An alternate World War I in 1917

I do not know if Russia Empire will survive until 1917.

  The general fear among the other nations was that Russia was steadily getting stronger.  Its population and industry were steadily growing and the Germans were especially concerned about the completion of railways and other infrastructure, which would make a quick defeat of France in time to turn east and fight Russia increasingly unlikely.

  Of course it had considerable social and political problems but its difficult to see how quickly they might have undermined Russia's war efforts and commitment.  OTL it took 3 years of bloody slog and heavy losses before things started to collapse.  In TTL it might occur a bit quicker as Russia is less obviously a defender but then pan-Slavic themes were strong in much of Russia. 

  Also if Romania is an ally from the start to enable attacking Austria on a broader front coupled with the internal problems Austria could see really difficulties in the 1st few months especially.  If Germany is still committed to a desperate attack on France things could come apart quickly for the CPs.  Of course Nickolas, his wife and Rasputin, along with widespread corruption and abuse of power were serious handicaps but Russia survived them for nearly 3 years OTL so will last at least a couple of years at high levels of combat intensity I would expect.  There is growing pressure for reform and/or revolution but also powerful forces holding it together.

Well, an interesting Alternate history, but you need to define many parameter from 1914-1917

Some questions AND answers to these questions:
1.) does france keep its irrational/mad level of conscription? Many say france can´t keep this longer, has to step back to 2 years conscription.
My answer: nope, france will face internal struggles, its "readiness" will fall down. BUT in the same time they will cure the most problematic lack of heavy howitzers a bit, will remove partly (or full?) their shiny blue uniforms.
They will not solve their "attack is key"-idioticy, they will also lack lots of failures (lack of ammo). They will also spent MUCH more money for useless battleships, that are papertigers. As "good" as it is that they have modern battleships, as bad is it that their own semi-DN are now full obsolete. In numbers they loose, even if they have "better" battleships. Their problem. They also waste LOTS of money for the follow ups, that couldn´t be ready in 1920. THis also means that UK will see france (and russia) less as a land based military force but a serious competitior. France has huge colonial areas and can´t be blocked in the atlantic. Add in their own socialist problem and france suddenly has LOTS and LOTS of problems.
2.) does russia face internal troubles, caused by the greater gap between "military spending" and economic needs? Personally i think russia stay stable... But even with their larger economy (great growth) most is a flash in the pan based on insane and imbalanced armed race - this will trigger the revolution much earlier IF no victories come out of the initial engagements.
Their HUGE naval race will cause much headache and more distance for UK, also it cost much and bring little (if we see OTL ships and quality). That istn´t meant for the original batch of fine battleships - they are bad ships for the crews to work on, but equal or better weapons for the engagements. the problems are caused by the insane and not-to-finance-second-naval-race of russia... in 1913-14 the russians planned to build so many DNs, that UK cannot overlook that longer. Its preparation of 1914-17 mean that russia cannot build the needed ammo/gun-factories.. the russians OTL build much but the demands were greater - with the STOPPPED naval shipping program. With the prestige and the "need" of modern fleets in the east, black sea, baltics (lost hopes here) and arctic command (if saneer heads look in the right direction) and no war that stop that you explode the "wrong" paths. Sure - a russo-francophile writer could ignore that and create the mystical "unstoppable" juggernaut. In reallity a smart or a more realistic writer has to solve that problem in 1917.

3.) austria-hungaria has started OTL a LARGE armament push. Finally. This cause in 1917 a MUCH stronger army, there are problems - but overall austria gains more - much more out of the 3year-delay. Propably they gain more as all other european states. Their fleet building is not so interesting because the hungarian rules ship building is even worse as OTL nazi economy. This IS possible... incompetence as a name - hungarian ship building.
But their economic and political problems could be solved. For the enemies of AH is the skoda-armory-factory a HUGE problem. They build equal or better heavy mobile siege-guns... in numbrs that should frighten the french and russian fortresses.

4.) germany also is in MUCH better shape as 1914.
Why? well they have the Haber-Bosch-production - something the german military CLEARLY had seen OTL. Here they have 3 years they used. Basically germany AND austria-hungaria cannot cut off their needed stuff for feeding the people and feeding the huge ammo needs. that is the biggest plus for the Central powers in that scenario and propably the Nr.1-Gamechanger.
The second game changer is the social reforms IN germany. OTL the war delayed the changes and the pressure to reform. Here - no such Delay - germany will have set the path for its modernisation in political aspects.
the third game changer is the enlargement of the german army. OTL the junkers in prussia tried to controll all officers and the political elite in prussia hoped (it was wrong even OTL, but they couldn´t know that) to use the army against their people, if needed. Here - 3 years change much. Germany has switched in 1912 to a true and balanced raised enlargement of the army, so germany could have 2-5 more full armies... that also could have been much better equipped as otl (esp. the heavy siege train - allredy ahead in 1914 is still better as that of their enemies. Their navy is on its way - they have "obsolete" battleships,
But germany not only have a much stronger army, much stronger economy, much stronger political system, they have also many obsolete(r) warships they push in the med, african,pacific and sell to allies. OTL the little german pacific ships caused nearly a break down of british sea trade... here you will have more such ships in more bases... also more and better transatlantic communications... so the brith 100%-control of the media could be a not so tight thing... more a 60% control. That has a HUGE fallout a writer has to look for.
Germany also as other things that develop for them, but also against them.

5.) UK.
a.) the pros
- larger fleet - in 1917 they should have finished their R-Class-Battleships (no Repulse/Renown) and they should have
- build a follow up of the QE-Class... the Admiral-Class Battlecruisers should have been build with less protection.
- the economy would be healthy, even if the distance to germany and more so the USA would be greater
b.) the cons
- a civil war/war about ireland in 1914-17? (sometimes in that timespan) would have cost a lot money, ressources, manpower... also the result of such conflict is open to discuss. (Homerule)
- the political situation in europe would see UK in a bad situation. If they stay with france and russia, they have an alliance with countries that want to outbuild UK! Both fleets together - if the planned numbers would be done - had been a significant strength.
- UK had to give 2 BBs to the Osman Empire
- The Bagdad-railway will be finished, propably also enlarged to the red sea, more secondary rails to other - more distant - areas would help the osmans.
- The influence of UK is reduced
- the harvest of 1917 in the USA would be very bad, overall 1917 was a bad harvest year. So less ressources for every one.
- the next election could give UK a different government who would try to fix broken things in a better or worse way as OTL. Here we have the liberty of the writer... do the leaders who want to reduce the franco-russian influence in europe gain power? Will they cut these ties? Will they try to join a true german-british alliance? That would change everything. I doubt they would, the germanophobe forces were to strong, the attitude that the germans could not hope to stop the Entente was hard to crush - so the general move of UK (Stay with the two strong ones, control france a bit) would stay.

- Neutral: Germany and UK will propably buy the portuguise colonies, some plans were made and the portuguise royalties needed money.Between 1914 and 1917 a lot things could happen

6.) Italy - italy could distant itself more and more from AH, on the other hand Conrad would go in 1916 with Franz-Ferdinand removing him. THe fleet would grew significant, maybe even Leonardo da Vinci (if it had been an austrian bomb) could be ready. The follow ups (the best planned ships of the 15"-system of these days) could allready be "half build". That costs lots of money, libya is still a mess. Again personally i see italy move to the entente more openly, because their interests in the balkan collide with the interests of AH.
The army is - as OTL 1915 - a huge mess, the airforce could be quite strong, because the italians did much in this sector.
So a strong modern navy, as strong or stronger as the french one, a weak bad lead army but excellent airplanes.

7.) the osman empire and the smaller states
Here the question rise if the transfer of 2 british Battleships to the osmans would trigger a greece-osman war in 1914.
Some say yes, others say no. Who would hold what position is difficulty to tell. For sure the germans had made their deals, even if the Kaiser is a graecophile one, the political and economical interests lay with the osmans.
The ottoman empire would - say no war in 1914 - rise in power till 1917, how much and what that means is open to discuss. Personally i see em stronger as OTL, esp. with motorised units. Also their railroads to and from Bagdad to Berlin means the germans can move great forces in short time

The Romanians - with the death of the king things could vary a bit.No Worldwar means the romanians could develop their economy, enlarge and improve their army (after the wars they need time to recover)... but we know that they did that OTL till autum 1916 with no great succsess... so again personally i see Romania in 1917 slightly better prepared as in late 1916 OTL, no real support for nobody in case of war. Maybe a true neutral stance - if the war start for different things?

The serbs - they will improve their army, more and more french weapons, more ammo, more MG, so the defeat of the serbian army is even more problematic as OTL: But - the downsize is their treatment of Non-serbians in their area. OTL they acted extremly brutal - with knowledge to the different nations. THis could mean that european diplomats have no interest in supporting Serbia in case of war. Otherwise, they could ignore it, if it suits their countries... who knows

the bulgarians - they too will recover a bit, instead of a few months they have 3 years of recovery. I think bulgaria will be stronger as OTL, but nobody should expect wonders. If the germans still try to manipulate em for their side - as OTL - they could start in case of war earlier - this could have the consequence that no serbian army could escape in case of defeat. But again, that depends on how a writer see the whole scenario.

-the dutch - they had plans to build battleships for their colonial empire - we cannot know if they take the german or british offers, but i think the chance that they build some of these are big.
I know litte about the dutch army, i once read that they were in a transforming process in 1914. Personally i see the dutch building defence systems, esp. with the critical situation between france and germany hearting up.

- the belgians: No clue, propably similar to OTL, more MG, more heavy guns, some more troops? A blank point from my position

- finally japan: lots of DNs build or in the next two years ready, but very expensive. No clue about the army, but i think the british would try to use em to help em against the germans - so more interconnections, esp. with russia and france building more and more battleships.

The big white elephant in the room - the USA - are simple. They would do what they had done OTL... just Wilson will be replaced in 1916 by some other president. Who is he? No clue again


Short summary:
The war of 1917 would be different, because
a.) the CP would be much stronger - AH modernized, germany having more armies (1-2) and more heavy siege guns for their army, but the most critical point is the full working Haber-Bosch-Production, that make germany independent from external sources.
If germany has enough stuff to feed their ammo-industry AND the agriculture, they cannot cut of food.
b.) smaller states could be seen different or have different interests


Some things stay the same
Osmans versus Russia - arch enemies
Serbs versus AH - similar
France versus Germany - similar

Some profit from 3 years of development
Serbia
Osmans
Bulgaria
Austria_Hungaria

others improve their size
germany
Great britain

and some face economic and political crisis they have difficulties to overcome
russia
france
italy (economically)

THat is not the plot.
The plot is that the first world war start in 1917...
people dead in autum 1914 stay dead.