PDF Summary:The Eastern Front, by Nick Lloyd

The Eastern Front of World War I witnessed some of the most decisive battles and strategic maneuvers of the war, shaping the ultimate outcome. In Nick Lloyd's The Eastern Front, this pivotal theater unfolds in vivid detail, from the initial Austrian and Russian offensives in 1914 to the entry of Italy and the Russian Revolution's extraordinary impact.

Lloyd's account explores how improvements in weaponry and tactics gave certain sides the upper hand, while inflexible strategies and lack of preparation hampered others. The narrative spans the rise of Germany's military brilliance alongside Austria-Hungary's complex dependency on its ally, culminating in the Central Powers' triumph from Russia's exit and the fractured Eastern Front.

(continued)...

Falkenhayn's decision to focus his efforts on assaulting Verdun, as opposed to Conrad's approach of launching counterattacks against Italy, highlights the differing strategic perspectives and the specific priorities each empire had in terms of which enemy they considered most critical to engage.

During the winter of 1915-1916, the entrenched differences in strategic priorities were highlighted when Germany's newly appointed Chief of Staff, Erich von Falkenhayn, began formulating strategies for an offensive in the Western theater, which diverged from Conrad's focus on Serbia, thus intensifying the divided attention across various battlefronts. Falkenhayn was resolute in his goal to shatter the impasse that had persisted from the onset of entrenched combat, where positions fortified with deep ditches extended northward from Switzerland to the North Sea, aiming to decisively defeat France in the belief that this would either hasten the end of the war or compel the Allies to contemplate a truce. In early 1916, he selected Verdun—a significant stronghold of the French along the Meuse—as the site to initiate the German attack, orchestrating the battle to engage the maximum number of forces available to him, which included a large force from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

The approach significantly diverged by launching a counteroffensive targeting Italy instead of adhering to the strategy suggested by Conrad. His forces were already concentrated in the Tyrol, and with the ground conditions improving as the snows melted, he looked forward to an early victory over Austria's latest and most troubling antagonist. Having effectively halted the advance of the Italians the previous year through a robust defense at the Isonzo, the Austrians suffered significant casualties, and Conrad was keen to end the war on conditions he considered essential, while also attempting to diminish reliance on the Germans, whose involvement had diminished his influence during the latter part of 1915, especially during the joint Gorlice-Tarnow offensive.

Hindenburg and Ludendorff's ascent to prominent roles, marked by their lack of concern for Falkenhayn's political schemes and their preference for different strategic fronts, was a major factor in his removal from power.

This plan for a purely Austrian attack foundered on the combined efforts of those in Berlin who knew how perilous the situation was and pressured the Kaiser to refuse it. Hindenburg and Ludendorff cemented their military reputation and broadened their sway through their successful engagements on the battlefields of the East. For months, they had expressed dissatisfaction with Falkenhayn's approach to the conflict with Russia, criticizing his tendency to miss exceptional chances due to his excessive caution and his consistent reluctance to fully commit German troops, wary of possible challenges arising from other European theaters of war. Their plan, upon receiving the green light, would have been to launch a spring offensive in 1916 starting from the southern part of East Prussia, rather than limiting themselves to small-scale offensive maneuvers. The need to send more troops to the Balkans after Romania joined the war precipitated the development of a cohesive battle plan on the Eastern Front, resulting in Falkenhayn's dismissal from his post in the fall of 1916.

Context

• The Gorlice-Tarnow campaign was a significant military offensive on the Eastern Front during World War I in May 1915. It was led by the German Eleventh Army and resulted in a major defeat for the Russian forces, showcasing the effectiveness of German heavy artillery tactics. The campaign marked a turning point in the Eastern Front conflict, with the Germans emphasizing firepower and strategic advancements to achieve decisive victories. The success at Gorlice-Tarnow allowed the Central Powers to gain control over key territories and push the Russian forces into a defensive position.
• The Eastern Front during World War I was a significant theater of conflict between the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary) and the Allies (Russia primarily). The German military's successful offensive at Gorlice-Tarnow in May 1915 marked a turning point, showcasing their emphasis on heavy artillery and firepower. The Austro-Hungarian forces faced challenges coordinating operations and relied heavily on German leadership and supplies, leading to strategic differences within the alliance. The evolving dynamics on the Eastern Front influenced key decisions like the focus on the Western theater by Germany and the divergent goals between Germany and Austria-Hungary.
• The Fortress of Przemysl was a key stronghold in southeastern Poland during World War I, known for its significant role in the conflict between Russian and Austro-Hungarian forces. The Isonzo Front was a major theater of World War I located in the northeastern part of Italy, where Italian and Austro-Hungarian forces clashed in a series of battles along the Isonzo River.
• During World War I, military tactics evolved significantly. Strategies like employing heavy artillery, maximizing firepower, and exploiting enemy weaknesses became crucial. The use of complex, layered defense zones and concentrated infantry divisions helped in defense and offense. Different nations had varying priorities and approaches, leading to divergent strategies on multiple fronts. The war saw a shift towards more modern warfare techniques, emphasizing firepower and strategic planning.
• Conrad von Hötzendorf was the Chief of the General Staff of the Austro-Hungarian Army during World War I, known for his aggressive strategies and efforts to maintain the empire's territorial integrity. Erich von Falkenhayn served as the Chief of the German General Staff and is notable for his strategic decisions during the war, including the focus on Verdun in 1916. Hindenburg and Ludendorff were prominent German military leaders who rose to power during World War I, known for their successful campaigns on the Eastern Front and their eventual influence in German military and political affairs.
• The alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary during World War I was complex, with differing military strategies and priorities. Germany often took the lead in decision-making, especially in military operations. Austria-Hungary faced challenges due to its reliance on Germany for essential resources like heavy artillery and ammunition. Tensions arose as the two nations had divergent goals, leading to disagreements on military campaigns and strategies.

The collapse of the Russian Empire and the final phases of warfare, including the Brusilov Offensive and Italy's entry into the fray, occurred on the Eastern Front.

The trajectory of the conflict was significantly altered by the Russian Revolution, with the Provisional Government facing considerable challenges in maintaining discipline and loyalty within the Russian military, leading to widespread desertions and acts of mutiny among the soldiers.

Nick Lloyd recognizes the pivotal influence that the Russian Revolution had on the collapse of the Eastern Front. The ousting of Tsar Nicholas II in March 1917, during widespread revolts, signified a transformation that went beyond a simple alteration in royal lineage or the creation of a regime accountable to the representatives of the Duma. As the previous hostilities neared their end, a fresh conflict began to take shape. During the turmoil, the demand for a 'peace without territorial acquisitions or reparations' was unsuccessful in overcoming deep-rooted loyalties, particularly to officers who increasingly represented divergent social strata.

Following the abdication of the Tsar, the Petrograd Soviet set up a system of committees and delegates to manage the armed forces. The restructuring and administrative transformation undertaken with hopeful intentions in the military were perceived by many experienced officers as disastrous steps that, in their opinion, would precipitate a complete breakdown of order and martial regulation.

Under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin, the Bolsheviks rose to power, advocating for an end to the war without any territorial acquisitions or reparations, a stance that resulted in the collapse of the Eastern Front.

Under the influential and compelling leadership of War and Navy Minister Alexander Kerensky, the Russian military embarked on what would ultimately be a doomed offensive in June 1917, an endeavor that would subsequently be referred to as the Kerensky Offensive. The initiation of the offensive witnessed a substantial decline in the spirits of many divisions, resulting in their reluctance to participate in combat. The formation of 'Battalions of Death,' predominantly consisting of female fighters, did not succeed in motivating the male troops to participate in battle.

The recent turn of events was perceived by numerous individuals in Germany as a stroke of luck, even though it unmistakably indicated that at that point, the military strength of Russia was significantly diminished in terms of their ability to engage in warfare. Upon Lenin's return to Russia in April 1917 and his subsequent calls for an expedited end to the conflict, Germany perceived a clear opportunity to extricate itself from a costly war that was consuming essential resources needed for a looming critical showdown in the west.

As a result of the Brest-Litovsk negotiations, the Central Powers gained control over extensive regions in Eastern Europe.

Determined to extricate Russia from the hostilities, Lenin orchestrated a carefully strategized coup d'état and promptly initiated negotiations with the Central Powers to establish a cessation of hostilities. In December 1917, discussions aimed at establishing peace took place in Brest-Litovsk, a location on the furthest boundary of the territory seized by Germany. Lenin, alongside his principal representatives Leon Trotsky and Adolph Joffe, engaged in prolonged discussions, aiming to expand the influence and enhance the visibility of the Bolsheviks' global revolutionary goals, while advocating for openness and pursuing a ceasefire agreement that would preclude territorial annexations or monetary reparations, to be accepted by all countries engaged in the war. Germany, exhausted by persistent domestic uprisings, commenced a campaign that culminated in the ratification of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on the third of March.

Tsar Nicholas II's assumption of military command highlighted the precarious nature of Russia's domestic political scene, emphasizing that the fate of the imperial government was dependent on his decisive judgments.

In his description of the collapse of the Eastern Front, Lloyd notes the profound repercussions following Tsar Nicholas II's assumption of command of the Russian military in August 1915, succeeding his uncle, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. The Tsar intervened with the aim of putting an end to the persistent defeats that the Russian Army had been enduring since the beginning of the conflict. Convinced that his presence among the soldiers was crucial for restoring the monarchy's esteem and authority, the Tsar departed the capital to be with the military forces in Mogilev. This decision would quickly become a source of remorse for him, as his role in the high command (Stavka) provided no significant benefit due to his absence of military expertise, and concurrently, it detached him from the reformists in Petrograd, who held the belief that a cohesive and systematic strategy could substantially enhance the efficiency and success of the armed forces' actions.

The increasing influence of Tsarina Alexandra in political matters, which enabled her to significantly influence the appointment and removal of ministers, further exacerbated the disquiet among those who advocated for liberal reforms in Russia due to her considerable control over the Tsar.

While Nicholas concentrated on military affairs, Tsarina Alexandra took charge of Russia's governance. Her fragile constitution and profound spirituality contributed to her growing detachment from the dominant feelings among the civilian population. The Russian Parliament advocated for substantial reforms, such as the inclusion of prominent figures not affiliated with the royal hierarchy in government roles and a reevaluation of military tactics, yet she dismissed these proposals, preferring to depend on advice from a Siberian mystic, Grigori Rasputin, who was believed to have the power to halt the Tsarevich's bleeding episodes with his words alone. Alexandra encouraged her partner to trust his decisions and rule decisively, believing that this approach was essential for 'Holy Russia'. She chose her cabinet members based on personal preferences or heeding advice that led to the selection of particularly incompetent persons, which led to the poor governance of a country at war and hastened Russia's catastrophic downfall.

Influenced by the assassination of Grigori Rasputin, the monarch distanced himself from his more moderate advisors and further solidified the Tsarina's conviction that the war must go on.

As the winter of 1916 advanced, the state of affairs in Petrograd, the city governed by the Tsar, consistently worsened. The government's limited distribution of flour led to widespread unrest and suspicions of betrayal, while the Tsarina secluded herself at the imperial residence, Tsarskoe Selo, far from the capital, immersing herself in religious writings, spending time with her confidant, and partaking in plots that eroded the power of the legislative body.

Several individuals in the Tsar's inner circle recognized Rasputin's considerable threat, but they also understood Alexandra's reliance on him for emotional support, which led them to concoct a daring plan to permanently remove him. Several high-ranking individuals, including a Grand Duke and a Prince, embraced Rasputin into their intimate group and organized a dinner in his honor prior to their attempt to administer poison to him. The attempt did not succeed. Rasputin's extraordinary survival against poisoning was significant; however, the individual responsible for his demise was none other than Prince Felix Yusupov, who fatally shot him several times and made certain that his body was hidden under the icy waters of the Neva River.

In June 1916, during the Brusilov Offensive, the Russian Army demonstrated its military superiority, with both ample equipment and skilled leadership guiding the operations.

The assault had a devastating effect, nearly breaking the Austrian defenses and resulting in Germany stepping in with substantial reinforcements, which in turn increased Austria's dependency on German assistance.

General Aleksei Brusilov's campaign stood out as a significant occurrence during a time of upheaval. Russia initiated its ultimate substantial attack. Acting on the advice of the Russian high command, Brusilov launched an offensive against the Austrian lines in June 1916, synchronizing his efforts with the French on the Somme and taking advantage of the possibility that the enemy's focus might be compromised by the battles around Verdun. The achievements of Brusilov's troops went beyond what their senior leaders expected, to the point where the very existence of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was threatened.

On June 4th, as the first light of dawn broke, Brusilov launched an attack using four armies, a contingent four times larger than the one he commanded during the notable 1915 offensive, focusing his attack on the positions of the Austrian Seventh Army along the banks of the Strypa river, below the Pripet Marshes, in the western part of Ukraine. Following twelve months of continuous combat, the exhausted and disheartened troops from Austria quickly gave in, with reports of Russian forces seizing operational artillery, raiding command centers, and capturing enemy generals while they slept, leading to a swift collapse of their defensive position.

In a mere seven days, Brusilov's forces had surged forward by more than sixty kilometers, capturing 200,000 prisoners and were on the brink of crossing the Carpathians into Hungary. Faced with this critical circumstance, the Austrians were once again forced to seek help from Germany, which resulted in the transfer of eight German divisions from the battlefields in the West to the Eastern theater, accompanied by the redirection of additional Austrian forces that had been previously involved in counteroffensive actions in Italy.

General Brusilov showcased exceptional flexibility in response to the changing conditions of combat, utilizing innovative strategies to secure an advantage over his adversaries and leveraging advanced, powerful artillery.

In his analysis, Lloyd elucidates the unique tactical strategies employed by Brusilov that led to his success, setting them apart from earlier military campaigns that failed to meet their goals. Brusilov set himself apart from many contemporaries through his meticulous preparation and adept command of military operations. He spent months preparing his men, teaching them the latest tactical doctrines pioneered by the Germans at Gorlice and organizing his artillery in a manner that maximized its firepower and accuracy. The Russian forces, with the support of their staff who collaborated closely with the newly established reconnaissance and aviation units, meticulously surveyed the combat zone, identifying and plotting the positions of enemy artillery and strongholds on maps, which enabled a focused artillery assault that wreaked significant havoc on the areas designated for the main attack.

Brusilov showcased his flexibility in contrast to his counterpart by quickly integrating new troops and continuously advancing the battle's initial impetus while enhancing his approach to artillery deployment. Observers from both Russia and its Allied partners acknowledged the point at which Russia's military capabilities were fully utilized during the Brusilov Offensive. The triumph proved to be fleeting and could not be maintained. Russian attacks were repeatedly hindered by similar difficulties, including logistical complications, a shortage of troops, and limited ammunition, all of which slowed their progress and ultimately led to the failed effort to seize the crucial railway junction at Kovel. By August, other fronts, particularly the French and British attack on the Somme, had taken priority, leaving Brusilov isolated, his armies facing a rapidly resurgent opponent supported by German troops, and his reputation as Russia’s finest general in tatters.

Other Perspectives

• The Russian Empire's collapse was influenced by a multitude of factors, including economic strain, political mismanagement, and social unrest, not solely the military events on the Eastern Front.
• While the Russian Revolution had a significant impact, attributing the collapse of the Eastern Front solely to it may oversimplify the complex interplay of military, social, and international factors at play.
• The leadership of Lenin and the Bolsheviks was indeed pivotal, but other parties and internal dynamics within Russia also played critical roles in the collapse of the Eastern Front.
• The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk did result in territorial losses for Russia, but it also relieved the country from the war, which could be seen as a necessary step for the Bolsheviks to consolidate power and address internal issues.
• Tsar Nicholas II's military command was a factor in the empire's instability, but focusing only on his personal decisions may overlook broader systemic issues within the Russian military and government.
• Tsarina Alexandra's political influence was controversial, but it's also important to consider the context of her actions, including the lack of a clear constitutional framework for governance and the challenges posed by World War I.
• The assassination of Rasputin was a symptom of the broader crisis in Russian politics and society, and its impact on the Tsarina's policies and the continuation of the war is subject to debate.
• The Brusilov Offensive, while initially successful, ultimately did not change the outcome of the war for Russia, and its long-term strategic effectiveness is debatable.
• Germany's reinforcement of Austria-Hungary during the Brusilov Offensive was a strategic necessity, and while it increased Austria's dependency, it also reflects the complex alliance dynamics of World War I.
• General Brusilov's tactics were innovative, but the ultimate failure of the offensive suggests that there were limitations to what could be achieved given Russia's broader strategic and logistical challenges.

The battle's progression on the Eastern Front was markedly shaped by the improved combat proficiency, the advancement of tactics, and the organized leadership of the conflicting forces, along with changes in strategic and political landscapes.

The improved weaponry and logistical support significantly influenced the ability of the conflicting sides to initiate offensives or maintain their defensive positions.

The Central Powers often outmaneuvered their adversaries on the Eastern Front, despite being outnumbered, through strategic troop movements and efficient utilization of their advanced railway network.

The conflict on the Eastern Front, where Germany and Austria-Hungary clashed with Tsarist Russia, was notable for its vast scale, brutality, and rapid changes, unlike the Western Front that became mired in a stalemate by the end of 1914. The vast landscape, along with the limited number of roads suitable for modern warfare, and rapid progress in technology and tactics, resulted in a war marked by fluid movements and encirclement, favoring those armed forces that utilized the widespread railway networks throughout central and eastern Europe with the greatest effectiveness.

The effectiveness of the German Army in military campaigns was considerably shaped by their ability to counteract opposing artillery and the challenges the Russian Army encountered in obtaining sufficient heavy artillery ammunition.

Lloyd recognized that the growing importance of firepower increasingly typified the conflict. The military forces of Germany, Austria, and Russia soon recognized that the advent of modern firearms, especially those allowing for rapid successive shots and automatic firing, had made traditional infantry tactics obsolete. Securing artillery of diverse calibers was considered crucial for penetrating enemy defenses and protecting key strategic locations. Germany's superiority in artillery was clear during their campaigns to neutralize opposing armaments, as skilled spotters employed aerial reconnaissance and specialized forces to accurately identify the locations of enemy artillery, which then allowed for a concentrated bombardment using a wide array of howitzers and cannons to obliterate these targets.

Commanders across various factions found it challenging to adjust their combat techniques and strategies to contemporary armaments, resulting in unsuccessful offensive maneuvers at every level.

The Habsburg armies suffered heavy casualties and a significant drop in morale due to their adherence to outdated tactics that overvalued the bayonet and close-order formations.

The conflict constituted a brutal process of trial and error. Military leaders across all groups were forced to quickly modify their tactics and doctrines due to the changing nature of warfare. During the early phases of the conflict, most of the military continued to employ conventional strategies, including dense groupings for combat at close range using bayonets, but these methods proved futile against enemies protected by strong barbed wire fortifications and armed with quick-shooting rifles and powerful machine guns. The Empire of Austria-Hungary faced considerable difficulties as a result of its inability to modernize its military tactics. The majority of her officers still placed too much emphasis on keeping strict formations, which resulted in a consistent dependence on close-combat assaults with bayonets, resulting in their regiments incurring substantial casualties – a relentless cycle of fatality and devastation that persisted for the duration of the conflict.

The army of Russia often carried out extended artillery barrages which were ineffective in causing substantial harm to the adversary's trench fortifications.

The adaptation of the Russian Army to the complexities of modern warfare was fraught with significant challenges. Despite possessing a superior artillery division, its commanders often faced challenges in executing bombardments that were strategically synchronized and tailored to bolster the infantry units. Frequently, the attacks on the adversary's strongholds, despite heavy shelling, did not succeed in defeating the defenders, who quickly regained control of the battlefield, forcing the attackers to retreat quickly or face encirclement, reminiscent of the incidents in northeastern Poland.

The war shaped the organization and command of the conflicting armies, reflecting the changing domestic and governmental conditions of their respective countries.

In 1917, the Austro-Hungarian military leadership was in chaos, which ultimately led to the removal of Conrad von Hötzendorf from his leadership role in the General Staff.

The progression or impasse of each nation's armed forces consistently shaped their strategic and political goals throughout the duration of the conflict. The instability of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was underscored by the frequent replacement of its military commanders, such as Conrad, who became a victim of his own machinations in 1917.

Within the German military ranks, Colonel Georg Bruchmüller gained recognition for his expertise in developing the 'drum fire' technique, a skill that earned him acclaim from the highest levels of military command.

During the latter part of the summer in 1916, the German military experienced a pivotal change in its command structure when the duo from East Prussia, Hindenburg and Ludendorff, ascended to positions of high influence, signifying a major alteration in the leadership dynamics. Germany preserved its advantage in military ingenuity and strategic flexibility by promoting individuals with exceptional abilities, like Max Hoffman or Colonel George Bruchmüller, to high-ranking positions once other proficient and perceptive leaders had completed their service. This ability to learn and incorporate new technical and organizational skills would last until the final days of the war, exemplified by the ‘March Offensive’ of 1918 and the terrifying speed with which Germany’s armies broke through Allied defences on the Western Front.

Other Perspectives

• While improved combat proficiency and tactics were crucial, the role of external factors such as the economic blockade, political unrest, and international diplomacy should not be underestimated in shaping the battle's progression on the Eastern Front.
• The impact of improved weaponry and logistical support might be overstated without considering the role of human factors like morale, discipline, and the physical and mental endurance of the soldiers.
• The assertion that the Central Powers often outmaneuvered their adversaries primarily through strategic troop movements and railway use could be challenged by highlighting the role of intelligence, deception, and the occasional strategic errors made by their opponents.
• Characterizing the Eastern Front as marked by rapid changes could be nuanced by acknowledging periods of stagnation and attritional warfare similar to the Western Front.
• The statement that modern firearms made traditional infantry tactics obsolete might overlook instances where such tactics were successfully employed due to terrain, weather conditions, or other situational factors.
• The claim that commanders struggled to adjust to contemporary armaments might be too broad, as there were notable instances of innovative tactics and successful adaptations by commanders on all sides.
• The critique of the Habsburg armies' adherence to outdated tactics could be balanced by recognizing the constraints they faced, such as a multi-ethnic conscript army, varied levels of training, and supply issues.
• The effectiveness of Russian artillery barrages might be contested by considering the psychological impact of prolonged shelling on the enemy, even if it did not always translate into tactical success.
• The war's impact on military organization and command could be seen as part of a broader evolution in military thought that was happening independently of the immediate conflict, influenced by pre-war military theories and the observation of other contemporaneous conflicts.
• The chaos in Austro-Hungarian military leadership and the removal of Conrad von Hötzendorf might be contextualized by discussing the complex political structure of the empire and the diverse challenges it faced on multiple fronts.
• The recognition of Colonel Georg Bruchmüller for the 'drum fire' technique could be tempered by acknowledging that military innovation is often the result of collective effort and the cross-pollination of ideas within the military establishment.
• The significance of Hindenburg and Ludendorff's ascension to power in the German military might be critiqued by examining the broader political implications of their leadership style and the eventual impact on Germany's war effort and society.