere the most likely thing is that Germany will continue to view Russia as a greater threat than it actually is, at least in terms of an aggressive war by Russia against Germany, and hence feel it must look for an early war.

Steve

 

[sillygoose]

On this last point very doubtful. There was a raw growth of the Russian economy but by some measures it was only just about keeping ahead of the population growth. Also a lot of the basis for a powerful military is already beyond imperial Russia as it requires decently trained and motivated people. The vast bulk of the population were still largely illiterate and innumerate peasants and while they might make brave and hard fighting troops their going to be little more than cannon fodder without a markedly wider spread of education.

So just like the Soviets. Its a bloody awful way to fight, but it worked for Stalin and was less bloody in WW1 than WW2 when technology really made the killing machine work much more efficiently.
Plus even with the rate of growth they had they were at a minimum going to reach the level that Stalin achieved pre-WW2 anyway minus the enormous loss of life:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19425/w19425.pdf

Ditto similarly with a lot of industrial and other economic activities. The Russian elite were on a similar level to those in the west in terms of education but many of the rest weren't anywhere near. This is a gulf that will only grow as the century passes until Russia really sorts out a systematic and reliable education system, which in itself will then take the best part of a generation at least to work through. China is a poor example here as there has been a massive shift from rural to urban and also in education, neither of which were looking likely to happen soon in 1900-1914 Russia without massive social and political change.

I was thinking of natural developments after the 1914 assuming no war. Clearly 1900-1914 was pretty well set in stone as far as development goes.

I take your point that Russia like Germany has internal interests that might welcoming a conflict with neighbours. However as we're discussed elsewhere the most likely thing is that Germany will continue to view Russia as a greater threat than it actually is, at least in terms of an aggressive war by Russia against Germany, and hence feel it must look for an early war.

Steve

Are you talking about up 1914 or later? Germany can't go to war alone if A-H doesn't want to.

 

[stevep]

So just like the Soviets. Its a bloody awful way to fight, but it worked for Stalin and was less bloody in WW1 than WW2 when technology really made the killing machine work much more efficiently.
Plus even with the rate of growth they had they were at a minimum going to reach the level that Stalin achieved pre-WW2 anyway minus the enormous loss of life:

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19425/w19425.pdf

I was thinking of natural developments after the 1914 assuming no war. Clearly 1900-1914 was pretty well set in stone as far as development goes.

Actually no from what I understand it. About the only good thing the Bolsheviks did was to greatly expand education. I think for a good chunk of the cold war the USSR was producing more engineers and scientists than anywhere else in the world. Of course given the corruption of the Soviet system we could question the actual quality of some of those degrees but I think that the Red Army in 1941 had a much better quality of general troops in terms of education than in 1914.

I do expect that if the monarchy had survived or probably even better the Provisional Government had stayed in power and developed into a reasonably stable democratic state then the total level of industrial development probably would be similar to that in OTL by ~1941 but probably with less heavy industry and more light and commercial development. Also that the spread of decent education would occur but unless under a democratic state its unlikely to spread as far as under communism.

Are you talking about up 1914 or later? Germany can't go to war alone if A-H doesn't want to.

I agree that Germany would have to be desperate to go to war alone against Russia and very likely France but it does seem to have been desperately worried by development in Russia, albeit as I say I think that was overstated.

 

[sillygoose]

Actually no from what I understand it. About the only good thing the Bolsheviks did was to greatly expand education.

Somewhat, they really expanded literacy per their claims. That allowed them to indoctrinate more easily given that radios were few and far between for the average person. A lot of the time they were trying to play catchup with the czarist era given that many of the educated people have fled the country after the revolution. From what I understand the first generation of mass educated Soviet people was the 1927 conscription class, which only partially served in the military at the very end of 1944 and early 1945.

I think for a good chunk of the cold war the USSR was producing more engineers and scientists than anywhere else in the world. Of course given the corruption of the Soviet system we could question the actual quality of some of those degrees but I think that the Red Army in 1941 had a much better quality of general troops in terms of education than in 1914.

I'm not sure about that, but certainly after WW2 they were doing much better than the czarist Russia did with educating the public. Granted though that was something like 30 years after the end of the Czar, so perhaps without the WWs the czarist regime would have developed in that direction as well. The result of general economic growth.

Given the performance of the Soviet military in 1941 vs. 1914 I'd dispute that. If anything due to the disruptions of WW1, the Revolution, the Civil War, the various wars after Soviet victory (Polish-Soviet war) and the various brutal purges of the Lenin and Stalin eras pre-WW2 there were massive breakdowns in civil society which not only resulted in education being disrupted, but mass death of so many people that education was an afterthought. Certainly basic literacy improved due to major efforts in that direction especially among older generations, but that doesn't necessarily mean basic education had improved.

From what I've been able to find it was the class of people born in 1927 who were the first who really got a general education that the Soviet government had intended since they finally had peace and were able to implement their social agenda and restore and expand government services; as I said above they only aged in to military service by late 1944 and were only partially conscripted, most not really seeing much action in the war. But again education was uneven given the serious disruptions that were caused by the early 1930s famine and Stalinist purges, plus then of course WW2.

Education in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Russian Civil War and the War communism years led to a sharp drop in the number of schools and enrolled students. Whereas in 1914, 91% of the children were receiving instruction in the schools, in 1918 figure dropped to 62%, in 1919 to 49% and in 1920 to 24.9%.[3] As a result, illiteracy grew rapidly.

So yeah, until the mid-1920s the USSR had MUCH worse education than in the last year of WW1.

Of course the quality of the education is an issue:

Soviet education in 1930s–1950s was inflexible and suppressive. Research and education, in all subjects[9] but especially in the social sciences, was dominated by Marxist-Leninist ideology and supervised by the CPSU. Such domination led to abolition of whole academic disciplines such as genetics.[10] Scholars were purged as they were proclaimed bourgeois during that period.

Another aspect of the inflexibility was the high rate at which pupils were held back and required to repeat a year of school. In the early 1950s, typically 8–10% of pupils in elementary grades were held back a year. This was partly attributable to the pedagogical style of teachers, and partly to the fact that many of these children had disabilities that impeded their performance.

I do expect that if the monarchy had survived or probably even better the Provisional Government had stayed in power and developed into a reasonably stable democratic state then the total level of industrial development probably would be similar to that in OTL by ~1941 but probably with less heavy industry and more light and commercial development. Also that the spread of decent education would occur but unless under a democratic state its unlikely to spread as far as under communism.

I'm not so sure about the light and commercial developments, as IOTL by 1914 all the focus had been on heavy industry and those serving the military, rail roads, and raw material extraction and some limited processing. Foreign imports serviced most of the light and commercial needs and interestingly Germany had been importing obsolete factories so they could take advantage of lower wages for less skilled manufacturing. These ended up being those that were attacked by the public and nationalized by the Russian government in 1915. I think that parallels the Russian economy of today, as their main exports are either raw materials and energy, weapons, and machinery and vehicles like trucks.

From the earlier section about education, the Czarist government was actually educating many more children than the USSR for some years, so without the disruption of everything from 1918 on education might have continued to improve at a faster rate just because it didn't have to recover from such horrible disruptions.

Also contrary to Soviet propaganda Nicholas was expanding education for the general public enormously:

All-Russian Primary Education (1894–1917): Developmental Milestones

"All-Russian Primary Education (1894–1917): Developmental Milestones'' published in 'Social Evolution & History'. Volume 10, Number 2 / September 2011

www.socionauki.ru

Taking into consideration all the aforesaid, we would like to mention that in 1894–1917 the primary education in Russia made a significant progress. Due to the efforts of the government which having drawn the conclusions from the First Russian Revolution, in 1908 adopted a 10-year program aimed at all-Russian education introduction. The process gained such a powerful impetus that, from our opinion, by 1917 the task had been completed.

During the Civil War, the primary education system suffered heavily. We can just mention as an instance that several dozen thousand of parochial schools were closed. The new teaching methodology met with a mixed reaction at the teaching staff. It took Soviet government more than 10 years to reorganize primary educational system and primary education became compulsory only in 1930.

So the Soviets only got back to where the Czar was in 1917 in 1930.

I agree that Germany would have to be desperate to go to war alone against Russia and very likely France but it does seem to have been desperately worried by development in Russia, albeit as I say I think that was overstated.

The Russian 1914 army expansion program had Germany worried because it also coincided with the 1913 French expansion of their draft from 2 to 3 years, which effectively increased the size of their standing army by several hundred thousand men. Not only that, but they had just started to buy modern heavy artillery in larger numbers (though were still quite behind in 1914), while Germany felt they had topped out on the number of divisions/corps they could form given the cost and number of horses required to sustain them since they would have had to be taken from farmers in wartime. There are a few good books on the army arms race in Europe leading up to WW1 and the general consensus from what I've seen is that Germany was falling behind given that they still hadn't gotten to the point of mechanization to replace the horse enough to overcome shortages, not to mention get enough oil and rubber to sustain mechanization, and didn't have other technologies yet to offset enemies with superior numbers and peer-level weapons/organization. That doesn't even get into the fears about A-H's political problems and it falling very far behind in the arms/conscription numbers race due to said political issues.

Question is how long it would have taken without WW1 for Britain to see Germany/Austria as the weaker side that needed support to maintain the balance of power.

 

[stevep]

Somewhat, they really expanded literacy per their claims. That allowed them to indoctrinate more easily given that radios were few and far between for the average person. A lot of the time they were trying to play catchup with the czarist era given that many of the educated people have fled the country after the revolution. From what I understand the first generation of mass educated Soviet people was the 1927 conscription class, which only partially served in the military at the very end of 1944 and early 1945.


I'm not sure about that, but certainly after WW2 they were doing much better than the czarist Russia did with educating the public. Granted though that was something like 30 years after the end of the Czar, so perhaps without the WWs the czarist regime would have developed in that direction as well. The result of general economic growth.

Given the performance of the Soviet military in 1941 vs. 1914 I'd dispute that. If anything due to the disruptions of WW1, the Revolution, the Civil War, the various wars after Soviet victory (Polish-Soviet war) and the various brutal purges of the Lenin and Stalin eras pre-WW2 there were massive breakdowns in civil society which not only resulted in education being disrupted, but mass death of so many people that education was an afterthought. Certainly basic literacy improved due to major efforts in that direction especially among older generations, but that doesn't necessarily mean basic education had improved.

From what I've been able to find it was the class of people born in 1927 who were the first who really got a general education that the Soviet government had intended since they finally had peace and were able to implement their social agenda and restore and expand government services; as I said above they only aged in to military service by late 1944 and were only partially conscripted, most not really seeing much action in the war. But again education was uneven given the serious disruptions that were caused by the early 1930s famine and Stalinist purges, plus then of course WW2.

Education in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So yeah, until the mid-1920s the USSR had MUCH worse education than in the last year of WW1.

Of course the quality of the education is an issue:



I'm not so sure about the light and commercial developments, as IOTL by 1914 all the focus had been on heavy industry and those serving the military, rail roads, and raw material extraction and some limited processing. Foreign imports serviced most of the light and commercial needs and interestingly Germany had been importing obsolete factories so they could take advantage of lower wages for less skilled manufacturing. These ended up being those that were attacked by the public and nationalized by the Russian government in 1915. I think that parallels the Russian economy of today, as their main exports are either raw materials and energy, weapons, and machinery and vehicles like trucks.

From the earlier section about education, the Czarist government was actually educating many more children than the USSR for some years, so without the disruption of everything from 1918 on education might have continued to improve at a faster rate just because it didn't have to recover from such horrible disruptions.

Also contrary to Soviet propaganda Nicholas was expanding education for the general public enormously:

All-Russian Primary Education (1894–1917): Developmental Milestones

"All-Russian Primary Education (1894–1917): Developmental Milestones'' published in 'Social Evolution & History'. Volume 10, Number 2 / September 2011

www.socionauki.ru

So the Soviets only got back to where the Czar was in 1917 in 1930.

Some interesting points there and the civil war was overall far worse for Russia than WWI.

The Russian 1914 army expansion program had Germany worried because it also coincided with the 1913 French expansion of their draft from 2 to 3 years, which effectively increased the size of their standing army by several hundred thousand men. Not only that, but they had just started to buy modern heavy artillery in larger numbers (though were still quite behind in 1914), while Germany felt they had topped out on the number of divisions/corps they could form given the cost and number of horses required to sustain them since they would have had to be taken from farmers in wartime. There are a few good books on the army arms race in Europe leading up to WW1 and the general consensus from what I've seen is that Germany was falling behind given that they still hadn't gotten to the point of mechanization to replace the horse enough to overcome shortages, not to mention get enough oil and rubber to sustain mechanization, and didn't have other technologies yet to offset enemies with superior numbers and peer-level weapons/organization. That doesn't even get into the fears about A-H's political problems and it falling very far behind in the arms/conscription numbers race due to said political issues.

Question is how long it would have taken without WW1 for Britain to see Germany/Austria as the weaker side that needed support to maintain the balance of power.

As I understand it the limitation on the German army was manpower because the leadership wanted to recruit only from those they thought reliable, especially the many peasant and small farmers rather than the growing numbers of industrial workers. There was the capacity for more divisions to be recruited but for reasons of internal politics the military leadership and establishment were reluctant to do so.

Horses were a problem, especially in an aggressive war and Germany did over moblise OTL due to their unwillingness to look at the wider strategic picture.

France was stretching itself to the limit to be strong enough to stand up against Germany and with its much smaller population didn't have the capacity for further increase without serious strain. Plus as your pointed out France had not only a weaker industrial base but also markedly inferior artillery. Russia while potentially having far more men had even greater problems with quantity of leadership and men and of units such as artillery.

As such while there is a longer term potential for a Franco-Russian alliance to be able to attack and defeat Germany its not going to occur for some while. This is ignoring the problems your suggested France would have with socialists striking in the event of war with Germany.

Of course while a F-F led Austria would be less/unwilling to support an aggressive war by Germany he's still likely to support Germany if its the target of an attack by both France and Russia.

In answer to your last point that would probably depend on the size and perceived strength of the continental armies, the political behaviour of the nations involved and when Germany decides it needs either better relations with Britain and/or a transfer of resources from the navy to the army and hence a serious cut back in the battle fleet.

 

[sillygoose]

Some interesting points there and the civil war was overall far worse for Russia than WWI.

True.

As I understand it the limitation on the German army was manpower because the leadership wanted to recruit only from those they thought reliable, especially the many peasant and small farmers rather than the growing numbers of industrial workers. There was the capacity for more divisions to be recruited but for reasons of internal politics the military leadership and establishment were reluctant to do so.

Not exactly accurate. Given the size of the population, funding limits, and horse issue they could only conscript about 50% of the eligible class every year. That meant they focused on fitness, which given the health of the average urbanite at this time meant they were generally excluded, especially the poor and working poor, who made up the more economically liberal elements of society. By default farmers/rural labor made up the bulk of the conscripts due to general health and they just so happened to be more socially conservative. So whether it was politics that resulted in the political left being limited in the army or it just being correlated with health is tough to suss out, but the general result was the army tended to have more politically conservative types at all levels. Funding was a much bigger issue than politics there. By contrast the French conscripted 85% of their conscript classes every year since they had to compete with Germany's larger population.

The funding issue for Germany was because so much had been spent on the navy and brand new air force. It wasn't until about 1912 that the army started getting more funding due to the expansion of the Russian and French armies. That also correlated with naval funding cuts, the rise of the Army League, and the decline of middle class interest in the navy since the army officer corps now would increasingly absorb the status seeking educated middle class. Interestingly Ludendorff was heavily involved with lobbying for more army spending and opening of the officer class to middle class men.

Horses were a problem, especially in an aggressive war and Germany did over moblise OTL due to their unwillingness to look at the wider strategic picture.

Horses were a problem period. In an aggressive war you can capture enemy horses as you advance, can't in defensive warfare and wastage is just as much a problem there.

Not sure what you mean by 'over mobilize due to unwillingness to look at the wider strategic picture'.

France was stretching itself to the limit to be strong enough to stand up against Germany and with its much smaller population didn't have the capacity for further increase without serious strain. Plus as your pointed out France had not only a weaker industrial base but also markedly inferior artillery. Russia while potentially having far more men had even greater problems with quantity of leadership and men and of units such as artillery.

They didn't need to increase numbers, just length of service. Plus of course they had colonial manpower to use, which they did at all levels. Also they had Russia, so it isn't like France needed to have an army the size of Germany's either.
French artillery was good for open warfare, in fact it was specialized for that role and performed extremely well there. What it really failed at was dealing with attacking fixed positions and in bad terrain that favored the defender, which is exactly what situation they faced at the German border and why they suffered so horrifically in August-September 1914. They suffered nearly as many dead in 2 months as the US lost in all of WW2 in Europe.

Russian artillery was actually surprisingly good in WW1 based on lessons learned against Japan in 1904-5; what suffered was infantry leadership and supply as well as production. Administration was their weak point and the artillery arm suffered severely as a result of lack of shells. Since artillery ammo supply was the difference between defeat and victory in most battles in WW1 this was a big cause of the defeat of the Russian army, especially when they lost their large stockpiles in the Polish fortresses.

As such while there is a longer term potential for a Franco-Russian alliance to be able to attack and defeat Germany its not going to occur for some while. This is ignoring the problems your suggested France would have with socialists striking in the event of war with Germany.

Germany without Austria could have been defeated in 1914 by the Franco-Russian alliance. By 1917 with the Franco-Russian military expansion even Germany+Austria would have a very hard time unless Austria dramatically improved funding of their military under FF from 1905 on.

Yes the French left would be an issue for the government in any aggressive war France fights against Germany.

Of course while a F-F led Austria would be less/unwilling to support an aggressive war by Germany he's still likely to support Germany if its the target of an attack by both France and Russia.

Without Bosnia being an issue Serbia wouldn't likely have an issue with the Habsburgs. Plus not even Russia would have pushed the assassination of a sitting head of state like they were willing to with FF as crown prince. That removes arguably the major cause of war.

But yes FF would honor the alliance, as would Italy in that situation. Probably Britain too to some degree.

In answer to your last point that would probably depend on the size and perceived strength of the continental armies, the political behaviour of the nations involved and when Germany decides it needs either better relations with Britain and/or a transfer of resources from the navy to the army and hence a serious cut back in the battle fleet.

IOTL that was in 1912 and IMHO the dynamic even with an early FF emperorship would remain the same.

 

[stevep]

Not exactly accurate. Given the size of the population, funding limits, and horse issue they could only conscript about 50% of the eligible class every year. That meant they focused on fitness, which given the health of the average urbanite at this time meant they were generally excluded, especially the poor and working poor, who made up the more economically liberal elements of society. By default farmers/rural labor made up the bulk of the conscripts due to general health and they just so happened to be more socially conservative. So whether it was politics that resulted in the political left being limited in the army or it just being correlated with health is tough to suss out, but the general result was the army tended to have more politically conservative types at all levels. Funding was a much bigger issue than politics there. By contrast the French conscripted 85% of their conscript classes every year since they had to compete with Germany's larger population.

Interesting argument but never heard of it before. It might be the case although a rural recruit might have less resistance to disease and in poorer areas a poorer diet so not sure it always applies.

The funding issue for Germany was because so much had been spent on the navy and brand new air force. It wasn't until about 1912 that the army started getting more funding due to the expansion of the Russian and French armies. That also correlated with naval funding cuts, the rise of the Army League, and the decline of middle class interest in the navy since the army officer corps now would increasingly absorb the status seeking educated middle class. Interestingly Ludendorff was heavily involved with lobbying for more army spending and opening of the officer class to middle class men.

The problem was that the Germans had a large battleship construction programme until the start of the war with more planned although as with Britain the construction of new capital ships, rather than completing most of those already started came to a halt. Britain did pull ahead by hitting the accelerator about 1911-12 which ships started entering service in the 1st year of the war but things were still worryingly close for Britain in the early year or so of the war.

Horses were a problem period. In an aggressive war you can capture enemy horses as you advance, can't in defensive warfare and wastage is just as much a problem there.

I don't know. You might have a chance to capture horses from the enemy although by definition their likely to be in poor condition. However advancing relies heavily on horses to pull supplies, artillery etc especially when any depth of penetration is achieved, while a defender can rely more on railways to move the bulk of stuff.

Not sure what you mean by 'over mobilize due to unwillingness to look at the wider strategic picture'.

Because, especially under L&H they concentrated on sheer military production and ignored the impact on the civilian economy. That's a large part why Germany was running on empty by the last year of the war.

They didn't need to increase numbers, just length of service. Plus of course they had colonial manpower to use, which they did at all levels. Also they had Russia, so it isn't like France needed to have an army the size of Germany's either.
French artillery was good for open warfare, in fact it was specialized for that role and performed extremely well there. What it really failed at was dealing with attacking fixed positions and in bad terrain that favored the defender, which is exactly what situation they faced at the German border and why they suffered so horrifically in August-September 1914. They suffered nearly as many dead in 2 months as the US lost in all of WW2 in Europe.

The later is possibly a poor example as the US only really committed ground troops in number in the last year or so of the conflict, under conditions of considerable advantage and with heavily motorised units which tended to reduce the losses of manpower. However yes even for WWI the French losses in the 1st couple of months and especially in A-L were devastating.

Russian artillery was actually surprisingly good in WW1 based on lessons learned against Japan in 1904-5; what suffered was infantry leadership and supply as well as production. Administration was their weak point and the artillery arm suffered severely as a result of lack of shells. Since artillery ammo supply was the difference between defeat and victory in most battles in WW1 this was a big cause of the defeat of the Russian army, especially when they lost their large stockpiles in the Polish fortresses.

Agreed. Their initial regular forces were pretty good if well commanded and supplied.

Germany without Austria could have been defeated in 1914 by the Franco-Russian alliance. By 1917 with the Franco-Russian military expansion even Germany+Austria would have a very hard time unless Austria dramatically improved funding of their military under FF from 1905 on.

Think the 1st is unlikely given what you say above. France was incapable of serious inroads against the German defences and while Russia could thrown lots of men at positions that has limits, especially on the offensive. Like Austria OTL [possibly France and Britain to a lesser degree - albeit the latter was because of Britain's small by continental standards army - Russia lost a lot of its militarily trained men in the 1st year or so of the war.] Possibly even more so TTL as if FF has made Austria committed to defensive fighting only Germany might well have been forced to adapt the same approach which is likely to mean that their defences are even more powerful. There's a possibility that France might respond by beefing up its heavy/siege artillery but that assumes the army is willing to drop the belief in the rapid and massive offensive prior to fighting actually starting.

In 1917, especially if Germany didn't get support from anyone else it would be a lot tighter but even then I wouldn't rule out Germany inflicting appalling losses on their opponents and forcing a draw or at least holding out until others come to their aid.

Yes the French left would be an issue for the government in any aggressive war France fights against Germany.

Without Bosnia being an issue Serbia wouldn't likely have an issue with the Habsburgs. Plus not even Russia would have pushed the assassination of a sitting head of state like they were willing to with FF as crown prince. That removes arguably the major cause of war.

Yes if Austrian hadn't been stupid enough to breach its agreement and annex Bosnia there would have been less tension. Still likely that the rogue elements in Serbia that assassinated FF OTL might well have done something stupid but would have depended on the circumstances.

I've never seen any evidence that Russia was involved in planning the Black Hand operation of OTL.

But yes FF would honor the alliance, as would Italy in that situation. Probably Britain too to some degree.

Quite possibly if it was the Franco-Russian alliance that looked likely to upset the balance of power.

IOTL that was in 1912 and IMHO the dynamic even with an early FF emperorship would remain the same.

As I mention above I have to disagree here. Things were still tight for Britain until the construction laid down ~1912-14, especially the Queen's and R's entered service. [Which is ignoring issues like shell reliability, removal of flash protection, unreliable cordite etc that only really were recognised as a result of Jutland.

 

[sillygoose]

Interesting argument but never heard of it before. It might be the case although a rural recruit might have less resistance to disease and in poorer areas a poorer diet so not sure it always applies.

It was from a German language book who's title I forget, but was a source for an English language book "The Kaiser's Army". It was commonly thought politics was what kept people out of the service, but more detailed study of army records showed that people were mixing up cause and effect. The army was more concerned about getting the most physically fit recruits given their limited budget enabling only 50% of any year's class to be conscripted and trained.

As to the quality of recruits, rural vs urban, urban recruits didn't get nearly as much exercise, exposure to nature, or sunlight, while also having the major disadvantage of suffering from the effects of pollution and other problems like disease from being around so many other people in squalid conditions with limited sanitation. There is a reason that urban dwellers who were below the middle class were overwhelming Socialist.

The problem was that the Germans had a large battleship construction programme until the start of the war with more planned although as with Britain the construction of new capital ships, rather than completing most of those already started came to a halt. Britain did pull ahead by hitting the accelerator about 1911-12 which ships started entering service in the 1st year of the war but things were still worryingly close for Britain in the early year or so of the war.

That characterization is highly disputed (convincingly IMHO) in 'The Sleepwalkers':

I don't know. You might have a chance to capture horses from the enemy although by definition their likely to be in poor condition. However advancing relies heavily on horses to pull supplies, artillery etc especially when any depth of penetration is achieved, while a defender can rely more on railways to move the bulk of stuff.

Given wastage of horses in defensive fighting I don't think that is borne out as much as you might think. Between gas, shelling, and burdens placed on horses in military service in general (the amount of work isn't much less in defensive fighting vs. offensive, its just more back and forth rather than advancing).

Care and Feeding - World War I Centennial

Site of the United States WWI Centennial Commission, and the Doughboy Foundation, building the National WWI Memorial in Washington, D.C.

www.worldwar1centennial.org

https://www.animalaid.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Animals-in-WWI-War-Horses-factsheet.pdf

Because, especially under L&H they concentrated on sheer military production and ignored the impact on the civilian economy. That's a large part why Germany was running on empty by the last year of the war.

It was a lot more complicated than that; they didn't ignore the civilian economy, they ignored whether they had enough resources to supply the factories they were building to expand production plus they passed draconian labor laws that pissed off workers who struck. That all resulted in coal shortages which caused a transportation crisis, which in turn caused the Turnip Winter of 1916-17. Actually the food situation was getting better by 1918 because they finally gave up on their stupid Hindenburg Programm and got some access to Eastern sources of food, including Romania when they overran it in 1917. So in the last year thing weren't nearly as bad as you'd think, it was more a political problem (a more complex issue itself) than a supply issue. The food situation actually was at the worst from November 1918-1919 when the Allies maintained the blockade to force the signing of the ToV:

Blockade of Germany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Straight up war crime.

The later is possibly a poor example as the US only really committed ground troops in number in the last year or so of the conflict, under conditions of considerable advantage and with heavily motorised units which tended to reduce the losses of manpower. However yes even for WWI the French losses in the 1st couple of months and especially in A-L were devastating.

1942-44 in the Mediterranean would like a word. If that didn't count than just about all the British fighting in the same area from 1940-44 didn't count either and no one would ever claim that. Actually double checking the numbers, the French just in the Battle of the Frontiers in one month (August 6th-September 5th) suffered more casualties than the British did from 1940-45 in the entire Mediterranean theater!

Agreed. Their initial regular forces were pretty good if well commanded and supplied.

Everyone's were. Professional pre-war trained armies tend to be that. Question is how good were they relative to the other side? Repeatedly if the odds were relatively even they lost in 1914.

Think the 1st is unlikely given what you say above. France was incapable of serious inroads against the German defences and while Russia could thrown lots of men at positions that has limits, especially on the offensive. Like Austria OTL [possibly France and Britain to a lesser degree - albeit the latter was because of Britain's small by continental standards army - Russia lost a lot of its militarily trained men in the 1st year or so of the war.] Possibly even more so TTL as if FF has made Austria committed to defensive fighting only Germany might well have been forced to adapt the same approach which is likely to mean that their defences are even more powerful. There's a possibility that France might respond by beefing up its heavy/siege artillery but that assumes the army is willing to drop the belief in the rapid and massive offensive prior to fighting actually starting.

Without Austria Russia would have 4 more armies to use against Germany in August 1914 and several others later that year. Germany could theoretically turtle up and try to survive, but it would be waiting to be defeated once the Entente developed their longer term strength.

If Germany couldn't rely on the Schlieffen Plan thanks to Austrian demands then Germany is in a better position since it could invest in defenses that the Kaiser and his advisors didn't want to waste money on given they were supposed to be attacking. Then France would have been in serious trouble and Germany could have focused her limited troops on counterpunching in the East until they could get a favorable chance to go on the offensive.

If Germany does develop a 'western wall' that was proposed around 1903 (a massive enhancement of fortresses and expansion of engineers and other supporting elements in the army) then France has to invest in heavy artillery to deal with them. Question is how much and how the French left reacts politically (they opposed major military spending, especially on specifically offensive stuff; OTL artillery was for maneuver warfare that could be used defensively or offensively).

In 1917, especially if Germany didn't get support from anyone else it would be a lot tighter but even then I wouldn't rule out Germany inflicting appalling losses on their opponents and forcing a draw or at least holding out until others come to their aid.

In that situation I think Britain would probably have to force a negotiation to maintain the balance of power. Question is whether Germany could inflict enough damage on it's own to convince the Entente to listen to Britain. Of course in that situation if Germany truly were alone then Britain would probably have to declare war or blockade the Entente until they cut a deal.

Yes if Austrian hadn't been stupid enough to breach its agreement and annex Bosnia there would have been less tension. Still likely that the rogue elements in Serbia that assassinated FF OTL might well have done something stupid but would have depended on the circumstances.

Considering the Black Hand was founded directly in response to the annexation of Bosnia, I'm comfortable stating there wouldn't have even been an attempt or even direct confrontation with Serbia without the annexation:

Black Hand (Serbia) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I've never seen any evidence that Russia was involved in planning the Black Hand operation of OTL.

Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This book has more details:

As I mention above I have to disagree here. Things were still tight for Britain until the construction laid down ~1912-14, especially the Queen's and R's entered service. [Which is ignoring issues like shell reliability, removal of flash protection, unreliable cordite etc that only really were recognised as a result of Jutland.

Check out that book Sleepwalkers and see if it changes your mind.

 

[Buba]

Interesting - I've always read that recruits from "land und kleinstadt" recruitment districts were overrepresented due to politics and not health. But considering British problems with finding fit men among their urban poor this makes a lot of sense ...
Also - I've read that not having done active military duty closed some Public jobs, e.g, policemen had to have gone through the Army. And through volunteer extended service at that ... memory hazy, of course, so take it with caution.

Without Austria Russia would have 4 more armies to use against Germany in August 1914 and several others later that year.

No.
Logistics.
Russia had exactly TWO railway bridges over the Vistula - in Warsaw and Ivangorod/Dęblin (this one single track, I believe). Plus one over the Narev in Modlin, the one in OTL used to supply the 2nd Army.
I have problems in envisioning Russia placing four armies during mobilisation to the west of the Vistula.
The ostaufmarsch plan had Germany, with a much denser RR network (built for this purpose), putting three armies into Ostpreuesssen by rail and one walking there.
BTW - in 1914 the RR network in Poland to the west of the Vistula was mixed, two lines in 1524mm (Warsaw-Kalisz and Dęblin-Kielce-Sosnowiec/Częstochowa) and the rest in 1435mm. The largest 1435mm network was freshly nationalised (1913?) and was to be regauged, starting 1915 ...

As to French and heavy artillery - they were on the onset of a plan giving them 120/155mm field artillery, to be completed by 1916/17.
And new uniforms, without red trousers, were to be issued in 1915 ...

 

[stevep]

It was from a German language book who's title I forget, but was a source for an English language book "The Kaiser's Army". It was commonly thought politics was what kept people out of the service, but more detailed study of army records showed that people were mixing up cause and effect. The army was more concerned about getting the most physically fit recruits given their limited budget enabling only 50% of any year's class to be conscripted and trained.

As to the quality of recruits, rural vs urban, urban recruits didn't get nearly as much exercise, exposure to nature, or sunlight, while also having the major disadvantage of suffering from the effects of pollution and other problems like disease from being around so many other people in squalid conditions with limited sanitation. There is a reason that urban dwellers who were below the middle class were overwhelming Socialist.

Interesting thanks.

That characterization is highly disputed (convincingly IMHO) in 'The Sleepwalkers':

Given wastage of horses in defensive fighting I don't think that is borne out as much as you might think. Between gas, shelling, and burdens placed on horses in military service in general (the amount of work isn't much less in defensive fighting vs. offensive, its just more back and forth rather than advancing).

Care and Feeding - World War I Centennial

Site of the United States WWI Centennial Commission, and the Doughboy Foundation, building the National WWI Memorial in Washington, D.C.

www.worldwar1centennial.org

https://www.animalaid.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Animals-in-WWI-War-Horses-factsheet.pdf

OK thanks. I still suspect that attempts to support offensive advances will inflict heavier losses because the units involved will be more exposed and also probably under greater pressure to get the supplies to the advancing forces.

It was a lot more complicated than that; they didn't ignore the civilian economy, they ignored whether they had enough resources to supply the factories they were building to expand production plus they passed draconian labor laws that pissed off workers who struck. That all resulted in coal shortages which caused a transportation crisis, which in turn caused the Turnip Winter of 1916-17. Actually the food situation was getting better by 1918 because they finally gave up on their stupid Hindenburg Programm and got some access to Eastern sources of food, including Romania when they overran it in 1917. So in the last year thing weren't nearly as bad as you'd think, it was more a political problem (a more complex issue itself) than a supply issue. The food situation actually was at the worst from November 1918-1919 when the Allies maintained the blockade to force the signing of the ToV:

Blockade of Germany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Straight up war crime.

The Hindenburg Programme was what I was referring to.

Interesting. I had thought it was that the Germans refused to allow their ships to be used to import food because they still considered 11-11-18 an armistice and the chance of renewing fighting. Hadn't realised that the allies were insisting on the ships being transferred to allied control for such food imports. Agree there was no way allied shipping would have been used. Do note that its stated that the food supply levels were still markedly higher than those in German occupied areas during the war.

Assuming this didn't apply in the areas under allied occupation in western Germany?

1942-44 in the Mediterranean would like a word. If that didn't count than just about all the British fighting in the same area from 1940-44 didn't count either and no one would ever claim that. Actually double checking the numbers, the French just in the Battle of the Frontiers in one month (August 6th-September 5th) suffered more casualties than the British did from 1940-45 in the entire Mediterranean theater!

The Med was a relatively small - in terms of numbers of soldiers involved - threatre during WWII. The US came late to this not entering until Nov 42 with operation Torch and was reluctant to send forces to the region even after Italy because an active war zone.

Everyone's were. Professional pre-war trained armies tend to be that. Question is how good were they relative to the other side? Repeatedly if the odds were relatively even they lost in 1914.

Basically my point. They were still probably not as good as the Germans due to higher military [mis-]leadership and corruption, incompetence and inadequates in the Russian logistics system. Plus the poor quality of education meant it was harder for Russia to replace losses in those units.

Without Austria Russia would have 4 more armies to use against Germany in August 1914 and several others later that year. Germany could theoretically turtle up and try to survive, but it would be waiting to be defeated once the Entente developed their longer term strength.

See Bubba's point on logistics. Also since without Austria its a markedly shorter front so there is only so many forces you can pile onto a front. Plus given how OTL went I'm not sure Germany isn't in a better position than it was OTL. It can trade with the outside world and isn't fighting Britain among other factors. Russia has massive manpower but limited ability to apply them reliably.

If Germany couldn't rely on the Schlieffen Plan thanks to Austrian demands then Germany is in a better position since it could invest in defenses that the Kaiser and his advisors didn't want to waste money on given they were supposed to be attacking. Then France would have been in serious trouble and Germany could have focused her limited troops on counterpunching in the East until they could get a favorable chance to go on the offensive.

Strange wording - as it would be basically the case of Austria saying "We're not going to support an offensive war" but without Austria to carry the bulk of the early Russian operations yes the Schlieffen Plan would have been even dafter than OTL. Especially since it would add further burdens and alienate a lot of people, especially Britain who in this scenario Germany needs to be friendly.

As OTL shows the French would have been in serious problems anyway, although stronger defensives would have been useful if the French had got the heavier artillery Bubba mentioned. Russia has more options as they have 'kind of' interior lines in Poland although logistical limitations restrict that.

If Germany does develop a 'western wall' that was proposed around 1903 (a massive enhancement of fortresses and expansion of engineers and other supporting elements in the army) then France has to invest in heavy artillery to deal with them. Question is how much and how the French left reacts politically (they opposed major military spending, especially on specifically offensive stuff; OTL artillery was for maneuver warfare that could be used defensively or offensively).

Very true. As your argued a French offensive rather than a defensive war could face a lot of internal opposition.

In that situation I think Britain would probably have to force a negotiation to maintain the balance of power. Question is whether Germany could inflict enough damage on it's own to convince the Entente to listen to Britain. Of course in that situation if Germany truly were alone then Britain would probably have to declare war or blockade the Entente until they cut a deal.

Britain would be pretty much forced to intervene if it looked like Germany - plus any allies - looked likely to lose. In which case Britain in combination with Germany would quickly be able to put a lot of pressure on France especially by blockade at the very least.

Considering the Black Hand was founded directly in response to the annexation of Bosnia, I'm comfortable stating there wouldn't have even been an attempt or even direct confrontation with Serbia without the annexation:

Black Hand (Serbia) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This book has more details:



Check out that book Sleepwalkers and see if it changes your mind.

Actually that link says the Black Hand was formed in 1901 and involved in the bloody slaughter of the previous Serbian dynasty in 1903. It linked up with another group, Narodna_Odbrana ("National Defense"), in 1911-12 and the latter had been formed after the Austrian annexation of Bosnia. However without the annexation relations would probably have been less hostile and also as emperor FF might never go to Bosnia. [Or simply not be so damned unlucky on the day].

The significant part in the latter link is the comment in "De Schelking, Eugene (1918). Recollections of a Russian Diplomat, The Suicide of Monarchies. "

On 1 June 1914 (14 June new calendar), Emperor Nicholas had an interview with King Charles I of Roumania, at Constanza. I was there at the time ... yet as far as I could judge from my conversation with members of his (Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov's) entourage, he (Sazonov) was convinced that if the Archduke (Franz Ferdinand) were out of the way, the peace of Europe would not be endangered.[161]

I'm afraid those Amazon links don't work for me. I only get the A icon with arrow under it but no link. Have seen this problem before. Don't know if because I'm using Firefox, albeit I keep that up to date?

Steve