THE STRATEGICAL POSITION OF THE RUSSIAN FRONT.
The first and fundamental question with which I was confronted at the
Stavka was _the objective of our Front_. The condition of the enemy did
not appear to us as particularly brilliant. But I must confess that
the truth as at present revealed exceeds all our surmises, especially
according to the picture drawn by Hindenburg and Ludendorff of the
condition of Germany and of her Allies in 1917. I will not dwell
upon the respective numerical strength, armaments, and strategical
positions on the Western Front. I will only recall that in the middle
of June Hindenburg gave rather a gloomy description of the condition
of the country in his telegram to the Emperor. He said: "We are very
much perturbed by the depression of the spirits of the people. That
spirit must be raised, _or we shall lose the War_. Our Allies also
require support, lest they desert us.... Economic problems must be
solved, which are of paramount importance to our future. The question
arises--Is the Chancellor capable of solving them? A solution must be
found _or else we perish_."
The Germans were anticipating a big offensive of the British and the
French on the Western Front, where they had concentrated their main
attention and their main forces, leaving on the Eastern Front after the
Russian Revolution only such numbers as were scarcely sufficient for
defence. And yet the position on the Eastern Front continued to create
a certain nervousness at the German G.H.Q. Will the Russian people
remain steadfast, or will the Defeatist tendencies prevail? Hindenburg
wrote: "As the condition of the Russian Army prevented us from finding
a clear answer to that question, our position in regard to Russia
remained insecure."
In spite of all its defects, the Russian Army in March, 1917, was
a formidable force, with which the enemy had seriously to reckon.
Owing to the mobilisation of industry, to the activities of the
War-Industries Committees, and partly to the fact that the War
Ministry was showing increased energy, our armaments had reached
a level hitherto unknown. Also, the Allies were supplying us with
artillery and war materials through Murmansk and Archangel on a
larger scale. In the spring we had the powerful Forty-Eighth Corps--a
name under which heavy artillery of the highest calibre for special
purposes, "Taon," was concealed. In the beginning of the year the
engineering troops were reorganised and amplified. At the same time new
infantry divisions were beginning to deploy. This measure, adopted by
General Gourko during his temporary tenure of office as Chief-of-Staff
of the Supreme C.-in-C., consisted in the reduction of regiments from
four battalions to three, as well as the reduction of the number of
guns to a division. A third division was thus created in every Army
Corps, with artillery. There can be no doubt that, had this scheme been
introduced in peace-time, the Army Corps would have been more pliable
and considerably stronger. It was a risky thing to do in war-time.
Before the spring operations the old divisions were disbanded,
whereas the new ones were in a pitiable state in regard to armaments
(machine-guns, etc.), as well as technical strength and equipment. Many
of them had not been sufficiently blended together--a circumstance of
particular importance in view of the Revolution. The position was so
acute that in May the Stavka was compelled to sanction the disbanding
of those of the Third Division which should prove feeble, and to
distribute the men among units of the line. This idea, however, was
hardly ever put into practice, as it encountered strong opposition
on the part of units already disaffected by the Revolution. Another
measure which weakened the ranks of the Army was the dismissal of the
senior men in the ranks.
This decision, fraught with incalculable consequences, was taken on the
eve of a general offensive. It was due to a statement made at a Council
at the Stavka by the Minister of Agriculture (who was also in charge
of supplies) that the condition of supplies was critical, and that
he could not undertake the responsibility of feeding the Army unless
about a million men were removed from the ration list. In the debate
attention was drawn to the presence in the Army of an enormous number
of non-combatants, quite out of proportion to the numbers of fighting
men, and to the inclusion in the Army of a quantity of auxiliary
bodies, which were hardly necessary, such as of Labour Organisations,
Chinese, and other alien Labour Battalions, etc. Mention was also
made of the necessity of having a younger Army. I very much feared
this trend of mind, and gave orders to the Staff to draw up accurate
lists of all the above-named Capitalists. While this work was still
in preparation the War Minister issued, on April 5th, an Order of the
Day giving leave, in the internal districts, to soldiers over forty to
work in the fields till May 15th. Leave was afterwards extended till
June 15th, but practically hardly anyone returned. On April 10th the
Provisional Government discharged all men over forty-three. Under the
pressure of the men it became unavoidable to spread the provisions
of the first Order to the Army, which would not be reconciled to any
privileges granted to the rear. The second Order gave rise to a very
dangerous tendency, as it practically amounted to a _beginning of
demobilisation_. The elemental desire of those who had been given leave
to return to their homes could not be controlled by any regulations,
and the masses of these men, who flooded the railway stations, caused
a protracted disorganisation of the means of transport. Some regiments
formed out of Reserve battalions lost most of their men. In the rear of
the Army transport was likewise in a state of confusion. The men did
not wait to be relieved, but left the lorries and the horses to their
fate; supplies were plundered and the horses perished. The Army was
weakened as a result of these circumstances, and the preparations for
the defensive were delayed.
[Map: The Russian (European) Front in 1917.]
[Map: The Russian Caucasian Front in March 1917.]
The Russian Army occupied an enormous Front, from the Baltic to the
Black Sea and from the Black Sea to Hamadan. Sixty-eight infantry
and nine cavalry corps occupied the line. Both the importance of and
the conditions obtaining on these Fronts varied. Our Northern Front,
including Finland, the Baltic and the line of the Western Dvina, was
of great importance, as it covered the approaches to Petrograd. But
the importance at that Front was limited to defensive purposes, and
for that reason it was impossible to keep at that Front large forces
or considerable numbers of guns. The conditions of that Theatre--the
strong defensive line of the Dvina--a series of natural positions in
the rear linked up with the main positions of the Western Russian
Front, and the impossibility of any important operations in the
direction of Petrograd without taking possession of the Sea, which was
in our hands--all this would have justified us in considering that
the Front was, to a certain extent, secure, had it not been for two
circumstances, which caused the Stavka serious concern: The troops of
the Northern Front, owing to the vicinity of Revolutionary Petrograd,
were more demoralised than any other, and the Baltic Fleet and its
bases--Helsingfors and Kronstadt, of which the latter served as the
main base of Anarchism and Bolshevism--were either "autonomous" or in
a state of semi-Anarchy. While preserving to a certain degree the
outward form of discipline, the Baltic Fleet was actually in a state
of complete insubordination. The Admiral in command, Maximov, was
entirely in the hands of the Central Committee of Sailors. Not a single
order for Naval operations could be carried out without the sanction
of that Committee, not to speak of Naval actions. Even the work of
laying and repairing minefields--the main defence of the Baltic--met
with opposition from Sailors' Organisations and the crews. Not only
the general decline of discipline, but the well-planned work of the
German General Staff were quite obvious, and apprehensions were
entertained lest Naval secrets and codes be revealed to the enemy. At
the same time, the troops of the Forty-Second Corps, quartered along
the Finnish Coast and on the Monzund Islands, had been idle for a
long time and their positions scattered. With the beginning of the
Revolution they were, therefore, rapidly demoralised, and some of them
were nothing but physically and morally degenerate crowds. To relieve
or to move them was an impossibility. I recall that in May, 1917, I
made several unavailing endeavours to send an Infantry Brigade to the
Monzund Islands. Suffice it to say that the Army Corps Commander would
not make up his mind to inspect his troops and get into touch with
them--a circumstance which is typical of the troops as well as of the
personality of their Commander. In a word, the position on the Northern
Front in the spring of 1917 was the following: We received daily
reports of the Channel between the Islands of the Gulf of Riga and the
mainland being blocked with ice, and this ice appeared to be the chief
real obstacle to an invasion of the German Fleet and Expeditionary
Forces.
The Western Front extended from the Disna to the Pripet. On this long
line two sectors--Minsk-Vilna and Minsk-Baranovitchi--were of the
greatest importance to us, as they represented the two directions in
which our troops, as well as the Germans, might undertake offensive
operations, for which there had already been precedents. The other
sections of the Front, and especially the Southern--the Pollessie,
with its forests and marshes--owing to the conditions of the country
and of the railways, were passive. Along the River Pripet, its
tributaries and canals, a kind of half-peaceful intercourse with the
Germans had long since been established, as well as a secret exchange
of goods, which was of some advantage to the "Comrades." For example,
we received reports that Russian soldiers from the Line, with bags,
appeared daily in the market of Pinsk, and that their advent was for
many reasons encouraged by the German authorities. There was another
vulnerable point--the bridge-head on the Stokhod by the station,
Chrevishe-Golenin, occupied by one of the Army Corps of General Lesh.
On March 21st, after strong artillery preparation and a gas attack, the
Germans fell upon our Corps and smashed it to pieces. Our troops had
heavy casualties, and the remnants of the Corps retreated behind the
Stokhod. The Stavka did not get an accurate list of the casualties,
because it was impossible to ascertain the numbers of killed or wounded
under the head of "Missing." The German Official Communiqué gave a
list of prisoners--150 officers and about 10,000 men. Owing to the
conditions in that theatre of war, this tactical success was of no
strategical importance, and could lead to no dangerous developments.
Nevertheless, we could not but wonder at the frankness of the
cautious _Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung_, the official organ of
the German Chancellor, which wrote: "The Communiqué of the Stavka of
the Russian Supreme Command of March 29th is mistaken in interpreting
the operations undertaken by the German troops, and dictated by a
tactical necessity which had arisen only within the limits of a given
sector, was an operation of general importance." The paper knew the
facts of which we were not certain and which have now been explained
by Ludendorff. From the beginning of the Russian Revolution, Germany
had a new aim: _Unable to conduct operations on both the main Fronts,
she had decided attentively to follow and to encourage the process
of demoralisation in Russia, striking at her not by arms, but by
developing propaganda_. The battle of the Stokhod was fought on the
personal initiative of General Linsingen, and the German Government was
frightened because it considered that "at a moment when fraternisation
was proceeding at full speed" German attacks might revive the dying
flames of patriotism in Russia and postpone her collapse. The
Chancellor asked the German G.H.Q. to make as little as possible of
that success, and the G.H.Q. cancelled all further offensives "in order
not to dash the hopes for peace which were about to be realised."
Our reverse on the Stokhod produced a strong impression in the country.
It was the first fighting experience of the "Freest Revolutionary
Army in the world...." The Stavka merely gave the facts in a spirit
of impartiality. In the circles of the Revolutionary Democracy the
reverse was explained partly by the treachery of the Commanding
Officers and partly by a conspiracy to emphasise by this example the
impracticability of the new Army Regulations and the danger of the
collapse of discipline, partly by the incompetence of the military
authorities. The Moscow Soviet wrote to the Stavka accusing one of the
assistants of the War Minister who had commanded a division on that
Front of being a traitor. Others attributed our defeat solely to the
demoralisation of the troops. In reality, the reasons for the defeat
were two-fold: The _tactical_ reason--the doubtful practicability
of occupying a narrow bridge-head when the river was swollen, the
insecurity of the rear and perhaps inadequate use of the troops and of
technical means; and the _psychological_ reason, the collapse of the
_moral_ and of the discipline of the troops. The last circumstance,
apparent in the enormous number of prisoners, gave both the Russian
Stavka and Hindenburg's headquarters much food for thought.
The South-Western Front, from the Pripet to Moldavia, was the most
important, and attracted the greatest attention. From that Front,
operating lines of the highest importance led to the North-West, into
the depths of Galicia and Poland, to Cracow, Warsaw and Brest-Litovsk.
The advance along these lines was covered from the South by the
Carpathians, separated the Southern Austrian group of armies from the
Northern German, and threatened the rear and the communications of the
latter. These operating lines, upon which no serious obstacles were
encountered, led us to the Front of the Austrian troops, whose fighting
capacity was lower than the Germans. The rear of our South-Western
Front was comparatively well-organised and prosperous. The psychology
of the troops, of the Command, and of the Staffs always differed
considerably from the psychology of other Fronts. In the glorious,
but joyless, campaign only the armies of the South-Western Front had
won splendid victories, had taken hundreds of thousands of prisoners,
had made victorious progress hundreds of miles deep into the enemy
territory, and had descended into Hungary from the Carpathians. These
troops had formerly always believed in success. Brussilov, Kornilov,
Kaledin had made their reputations on that Front. Owing to all these
circumstances the South-Western Front was regarded as the natural base
and the centre of the impending operations. Consequently, troops,
technical means, the greater part of the heavy artillery ("Taon") and
munitions were concentrated at that Front. The region between the
Upper Seret and the Carpathians was, therefore, being prepared for
the offensive, _Places d'armes_ erected, roads made. Further south
there was the Roumanian Front, stretching to the Black Sea. After
the unsuccessful campaign of 1916 our troops occupied the line of
the Danube, the Seret and the Carpathians, and it was sufficiently
fortified. Part of General Averesco's Roumanian troops occupied
the Front between our Fourth and Ninth Armies, and part were being
organised under the direction of the French General, Berthelot,
assisted by Russian Gunner Instructors. The reorganisation and
formation proceeded favourably, the more so as the Roumanian soldier
is excellent war material. I became acquainted with the Roumanian
Army in November, 1916, when I was sent with the Eighth Army Corps to
Buseo, into the thick of the retreating Roumanian Armies. Curiously
enough, I was ordered to advance in the direction of Bucarest until
I came into contact with the enemy, and to cover that direction with
the assistance of the retreating Roumanian troops. For several months
I fought by Buseo, Rymnik and Fokshany, having two Roumanian Corps
at times under my command and Averesco's Army on my flank. I thus
gained a thorough knowledge of the Roumanian troops. In the beginning
of the campaign the Roumanian Army showed complete disregard of the
experience of the World War. In matters of equipment and ammunition
their levity was almost criminal. There were several capable Generals,
the officers were effeminate and inefficient, and the men were
splendid. The artillery was adequate, but the infantry was untrained.
These are the main characteristics of the Roumanian Army, which soon
afterwards acquired better organisation and improved in training and
equipment. The relations between the actual Russian Commander-in-Chief,
who was designated as the Assistant C.-in-C., and the King of Roumania,
who was nominally in Chief Command, were fairly cordial. Although the
Russian troops began to commit excesses, which had a bad effect upon
the attitude of the Roumanians, the condition of the Front did not,
however, cause serious apprehension. Owing to the general conditions at
the Theatre of War, only an advance in great strength in the direction
of Bucarest and an invasion of Transylvania could have had a political
and strategical effect. But new forces could not be moved to Roumania,
and the condition of the Roumanian Railways excluded all hope of the
possibility of transport and supplies on a large scale. The theatre,
therefore, was of secondary importance, and the troops of the Roumanian
Front were preparing for a local operation, with a view to attracting
the Austro-German forces.
The Caucasian Front was in an exceptional position. It was far distant.
For many years the Caucasian Administration and Command had enjoyed a
certain degree of autonomy. From August, 1916, the Army was commanded
by the Grand-Duke Nicholas, a man of commanding personality, who took
advantage of his position whenever there was a difference of opinion
between himself and the Stavka. Finally, the natural conditions of
the theatre of war and the peculiarities of the enemy rendered that
Front entirely different from the European. All this led to a kind
of remoteness and aloofness of the Caucasian Army and too abnormal
relations with the Stavka. General Alexeiev repeatedly stated that,
in spite of all his efforts, he was unable clearly to discern the
situation in the Caucasus. The Caucasus lived independently, and told
the Government only as much as it considered necessary; and the reports
were coloured in accordance with local interests.
In the spring of 1917 the Caucasian Army was in a difficult position,
not by reason of the strategical or fighting advantages of the
enemy--the Turkish Army was by no means a serious menace--but of
internal disorganisation. The countryside was roadless and bare. There
were no supplies or forage, and the difficulties of transport made
the life of the troops very arduous. The Army Corps on the Right Flank
was comparatively well supplied, owing to facilities for transport
across the Black Sea, but the other Army Corps, and especially those
of the Left Flank, fared very badly. Owing to geographical conditions,
light transport required an enormous number of horses, while there
was no fodder on the spot. Railways of all kinds were being built
very slowly, partly owing to a lack of railway material and partly
because that material had been wasted by the Caucasian Front upon the
Trapezund Railway, which was of secondary importance, owing to the
parallel Maritime transport. In the beginning of May General Yudenitch
reported that, owing to disease and loss of horses, transport was
completely disorganised, batteries in position had no horses, half of
the transport was non-existent, and 75,000 horses were needed. Tracks,
rolling stock and forage were urgently required. In the first half of
April 30,000 men (22 per cent.) of the Infantry of the Line had died of
typhus and scurvy. Yudenitch therefore foreshadowed the necessity of
a compulsory retreat to points of supply, the centre towards Erzerum
and the Right Flank to the frontier. The solution suggested by General
Yudenitch could not be accepted, both for moral reasons and because our
retreat would have freed Turkish troops for action on other Asiatic
Fronts. This circumstance particularly worried the British Military
Representative at the Stavka, who repeatedly conveyed to us the
desire of the British G.H.Q. that the Left Flank of our troops should
advance in the valley of the River Diala for a combined operation
with General Maude's Mesopotamian contingent against Halil Pasha's
Army. This advance was necessary to the British rather for political
considerations than for strategical requirements. The actual condition
of our Left Flank Army Corps was, moreover, truly desperate, and in
May tropical heat set in in the valley of the Diala. As a result the
Caucasian Front was unable to advance, and was ordered actively to
defend its position. The advance of the Army Corps of the Left Flank,
in contact with the British, was made conditional upon the latter
supplying the troops. As a matter of fact, in the middle of April, a
partial retreat took place in the direction of Ognot and Mush; at the
end of April the Left Flank began its fruitless advance in the valley
of the Diala, and subsequently a condition arose on the Caucasian Front
which was something between War and Peace.
In conclusion, mention must be made of another portion of the Armed
Forces of Russia in that theatre--the Black Sea Fleet. In May and in
the beginning of June serious disturbances had already occurred, which
led to the resignation of Admiral Koltchak. The Fleet, however, was
still considered strong enough to carry out its task--to hold the Black
Sea and also to blockade the Turkish and Bulgarian coasts and guard the
maritime routes to the Caucasian and Roumanian Fronts.
I have given a short summary of the conditions of the Russian
Front without indulging in a detailed examination of strategical
possibilities. Whatever our strategy during that period may have been,
it was upset by the masses of the soldiery, for from Petrograd to the
Danube and the Diala demoralisation was spreading and growing. In the
beginning of the Revolution it was impossible to gauge the extent of
its effects upon various fronts and upon future operations. But many
were those whose minds were poisoned by a suspicion as to the futility
of all our plans, calculations and efforts.