Well, Bonar Law, unlike Balfour, would be a protectionist, Tariff Reform loudmouth, as IOTL he was calling for a wholesale tariff package including food. In other words, he might cause a far worse version of the 1906 election. The reason why Balfour achieved close result in 1910 was the fact that he softened the tariff reform policy. Besides, land reformers at that time was enjoying their peak in terms of influence and reputation.
Quite some ...
There were quite some other powder kegs/hot spots, that could have triggered WW earlier.
Don't see this happen.
Therefore I don't see this as a given at all ... more the opposite of at least freindly neutrality towards Germany in the beginning.
... another believer in entente-propaganda.
Well, while this scenario is rather plausible, there are more simple ways to start World War I in 1917. Let's say that after Franz Joseph dies, Franz Ferdinand takes his place and is able to introduce 'trialism' into Austria-Hungary. Croatia becomes an kingdom of equal worth to Austria and Hungary. Thus tensions are soothed in the Balkan region and the empire begins to under reform. Austria would still possess South Tyrol and and the Croatian kingdom would possess Istria and the Dalmatian coast, thus making making way for a possible combatant: Italy. With war averted in 1914, Italy would likely just distance itself further from the Triple Alliance. It had already conquered Libya and Mediterranean islands from the Ottoman Empire and COULD have conquered Ethiopia between 1914 and 1917 (emphasis on 'could'). Italy would likely seek to develop a strategy of invading Austria-Hungary in order to regain land it had claims on. And with creation of the Croatian kingdom, it would likely upset the Italians even further. Tensions would likely rise between the new empires and all it would take is one event to spark a war. Now, with Ferdinand's idea of trialism put into place, I'm not to sure that Serbia will ultimately act so hostile towards Austria. With an Slavic kingdom established on equal grounds to Austria, I believe that Serbia would ease it's antagonism towards it's old nemesis. The same can not be said for Russia. If Italy went to war with Austria-Hungary-Croatia, the Russian Empire would likely mobilize to fight alongside Italy. That would tempt the Germans to declare on Russia, and France to declare on Germany. The United Kingdom's entry depends on if Germany violates Belgium's neutrality, which is uncertain given the time for the German Empire to figure new strategies. The Ottoman Empire would likely stay neutral to rebuild itself and sort out ethnic problems in its Middle Eastern territories, though it could have a skirmish with Bulgaria over control of Thrace. Speaking of Bulgaria, it would likely be neutral in the new World War I as well without an hostile Serbia, though it probably will seek to regain it's land in small and separate conflicts. Now, the differences in 1917 would be significant. The Austrian army would probably be the same as OTL, expect slightly better equipped and far more morale (due to Ferdinand's reforms of sovereignty to Croatia). The Italian army would probably be much more nationalistic and determined to gain its disputed land and defeating Austria. France would likely have more time to build more defenses in preparation for a German attack (probably rendering the Schlieffen Plan useless anyway) but it would still suffer from a low population and would have to rely on conscripting French colonial troops to expand it's overall army. Germany's industry would get even stronger and its army would expand to substantial numbers, easily outclassing France in size. It'll also likely have the most tanks ready for combat, being the modern country in the war. But no country would advance as much as Russia. Rapid industrial growth would sufficiently modernize the Russian army and give essential repair to it's poor infrastructure. It would still probably be mainly an agricultural empire, but it would be an significant improvement from 1914. It would possess the biggest army of the war, which would significantly benefit from more years of industrial growth. In the set of conflict, all Italian divisions would be sent on the Austrian front and set on advancing into the Balkans as much as possible. Austria would have a really difficult time with Italy, but it would be CRUSHED by Russia. However, with the majority of German troops being sent to the Eastern Front, the odds are balanced with Russian troops struggling with advanced technology from Germany. France wouldn't likely accomplish much except skirmishes on the Franco-German border and conquests of Germany's African colonies. Britain and America would likely shake their heads in annoyance and seek to diplomatically end the conflict as much as possible. Japan would just silently sit in the background and seek to begin its imperial expansion into China within several years. France and Austria are the two countries least likely to make the most significant gains in the war. Those honors would belong to Germany, Russia and Italy (especially the two former). And it's not too certain who would come out on top. Will Germany expand into Russia and establish puppet states to cripple Russia's potential? Will France and Russia be humiliated for the last time and collapse into communist revolutions? Will Italy be put into submission by Austria and make way for Mussolini or will it join Russia and France's revolution? Or will with Italy expand and finally conquer South Tyrol, Istria and the Dalmatian Coast? Will Russia annex Galicia and divide with Italy to turn Austria-Hungary-Croatia into puppets for their benefit? Will France and Russia bring the ultimate humiliation to Germany and set the stage for the Nazis to rise? Who knows? The possibilities are endless.
The Italian naval power saved the Italian army from being embarrassed by the Ottomans and Italy was only able to limp to the starting line in 1915 under duress - my money would be firmly on the Ethiopians - if any bookie would take my bet. In respect of developing a strategy to successfully invade A-H, the Italians would have to move mountains - literally.
OTL the Serbians were very keen to liberate Albania from the Albanians and Macedonia from the Macedonians, so liberating Bosnia Herzegovina from the Croats would not be much of a stretch.
In the first instance, I doubt Italy had the chops to start a war it had no chance of winning. In the second instance, Imperial Russia may be keen for war, but would in all likelihood hold out for a casus belli that would not result in Russia fighting Germany and A-H alone.
A larger Russian standing army with faster mobilization times means the Belgium option is off the table.
Tanks? WTF?
In OTL 1914 Russia had enjoyed impressive industrial growth for over 25 years, it had been spending a disproportionate amount of its budget on military matters in the 5-6 years prior to 1914 and had the largest army in the world. OTL the Russian armies still got routinely monstered by the Germans and 2-3 years of focusing on naval growth is unlikely to change that.
A-H enjoys a qualitative advantage over the Italians and describing the A-H position as defensible is a gross understatement. The A-H forces may initially struggle against the Russians, until the Germans start to cull their numbers.
