Per the OP the invasion of France is off the table and by the time Russia is dealt with it wouldn't likely even be a viable option to try and invade given French defenses and mobilization, plus the likely chance that Russia and France would negotiate as a bloc to get the best deal possible with strong British encouragement.
Again you're talking about the way politicians thought about these issues, not the average person or the average socialist. Most of them weren't thinking in that direction, especially given that they didn't see the benefit of dying for the Russian Czar, regardless of balance of power concepts that historians, generals, and politicians concerned themselves with.
Also Power Politics was hardly confined to Germany it would just be the situation that France would have a hard time playing that game without a powerful Russia, which generally would suit the average socialist just fine; why wage wars of aggression for the aggrandizement of politicians?
Guess that indemnity wasn't huge if the French were able to pay it off quickly. Sounds more like it was a reasonable price for a war France started, much like the response to the Napoleonic wars and quite a bit different than the ToV. Why would we see France crushed quickly? They'd be defeated at the German border per OTL and probably keep bashing away until it became politically unacceptable. Russia would be smashed and France would probably try to negotiate then and deal with the political fallout of the defeat. Given that Germany too didn't want a long war they'd probably just demand some border adjustments or colonies for peace and recognition of the annexation of Luxembourg. That and maybe destruction of the border forts. Not unreasonable. Unlike OTL without a major invasion of France imposing anything resembling the Septemberprogramm.
France was a country with colonies, but it had a lot of investments that weren't liquid cash; in fact much of France's capital was tied in its Russian investments. The issue with France isn't their ability to finance purchasing within the country it is their ability to pay for imports from others. They could perhaps get lines of credit from Britain, though that is debatable, which gets them coal and whatever else Britain has to export, but the important stuff like food and oil will have to come from the US. So unless Britain is willing to provide dollars to a country which might well be unable to pay it back given the war situation, France is going to be in a very tough spot once their initial invasion fails and their political issues play out. French military production wasn't really all that impressive until 1916 btw, which is likely well after the war would be decided.
Britain still has the home rule crisis to deal with if they don't participate in the war:
en.wikipedia.org
So they might well end up in a semi-civil war ITTL. Specific British politicians and naval officers might have thought Germany the main threat, but Britain wasn't a dictatorship, so don't expect that absent Belgium being invaded that they'd be able to do much other than financial support for the Entente to a limited degree and putting onerous terms for their neutrality on Germany (entirely denying the English Channel to German warships but not French ones for instance). Again you're viewing this through the lens of politicians and high level officers rather than the average person who wouldn't have any interest in a shit-fight among continentals that didn't really involve their immediate interests.
It is actually possible for the Germans to switch their plans quite quickly if needed. HL did point that out and I have seen the argument before, so they don't need to do it years in advance. But if you want to discuss that scenario we can. So Russia and France know that Germany is headed East...so what? As I pointed out in 1915 that was the case and the Russians were unable to stop a much weaker German force. IOTL only about 45% of the German army was in the East including the 11th army in 1915, while ITTL it would be more like 80-85% of the German army. In IOTL 1914 it was only about 10% in the first couple of months of the war and they wiped out the Russian 2nd army despite being grossly outnumbered. What do you think is going to happen with 800% more troops and the entire CP siege train?
What more preparations do you think they could do with the forts? They were already building them up from 1912 onwards! Once the war starts there will be no time for building of major earthworks either, so what sort of defenses are you thinking they could conjure up?
As to the 1915 situation both Germany and Russia had suffered heavy losses already and Germany was mostly tied down in the west and was facing heavy assaults that very nearly cracked their line in 1915 while they were attacking in the east, so I don't see where Russia was worse off in 1915 than they would be ITTL 1914. Also the German offensive was launched in the Austrian sector in 1915 with Austrian troops (Gorlice-Tarnow), so I don't get where you think that the situation in the German sector mattered.
What are you taking about with an Austrian offensive through the Carpathians? The 1914 offensive they launched was in Galicia, beyond the Carpathians. They already had major rail lines through the passes, so OTL offensives were logistically fully supported without trouble. The issue was the gap in rail lines between Russia and Galicia on the Russian side of the border. That didn't stop the Austrians from trouncing both the 4th and 5th Russian armies in August; it was only the lack of German troops to draw off the Russian reserves as had been promised IOTL that ended up screwing the Austrians. Had they had the bulk of the German army in support in 1914 then their August victories would be compounded and the Russians decisively beaten since the Russians would lack reserves to stop them. That is even with the diversion to Serbia and Conrad's OTL stupidity in deployments in Galicia.
No doubt the CPs would take losses in their offensives, the question is relatively how much. IOTL the Germans were able to attack and defeat the Russians even in prepared defensive positions in prime defensive terrain without much issue:
en.wikipedia.org
Second Battle of the Masurian Lakes - Wikipedia
Even in the battles where the Russians won it took them outnumbering CP forces more than 3:1 and they still took more than 2:1 casualties to do so!:
en.wikipedia.org
And then went on to smash the Russians once again:
en.wikipedia.org
What foreign reserves do you think France had? They had colonies, but their capital was tied up in loans to Russia.
Britain might well not be all that favorable to the Entente either if they think going to war would cause them to lose. Without Belgium and British entry into the war it is unlikely the British would think the Entente could win and that by going to war it would be foolish since Russia would end up getting smashed up in the process and upsetting the balance of power.
Not sure why you'd think this would be a long war without Britain as an active participant given that France will likely have major internal issues stemming from this being viewed as a war of aggression by socialists who were planning on major strikes to stop intervention and Russia very likely getting defeated early and repeatedly without French armies being able to achieve much. Even with British financing this is a nightmare scenario for the Entente, as the French can't really break the German border defenses thanks to terrain, prepared defenses, and lack of heavy artillery, nor can they use their full strength given the length of frontage, and the Russians get trounced by 80-85% of Austrian and German forces. Once that becomes clear and the Entente realizes it is going to not be able to win, perhaps even more clear once the Ottomans and Italians join in, they're probably try to get out at the first chance to minimize their losses.
BTW I've completely forgotten that Italy would be treaty bound to participate in the war given that France would be attacking Germany first. So that means France has to deal with Italy too and Austria is freed up of having to worry about Italian entry. IOTL Italy was able to wiggle out of their obligations because Germany declared war first on France and Italy had a treaty with France that either would stay neutral if the other was attacked first. So France would actively court war with Italy, which likely means Italy then attack Tunisia (a major source of tension between them), drawing off major forces from France and creating even more political problems for France internally and the Entente in general.
Sure.
I'm sure there will be, but again what money did Russia have to pay for it? How much do you think the British public would tolerate being loaned out by the government, especially once Russia starts losing? Would the US support Russia at all without the Germans invading western Europe? Remember the Russians are the autocrats here and the least liked by Democracies.
So yeah, a CP occupation is actually going to be an improvement for many of the natives except perhaps the Russians themselves, but then those areas are unlikely to be occupied by the time Russia cuts a deal. The Poles of course wouldn't be happy with anything but self rule, but with a Kingdom of Poland with just a foreign monarch they should be pretty happy (other than the power seeking nationalist leaders) since they would have the most self rule in several hundred years.
If the Russians start retreating they'll go full scorched earth as that was their traditional tactic; more organized in the retreat just means more scorched earth.
It is more detailed and since it is their history they would have more context for it. Plus since modern Germans are probably the most critical of their past I'd say they're more likely if anything to be even less inclined to be sympathetic to their ancestors' leadership.
So basically little to no interest other than making money. Still given that there were a lot more Germans, Austro-Hungarians, Jews, and Italians in the US than Russians and French there might even be political pressure to support Germany in some way.
Right, so the average Brit would be interested in staying out of the war and probably more concerned with the Irish situation.
What would limit the CP gains is the Entente negotiating before things got too bad for them. Honestly though I think in this situation the Entente would be stupid to go to war if they know the Germans are heading east and Britain won't be able to participate on their side and Italy will have to join the CPs.
Germany didn't want a long war either, just to win a quick series of victories, humiliate their foes, and prepare for the next round. That was the entire basis of the Schlieffen Plan because they knew that in a long war it would be rather ruinous for them and perhaps eventually incite the German Left to get more politically active (as did happen).
Sure and they had been building ships, but Britain didn't care. It was only after the threat of having budget cuts by the liberals for more social spending and the need to build a new BB fleet after the Dreadnought that suddenly German naval spending became a problem. Britain did initiate the race by declaring German spending on a modern fleet a danger to them and then spending a lot more than the Germans. The Germans even sought to make a treaty to stop a race and Britain told them to eff-off because they had the 'nerve' to ask Britain to not join in on an attack on Germany:
en.wikipedia.org
How is Germany the problem there?
I'm still surprised how some 21st century books still have that bias. Certainly we're seeing much more balanced works out there now, but in the 1980s-90s the problem was most certainly still there.
They sought to break regional identities:
en.wikipedia.org
The movement of population after 1871 from A-L was mostly French settlers and government officials who returned to France proper. Some ethnic Germans did move too, but that those were a minority of those who did move. You're right those that they didn't necessarily feel German, but their local language was a German dialect, so it was only French that was done away with.
Germany did nothing similar with their own regional languages (couldn't due to the political structure of Germany). They did of course try to suppress the Polish separate identity however, but that was linked to Polish support of France in the Franco-Prussian war:
en.wikipedia.org
The Kulturkampf though only lasted from 1872-78, so some of that ended, though part of it continued to WW1.
You're basing that on...?
What do you mean the Reichstag couldn't influence military spending? They literally made the budget! They just spent more because of the threat of Russia was growing due to their military expansion, which they once again boosted in 1914 in the largest spending increase on an army in Europe during the entire arms race to that point.
Russia was just as militaristic and in fact initiated a major military spending in 1913:
A detailed account of Russia and the First World War that includes includes images, quotations and the main events of the subject. Key Stage 3. GCSE World History. Russia. A-level. Last updated: 8th July 2022
spartacus-educational.com
New weapons produced during the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s heightened existing tensions among European nations as countries strove to outpace their enemies technologically. This armaments race accelerated in the decade before 1914 as the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary...
encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net
Of course.