War was intrinsic to the essence of Nazism - certainly as Hitler conceived it - so to waive away war is to fundamentally change what Nazism was. You'd probably have to remove Hitler from the scene, which would have tremendous butterflies from the event itself (assassination? coup? accident?), never mind the other consequences of it.
But by 1939, the Nazis were if not fanatically popular then certainly not on the verge of staving off revolution. They'd thrown off most of Versailles and proven the rest to be essentially optional; they'd reestablished German power in the west and had integrated Austria into the Reich; they'd taken a broken economy and restored it to something like health. It is true on that final point that there were serious stresses in the system but the ability to hold them in check through forced labour was enough at the time. Similarly, while the Nazis' system of governance was (deliberately) chaotic - again, Hitler believed in the ideological benefits of 'struggle' through overlapping authority (as well as the practical benefits of divide-and-rule) - it had clearly delivered results on the ground, and would continue to do so through until 1944 at least. It probably could have been more efficient but that sort of opinion was for academics; the public would have been more inclined to see 'before' and 'after'.
If Nazism had taken a different and less extreme route - say Hitler gets run over by a tram in 1933 - the stresses that were created wouldn't have been so severe and it might well have lasted decades. Mussolini, Franco and Salazar did.