And exactly those two are really nasty clichés. The first takes the OTL allied propaganda at face value and equates the Kaiserreich with the Nazis. Averting the second would require a lot of innovation on the Allied side. Or a pre-1900 POD for Russia, which in turn would probably butterfly an OTL-style WW I.
OK,
As for the first point you would note that the I said proto-fascist with a wimpf of military junta, that's very far from the Nazis. That the Central powers where old style monarchies can't really be denied, nor can't it denied that by the end of the war it was Luddendorf and Hindenburg who called the shots in Germany and that a similar phenomenon existed in Vienna and Istanbul (with the young turks).
As for the proto-fascists accusation, there was definitely ultra-nationalists ideologies develloping in the latter part of the war in Germany, Bulgaria and the Ottoman empire (Austria-Hungary admitedly stayed out of that trend) with pan-germanism, pan-turkism becoming all but official ideologies and Lebensraum-like projects (yes I know they didn't want to kill all the slaves unlike the nazis but forced germanisation was very much in the cards) for the territory captured under the Brest-Litovsk treaty. The Ottomans also did began to practice disturbingly WWII-like persecutions against minorities deemed untrustworthy, most infamously during the Armenian Genocide but also against the Greeks of the Pontus Region and the Assyrians of Northern Irak.
All that doesn't make a country fascists but there is definitely elements of facism already there, hence why I used the term proto-fascism. While the allied propaganda was definitelly exagerated it doesn't make modern attemps at withewashing Germany (as those who do so tend to be silent when it come to other Central powers) any less ridiculous. Usually it come from a ''German victory in WWI = No nazis, so German victory in WWI is good!'' or from the weird fascination some tend to have with old style monarchies. Simplistic and rather peculiar is probably the most positive thing I can say about them.
Sure, World War I Central powers where quite mild compared to the Axis but that really isn't a high mark to go over.
As for the supposed imposibility of an allied victory in WWI without direct american involvement that's both adhering far too much to the america save the day trope and projecting WWI on WWII.
Without adressing all the earlier POD's that could have boosted the allies the fact is they would probably have won WWI without direct involvement in OTL. Without american involvement you still have the blockade slowly strangling Germany and while they could probably have been spared more ressources without the american involved the clock was still ticking. The blockade might not got Germany to the point where she just didn't have the ressources to keep going in November 1918 like in OTL but its still gonna happen eventually.
Besside, Germany wasn't alone here either. For all her growing leadership over the Central powers she still needed her allies to prevent her from being completely overwhelmed by numbers and both the Hapsburgs and the Ottoman where in very bad shape even before the US joined the war. Problems where bound to happen eventually if a bit latter then OTL.
Against all that the Germans needed a knockout blow on the western front to have a shot at victory, wheter the americans participated or not. Unlike what popular belief would tell you the Spring Offensive didn't even come remotely close to achieve that. It is possible that an ATL Spring offensive would do better but considering the americans, at the time, formed only a small fractions of the total allied forces (their massive build-up came immediately after that) I find it doubtfull the germans are gonna get the complete victory they need.