WW1... so, was everyone stonking stupid?

[ponderingturtle]

And the idiocy started at the top. There is some debate as to how much actual power that Rasputin had, but no doubt his influence over the Tsarina, who had a massive influence over the Tsar,had a huge negative impact on the war. The film "Nicholas and Alexandaria" shows this pretty clearly.
The Russian Government truly was a case of the inmates running the asylum. ..and it came to climax in 1917,with consquences we still live with today.

What was the alternative other than not coordinating their armies?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, I already bad mouthed Austria-Hungary, so I'm not going to disagree there much. In fact, I already nominated two Austrian generals for the 3 stooges of WW1, the third being Cadorna from Italy.

Including Konrad von Hötzendorf, who actually WANTED a war, any war, all along, and petitioned the Emperor several times a year to start a war. ANY war. Just attack someone, please. And when he finally got one, it turned out that not only Austria was not prepared to have one -- which, btw, would have been his job in the first place -- but he was utterly incompetent as a general too.

I mean, at least on the Russian side the Grand Duke Nikolai didn't want a war, nor had he had any responsibility in Russia's being unprepared for a war.

Were they unprepared though? They had as many machine guns as the next two highest machine gun equipped armies. They were not ideally prepared but with in the limits it is hard to call them unprepared compared to say the french or British. Add in industrialization being further behind and the truly massive distances they had compared to the western front and it is harder to say they were negligent in preparation.

 

[Border Reiver]

Were they unprepared though? They had as many machine guns as the next two highest machine gun equipped armies. They were not ideally prepared but with in the limits it is hard to call them unprepared compared to say the french or British. Add in industrialization being further behind and the truly massive distances they had compared to the western front and it is harder to say they were negligent in preparation.

The Russians in WWI were a mixed bag.

They were hampered by an army still recovering from the Russo-Japanese War and trying to figure out how to properly modernize their army without destroying the underlying social structure. A semi feudal social order with an unprepared ruler is not a good one to go to war with. The same could be said for Austria-Hungary, or the Ottomans.

They were industrializing faster than anyone else in Europe - but what they had wasn't up to the needs of their military requirements. Part of the reason that many of the Germans were almost eager to go to war with Russia was to stop them from advancing too far in this respect, as a fully industrialized Russia was seen as an economic threat to Germany.

There were some brilliant generals (Brusilov) and some that should never have been allowed to wear a uniform.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

What was the alternative other than not coordinating their armies?

Put an actual experienced general in charge of the armies?

Not replace the guy who had proven capable to actually coordinate the armies?

I mean, the Grand Duke was no strategist, but had at least proven charismatic enough to get even feuding generals to coordinate and work together. WTH could POSSIBLY be gained by sacking him and having the even more unqualified Czar take command and implement military ideas coming from his wife's favourite mystic? If nothing else, now the Czar also had personal responsibility for the failures, and that's one factor that led to the revolution.

If you want to scapegoat the Grand Duke for the failures, sure, but then appoint an actual general with battlefield experience. Don't take personal command of the HQ, if you're gonna half-ass it as an absentee manager.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Were they unprepared though? They had as many machine guns as the next two highest machine gun equipped armies. They were not ideally prepared but with in the limits it is hard to call them unprepared compared to say the french or British. Add in industrialization being further behind and the truly massive distances they had compared to the western front and it is harder to say they were negligent in preparation.

Well, the logistics weren't there. The stocks of military supplies were not even at the level of ridiculously low, they were downright homeopathic. The generals were about as much qualified only by virtue of being aristocratic as in Russia. Their battle plans were last century, as proven by, if nothing else, the way they failed even with all those machineguns.

I keep repeating the dictum that amateurs talk of strategy, professionals talk of logistics. But that's unfair in the case of Austria, because they weren't good at either

And I mean, seriously, when I say incompetent generals, I really mean it. They had guys like Potiorek who not only managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in a battle even when having overwhelming superiority, but even managed to screw off to do a pogrom instead... and thankfully was so stupid that he botched that one too

 

[dudalb]

Oh, indeed it was starting all the way at the top. And it wasn't only the Czar and the Czarina.

Right at the start of the war, Czar Nikolai II just suddenly appointed the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, a relative of his, as commander in chief. The poor Grand Duke had been officially an officer all his life, but in much the same way as your average tin-horn generalissimo. He had NO experience actually commanding any troops, had not been involved in any of the planning for the war, and hadn't paid much attention to those either. So basically he was literally the least qualified person for the job, as far as actual military expertise goes.

It may seem like I'm dissing the poor guy a bit unfairly, for getting the job just by being aristocracy and a relative of the emperor. After all, Prussian aristocracy, and a few other countries' nobility, also were all about strutting around in military uniforms and commanding armies. But the difference is just that: they actually commanded troops, ran military exercises, took part in actual battles, some taught at military academies, etc. The Russian version involved ONLY strutting around in military uniforms. The Grand Duke had made it all the way to general without ever commanding ANY troops in the field at all.

Anyway, upon receiving the glorious news of his promotion to commander in chief of all the Russian Empire's forces... the Grand Duke had a breakdown and spent the next couple of days mostly crying. He had NO idea where to even start doing his duty, and with a world war having started, yeah, it kinda was a bit of pressure on the poor dude

The Grand Duke never should have been appointed, but he was removed not for his failures as commander, but because he got on the wrong side of "Our Friend". I forgive the Grand Duke a lot for his statement that if Reasputin ever visited his troops, he would hang him.
And the the Czar made himself Commander in Chief. With even more disasterous results.

 

[dudalb]

The Russians in WWI were a mixed bag.

They were hampered by an army still recovering from the Russo-Japanese War and trying to figure out how to properly modernize their army without destroying the underlying social structure. A semi feudal social order with an unprepared ruler is not a good one to go to war with. The same could be said for Austria-Hungary, or the Ottomans.

They were industrializing faster than anyone else in Europe - but what they had wasn't up to the needs of their military requirements. Part of the reason that many of the Germans were almost eager to go to war with Russia was to stop them from advancing too far in this respect, as a fully industrialized Russia was seen as an economic threat to Germany.

There were some brilliant generals (Brusilov) and some that should never have been allowed to wear a uniform.

The basic problem was that the Russian Governemnt was simply unable to run a modern war. You can have all the industrial power in the world, but if the Government does not know how to use and manage it,you will lose.
As previously stated, the film "Nicholas and Alexandra" is pretty damn accurate. I am not sure I buy the guilt ridden repentant Nicholas in the last half hour of the film (after he abdicates) but up until then the film is pretty much on the mark.
And Tom Baker...yes the "Dr Who" Tom Baker" ,,makes one hell of a good Rasputin.

 

[dudalb]

Speaking of films on the First World War, I still think the best on the Western Front was Stanley Kubrick's "Paths Of Glory", with "All Quiet On The Western Front" a close second.
But for the war as whole "Lawrence of Arabia" is the best,even though it is about one of the "sideshows".