Who would have won if these were the sides in WW1?

Boring and makes no sense. The Three Emperors club was an Ideological alliance of Authoritarian monarchies, no one ever thought for a moment it was an actual military alliance.

Left might still win if France can hold the front. That means more deaths and perhaps the UK committing more men to the war effort but it's not an impossible task considering how Germany shredded the Russian Army in 1914.

First of all, what about our turkish brvthers?
It would most likely still be a stalemate which would force negotiations thus making the war short.

Attached: 2.jpg (480x731, 64.05K)

Considering that the UK entered the war, i assume that Belgium gets Schlieffen'd in this timeline too. In our timeline, Germany almost marched onto paris, but were repelled, after which the front turned into the trench stalemate we all know and love. The reason for this was that a large amount of german forces were pulled to defend against the russians in Prussia, who werent even needed in hindsight because the russians got clapped by Hindenburg.
In a world were Germany could have concentrated their whole force on the western front before Trench Warfare was a thing, they probably would have steamrolled right through Paris, defeating France.
Italy was almost defeated in our timeline aswell so they wouldnt have stood a chance, without continental allies.
The british blockade wouldnt achieve much with that russian food coming in.

Central Powers win. Without US intervention, the Central Powers might even have won in our timeline.

Even then, not conquering Britain wouldn't mean not winning the war. With France out of the race, the Dreikaiserbund would have total continental hegemony, meanwhile all the British could do is seethe on their island, and have heavy losses against the Prussian and Russian fleet.
Entirely plausible. Just as plausible as an alliance with Britain could have been, had Wilhelm not cut all ties with Bismarck's former agendas. The main reason why Germany wanted war against Russia was to thwart it becoming an industrial powerhouse, and obviously because of Russia's aspirations in the Balkans, primarily Serbia, against the interests of Austria-Hungary. In any case, I don't quite see the need why you would have to debooooooonk my fictional map, as if you were some dungeons and dragons lore master.
France barely managed to hold the front against Germany, and could halt the German advance only with the combined force of the Brits, a few kilometres outside of Paris. If Germany had dedicated its entire war effort to the Western front, they would have made quick work of France. Plus, Russian reinforcements would join the offense, anyhow.

>France barely managed to hold the front against Germany, and could halt the German advance only with the combined force of the Brits, a few kilometres outside of Paris
All wrong, French reservists routed the German army during the First Battle of the Marne. British support was minimal until 1916.

So, the Germans weren't that close to taking Paris? Dare I say... cope?

Attached: Le drinks.png (413x395, 142.33K)

Perhaps they would have if they'd won that battle, though historians aren't all in complete accord. If you look at both German offensives during WW1 (Schlieffen Plan and the Kaiserschlacht), they were extremely costly and achieved very little due to overextended lines of communication. I don't see how adding extra Russian soldiers would fix the logistical issues faced by the Central Powers that eventually forced them into a stalemate that cost them the war.

>I don't see how adding extra Russian soldiers would fix the logistical issues faced by the Central Powers that eventually forced them into a stalemate that cost them the war.
It changes everything. It would have turned WW1 from a 2 front war to a single front war, if you ignore the military aid they provided Austria-Hungary with in the Balkans, and partially Italy. In fact, the Germans very likely wouldn't even have needed Russian reinforcements as this user stated right here , considering they could have just dedicated their entire war efforts to the Western, and in this timeline, only front. The British blockade by sea wouldn't have been fruitful either, given Russia's favourable agricultural disposition. I'm thinking the Dreikaiserbund would have broken your baguette, Pierre.

Attached: Vaccination not required.png (364x209, 18.42K)

Why is that even a question? In our timeline the entire big grey thing in the east was blue and we still almost won

The total number of men who were fighting on the Eastern Front in 1917 was 3.48 million, including 1.21 million Germans and 2.27 million Russians. Let's say those 3.48 million men make their way to the Western Front, would Germany feed all those Russians using their highly modern railway system? Or would they borrow grain from Russia (given their "favourable agricultural disposition"), notwithstanding the fact that Russian soldiers had to travel an average of 1,290 kilometres to reach the front during the mobilisation in 1914, which means that supplying soldiers with Russian grain would be at least 3 times slower? Sounds like a great way to increase the stress on Germany's overstretched supply lines actually.

The First Battle of the Marne was hardly winnable for Germany, because there was a limit to how many divisions they could muster so deep into French territory, without the advantage of using their own railroads. Such logistical problems gave France a significant numerical advantage in the key battles of the Western Front: Marne, 64 French divisions and 6 British divisions facing 51 German divisions. Verdun, 75 French divisions against 50 German divisions.
Russia's huge, untrained army might give the edge to the Central Powers during the trench warfare phase, after the Schlieffen Plan failed, but since this is an alt-history scenario, I don't see why the British wouldn't commit more men to the front than they did in real life since the numerical imbalance is now greater.