What would consequences (both immediate and long-term) of a Central

Nothing because they absolutely had no chance of winning.

Austrian army was a pathetic mess that couldn't even take on Serbia alone. Germans had to fund fucking Bolsheviks in order to bring Russia down, and even once they were free of the Second front in 1918 they couldn't mount a proper offensive against the French.

>>3296877
Unless the Germans won a stunning victory over the entente by the end of 1916, there was no hope of "victory". I say Germans because the AH forces are completely worthless.
Germany had no chance in hell of successfully invading Britain, so even if the government of France surrendered Britain could take over the French forces and continue the fight until Germany starved to death from the blockade. Germany had no manpower by 1917 to occupy France and enforce its demands. After 1916, the very best they could hope for was a white peace with a return to status quo.

So assuming Germany successfully destroyed the UK forces against the channel and captured Paris while successfully fending of Russia by 1916:

(cont)

>>3296948

France would be stripped of most, if not all of her colonies since their Navy can't match Germany's. They would have to renounce their claims to Alsace and Lorraine and pay a hefty war indemnity. This would be fucking devastating to France, which really needed a victory over Germany after what happened in 1870. France might undergo a mirror of Wiemar Germany in the 1920-30s, where the government is too weak to do anything, and disgruntled veterans and paramilitary gangs dominate politics.

Since Italy never suffered massive losses that led to a Fascist Revolution, Fascism as we know it may never have come about. Italy would probably remain as a regional power. It might even turn neutral like the Swiss.

Russia would probably lose whatever it would have lost in the Brest-Litovsk treaty (formation of the Baltic States), plus some additional territory would be lost to the Ottomans. Poland would possibly be created as a buffer against Russia in the future. Nicky would probably be forced to abdicate out of political pressure. Russia would be wracked with revelotion, but no soviet takeover of Russia because Lenin is still rotting in prison. It's possible that communism never really gets as far as it did.

The Ottomans and AH carve up the Balkans, it probably won't last long anyway since AH and the Ottoman Empire are both rotting carcasses. Expect genocides.

>>3296958
If the Central powers won spectacularly, they might even take the Suez from Britain. Otherwise Britain would probably get away with just paying war indemnities and maybe losing a few minor colonies. Germany really has no way of enforcing any territorial gains from them since they still have a bigger Navy and they're on better terms with the Americans. Ireland sensing weakness in Britain might ramp up efforts for independence though.

Germany then waltzes over to Asia with her untouched fleet and rapes Japan as punishment for fucking with their holdings there. No German worship in Japan, Sino-German cooperation likely comes into place earlier and stronger than it did irl.

Basically everyone gets fucked except Germany and Wilson never sticks his little pissant nose into international affairs.

>>3296958
> France might undergo a mirror of Wiemar Germany in the 1920-30s, where the government is too weak to do anything
French government was fucked in our own timeline where they won, I think it's a definite it would collapse to either communism or fascism if it lost

>>3296948
I don't know if Britain would have continued the war if France and Russia had capitulated since World War I was a far less existential struggle than World War II and since Britain and Germany were each other's most important trade partners before the war. I suspect Britain would end the war and let Germany keep its European gains in exchange for annexing at least some of Germany's colonies (New Guinea, Samoa, Tanganyika to complete the Cape to Cairo railway). That probably also means white peace with Japan and Portugal.

>>3296967
Would France have been able to start a second world war and conquer large swathes of land in the way that Germany did, though?

>>3297007
France wouldn't have the demographics to do what Germany did, at least not by themselves

>>3297007
If it were 1917 and later, then yes I believe Britain would've continuing fighting they would've had invested too much by then and the public after years of propaganda would not accept a "friendly" peace agreement with Germany.

The French army and general public were eager to see the war through to the end. They had not been under blockade, so they were not as desperate for peace as the Germans. Any surrender by the government would be seen as a betrayal. France replaced its own government several times throughout the war when they believed its leadership was prosecuting the war poorly. Surrender simply wasn't an option by 1917.

>>3297027
I see. So to win the war Germany has to force the surrender of either France or Russia before the effects of the British blockade set in (through either the Schlieffen Plan succeeding or a Russia-first strategy)

File: captured-german-a7v-tank.jpg (3MB, 4217x3117px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4217x3117px

Are there any functioning WWI tanks left?

>>3297072
Before the effects of the blockade REALLY set in (since really they already "set in" by 1915) yes, but also before they exhausted their manpower reserves. Without reserves, you can't take offensives and without offensives the best you can hope for is peace, not surrender.

By 1917 Germany had reduced the number of riflemen in a division from ~11,500 to ~6,500 in order to maintain their army structure.