The eastern Front of WWI

[Petrov]

Hey everyone, This is my first post on the History forums,my friends and Neighbors, Basicly everyone, They are always saying that i know so much about history, But i only know a bit on each part, Right now my interest is the easter front of WWI, Seeing as anzac Day is near, I have been trying WW1 mods for games, reading WWI books, and I would like to open this thread for people who want to discuss this with me, I hope to learn alot more than i already know (i know near to nothing about this part of WWI, But thats whats this is about, LEARNING!)

[Danny_K_1]

Ahh a subject I know just about nothing on.

Wasn't the Eastern front of WWI shut down due to the civil war?

[Mr. Pink]

See if Germany would have had Rambo on their team. Do you think it's possible that they would have won the war?

[Poach]

The Eastern Front of the Great War didn't suffer from trench warfare like the Western, but it was largely a stalemate.

The Russians started an offensive, reached the borders of the Central Powers (even entered Austria-Hugnary) and were halted. A limited counter-attack turned into a massive advance when a gap was opened between two Russian Armies and the Central Powers advanced well into Russian territory. There the line largely remained, a few offensives went back and forth, with a Russian one almost breaking the Austrian forces and advancing quite far before being turned back, due to Romania capitulating and fresh forces arriving against the offensive.

The Russians surrendered with the treaty of Brest-Litovsk which created many new countries in Eastern Europe, which the Germans tried to incorperate into their Empire but failed to do so because they lost in the West.

[cegorach]

The war in the east is exceptionally dynamic when it comes to the world conflict - first year easpecially.

You really have almost everything there - offensives, counteroffensives, meeting engagements (at Kraśnik or at Łódź), sieges, winter offensives, mountain ofensives - all that with multinational forces on both sides.

Bosniak infantry vs. Finnish riflemen, Polish legionaries vs. Caucasian cavalry etc.

Of course later it is a bit different - first the stalemante with massive Russian offensive at Luck, later revolution and a multitude of smaller wars where everybody fought everybody.

Much neglected topic, very often badly described (anti-Austro-Hungarian bias for example) and to some almost completely impossible to describe or exaplain.

Hopefull will receive credit it deserves, from more informed angle thanks to sources provided by local historians and researchers - which was difficult a decade ago and earlier.

[cenkiss]

Eastern front has great tragedies like sarıkamış where thousands of ottoman soldiers died from cold weather without even seeing the enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sarikamish

Eastern front was more active then western front.

[Trax]

Eastern front has great tragedies like sarıkamış where thousands of ottoman soldiers died from cold weather without even seeing the enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sarikamish

Eastern front was more active then western front.

Ahem, this is not Eastern front, this is Caucasian front.

[Crimson Scythe]

Ahem, this is not Eastern front, this is Caucasian front.

Heh, it's the Further Eastern Front. But you're right, of course.

[Azog 150]

As others have said (In more detail) it was more fluid then the Western Front, with many great battles. It came to an end in 1917 due to the Russian Revolution.

Other fronts in World War 1 you may be interested in looking at: Middle East (Which is where Gallipoli and Lawrence of Arabia comes into it) and the Italian front (Basically situated in the Italian Alps and it was as bloody and futile as the rest of the war). There was also many colonial battles world wide.

[Petrov]

As others have said (In more detail) it was more fluid then the Western Front, with many great battles. It came to an end in 1917 due to the Russian Revolution.

Other fronts in World War 1 you may be interested in looking at: Middle East (Which is where Gallipoli and Lawrence of Arabia comes into it) and the Italian front (Basically situated in the Italian Alps and it was as bloody and futile as the rest of the war). There was also many colonial battles world wide.

well, I would know about the Dardanelles campaign, I am aussie, and ANZAC day is near!

[Khalid]

Everybody underestimated the Ottoman Empire, the British thought the Dardanelles would be a push over.

[♔hammeredalways♔]

Actually there is no clear evidence to suggest that anyone in GB though that this campaign would be a pushover in fact after the earlier Naval activity in the Dardanelles it could be expected that Ottoman defence would be firm, however there was a view that Russia needed assistance and opening a second front in the south would support a number of objectives, assist Russia and relieve pressure on her, this would also therefore keep German forces on the Eastern front avoiding further pressure on the Western front, and the expansion and protection of British interests in the region and the trade routes with India.

You could also argue that whilst the landings themselves are considered failings, the action and subsequent events effectively led to the destruction of the Ottoman empire and significant expansion of British interests in the region, so tactically a failing - strategically a win -

[Player44]

Exactly how were pitched battles conducted in the Eastern Front? I'm sure the line formation of the nineteenth century was no longer there, but how did infantry fight?

[alhoon]

Eastern front... Russia lost big time and that destibilized her enough for the dissidents to finally rebel.
German generals in Tanerberg destroyed a whole Russian army of hundreds of thousands. In the eastern front it was a fight between technologically advanced nations and a nation with huge numbers.

[YuriVII]

Eastern front was chaotic with the combination of fluid warfare the dissolution and creation of numerous states. Germans tried to occupy Ukraine, Belarus, and Baltic states, but could not control the collision of new national armies rising up like in Estonian War of Indpendence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia...f_Independence and Revolutionaries rising up. The War in the East actually lasted well after 1918, since really the revolution gave birth to Russian civil war. The Treaty of Brest-Litowsk was only a treaty between the Bolsheviks and the Germans. No one else.

As for the technological aspect of it, the first use of strategic bombing was initiated by the Russians with the creation of the Ilya Muromets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_Ilya_Muromets (world's first strategic bomber) and the Tsar Tank (not used in battle but a quite odd machine) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_tank. Russian Imperial Armaments came up with some interesting prototypes despite the army's over all technological gap.