DBWI: No First World War. How does this effect the War of Secession?

What it says on the tin. What happens that, for whatever reason, the First World War in Europe is avoided and therefore President Seward doesn't make the insane decision he made OTL of supporting the Prussians and Russians etc vs France and Britain etc, therefore bringing the latter two onto the side of the Confederates? Most historians agree that after this, the Union cause was effectively doomed as the Royal Navy was able to break the US blockade and from henceforth a great deal of the Union Army was tied up in Canada. So, WI there is either no FWW or the Original War of Secession doesn't effectively become an extension of the European conflict? How does this effect the Union's chances of victory vs the Confederates, or as has been mentioned, is a US President with better diplomatic skills and with a less hawkish attitude (Lincoln?) needed to win? Discuss...

OOC: POD is that Seward wins the Republican nomination for the President in 1860. Meanwhile, butterflies cause a large war to break out in Europe which the developing Civil War in the US later becomes an extension of after President Seward foolishly sides with the Russians and Prussians to prevent the British and French assisting the Confederacy. Shit happens...
 
OOC: ...what?

So the Great Powers just randomly go to war, because of the lulz?

I know this is meant as a DBWI, but it's hard to immerse one's self into an alt-world when that alt-world is confusing.

IC: I'm not sure how Lincoln would have done much better. Okay, so he's not Seward, but the US is in a terribly difficult situation even without the foreign problems. Nothing about Lincoln's career up to this point suggests any great grasp of strategy or politics on this level. And don't even get me started on that crazy alt-history where someone dug up this obscure Grant fellow. Or maybe they made him up, I lost interest after he took Vicksburg. Freaking insane. This is alternate history, not fantasy - you can't just take a nobody and say he had a natural gift for leadership just because.

OOC Again: Yes, I'm serious on Lincoln - it's ironic but true. Same on Grant, because taken out of any and all context, his career should never have been this good.
 
Last edited:
OOC - First if you want to discuss there not being a WWI this should be in the post 1900 sections. Second an event not happening in the 1910's cannot effect an event in the 1860's. What you means to ask is along the lines of 'How does a different American War of Succession effect World War One?' Third this is not a DBWI. Those involve asking about a real event from the point of view of a time line where it is fantasy. An example would be 'What if Adolf Hitler had risen to power in Germany?'
 
OOC: ...what?

So the Great Powers just randomly go to war, because of the lulz?

I know this is meant as a DBWI, but it's hard to immerse one's self into an alt-world when that alt-world is confusing.

OOC: No, the chance for a large war in the 1860's was quite high. IOTL or example, we had Italian Unification, the wars surrounding German Unification, the January Uprising in Poland etc in Europe plus overseas there was the US Civil War, the Taiping Rebellion in China and the War of the Triple Alliance in South America. Also, i do believe there's a TL here with this premise (a large war in the 1860's) but i can't remember it's name.

And sorry if it was a bit confusing.
 
ooc: how the fuck, would no first world war prevent the civil war which happened 50 years earlier?
 

Zeldar155

Banned
OOC: I love how people ignore the fact that this world's "WW1" was in the 1860's and start going on about how events in the 1910's can affect the 1860's. :p
 
OOC: Exactly, read the OP as well as the title :rolleyes:

Uh, no, how about instead rewording the title to 'How does a different American Civil War change events?' Which seems to be what is ACTUALLY being asked here. Don't complain when people read 'First World War' and actually think you mean the First World War. If someone writes 'What if Hitler were to live to be 75?' and it turns out they are talking about Frank Hitler who was born in Cleveland in 1892 don't complain if the readers make a false assumption based on a misleading title. If this is about an AU was that takes place earlier then fine but don't refer to it as the First World War.
 
OOC: No, the chance for a large war in the 1860's was quite high. IOTL or example, we had Italian Unification, the wars surrounding German Unification, the January Uprising in Poland etc in Europe plus overseas there was the US Civil War, the Taiping Rebellion in China and the War of the Triple Alliance in South America. Also, i do believe there's a TL here with this premise (a large war in the 1860's) but i can't remember it's name.

And sorry if it was a bit confusing.

OOC: There's a difference between regional conflict (Italian unification, German unification, uprisings in Poland), and Russia + Prussia vs. Britain and France in some great, consuming coalition war - aka, a WWIish scenario.
 
OOC: In addition to what Elfwine said, the tensions which caused a massive WW1 scenario simply did not exist in the 1860s. To bring Britain into a continental war, you need a state which threatens to upset the balance of power to such an extent that Britain's own interests are badly compromised, and neither Pre-Schleswig, Pre-AP-War Prussia, or the North German Confederation was that power. Russia's ability to be such a power was shown to be completely non-existent in a pre-POD war not ten years earlier, the Crimean War.

In general, as a good rule of thumb, in DBWIs, less is better.
 
What it says on the tin. What happens that, for whatever reason, the First World War in Europe is avoided and therefore President Seward doesn't make the insane decision he made OTL of supporting the Prussians and Russians etc vs France and Britain etc, therefore bringing the latter two onto the side of the Confederates? Most historians agree that after this, the Union cause was effectively doomed as the Royal Navy was able to break the US blockade and from henceforth a great deal of the Union Army was tied up in Canada. So, WI there is either no FWW or the Original War of Secession doesn't effectively become an extension of the European conflict? How does this effect the Union's chances of victory vs the Confederates, or as has been mentioned, is a US President with better diplomatic skills and with a less hawkish attitude (Lincoln?) needed to win? Discuss...

OOC: POD is that Seward wins the Republican nomination for the President in 1860. Meanwhile, butterflies cause a large war to break out in Europe which the developing Civil War in the US later becomes an extension of after President Seward foolishly sides with the Russians and Prussians to prevent the British and French assisting the Confederacy. Shit happens...

OOC: Interesting premise but this isn't quite a DBWI, though.
 
Without the Royal Navy on their side, I fear that the Confederacy is doomed. They might put up a good fight, but I can't see them getting independence.

OOC: Do the US and CS become archenemies, or do the US have a similar relationship to the CS as they do with Britain and Canada OTL?
 
Top