Germany wins WW1?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Africa would be strongly redrawn in the aftermath of a Central Power victory.  Morocco likely regains independence for a while or becomes wholly Spanish if Germany desires to add Rio Muni to an expanded Kamerun.  Germany takes Walvis Bay and maybe Nyasaland (Malawi) and Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) from Britain, Angola and Northern Mozambique (making the Zambezi River the  southern limit of German control in East Africa) from the Portuguese, French Equatorial Africa and likely Dahomey from the French, and last but not least the Belgian Congo. (Expect many reports in the 1920s on the Belgian genocide there to justify taking away the entirety of Belgium's colonial territory.)

Italy might gain some territory, especially Tunisia, if Italy remains true to the Triple Alliance.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

More likely four states.

At the time of the Armistice, the Germans had as their eastern puppet states, the Kingdom of Poland (consisting of Congress Poland minus territory annexed into the German Empire), a Kingdom of Lithuania that likely would have been expanded eastward into Belorussia, since that territory had been part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and a United Baltic Duchy covering the formerly Russian Baltic Governorships and was divided into seven cantons, three Estonian, and four Latvian.  They certainly would have set up a Kingdom of Ukraine as well.

As of 1 June 1918, the date of the map, the Germans hadn't yet decided how they would organize the Baltics, and so the mapmaker likely just used the boundaries of the Russian governates as his guide.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't think the US would have fared that badly in war against Japan and Britain. The US Navy was always world class from the 1890s onwards, and was on par with the German and British Fleets. Furthermore the US, as demonstrated in WWII had a much greater ability to build additional ships, and US commanders were far more tactically agile. The US strangled Japan in world war II with a submarine campaign, and its hard not to see the US do the same.

The British and Japanese might get off a few good early wins, but they could not defeat the US, and both would likely begin to starve by the end of the second year.

You're being absurdly optimistic about how well the U.S. would have fared in a war against Britain c. 1914

As of the outbreak of war, the USN had 10 dreadnought battleships in commission, 4 dreadnoughts under construction, plus 23 pre-dreadnought battleships, with some of the older ones not really useful except as training vessels.

In comparison, the Royal Navy had 20 dreadnoughts in commission, plus 2 others that would be seized from the Turks and put into commission in August 1914.

The Japanese Navy would have been a much easier target It had 2 dreadnoughts in commission (with an additional 4 under construction), 4 semi-dreadnoughts, plus a variety of pre-dreadnoughts (including some ships captured from the Russians during the Russo-Japanese War that had been obsolescent then).  However, British ships operating from Japanese ports in conjunction with their Japanese allies would have been able to take control of the Pacific.

The British decision to only finish those battleships near completion and not lay down new ships reflected the reality that the Royal Navy did not need more ships at the moment.  If it had needed them, it had the capability in place to at least match and probably exceed the American shipyards in construction of capital vessels.

As for submarine warfare strangling Japan, the submarines of the era were by and large not capable of the endurance needed to hunt down Japanese vessels in Japanese waters.  The first U.S. submarine designed for something more than coastal defense was the L-1 which went into commission in 1916.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I agree that any purely  Anglo-American war of that era would be likely to quickly settle down after the U.S. seizes Canada (less Vancouver and Newfoundland) while the U.K. seizes Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, Western Samoa, Cuba (a de facto American protectorate), and the Panama Canal with the U.K. controlling the seas.

Then things would head to the bargaining table.  However, I doubt we'd see a purely Anglo-American war  For the U.S. and the U.K. to head to war in the 1910s would have required a broader war in which they ended up on opposite sides.