Guys
A few ideas and suggestions.
Welcome.
a) A French attack through Belgium has been discussed before. Its highly risky at least without some prior agreement with Britain to turn a blind eye, which could well cause political problems in Britain. However if, as they almost certainly would, Germany attacks in Poland then its a lot more likely. With France suffering ruinous losses and making no measurable progress against the A-L fortifications and Russia probably calling for aid - the reverse of OTL situation, then the French might be desperate enough to try something like that. Especially if they thought, rightly or wrongly, that Britain had hinted they would turn a blind eye or that Britain was too tied up in a crisis in Ireland possibly.
Good points.
b) Not sure about either Italy or Turkey. In TTL its much more favourable for both of them to side with the central powers. Britain will probably, in such an unstable situation, still seek to neutralise the ships being built for Turkey. However what will the Goeben, at least if that or a similar ship is in the Med, do under those circumstances. Even with Italy still neutral and with no British fleet pressurising it, the Germans have far more potential. Presuming a Britain still worried about German influence and its fleet, it would seek to try and keep the Ottomans neutral but OTL Enhva Pasha seemed to have been determined to get Turkey into the conflict on the German side.
True. That's also why I see a CP Turkey rather more likely than neutrality. Like Italy, they have rather more to gain from gangbanging the Entente powers than from staying neutral, and a favourable opportunity to get revenge on an hereditary enemy without too much risk by seding with a powerful alliance.
Its far more in Italy's interests to side with the Germans but they do want those lands from Austria.
They want them, but it's not the unreasoning rabid urge that France has for A-L. France has plenty of stuff Italy wants, too, almost with the same intensity. The only way to gain some of the stuff Italy wants is to enter the way and with this strategic setup Italy has much more to gain and less to risk from siding with her old allies. The Austrian claims can wait for the next favourable opportunity.
The other factor to consider was that only 3 years before Italy and Turkey were at war and there might be enough bad feeling that one deciding would prompt the other to go the opposite way.
This may be true (really only as it concerns Turkey, to Italians there is not going to be any bad blood whatsoever, Trukey largely went off Italy's radar the moment the peace was signed, to them fighting the Ottomans was only incidental to getting their coveted Libya prize). But then again, Russia is the hereditary enemy of Turkey, while Italy has been an occasional scuffle. Who re you goign to hate more, the guy that has been bullying you for years or the guy with whom you had an occasional fistfight an hour ago ?
c) Can't see Germany, even with Italy on its side, doing much to seriously blockage France for two reasons. It has a large battle fleet but relatively little and short-ranged supporting forces. Hence a mission around Britain would mean leaving the ships involved with very little protection from subs or light forces. Also in the Atlantic they have no bases to use while if they go to a friendly Italy they are a long way from home if something goes wrong.
Well, this is true. Germany's High Command may or may not have the balls to send the HSF in the somewhat risky mission in the Atlantic to reach Italy. If they do not, the HSF stays rotting and useless in Kiel for the duration of the war and it simply shows how building it was abysmally stupid in the first place. If they do, I suppose they might lose some units at the most from French subs, but then again, this is the only way the HSF can be put to some good use in the first place, so losing some units is better than have them useless. I rather doubt the French could destroy the whole HSF or inflict it really severe losses this way, however. Rationally, they stand to gain rather more from sending the HSf to the Mediterranean the moment Italy declares war. On the other hand, even assuming they suffer some losses, once they reach the Italian ports, they are almost as good as Kiel, any supply can be easily shipped by rail. Their window of relative vulnerability is limited to the first transfer. Once they can base in Naples or La Spezia or Taranto they are as good as home.
Furthermore if Britain is neutral it, like the US until it joined the war, would emphasise neutral shipping rights. It would want to trade with both sets of combatants, along with affected neutrals such as the Scandinavians and Belgium/Netherlands. Furthermore with the largest merchant marine in the world much of this trade would be in British hulls. Neither side would wish to lose that trade with the outside world or antagonise the most important neutral so unlikely to be much of a trade war.
This is also very true, a true blockade of France is not going to be feasible unless the UK and/or the USA are CP-friendly neutrals. However, the CP can still use their pooled navies in the Mediterranean to ruin France's day by cutting communication between France and her colonial empire. Besides allowing Italian and German troops to swallow French colonies one piece at a time, it stops France from moving colonial troops to the French fronts. Since France's worst problem in this war shall be her relatively limited manpower pool against the Italo-German combination, this is going to harm them significantly.
d) Presuming Russia comes under pressure from a German offensive and possibly a Turkish threat in the Caucasus region it will suffer. However it will do relatively better on the defensive than trying to attack. Also if the German/Austrian forces start advancing into western Russia proper they both the supply lines favour the defending Russians more and there will, at least in the short term, be an upsurge in Russian patriotism. Furthermore the Ottomans had a less than distinguished record in the Caucasus's so probably will not pose too great a threat there. I would expect in a long war they will very likely still go down to defeat, especially without British support. However its not going to be easy to the Germans without major mistakes by either or both allies.
Very true. OTOH, one must not neglect the possibility as well that Romania and/or Sweden can see the writing on the wall and decide they want their preferred slices of the Russian pie. You are right that this is not going to be an easy (months) affair, it's going to take some years to bring France and Russia on their knees. However, without major mistakes by the CPs, they have very little hope.
As such the central powers are almost certain to win without a major boost to the allies but its likely to take at least until 1916 and be pretty damned costly in blood and money for both sides.
Oh, I very much agree on this. However, the cost in blood and money will be somewhat minor since the war is going to last less (and there won't be the blockade of Central Europe): Russia is most likely going to collapse in 1916, early 1917 at the very latest, and France simply can't stand almost the whole manpower of the Triple Alliance (minus whatever may be necessary as an occupation force in ex-Russian territories) thrown against her for long. The war itself is going to be any as bloody and expensive while it lasts as OTL, since military technology and tactics won't change, but it's going to spare Europe at least one year in comparison.