funny shit i found in youtube comments

Just to add something here, Cody:
If Germany took Poland, there would have been a continuation of massive Slavic immigration to the United States (and possibly even to German colonies). The reason the United States did not become more Slavic is that the First World War cut off the tap, but between 1890 and 1915, massive numbers of eastern Europeans entered the US. Then, with Poland being independent for three decades, immigration tapered off, except for a mostly Jewish blip after the second war. If Germany kept Poland, a traditional enemy,  they would have encouraged this emigration, as the thirty percent German minority and twenty percent Jewish minority would have been the ones to benefit (and people forget that before the Nazis, Jews were heavily pro-German/ pro-Austrian, as these empires were good for business).
Moving past Poland, Ukraine would have also continued to be a massive source of new immigrants. This is because the ethnic Ukrainians have never been more than about half of the population, and being empowered by German backing, they would have encouraged the continued departure of minorities. The Austrians and Germans have always regarded Ukrainians as just another Slavic race, but they used them to fight against Russians, Poles, Czechs, etc. It is doubtful that Germany would be concerned with the internal policies of Ukraine after the war, as long as the resources kept flowing west. Furthermore, with the Soviet Union not rising- or at least the Russian civil war continuing for decades- it is possible that Russia as well would have seen a continuance of this trend.
One of the least discussed topics in history, is how Slavs became the predominant source of new immigrants after 1890. Obviously, while the Kaiser was not a believer in lebensraum per se, Germans would not have to leave Germany to have land to farm, something that caused massive numbers to migrate to the Midwest. They could simply use things such as legal manipulations, or in the case of Poland, declare that the Russian owned estates were now to be redistributed to millions of German veterans. Illiterate and uneducated Slavic minorities, such as the Poles, would not exactly be able to suddenly seize the lands of the Russian nobles, as they did after Poland became independent in 1918. They would not exactly be able to take the jobs in factories, as they were too uneducated, and millions of Jews in the pale of settlement could have easily helped the German cultural conquest of Poland (and would have been more fitting to work in a factory, as most were not farmers, and had a rudimentary education).
Just as millions of Americans look to Ireland now, would a more Slavic United States have a different relationship with a German Europe?
Would there be race riots in places like Milwaukee, between the constant stream of dispossessed Poles and earlier German immigrants?
Would these Slavs get along with the Jewish communities in the United States, which were very pro-German until the Balfour Declaration?
Furthermore, I think you forget that Austria Hungary's main issue was that each ethnicity in the Empire wanted the same relationship Hungary had, to be an equal partner. When Hungary became elevated to that status, they began to force non Germans and non-Hungarians to assimilate in their half, which also caused massive emigration to the United States. If the Empire would have been triumphant, who is to say that they would not continue these policies?
The neat little ethnic boundaries in western Europe are nothing like those in the east, where dozens of ethnicities always lived in scattered pockets (such as Ukrainians in Serbia, or Germans in Rumania). It was the same in the Ottoman Empire, where Turks were all over the place, but so were Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, and many others.
Instead of those two countries dying, there is a definite possibility that by winning the war, they would have simply continued their policies of forced assimilation. Serbia would almost certainly be absorbed back into Austria-Hungary, and there is a good probability that the Turks would have at a minimum gained political control of the Caucus and Greece. The Turks still had a caliph in 1918, and it was only the war that ended this institution. A Turkish victory could have convinced millions of Moslems that "Allah had willed it." People forget that the Arab rebellions against Turkey were based on the fact that secular Arabs convinced the religious majority that the Caliph was corrupt and not truly Moslem. A major victory would give the mullahs (who were paid by the state), the popular authority once again. Just as Ataturk rose because of the Ottoman Collapse, and that is why modern Turkey is a secular Moslem state, the literal "Young Turks" would have been harshly dealt with. And as long as German companies were allowed to do business in the empire, the Turks would have been propped up as a useful ally. The Germans ignored the massacre of Armenians all along, so what did they care if the Ottomans built their unity on a resurgent religious faction?
As you say, Germans feared an unstable Russia, but they would not have wanted to see their two allies collapse, either. Not for economic reasons, as more countries are harder to deal with then two clear cut states. Not for political reasons, as Germans are not stupid, and they know that the UK and France would be out to get them. A German superpower would be more like that of China, then that of the US. China does not interfere in the policies of African states, as long as the Chinese are making money, and Germany would not care what Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Ukraine, or any other pro German state did within its borders, as long as German banks controlled the capital in those countries.
The German Empire was not Nazi Germany, but that did not make them overly concerned with human rights, either. While Prussia stopped racial discrimination against Jews in 1867, France had the Dreyfus affair thirty years later.