Part 3

From this brief outline one can readily see what great and numerous objects Russia accomplished in the World War, and how important was her role in that final collapse of the Central Powers at which the Allies had been aiming in the four-year long struggle. In full accord with these efforts are the extraordinary sacrifices brought by Russia, sacrifices in men, sacrifices in material resources and money, and finally, that great upheaval through which the Russian people are now passing, as a result of their over-exertion in the years of the World War.

Among these sacrifices, Russia's losses in men run into such great numbers that the immense, extraordinary part played by Russia becomes at once obvious to anyone.

Of the many different figures quoted by various investigators the most reliable are undoubtedly those furnished by the official statistics of the Russian Army Staff.

Among these figures made public in the press the most important are those given by the Staff of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army, pertaining to the year 1916, concerning the total number of mobilized soldiers and the number of those still in the service. According to this information, the Russian War Ministry called to the colors from the outbreak of the War up to the winter of 1916 more than 14 million men; but the commissary department of the Army had towards the close of 1916 less than 10 million on its rolls. The difference of 4½ million between these two figures constituted the absolute losses of the Army during 3 campaigns (1914, 15, 16). This gave the Staff the basis for calculating the yearly average total losses at 1½ million men. Adding, accordingly, 1½ million losses for 1917, we obtain 6 million total losses during the whole War.

But these are only the men who were a total loss to the Army, i. e., the losses in killed and prisoners, without the wounded, except a moderate number of crippled who were no longer fit for service at the front nor for service out of the ranks, and who therefore had to be discharged from the Army entirely.

The total number of Russian war-prisoners towards the end of the War, according to figures compiled by the Russian Commission on War Prisoners, amounted to about 2½ million. Deducting this number from 6 million, we obtain 3½ million in killed and the small number of crippled who were discharged entirely.

This number, 3½ million, obtained from official statistics, is the basis of our calculations. The percentage of disabled was comparatively small. German statistics during the War figured it to be 10 per cent. Hence the figure of 3½ million must comprize only a little less than 3 million in killed alone. The number of wounded is usually approximately 2½ times the number of killed.[5] Multiplying the number of wounded not by 2½, but only by 2, we obtain about 6 million wounded. Thus we have a total of 6 million killed and prisoners, and 6 million wounded, or a grand total of not less than 12 million losses for Russia, in killed, wounded and prisoners.

These figures are rather minimized, for we have above underestimated the number of wounded. These figures, based upon official statistics, agree with those arrived at by the "Copenhagen Society for Studying the Consequences of the War." This society estimates the losses at 9½ million, exclusive of prisoners. As we have shown above, there were 2½ million prisoners.

Thus there can be no doubt but that the number of Russian casualties was _not less than 12,000,000_, of which there were _3,000,000 in killed_.

These losses are almost equal to the combined losses of our Allies.[6]

Russia's losses are more than twice those of France, 4-5 times those of England, and more than 35 times those of America. These losses are more than twice the total strength of the British Army, and 3-4 times all the forces mustered by the United States. This number of casualties alone is larger than the total population of any of the following European countries: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, or the Balkan States!

Thus do simple figures tell us clearly and plainly that Russia sacrificed in the common cause of the Allies the greatest number of victims and that she ranks first in the sad roster of Allied casualties.

Conclusion

From this brief outline may be seen how tremendous and important a role was played by Russia in the world conflict. Summing up the general facts cited above, we arrive at the following definite conclusions:

1.) Russia's role in the World War was bound to be very serious and important for this reason alone, that the participation of a nation numbering 180 million souls could not fail to be significant in itself, and was therefore bound to exercise a tremendous influence upon the outcome of the World War.

2.) Accordingly, Russia's role became apparent even at the very beginning of the War, in the important aid she rendered in frustrating the initial and most dangerous plan of the Germans, by her early offensive in aid of the Allies. Russia, having diverted against herself the entire Austrian army and part of the German, at the time of the battle on the Marne, through her offensive in East Prussia and Galicia, deprived the enemy of the opportunity to realize the fundamental idea of Moltke's plan to fling "all forces into France." The enemy, having contrary to his plan moved on France with only a part of his forces, inevitably suffered defeat. This cooperation on the part of Russia was of tremendous significance, for the Germans based their plan on the idea that they would at first have to deal only with France alone, on one front only, whereas Russia compelled them at once to start the War on two fronts, both with Russia and France. This made the initial German war plan useless because strategy says plainly: "Errors in the strategic deploying of forces in the beginning of a war have a decisive influence and cannot be rectified until the war is over." From this rule of strategy it is plain that Russia's operations in the beginning of the war at the outset condemned Germany to lose the war.

3.) At the following attempt of the enemy to find a decision in France, to break through to Calais, at Ypres, Russia, by the blows she delivered in Galicia, at Warsaw and in East Prussia, contributed to the early termination of this second offensive in France, so dangerous to England, and compelled the Germans for more than a year to abstain from their main operations on the main decisive front of the War--in France.

4.) In 1915 Russia, having shouldered alone the whole burden of the struggle against Germany, Austria and Turkey, although forced to abandon Poland, still gave the Allies the opportunity to prepare throughout a whole year for the coming German offensive at Verdun. At the same time, having compelled the Germans during 1915 to spend all their fresh formations and reserves on the Russian front, Russia thereby deprived the Germans of the reserves they needed for Verdun and their other operations in France.

5.) In 1916 Russia, thanks to the Brusilov offensive, saved Italy at that critical moment when the Austrians, through their successful offensive from Tyrol in the rear of the Italians, threatened to cut off a considerable portion of the Italian Army, at the same time menacing Venice. Together with this, Russia by this offensive greatly facilitated the operations of the Allies on the Somme, and was instrumental in the final clearing of the Verdun forts.

6.) In 1916 Russia took upon herself the blows of Mackensen's and Falkenhayn's armies which had invaded Roumania, stopped the further advance of the Germans, and undertook the defense of a considerable stretch of the Roumanian front.

7.) Through a period of three years of struggle against Germany, Austria and Turkey, Russia, having diverted the forces of the enemy, afforded the Allies a long period of quiet for the preparation and strengthening of the Allied Armies and for the systematic creation of a new 4 million British Army.

8.) Throughout this period of three years of struggle _Russia compelled the enemy to spend on the Russian front such a stupendous amount of force, reserves and munitions_ as to hasten the inevitable fall of the enemy, and _this immensely facilitated the delivery of the final, decisive blows by the Allies_.

9.) Russia, incessantly drawing upon herself the forces of the enemy, did not give him the opportunity for one minute from the very beginning of the War to gather sufficient force for a decisive blow on the main, decisive front--in France. The role of Russia, therefore, was clearly apparent in the fact that she deprived Germany throughout the War of the possibility to win and rendered futile every effort of the enemy in this respect.

10.) Corresponding with the most important role that Russia played in the War are her enormous sacrifices in men, material and treasure. Her losses in men, amounting to 12,000,000, exceed several times the casualties of any of the Allies; are almost equal to the losses of all the Allies combined; exceed several times the total number of men mobilized by any one of the Allies....

11.) Russia's role in the recent war was so important and extraordinary that _without Russia the very idea of a struggle with German militarism would have been impossible_. Germany would have been able to crush any combination of the European Powers if Russia had not participated in such combination. Were it not for Russia, Germany would now dominate not only Europe, but probably the rest of the world as well.

12.) Russia's great role in the World War is so much the greater since she fought under extraordinary circumstances, lacking so indispensable an asset as a great network of railways, with a backward technique, industry, etc. In the hard first years of the War the Russian Armies, as we have seen, in extraordinary circumstances and frequently without arms and munitions, did everything possible, and, together with failures, had also their successes.

Ludendorf was able to achieve success on the Russian front only when the Germans outnumbered their adversaries by at least three to two. At Tannenberg the Germans had twice as many and, at certain stages, even three times as many men as the Russians. Against Rennenkampf Ludendorf had three men to every two of his enemy, and probably even as many as two to one, as Rennenkampf had suffered severe losses during the preceding days.

It is equally true that the Russians were able to defeat the Germans whenever they had even a small superiority of force. Near Warsaw the Russians had less than five men to every four Germans and they succeeded in defeating the latter and throwing them clear across all Poland.

It may seem strange that the Germans should have managed to have numerical superiority over the Russians all the time. Regrettable as it may be, it is nevertheless true, for the strength of an army is determined not by the number of its men, but by the number of bayonets (infantry), sabres (cavalry) and guns (artillery). The Russian Army consisted of millions, but bayonets and guns it had only for one-tenth of its number. In 1915 some Russian divisions numbered, instead of 20,000 bayonets, only a mere thousand, owing to disastrous losses. The only employment of infantry during those days was as a screen for the artillery, while the latter was quite useless for fighting purposes because it had no ammunition whatever. Under such conditions many of our corps often did not exceed the strength of a single regiment and some armies numbered no more effectives than a single division. We had plenty of men, but no arms and ammunition. Therefore, the Germans frequently surpassed us not in men, but in bayonets and guns.

The tragedy of the Russian situation lay in the cruel fact that Russia, while only one-tenth of her Armies were armed, was facing Germany and Austria, who were armed from head to foot. Not Ludendorf and not his ordinary military skill were the causes of Russia's failures in the first year of the War, but that simple and terrible truth which Brusilov once expressed in the following words: "_The Russians had no shells with which to blast their way across barbed-wire entanglements before an attack; so it became necessary for them to break down the wires with the bodies of Russian soldiers, and to form a bridge across these dead bodies for the next attacking column._"

We have concluded our sketch of Russia's participation in the World War with 1917. But 1918 also has its story: in that year Russia was denied a voice at the conference on that peace in the name of which Russia had offered up so many sacrifices and made such efforts.

We have seen how important and essential a part Russia played in the overthrow of German militarism. Russia's tremendous role confirms once more the elementary truth that in the future also Russia will inevitably be a colossal factor of political and military equilibrium in Europe. Whatever does happen to Russia, however they may dismember her living body, the immense Russian nation, with 125 million souls of pure Russian blood alone, will always remain that heavy military weight which inevitably lowers that particular scale upon which it descends.

It is true, Germany is now crushed and enfeebled. But we know that victorious countries are now suffering not less, and some of them even more, from the consequences of the most stupendous world conflict.

Years will pass, and possibly but a few years, and again the world will recuperate. We have no reason to expect that the active German people will lag behind the rest in this work of reestablishing normal conditions of life and labor.

The Treaty of Versailles has not solved a good many problems, and among them also those that were the cause of the World War. Notwithstanding all partitioning, Germany still retains up to 60 million souls, but France only a little more than 40 million. The population of Germany has always been growing, while that of France, if it has not decreased, has not increased. _After all, Germany has and will have a numerical superiority over France of one and a half times._

France, well aware of that, tries to maintain an alliance with England, and reckons upon the aid of America. But the statesmen of the West realize how insufficient all this is, for they still remember well that first critical month of the War when France was all alone and saved herself only through extraordinary efforts.

Until the United States arrives on the scene! Why, that inevitably means months and months of waiting. Until the British Army is mobilized and transported! Why, we know how difficult and tedious are the conditions of embarkation and landing of troops, artillery, transport columns, munitions, etc. We know that the 150,000 soldiers of the British Army alone required, in August, 1914, more than three weeks for disembarkation. And where? In three ports where everything was equipped for disembarkation purposes, where ideal conditions prevailed such as were hard to find in any other ports.

Thus France, in the event of a new conflict with her old foe, will again find herself for quite some time left all alone to face the numerically superior enemy. Where will Russia be then?

No Poland, no combination of any group of small States will be able to take the place of Russia, for that would be a mere 15-20 millions; it will be not Russia, but only one-seventh, a sixth, or fifth part of that which Russia gave during the past War. These weak nations will only become additional trophies to the enemy, just as Roumania, Serbia and Belgium became his easy prey in the past War.

Where will Russia be then? Not the present-day Russia bleeding to death in its struggle against Bolshevism, but the future, once more powerful, Russia?...

Bolshevism, an abnormal phenomenon, is bound to come to an end--somewhat earlier, or somewhat later. No matter how much may be cut off from Russia, she will always remain an immense, great, rich, and therefore powerful, country. Too much will depend upon what this coming Russia may have to say, for any sensible statesman to refuse to reckon with that eventuality.

This question the statesmen of the West must ask of themselves clearly and plainly--not those statesmen who think no further than the following day and of the success of their fight against their political opponents--but those wise leaders of the nations who really have at heart the interests of their own countries, as well as of the entire civilized world. "Ostrich politics" may least of all be applied in dealing with that tremendous military and political factor which covers one-sixth of the land surface of the globe and is called Russia.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See diagrams on pp. 15 and 18.

[2] See Appendixes No. I and II, in which an analysis of this part of Ludendorf's Memoirs is given.

[3] See Appendixes "Ludendorf--Samsonov" and "Ludendorf--Rennenkampf" at the end of the pamphlet.

[4] How preposterous is this figure of 1,200,000 men, supposed to have been transferred by the Russians from Galicia to Warsaw, to oppose Ludendorf, may be seen from the fact that only 3 railway lines run from Galicia to Warsaw. It is not difficult to demonstrate that it is impossible to carry 1,200,000 men on 3 railway lines within 2 weeks (the offensive of the Germans against Warsaw began in the first days of October, and the retreat began two weeks later, i. e., when the Russian troops were transferred from Galicia to Warsaw).

One army corps requires 140-150 trains. The best road in Russia can at most carry 52 trains in 24 hours in one direction. Hence, to entrain a corps would require 3 days. Consequently the most that could be entrained within 15 days would be 5 corps to each railway line. Thus, all 3 roads combined might have been able to carry up to 15 corps, but actually, of course, they carried less than that. But even if we allow the computation of 15 corps to stand, we have but 500-600 thousand men, and not 1,200,000 as Mr. Ludendorf unhesitatingly allots.

[5] According to figures submitted in 1916 by the army committee of the German Reichstag, the German army lost during the first 12 months of the War 604 thousand killed, 1,556,000 wounded, and 317 thousand prisoners. This shows that the number of wounded is 2½ times the number of killed.

[6] According to the statistics of the "Copenhagen Society," the French Army lost 1,350,000 in killed, the British--700,000, the Italian--330,000, and each of the remaining Allies--100,000 and less.

Appendix No. I

Ludendorf--Samsonov

1.) A careful perusal of Ludendorf's memoirs brings out the fact that during the first Russian invasion of Eastern Prussia there participated on the German side: the 1st, 17th, 20th and 1st Reserve Corps, the 3rd Reserve Division, the 6th Landwehr Brigade, Goltz's Division, the garrisons of the Vistula fortresses,--Thorn, Kulm and Graudenitz, and a brigade of cavalry. The German forces consisted, therefore, not of two corps numbering 80,000 men but of more than 240,000, not counting the masses of landsturm, which fact Ludendorf carefully conceals.

2.) The Russians, on the other hand, advanced into East Prussia not fully mobilized, as this battle took place twenty-seven days after the War was declared, and the Russian mobilization was only completed three--four weeks later. Samsonov had no six army corps under his command, but only 4 corps: the 1st, the 6th, the 13th and the 15th, and, figuring even at 40,000 men per army corps, this force could not have exceeded 160,000 men.

3.) It can be seen, therefore, that in this battle over 240,000 Germans were opposing 160,000 Russians at most. However, as a matter of positive fact, the attack of the 240,000 Germans was directed against two Russian corps only, the 1st and the 6th, i. e., at only approximately 80,000 men.

4.) A force of Germans, three times as strong, overpowered two Russian corps. During that attack Samsonov and a part of his staff were killed. That, and the disruption of liaison, was the reason reinforcements were not sent up from the other corps and the Germans succeeded in invading the Russian rear (see map No. 1).

5.) The remainder of Samsonov's army, about 80,000 men, became surrounded by 240,000 Germans, and, left without leadership, in the midst of an extremely critical and dangerous operation, on unfamiliar territory, it was shattered. _Only under such an unfortunate combination of circumstances could a threefold strong German force win the battle in a tactical sense. But, from the strategic point of view, the Germans lost in this stage of their campaign, as this battle diverted a number of German corps from France and served a purpose of the greatest importance._

6.) It must be added that the entire population of East Prussia was armed, and scouting was very difficult. The Russians knew nothing about the enemy, while the latter was fully informed by the inhabitants concerning the Russians and knew every step these were making. That is why the German attack came as a surprise.

7.) The assertion that Rennenkampf had 400,000 men and intentionally did not come to Samsonov's aid is a downright misstatement. This can be seen from the fact that the battle, which was begun on August 27, was lost in 18 hours, on the morning of August 28, and Rennenkampf, who with small forces was within three days' marching distance from Samsonov--40 miles--could not have arrived in time, particularly when we consider that he had to overcome on his way fortifications and barbed-wire defenses manned by landsturm and by cavalry.

8.) Ludendorf's assertion that Rennenkampf's force consisted of 24 divisions, almost 400,000 men, is an obvious falsehood. A single army is never made up of more than six army corps, for facility and expediency in commanding, and this is a basic rule in military organizations. Ludendorf knows this very well, but it appears that he consciously misstated the truth in this case as well.

9.) In reality Rennenkampf's army consisted of eight divisions or four army corps,--the 2nd, the 3rd, the 4th and the 20th, and of six cavalry divisions. Altogether his force consisted of about 160,000 men. The bulk of his infantry could not have reached the front at that time, as it was necessary to organize the rear and to coordinate the railway movement in Prussia, as the Russian rail gauge is much wider than that adopted by the German railway system. Rennenkampf's front, therefore, was occupied largely by cavalry, supported only in section by weak detachments of infantry.