Neither Germany nor Austria were on the surface virulently anti-simetic places, at the very least compared to pogrom-riddled Russia. While political anti-semitism was certainly on the rise in both Germany and Austria-Hungary, it had yet to reach its zenith during Nazi Germany. Anti semitism was thus limited to retoric in the Austria half of the Dual Monarchy and to institutional discrimination in Germany (mainly in the army and civil service. In the army, Jews were primarily used for non-combat positions since they were considered 'less manly', for example), as shown by the Judenzahlung. Jews in both countries were noted for being well integrated into broader society and politically active, particularly among liberal and leftist circles. That is to say, anti-semitism was on the rise in Austria and Germany, yes, but saying that they were completely antisemitic is wrong. On how they would weigh in on Zionism, I could see it going either way depending on their relationship with the Ottomans post-war.
The Ottoman Empire on the other hand is a different can of worms. They certainly didn't like continued Jewish settlement in the Levant, but were generally too lethargic to really crack down on settlement. The outbreak of war changed this, as Enver Pasha issued several restrictive measures on Jews in Palestine. This had the effect of pissing off the collective Jewish community off so much that their leaders offered to help the British get intelligence about the Ottomans. Post war, the Ottomans would probably try to restrict Jewish immigration to Palestine and depending on their characterization could even issue an edict of expulsion. How effective this would be in an Ottoman state collapsing under its own weight is up to you.
I remember hearing about the Germans stopping pogroms in Russian Poland during the war, and I read about them also stopping an Ottoman pogrom. I also remember reading that Germany and Austria-Hungary were actually LESS anti-semetic than Britain at the time.
It could be very ugly at first. While the militarism and racism of the German Empire has sometimes been exaggerated, especially in view of the later record of Nazi Germany, those tendencies were already present. If WW I is a quick and decisive CP victory, I would expect those tendencies to increase. - and to be imitated elsewhere.
Those tendencies didn't exist in Germany to a greater extent than in other countries at the time. People tend to confuse Wilhelm's brinkmanship with actual militarism and desire for war, despite Germany going 26 years under him without a war. As for racism, Germany wasn't any more racist than everyone else at the time, and OTL's Entente victory didn't vindicate racism.
The OP includes Turkey in the victorious CPs, so the PoD has to be after October 1914, which means stalemate in France and a long war. Or maybe no. Suppose the "Schlieffen Plan"[*] came up short as OTL, so the war continues through October and Turkey gets dragged in. But just short - the Germans held their ground near Paris, with much heavier Allied losses. A renewed German attack in November encircled Paris, which falls in early 1915. The Allies gave up, very unhappy but apparently with no choice.
[*] Schlieffen never actually formed a "plan", only a general proposal for attacking France via Belgium - with substantially more troops than were employed OTL. The actual plan was formulated by Moltke.
On this point, I remember reading about a proposal Schlieffen drew up on
this AH post about his actual plan for a 2-front war.
Germany would demand return of its colonies, and also additional territory from France, Belgium, and the UK. What could they get? French Equatorial Africa and Belgian Congo have been suggested; that would unite German Kamerun and Ost-Afrika.
In a quick war I don't see very many gains being made. The Entente wouldn't want to see a German belt across Africa after all.
WRT to the UK - Germany can't enforce its demands on Britain; their only leverage is the PoWs they hold. One suspects they would go easy on Britain, asking only for return of SW Africa, Papua, and Samoa.
Would the South African dominion be willing to give up SW Africa? By the end of the war the dominions were de-facto independent countries, who even signed the peace treaties separately, unlike 1914. And the governor of South Africa was pretty vehement on his stance regarding Namibia.
Russia's position is ambiguous: a humiliating defeat in Prussia, a major victory in Galicia, and another victory in the Caucasus. They can at least say that the other Allies lost the war. Germany might demand independence for Congress Poland, or the return of Kars to Turkey.
Even in a late war scenario, as late as December 1917 Russia would only lose Congress Poland, Courland, Riga, and Lithuania. The maps I've seen disagree on where the border is, with is being somewhere between the Curzon Line and interwar Poland's eastern border.
France is miserable - almost certainly subjected to huge indemnities, and disarmed.
I doubt they would be disarmed; after years of bloody war, the French would've lost two wars in 50 years, and their great power status was in doubt already.
Germany is cock-a-hoop. The social and cultural prestige of the Army will be higher than ever. Anglophobia will be rife.
In an early victory, maybe. The Kaiser had promised voting reform in Prussia in 1914, before the stalemate. And even if the army's prestige is high, that doesn't inherently enhance militarism and authoritarianism. The army was kept separate from civilian administration before the war, and the H-L dictatorship was based on the 1851 Prussian Siege Law, which wouldn't apply once the shooting stops. In a late war victory, no. Years of devastating war have essentially made the army a "people's army," and the old guard would be thouroghly discredited.
Britain wil be bitter and germanophobic. German war crimes in Belgium will be a much Bigger Thing than OTL, because there won't be 3 1/2 additional years of horrific war taking up people's attention. Also many Belgian refugees will stay in Britain.
I doubt it. People didn't make a big deal of anti-partisan shootings during the Franco-Prussian War or the Napoleonic Wars, and it's not like the Entente was clean either. Britain will certainly be germanophobic though.
Belgium will be turned into a German satellite - possibly subjected to indemnities for the "crime" of resisting German invasion.
The UK will do anything it can to prevent this, as a German Belgium is essentially a gun aimed up the Thames. And they have quite a lot of leverage, from access to global markets to German colonies.
In the longer term: many nations will be inspired to copy German militarism. Even in Britain, some will argue that 1914 showed Britain needs to "militarize". The naval arms race between Britain and Germany will resume and accelerate.
"German militarism," such as it was, also existed in France. Germany wasn't any more militaristic than the other great powers. Heck, France tried to build a coalition consisting of Germany and Russia to oppose Britain at the turn of the century! Britain was also plenty militaristic; it just went to the navy instead of the army.
Will tghere be another Great War? One would think so, but how and when? No one in Europe would dare challenge Germany, but Germany would have very limited reach outside Europe.
I don't think so. If there is it would look a lot like WW2 in 1929-1940, with swift, motorized campaigns. Technology would evolve to prevent such a stalemate (I would argue that it would do so even without WW1).
In the US: very probably the Republican wins in 1916 - it might even be Roosevelt. With the US not at war, no massive state interventions in the economy, and no witch-hunts against alleged German sympathizers and war resisters (Eugene Debs isn't imprisoned). Probably no Red Scare. Also very likely no Prohibition: IMO it was in part pushed as a wartime measure to improve social order and productivity.
Agreed on this.
