Mutual class references in C++ - c++

Question

There's some code at my company that takes the following form:
class ObjectA {
public:
ObjectA(ObjectB &objectB): objectB(objectB) { }
void Initialize() { ... }
private:
ObjectB &objectB;
};
class ObjectB {
public:
ObjectB(ObjectA &objectA): objectA(objectA) { }
void Initialize() { ... }
private:
ObjectA &objectA;
};
Basically, two classes have a mutual dependency on the other.
This in itself isn't what bothers me, (although it's not great design IMO), it's that the mutual dependencies are passed through the constructor by reference in both situations.
So, the only way to actually construct this pair of objects (they are both required in the application) is to pass an incomplete reference as a dependency. To account for this, the separate Initialize methods are added as a 2nd stage constructor which are then called after both objects are created. Consequently, the constructors often times do nothing except assign the constructor parameters to the object internals, and initialize everything in the Intizialize method.
Although the code may be valid, my inclination is that this is a fundamentally flawed design for the following reasons:
The state of a dependent object can't be guaranteed in the
constructor
It requires the developers to make an additional call to Initialize
It precludes the use of compiler warnings that check if member variables have been initialized
There's nothing preventing Initialize from being called multiple times, which can result in strange, hard to track down errors
My coworkers tell me that having a separate initialize method simplifies the object construction since the developer doesn't have to worry about what order objects are declared in the application root. They can be declared and constructed in completely arbitrary order since everything is guaranteed to be valid once Initialize gets called.
I've been advocating that object construction should follow the same order of the dependency graph and that these objects should be redesigned to remove the mutual dependency, but I wanted to see what the SO gurus had to say about it. Am I wrong to think this is bad practice?
Edit:
The way these classes actually get constructed is through a factory class like below:
Factory {
public:
Factory():
objectA(objectB),
objectB(objectA) {
}
private:
ObjectA objectA;
ObjectB objectB;
};

Answer 1

This is bad practice yes. Passing a reference to objectB for objectA to work with while it's not properly initialized yet is a no-no.
It might be standard compliant and safe code now because ObjectA doesn't try to access the passed reference to ObjectB in its constructor but that safety is hanging by a thread. If later on someone decides to just initialize in the constructor or access anything from objectB, or change it any other way where objectB will be used you end up with UB.
This sounds like a use case for pointers that are reseated after both constructors have run.

Answer 2

I too don't like the code as posted - it is unnecessarily complicated and fragile. There is usually some concept of ownership when two classes cooperate like this, so, if objects of type A own objects of type B (which they probably should), then you would do something like:
#include <memory>
class A;
class B
{
public:
B (A& a) : a (a) { }
private:
A& a;
};
class A
{
public:
A () { b = std::make_unique <B> (*this); }
private:
std::unique_ptr <B> b;
};
Live demo