Entente propaganda efforts in the USA were very good, German efforts were terrible which certainly caused some swing in US public opinion. Absent the Zimmerman Telegram, a direct threat to the USA, and the resumption of unlimited submarine warfare, the USA was not going to jump in to the war because they saw an Entente victory as more favorable than a CP one. Given we can agree, I think, that absent the USA coming in you won't get a Diktat peace from either side, but a peace that, at least in the west, is more or less status quo antebellum, is that really worse for the USA than what happened.
As far as how much comes to the CP from the occupied east, it is a net gain for them, and as well not having active fighting along that front means expenditures of men and materiel there is markedly reduced. Just looking at food, yes the same number of soldiers have to fed, whether they are in the east or west (assume the numbers don't decrease overall) however loss and wastage is reduced, this is always worse in an area of active combat. Will active resistance really be that bad for the Germans? Hard to say.
As far as Macedonia goes, yes the "front" was there. However since the Entente can no longer put anything like the resources in to that front they did OTL, given the terrain and other factors this front will probably be relatively inactive and much less of a bleeding sore for the CP.
Both sides are going to reach a state of exhaustion, and I don't think either side will "win" at least in the west. I don't think the Entente will be able to enforce a reversal of B-L like they did OTL, and I don't think the CP will be able to keep much if any of what they occupy in the west. What happens in the Balkans is murkier (depends on who has the weaker position when they sit down at the table). The Ottomans are toast no matter what absent a CP "win". A-H after the war is a real question, however they won't be cut up by the victors.
As far as how much comes to the CP from the occupied east, it is a net gain for them, and as well not having active fighting along that front means expenditures of men and materiel there is markedly reduced. Just looking at food, yes the same number of soldiers have to fed, whether they are in the east or west (assume the numbers don't decrease overall) however loss and wastage is reduced, this is always worse in an area of active combat. Will active resistance really be that bad for the Germans? Hard to say.
As far as Macedonia goes, yes the "front" was there. However since the Entente can no longer put anything like the resources in to that front they did OTL, given the terrain and other factors this front will probably be relatively inactive and much less of a bleeding sore for the CP.
Both sides are going to reach a state of exhaustion, and I don't think either side will "win" at least in the west. I don't think the Entente will be able to enforce a reversal of B-L like they did OTL, and I don't think the CP will be able to keep much if any of what they occupy in the west. What happens in the Balkans is murkier (depends on who has the weaker position when they sit down at the table). The Ottomans are toast no matter what absent a CP "win". A-H after the war is a real question, however they won't be cut up by the victors.