The Eastern Front 1914-1917 (59 page)

¹³
The best source on the Russian side is:
Sbornik dokumentov mirovoy voyni na russkom fronte. Manevrenni period. Gorlitskaya operatsiya
, published by RKKA, for General Staff use, in 1941 (Moscow). Together with Bonch-Bruyevitch’s
Poterya nami Galitsii
(2 vols. Moscow 1920–26) it fills in most gaps. The general works of A. Neznamov:
Strategicheski ocherk voyni
(vols.3 and 4, 1922) and A. M. Zayonchkovski:
Mirovaya voyna
(p. 271ff.) are no more than useful short accounts.

¹⁴
Gorlitskaya operatsiya
p. 15. There is some confusion as the Central Powers counted their field howitzers as ‘light’, where the Russians counted them as ‘medium’ cf. Rerberg ms. p. 291.

¹⁵
These figures are taken from Reichsarchiv:
Der Weltkrieg
vol. 8,
Anlage
1, vol. 10
Anlage
1 (‘deutsche und feindliche Artillerie bei Verdun und an der Somme’), vol. 12
Beilagen
28 and 29(a).

¹⁶
v. appendices on ‘snabzheniye’ in
Gorlitskaya operatsiya
p. 504ff; Langlois’s
Rapport
of April 1915 (no. 2) Ch. 3 p.40 (v. note on sources); Rerberg ms. p. 200.

¹⁷
A. M. Zayonchkovski:
Strategicheski ocherk voyni
vol. 6 (Moscow 1922) p. 12 cf. Bonch-Bruyevitch vol. 1 p. 34; ed. Svechin: ‘Dnevnik Shtukaturova’ in
Voyenno-ist. sbornik
(Moscow) 1919 vol. 1 p. 132f., esp. p. 180 which records a military journey.

¹⁸
M. Schwarte:
Der grosse Krieg 1914 bis 1918
(10 vols.)–vol. 1,
Organisation und Kriegführung
(Berlin 1921) p. 243, 257. cf. Ratzenhofer: ‘Die Auswertung der inneren Linie im Dreifrontenkrieg’ (
Ergänzungsheft
No. 2 of the Austro-Hungarian official history, 1931) p. 15.

¹⁹
Lemke p. 310, 494; O. N. Chaadaeva:
Armiya nakanune revolyutsii
(Moscow 1935) p. 19; Sidorov: ‘zhelezno-dorozhny transport p. 24.

²⁰
Schwarte:
Organisation
p. 259.

²¹
K. v. Morgen:
Meiner Truppen Heldenkämpfe
(2 vols. Berlin 1920) 1 p. 50f.

²²
O.D
. Yanushkevitch to Alexeyev 31.3.1915 and letter of 14.4. British intelligence apparently reported German intentions before the end of March.

²³
Rerberg ms. p. 240 and
Gorlitskaya operatsiya pp.
45–7 for the apprehensions of Noskov and Diederichs in Ivanov’s command; cf. Bonch-Bruyevitch vol. 2 p. 38.

²⁴
Ye. I Martinov: ‘Gibel divizii Kornilova’ in
Voyenno-ist. sbornik
(Moscow) 1919, I pp. 30–50.

²⁵
Taken from
Gorlitskaya operatsiya, passim
.

²⁶
O.D
. Yanushkevitch to Ivanov 24th April; cf. Palitsyn, ‘Dnevnik’ (cit. chapter 1) III, 158–185 esp.p.158; Bonch-Bruyevitch II pp. 92, 98. 122f.

²⁷
Bonch-Bruyevitch II pp. 110 and 139. Dragomirov’s version: ‘Po povodu odnoy zametki’ in
Voyenni sbornik
(Belgrade) VI (1927) pp. 152–7.

²⁸
Pflanzer-Baltin,
Tagebuch
Mappe 1 (of 14.10.1914).

²⁹
Meanwhile, three divisions left this front for Italy, with Boroević’s army command. On overall strategy: K. H. Janssen:
Der Kanzler und der General
(Göttingen 1967) and H Meier-Welcker:
Seeckt
(Frankfurt 1967).

³⁰
This retreat—entirely voluntary—appears in the Austro-Hungarian official history (vol. 2) as a great Austro-Hungarian success. There were, on the contrary, frequent Austro-Hungarian reverses both in this theatre and in the central theatre, west of the Vistula. v. D. Parski. ‘Operatsiya 30 korpusa na Prute’ in
voyenno-ist, sbornik
1920, 3, pp. 44–63 and 1921, 4 pp. 23–45; Grishinski: ‘25 korpus’ in ib. 1919, 2 pp. 37–9 and G. Korolkov:
Forsirovaniye reki
(Moscow 1935). Of course, these Russian victories were ultimately unimportant, indeed withdrew strength from the main theatre, as
Stavka
continually grumbled.

CHAPTER SEVEN

¹
I. Mayevski:
Ekonomika russkoy promyshlennosti v usloviyakh pervoy mirovoy voyni
(Moscow 1957) p. 63; cf. N. Golovin:
Voyenniye usilii Rossii
(2 vols. Paris 1939), a long demonstration of this

²
A. L. Sidorov :
Ekonomicheskoye polozheniye Rossii v gody pervoy mirovoy voyni
(Moscow1973) p. 16f. very fully documents, particularly with material drawn from the commission investigating the management of things by Sukhomlinov, Smyslovski etc. the account of A. A. Manikovski:
Boyevoye snabzheniye
esp. vol. 3 pp. 26, 76 etc; v. below, chapter 9.

³
Sidorov:
Ek. pol
. pp. 5–6 and Barsukov:
Russkaya artilleriya
vol.1 p. 17.

⁴
Sidorov: ‘Stroitelstvo kazennykh zavodov’ in
Istoricheskiye Zapiski
No. 54 (1955) p.159

⁵
Manikovski vol. 1 pp. 25, 70. To calculate needs of rifles is more difficult than with shell. It is probably safe to conclude, for spring 1915, that 200,000 rifles per month were needed, against the 50,000 (at best) being supplied.

⁶
Korolkov:
Przasnysz-skoye srazheniye
(Moscow 1928) p. 12; cf. Reichsarchiv:
Der Weltkrieg
vol. 8, passim, for Gallwitz s army.

⁷
Manikovski vol. 3 p. 88; p. 66f. for deliveries; Kondzerovski p. 6f. Barsukov:
Podgotovka
p. 100f. on organisation.

⁸
N. Kozlov:
Ocherk snabzheniya
p. 107.

⁹
Khmelkov:
Borba za Osowiec
p. 61f.

¹⁰
Osobiye zhurnaly sovieta ministrov
(Henceforth: SM.) 1914/259 of 17th October.

¹¹
Langlois,
rapport
No. 2 of 10th April 1915,
Fascisule
2 p. 9; cf. Hanbury-Williams’s statement of 29th December 1914 to Buchanan in FO. 371. 2446 (Russia: War: 1914). Blair (despatch No. 73 of 4th August 1915, WO. 106. 977 appendix A) reckoned that Clergue, for the Canadian Purchasing Syndicate, had had orders for five million shells as well. For
RAOAZ
: SM. 1915/145 (27th February) and 645 (24th August); cf.D. McCormick:
Pedlar of Death
(London 1966), on Zaharoff.

¹²
Hanbury-Williams to Buchanan 1st March (and memorandum) in FO. 371. 2447; cf. 2447, Buchanan’s despatch of 5th March 1915 with Knox’s views; Blair also defended
Vickers, though he disliked them (Nos. 70, 15th March 1915, WO. 106.994 and 68, of 23rd February 1915, WO. 106.992). Clerk’s minute appears on Buchanan’s despatch of 5th March, and Langlois (
rapport
No. 2) was also highly critical of Vickers. A good Russian view is Sidorov’s Otnosheniya Rossii s soyuznikami i inostran. postavshchikami’ in
Istoricheskiye Zapiski
No. 15 (1945) pp. 128–79.

¹³
Manikovski vol. 1 p. 44–5 and vol. 3
prilozheniya
7 and 11; Sidorov: Ek. Pol. p. 20.

¹⁴
Manikovski vol. 1 p. 55 and 3 p.179; Percy’s minute on Buchanan’s despatch of 6th May 1915 in FO. 371.2447; cf. Ignatiev:
50 let
vol. 2 p.119f.

¹⁵
The most thorough investigation of the whole financial question is Sidorov’s
Finansovoye polozheniye
(op. cit. chapter 1), and my own account owes virtually all to it.

¹⁶
Β. Bonwetsch:
Kriegsallianz und Wirtschaftsinteressen. Russland in den Wirtschaftsplänen Englands und Frankreichs 1914–1917
(Düsseldorf 1973) pp. 45–58; generally, G. Hardach:
Geschichte der Weltwirtschaft im 20. Jahrhundert 1: der Erste Weltkrieg
(dtv. 1973).

¹⁷
D. S. Babychev: ‘Deyatelnost russkogo pravitelstvennogo komiteta v Londone’ in
Istoricheskiye Zapiski
No. 57 (1956) pp. 276–92, which complements Sidorov’s work on ‘otnosheniya’. There are some pertinent memoirs by Russians: I. Gaidun :
Utyug
(New York 1918)—the title, which means ‘iron’, refers to Flatiron House, the Committee’s headquarters; A. Zalyubovski:
Boyevoye snabzheniye
(Belgrade, stencil, 1932 in the Hoover Library, Stanford) which in general repeats Manikovski, but with some interesting points about the activity of War-Industries-Committee representatives; V. Fedorov :
V poiskakh orudiy
(Moscow 1964) which has interesting statements about missions to Japan, and the Entente powers, but also contains much that is inaccurate (e.g. that ‘Second Army had almost no artillery’).

¹⁸
Langlois:
rapport
No. 2 fasc. 4 p. 4; Ignatiev vol. 2 p. 202 and Blair No. 65 of 23rd January 1915, WO. 106.989 cf. FO. 371.2447, Wyldbore-Smith’s comment on Hanbury-Williams’ memorandum of 27th February.

¹⁹
A. Knox:
With the Russian Army
(2 vols. London 1921); Sidorov:
Ek. pol
. p. 246ff. is a thorough investigation; Babychev p. 28of.; Manikovski vol. 3 p. 183; Sukhomlinov:
Dnevnik
pp. 232 (7th May 1915);
Mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya v epokhu imperializma
series 3 vol. 7/1 p. 3off. (January to March 1915, on supply); Sidorov: ‘krizis vooru-zheniya’ in
Istoricheski zhurnal
1944/10–11 pp. 33–57. Overall, Russian officials found that foreigners charged much more for shell than they were used to paying. Clergue offered it at $17 each, the Bethlehem Steel Company at $22. For similar instances of foreign profiteering, Mayevski pp. 50, 67, 128.

²⁰
v. below, chapter 9.

²¹
The most substantial work on this conference is Sidorov’s—
Fin. pol
. p. 240ff. and
Ek. pol
. p. 310ff. but cf. V. Yemets: ‘Petrogradskaya konferentsiya’ in
Istoricheskiye Zspiski
No. 83. FO. 371.2095 contains Buchanan’s view (Russia: War: 1917) esp. Locker-Lampson’s remarks to him of 19th March. There are a number of English comments. The delegates were appalled at Russian inability to manage committees, and at the same time felt that the great round of banquets etc. was designed to close their eyes both to the confusions of the conference and the signs of revolution outside it:- S. Hoare:
The Fourth Seal
(London 1930); A. M. Gollin:
Proconsul in Politics
(London 1964); C. E. Callwell:
Henry Wilson
(2 vols. London 1927); R. Bruce Lockhart:
Diary of a Secret Agent
(London 1930); D. Lloyd George:
War Memoirs
(1938 ed. p. 928ff.);
History of the Ministry of Munition
vol. 10 part 3 (1922) and vol. II part 4 (1921) discusses, very thinly, the question of British supply.

²²
Zalyubovski p. 25.

²³
My account of this problem owes most to reports of British and French observers. In print, there is not much—a few remarks in the British official
History of the Great War
vol. 5 (1931) by H. Newbolt, Sidorov: ‘Zhelezno-dorozhny krizis’ pp. 32f Ushakov
op. cit
. p. 40f. The most thorough investigation is Langlois’s in
rapport
No. 6, of 16th June 1916, appendix 2, ‘Voie ferrée et traînage vers l’extrème Nord’, and there are other good French reports in Carton 77 (v. note on sources)—nos. 8560, by Du Castel, 7961 by Lavergne and a further unnumbered study (‘Possibilités de transport…’) between nos. 10794 and 11106 which appears to be signed ‘Guibert’. On the British side, Blair’s despatches are the fullest: Nos. 71–74 (17th July to 7th August) WO. 106.995–998 incl. and 78 (7th September) WO. 106.1001 cover the attempts in 1915 to set up a railway to Murmansk, by an English company, Paulings, which was alleged to have got the contract because its chairman was a brother of the English commander-in-chief (the chairman’s name was Lord Ffrench, not an easy transliteration). Nos. 90 (10th January 1916) and 91 (16th January)—WO. 106.1012–3 cover Archangel and the sledge-routes, with the report of Major Hallward; cf. No. 95 of 30th March 1916 (WO. 106. 1012). My source for the reaction of the Council of Ministers is SM.—1914/161 10th September opened the discussion, absurdly, with a suggestion that Archangel might be used as a port for export of grain. The subject came up again in 1914 Nos. 259 and 269 (October), 326 (November), 424 (December) and 1915 Nos. 9 (January), 88 (February)—when the picking-around momentarily gave way to visions of a new Ob-White Sea railway system—290 (April), 558 (July), 658 (August), 672 (September), 785/828 and 839 (October), 1076 (December).