What would the world be like today if the confederates won the civil war and WWI never ended? Think of some ideas. ;)

What makes you think World War I would never end?

Well... I really don't know. Just imagine Germany was able to hold its own, or Russia was not in the war.
Also, who do you think the Confederates would side with? Germany, or Britain?

IIRC Turtledove said that US would side on the Central Powers, and the Confederac would be with the Allies.

And there is no war that will never end. Eventually, one side would run out of manpower, or the will to fight.

HA, you read Harry Turtledove... well so do I. Love those books, especially the WWII Pacific ones. Ok, off topic.
That would be what I would think too, seeing as Britain helped out the confederates in the Civil War.

What would the world be like today if the confederates won the civil war
The skies would fall, the core of the Earth would explode, and Mankind would be wiped from the face of the Universe for allowing such iniquity to survive. There would be a good deal of :trouble:.

But seriously, positing the survival of the Confederacy is sort of like saying "what if Liechtenstein conquered the world 111LOLZORZ". It was never a question of Rebel survival, it was a question of how long it would take before their abomination was destroyed. The ratio of force to space alone (along with naval superiority of the Union) means that they couldn't hold off the Federals forever in a war, and combined with terrible social problems and an utter lack of an industrial base, they were pretty much doomed. They also lacked a genius on the level of Friedrich II to win battles for them. Lee was no genius; a solid professional, yes, but not a visionary. And Jackson was altogether too visionary and far too erratic...winning a brilliant victory in the Shenandoah Campaign one month and then utterly failing in the Seven Days' Battles the next, while ordering thousands of Makedonian-style pikes for his soldiers to use because he thought that melee combat, not gunfire, was what would really win battles.

BUT assuming that said abomination does manage to survive long enough to reach a First World War...and assuming that European politics aren't irrevocably altered by the outcome of the American Civil War (which they wouldn't be; the effect on the French campaign in Mexico alone would be earth-shaking)...then Turtledove's posited scenario for the Great War makes some sense. America allying with the crazy Germans, while the Entente picks up the Rebels.

The skies would fall, the core of the Earth would explode, and Mankind would be wiped from the face of the Universe for allowing such iniquity to survive. There would be a good deal of :trouble:.

But seriously, positing the survival of the Confederacy is sort of like saying "what if Liechtenstein conquered the world 111LOLZORZ". It was never a question of Rebel survival, it was a question of how long it would take before their abomination was destroyed. The ratio of force to space alone (along with naval superiority of the Union) means that they couldn't hold off the Federals forever in a war, and combined with terrible social problems and an utter lack of an industrial base, they were pretty much doomed. They also lacked a genius on the level of Friedrich II to win battles for them. Lee was no genius; a solid professional, yes, but not a visionary. And Jackson was altogether too visionary and far too erratic...winning a brilliant victory in the Shenandoah Campaign one month and then utterly failing in the Seven Days' Battles the next, while ordering thousands of Makedonian-style pikes for his soldiers to use because he thought that melee combat, not gunfire, was what would really win battles.

I understand and agree with what you said about the two sides. The Confederates never had the means to survive the war; I also believe that, had the Union had a competant commander after the Seven Days' Battles, the war would have been over in 1862.

Needless to say, the Union lacked generals, and the Confederacy had them. Now, I am not a fan of Lee at all, but there were a few possibilities of Confederate victory. They are all, though, what-if's - such as a different result of Early's campaign in Maryland, a different result at Atlanta, etc. The war came precariously close to being lost in 1864 (no thanks to Grant's bloody party in Virginia). Had one thing gone differently, then maybe there was a shot. You could look at countless what-ifs.

All I am saying is, that I agree that the Confederates did not have a chance to hold out against the Union in a sustained war; but politics was also a key factor, and a few changes could have occured that swings the war differently.

Yes, those are what-ifs. I doubt many, if any, would have won the war for the Confederates. Just posing the idea.

Well... I really don't know. Just imagine Germany was able to hold its own, or Russia was not in the war.
Also, who do you think the Confederates would side with? Germany, or Britain?

Britain and France had the manpower, economy, and capability to win the war on their own. Our arrival only hastened the German departure.

Britain and France had the manpower, economy, and capability to win the war on their own. Our arrival only hastened the German departure.

I believe, by 1917, France was facing mutiny in their army. I think only the arrival of the US saved the war.

Britain and France had the manpower, economy, and capability to win the war on their own. Our arrival only hastened the German departure.

I believe, by 1917, France was facing mutiny in their army. I think only the arrival of the US saved the war.

I'm not an expert, but I have ben told by much greater authorities that WW1 did not require American intervention whatsoever.

WW2, on the other hand, did, for the allies to launch a successful invasion. Whether Russia could have beaten the Germans alone is a question that is beyond me.

Needless to say, the Union lacked generals, and the Confederacy had them.
Sherman, Phil Sheridan, Reynolds, Hancock, and, yes, Grant were all solid general officers.
They are all, though, what-if's - such as a different result of Early's campaign in Maryland,
Monocacy and the campaign surrounding it were really more of a diversionary raid; Early didn't have enough men to do much of anything. Be like saying that the Soviet Union could have lost the war on the Eastern Front had the Lake Balaton offensive been more successful.
a different result at Atlanta, etc.
Comparatively irrelevant; Sherman had the numbers and the troop quality, and Forrest's raids against his supply lines (such as they were) largely came to nought. Failure to capture the city quickly would have just meant that Atlanta would have been seriously damaged in an assault or siege (no big loss :p).
The war came precariously close to being lost in 1864 (no thanks to Grant's bloody party in Virginia).
Mmmmmnotreally. Sheer numbers do tell a lot. Rebels were running out of ammunition, of weapons, of trained troops. On the other hand, the Union weren't really dipping their hand into the bottom of the barrel just yet, and they had technological superiority in addition to their manpower and weaponry ones (and in leadership, though that's an entirely different and highly subjective - even more so than this discussion - debate).

It is my firm belief - and that of Paul Kennedy, who is extremely cool (:D) - that the United States of America was the most powerful nation in the world in 1864 and 1865. We had mobilized our resources effectively for the first time in our history, we were comparable to many of the European states technologically, and we had a huge, war-trained, and well-led army and navy that was scoring increasing victories over the rebels. When the US demobilized after the war and went into Reconstruction mode, we lost the top spot, but the performance of the Federal armed forces in those years was a clear indicator and bellwether of how strong the US would turn out to be in the next century.

Too, unlike some previously-doomed countries (Prussia in 1762, for example), the US didn't have any allies that were going to switch sides. The rebels didn't command a whole lot of support among any other major nations. Yes, Britain and France believed it would perhaps be advantageous to have the Confederacy win and survive, but they weren't going to put anything on the line for them even when the Army of Northern Virginia was racking up victories in the first few years of the war, so they certainly wouldn't provide a deus ex machina in 1864 or 1865.

A political resolution was highly unlikely. Lincoln was going to see things through, and McClellan was a complete failure at election time - he didn't even win his home state, and only picked up Delaware, New Jersey, and Kentucky (not sure about the last one). And Copperheads had been virtually run out of town.

Frankly, I think all of this "Confederacy survives" business is just wishful thinking without much grounding in history. Sure, it could have won the war, but it wasn't within the realm of probability even from Day One.
Britain and France had the manpower, economy, and capability to win the war on their own. Our arrival only hastened the German departure.
Very true. France in particular was an even more militarized state than Germany was at the start of the war. Niall Ferguson - who is a little off in my opinion, but who can still come up with some interesting ideas - has said that a key motivating factor in German strategic thought in the prewar years was an increasing belief that France and the UK would overtake them and they'd be left entirely in the dust, a thought process mirrored, of course, on the other side. So the Reich may have gone to war partly to prevent the French from gaining any more of an advantage.
I believe, by 1917, France was facing mutiny in their army. I think only the arrival of the US saved the war.
They were facing mutiny in their army, but the situation was restored without the aid of American troops. And Ludendorff's offensive was too badly managed in the first place to capture Paris even without the Marines and the US Army popping up inconveniently at Chateau-Thierry and Belleau Wood.

I'm not an expert, but I have ben told by much greater authorities that WW1 did not require American intervention whatsoever.

WW2, on the other hand, did, for the allies to launch a successful invasion. Whether Russia could have beaten the Germans alone is a question that is beyond me.

Well, I believe that the British Blockade won the war for the Allies, and as such American aide was not required there.

However, there is the question of the Spring Offensives of 1918 succeeding if the Americans were not there. Would they have? I have no idea. Just my two cents.

Well, I believe that the British Blockade won the war for the Allies, and as such American aide was not required there.
Mmmm...I'd go with a mixture of the blockade, the Germans' own errors, the French refusing to just lay down and die, and a similar level of Russian tenacity. (If they'd gone out of the fight in 1915 or 1916, it wouldn't have been pretty.)
However, there is the question of the Spring Offensives of 1918 succeeding if the Americans were not there. Would they have? I have no idea. Just my two cents.
Not really. Ludendorff had an okay concept that he refused to follow in practice, and instead decided to waste men on strongpoints as opposed to his original plan of only reinforcing success. A large portion of the elite German sturmtruppen and the veterans from the Eastern Front were wasted in this manner. In addition, the supply lines across what had once been no-man's-land were not especially good. In short, the Germans had numerical superiority but they basically squandered it by failing to concentrate effectively.

Too, unlike some previously-doomed countries (Prussia in 1762, for example), the US didn't have any allies that were going to switch sides. The rebels didn't command a whole lot of support among any other major nations. Yes, Britain and France believed it would perhaps be advantageous to have the Confederacy win and survive, but they weren't going to put anything on the line for them even when the Army of Northern Virginia was racking up victories in the first few years of the war, so they certainly wouldn't provide a deus ex machina in 1864 or 1865.

I agree that neither Britain or France had the slightest interest in intervening in the war in 1864-65 (nor for that matter during the second half of 1863) but I disagree that they had no interest in doing so earlier in the conflict. The following exchange took place after 2nd Bull Run but prior to news of Antietam reaching the UK.

94 Piccadilly: September 14, 1862

My Dear Russell, The detailed accounts given in the Observer today of the battles of August 29th and 30th between the Confederates and the Federals show that the latter got a very complete smashing; and it seems not altogether unlikely that still greater disasters await them, and that even Washington or Baltimore may fall into the hands of the Confederates.

If this shoud hapen, would it not be time for us to consider whether in such a state of things England and France might not address the contending parties and reccommend an arrangement upon a basis of seperation?

Yours sincerely, Palmerston

Gotha: September 17th 1862

And Russell's reply:

My Dear Palmerston, Whether the Federal army is destroyed or not, it is clear that it is driven back to Washington and has made no progress in subduing the insurgent states. Such being the case, I agree with you that the time is come for offering mediation to the United States Government with the view to the recognition of the Confederates. I agree further that, in the case of failure, we ought ourselves to recognise the Southern State. For the purpose of taking so important a step, I think that we must have a meeting of the Cabinet, the 23rd or 30th would suit me for the meeting.

We ought then, if we agree on such a step to propose it first to France, to Russia and other powers as a measure decided upon by us. We ought to measure ourselves in Canada, not by sending more troops there, but by concentrating those few we have in a few defensible posts there before Winter sets in. I hope to get home on Sunday, but a letter sent to the Foreign Office is sure to reach me.

The letters could provide an interesting discussion by themselves, but leaving that aside for the moment they show that intervention was seriously considered at that point by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. News of Antietam cooled any suggestion of intervention and the Emancipation Proclomation, coupled with later Union successes in 1863 put a freeze on it altogether.

I believe, by 1917, France was facing mutiny in their army. I think only the arrival of the US saved the war.

The situation was remedied before the Americans arrived, which was in 1918.

To be clear, this was not the first mutiny on either side during the war.

I'm not an expert, but I have ben told by much greater authorities that WW1 did not require American intervention whatsoever.

WW2, on the other hand, did, for the allies to launch a successful invasion. Whether Russia could have beaten the Germans alone is a question that is beyond me.

Russia already outpaced Germany industrially by the start of Barbarossa, which grew into two and threefold advantages by 1942-43. While Lend-Lease is often hailed as being what saved the Red Army, in fact it never totalled more than 15% of their total production, and the only real direct contribution was trucks and locomotives, which gave the Reds mobility.

Well, I believe that the British Blockade won the war for the Allies, and as such American aide was not required there.

However, there is the question of the Spring Offensives of 1918 succeeding if the Americans were not there. Would they have? I have no idea. Just my two cents.

That's what I mean by "they didn't need us."

I think the Civil War was close to being lost in 1864. Grant's campaign in Virginia had cost the Union 60,000 men in one month. Think about that, if you were a civilian back then - 60,000 men lost in one month. That is unprecedented. Could you imagine what you would have thought back then. Plus, the fact that, with those 60,000 men lost, Grant was no more closer to taking Richmond than McClellan was in '62 would have arroused serious concerns about the war.

Both major Union armies were involved in sieges in '64. And I know you have a knack for history, and as such you know that sieges are boring, and bring no results quickly.

The reason McClellan did so badly was because Sherman took Atlanta. That swindled the political scale in Lincoln's favor.

I think the Civil War was close to being lost in 1864. Grant's campaign in Virginia had cost the Union 60,000 men in one month. Think about that, if you were a civilian back then - 60,000 men lost in one month. That is unprecedented. Could you imagine what you would have thought back then.
I would have thought something along the lines of "it's like Roma after Cannae, but instead of losing much of southern italia to the invader we are getting closer and closer to Richmond!" :p Yes, that one month was pretty bad. But while it was definitely more than a drop in the ocean of Union manpower, it wasn't a debilitating loss and the Confederate losses in both position and manpower - manpower being Lee's only remaining resource - were extreme. Grant traded position and some material for a lot of material in the chess game of the American Civil War, and it was just as valid a series of moves in a historical sense as it would be on a chessboard, because it got him control of the long diagonals and a rook into the back rank. ;) The Union advantage in numbers decreased in absolute terms, true enough. But Lee had proportionally far less men at the end of the Overland Campaign than he did at the beginning, and he was extremely lucky that he was able to retreat into prepared positions in front of Richmond and Petersburg that allowed him to conserve forces somewhat and scrape up enough men to allow Early to launch his extended raid. (While Grant was allowing Sheridan to do the same in the Shenandoah, with a far greater moral and material effect than a minor victory at Monocacy and a few shots fired on the outskirts of DC.)
Plus, the fact that, with those 60,000 men lost, Grant was no more closer to taking Richmond than McClellan was in '62 would have arroused serious concerns about the war.
Yes, but it's not a valid comparison. In 1862, the Union hadn't tried the seaborne approach yet, so they were able to complete what was essentially a strategic coup. In 1864, they still had possession of positions on the Peninsula that were walled in by Beauregard and manned by a terrible general and political appointee, Butler. It was because of McClellan's failure that Grant's job became so much more difficult and costly.
Both major Union armies were involved in sieges in '64. And I know you have a knack for history, and as such you know that sieges are boring, and bring no results quickly.
The fact that the Confederate troops, which were far less numerous, were also tied down in a siege defense that they couldn't win was more important: Lee lost his mobility and was fixed where Grant wouldn't have to try any fancy maneuvering to fight him in a battle that the Confederates might win. The Union, with its far superior engineer corps and well-developed artillery (Porter Alexander having to work with far inferior pieces by now, and far fewer), had the inherent advantage in any siege. Boring, slow, and a sure win is infinitely preferable to exciting, fast, and risky. Only when the advantages of manpower, supply, technology, or position lie with the enemy does a rapid, risky action become advisable, or even necessary.
The reason McClellan did so badly was because Sherman took Atlanta. That swindled the political scale in Lincoln's favor.
True. I fail to see how that wasn't virtually inevitable though.

It wasn't inevitable though. I agree that the south could not hold out forever. But I think Atlanta could have been held until after the election.

Plus, you are looking at the campaign in a military fashion. Thats nothing wrong, but think about it: the civilians are the ones doing the voting. And most don't understand/don't care that Lee is going to lose the war through Grant's strategy. All the civilians see is a bunch of bloodshed.

It wasn't inevitable though. I agree that the south could not hold out forever. But I think Atlanta could have been held until after the election.
The rebels had less than half the manpower and more than two months to wait (by the time Sherman's campaign ended; it's more like three to four if you take the entire thing from the start of operations against Atlanta to the end), and Atlanta was no Petersburg. I mean, if Sherman suddenly got stupid or 'removed' by sniper fire, I suppose it's possible.
Plus, you are looking at the campaign in a military fashion. Thats nothing wrong, but think about it: the civilians are the ones doing the voting. And most don't understand/don't care that Lee is going to lose the war through Grant's strategy. All the civilians see is a bunch of bloodshed.
Yes, I understand the political dimension, but they [civilians] were an awful lot more predisposed to agree with bloodshed so long as it got them somewhere (and even sometimes if it didn't get them somewhere) as compared with the modern day's postheroic warfare, where the most miniscule casualty count is paraded as an utter failure and a disaster.

It wasn't inevitable though. I agree that the south could not hold out forever. But I think Atlanta could have been held until after the election.

Ok, I know that the South could not win the Civil War, but remember, this is alternate history. Just say for a moment that they did win. With the United States caught up fighting the Confederates during WWI, there would be no one to keep Germany in check, and WWI would never end. Ya know, this would make a pretty darn good Scenario. Everyone keep a look out for a Future WWI Scenario coming out soon!

And if I'm wrong, sorry for being the 13 year old kid that I am! :crazyeye:

With the United States caught up fighting the Confederates during WWI, there would be no one to keep Germany in check, and WWI would never end. Ya know, this would make a pretty darn good Scenario. Everyone keep a look out for a Future WWI Scenario coming out soon!

And if I'm wrong, sorry for being the 13 year old kid that I am! :crazyeye:
A few people have made the point that France and Britain didn't need American support to win the war against Germany. But if you are wrong, then it's no big deal, because you're in good company; Harry Turtledove thinks the same way you do, and since he's sold loads of books and earned a good chunk of money, he must be onto something. :p

True, true that.

Ok, I know that the South could not win the Civil War, but remember, this is alternate history. Just say for a moment that they did win. With the United States caught up fighting the Confederates during WWI, there would be no one to keep Germany in check, and WWI would never end. Ya know, this would make a pretty darn good Scenario. Everyone keep a look out for a Future WWI Scenario coming out soon!

And if I'm wrong, sorry for being the 13 year old kid that I am! :crazyeye:

No, its fine. I am actually supporting you, that this is possible. :)

A few people have made the point that France and Britain didn't need American support to win the war against Germany. But if you are wrong, then it's no big deal, because you're in good company; Harry Turtledove thinks the same way you do, and since he's sold loads of books and earned a good chunk of money, he must be onto something. :p

If we are ever invaded by alien idiots I know which books I'll be turning to as plausible!

Ah Mr Turtledove, just because you have no idea about how naval warfare doesn't mean aliens won't be able to work it out...

Also +1 for the 'if the confederates win then WW1 as it was is unlikly' brigade

A war that never ends? WTF is this?

A war that never ends? WTF is this?
Yes, it does detract from the overall quality of the OP. My thinking is that he meant to ask what would happen if the United States were tied down fighting the Confederacy and unable to affect the outcome of the war in Europe.

Would the Confederacy even be able to hold out in a World War I style fight? I doubt a trenchline could be drawn across the continent; and besides, would the Confederates even have the manpower to survive in a modern war?

Would the Confederacy even be able to hold out in a World War I style fight? I doubt a trenchline could be drawn across the continent; and besides, would the Confederates even have the manpower to survive in a modern war?
No. Certainly not compared to the United States. They also lacked the industrial and resource base.

The thing is, by World War I's time the Confederacy would have needed to solve the immense social issue of slavery, something whose mechanics are extremely important. (And they will have had to do so, and grapple with the resulting strife - because whichever choice the leadership picks, there will be strife - and hope and pray that the vengeful United States doesn't come down and whoop they'ass. Which they will.) Regardless, they will still have to deal with the relatively disenfranchised (:p) blacks somehow, and I don't believe their chances for doing so in the middle of a war are very hot.

BUT. Assuming the Confederacy can survive the American Civil War relatively intact. Assuming said nation is not destroyed between the 1860s and the next European war. Assuming said war takes the characteristic of a unified Germany fighting against an alliance of France and Britain (with whatever other combos there may be there). And assuming the course of that war goes in a similar fashion when compared to World War I in the original time line. All extremely large assumptions that any legitimate counterfactual historian would have migraines about. Said Confederacy would not be able to stand up to the United States, barring the appearance of a Southern version of, say, Friedrich II; but the process of destroying the rebel abomination would likely consume the attention of the United States long enough for it not to have an impact on the European conflict. Whichever way that goes.

Yes, it does detract from the overall quality of the OP. My thinking is that he meant to ask what would happen if the United States were tied down fighting the Confederacy and unable to affect the outcome of the war in Europe.

I MEANT if WWI kept going until past WWII because the united states could give no help, and Germany would keep conquering more and more territory. WWI never ends is another way of saying that there would be no interwar time between the first and second world wars.

I MEANT if WWI kept going until past WWII because the united states could give no help, and Germany would keep conquering more and more territory. WWI never ends is another way of saying that there would be no interwar time between the first and second world wars.
And what reason is there, exactly, for any modern, large-scale, industrialized total war to last that long? The lack of a United States to 'give help' to the Western Allies in the First World War wouldn't ensure the extension of the war. Germany was rapidly being tired out. The war was going to end in 1918 or 1919 if only because the Germans had to win the war before the British blockade strangled them.

Ok, ok. I see you guys are a very tough crowd. It may be true that Germany would have been tired out. But, just for the heck of it, say Russia joined the Germans.

A war that never ends? WTF is this?

Diety Locked Alliance Always War?

Diety Locked Alliance Always War?

:lol:

Or a full of himself Greek Warlord (Quintillus) that wants to wipe you off the face of the Earth.

Hey man, Greek warlords with an excessively high opinion of themselves aren't all bad. :p
Ok, ok. I see you guys are a very tough crowd. It may be true that Germany would have been tired out. But, just for the heck of it, say Russia joined the Germans.
Then Germany wins...:confused:

I don't really understand what you're trying to do here. There are very few major wars that have lasted the twenty-five years you would need from 1914 to 1939, and those mostly took place in a much earlier time when warfare didn't absorb as much of the state's ability to continue fighting at such an incredibly high rate. If you're just trying to get Germany to win lots of stuff and conquer janx really fast and be in a position to rival the United States, I kinda made a NES that sort of connects to that, but there's no Confederacy - actually, the PoD was that the rebels died faster...:mischief:

Long and short of it is, Gettysburg ends up more decisive, allowing the Union to finish the war in 1864, although there is consequently significant rebel partisan activity following Lee's surrender. This allows Lincoln to intervene in Mexico earlier, just in time for Napoleon III to figure out what von Bismarck is doing with Prussia and the North German Confederation...and now he's not stuck in the mire of Mexico either, so he can do something about it. France forces a few concessions from Prussia at the peace ending the Seven Weeks' War - namely, the formation of a 'South German Confederation' by Bavaria, Baden, and Wurttemberg - and also successfully places Maximilian on the Spanish throne, ending the Carlist wars. This sets the stage for the reentry of the UK into Continental politics with Gladstone at its head, doing that thing that British Liberals tend to do and get involved in foreign affairs; the NGC, Britain, and Russia form an alliance against the Habsburgs, France, Spain,the SGC, and the Ottomans and when the Balkans flare into war in the mid-1870s it turns into a general European conflict. Which the UK-NGC-Russian alliance wins.

End result by 1925: Germany is the "Grossdeutschland" solution, made up of the entirety of the old Germanic Confederation plus East and West Prussia, Schleswig and Holstein, and the remainder of Istria and missing the chunk of Belgium. They also snagged colonies - more colonies, including South Africa (the Brits always regretted that deal when the Germans found gold and diamonds in the Transvaal a few years later :p) - because they had virtually no enemies in Europe itself. Russia developed much as OTL but with a closer relationship to Germany and with extra territories in Europe, namely Austrian Galicia and Bessarabia, while Wallachia is puppeted. They also seized a goodly chunk of Manchuria (more than what they got anyway). Qing China is a British ally and trade partner. Britain itself has drawn closer to France, but is largely the same as OTL pre-WWI except it controls Mesopotamia, much of the Levant, and the Red Sea coast. France is under the government of the Empire still and retains Alsace-Lorraine but other than that not much changed. Spain is under the Habsburg dynasty and descendants of Maximilian, who were thrown a bone after Austria was absorbed into the gigantic German Reich. It has somewhat revitalized and retaken Mexico after a brief war against President Custer's United States. Said United States has militarized a good deal, partly due to the need to combat the Confederate resistance in the 1870s and 1880s (which allied itself to many of the Plains Indians, causing no end of headache to the Federals) and partly out of humiliation at getting kicked out of Mexico while trying to prevent Franco-Spanish aggrandizement. They have moved closer to Germany and Russia. Finally, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following the Macedonian War of the 1910s left in its place a powerful Greece (with Smyrna and much of Thrace, but not Constantinople), a powerful Bulgaria, and a quasi-Yugoslav Serbian state. Hungary has a loose hegemony over the Balkans and is usually allied to the Russo-Germans. Oh yeah, and Italy sided with the Northern Allies during the 1870s European war and got beaten badly, reversing the nascent unification and splitting up into a (northern) Italian Confederacy and a (southern) resurrected Kingdom of Two Sicilies. Much of the rest of the world stayed fairly similar.

That probably won't help much or you won't read it, but I had fun remembering what I wrote a year ago.

Britain wouldn't sell south africa silly - the imperative is to control all routes to India.

Don't think i want Germany to win... it would just be cool for a alternate history scenario.

I have also found infromation that the Allies were on the brink of defeat when Russia left the war...until the United states joined.

They have moved closer to Germany and Russia. Finally, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following the Macedonian War of the 1910s left in its place a powerful Greece (with Smyrna and much of Thrace, but not Constantinople)

Sounds like a fine scenario.

I have also found infromation that the Allies were on the brink of defeat when Russia left the war...until the United states joined.According to my source, this is exactly the kind of lack of citation that links cigarette smoking to global warming. And millions.

Britain wouldn't sell south africa silly - the imperative is to control all routes to India.
Hey, I wrote it a year ago. What can I say? :p I suppose I went a little overboard with what Gladstone would give away in the wake of the Great European War, yes. Turned out to have rather disastrous effects for the Anglo-Franco-Spanish alliance in the game...
I have also found infromation that the Allies were on the brink of defeat when Russia left the war...until the United states joined.
You have 'found information'. Huh. That's nice. What do you actually know about Operation Michael?

Nothing. Please enlighten me.

I don't suppose your source of information, which apparently discusses WWI and how "the Allies were on the brink of defeat when Russia left the war [...] until the United states joined," doesn't discuss what happened in detail (even in passing--yeeeaaah) to back up its conjecture (okay, maybe that's too strong a word)?

Well, anyway, Wikipedia is always a nice primer (read: introductory text) for almost anything. Since history buffs are likely to read and edit those sorts of articles, they'd be detailed and factual (or multifaceted) enough at some point.

Its true, not very much detail. I was recently reading a WWI stories book that said it.

If the US was split then i think that the whole world would be changed. Obviously if the Confed marched into DC then some really bad (insert curse word here) must've gone down. Anyways about WW1. I think sooner or later they would finally realize that the war was useless, but not from the military. Unrest in Germany Britian and France would've skyrocked if the war kept on going on the path that it did. I mean battles were each side just charged right into machine guns and barbed wire???? No sense. Neither side could exploit and victory so the war wouldve been just to see who could last the longest. And if somehow it kept going then sooner or later civil unrest would've cirppled at least one country. The US on the other hand would probably end up in a Cold War status between north and south.