Without the genocidal loonies like Hitler and Himmler, they would not be any more barbaric, militant, diplomatically incompetent, and corrupt than Stalinist Russia, with which an wartime alliance of convenience was (temporarily) possible.
Soviet Russia, militarist? Stalinist Russia, the country that shot senior generals for being senior generals, militarist? Chuckles.
In any case, Stalin made his share of big mistakes, but his diplomacy was based on rational and achievable goals. Stalin was an (evil, mass-murdering) statesman, and statesmen by-and-large hate wars (which put those vulgar generals in charge, and we know how much Stalin loved his generals) and fight them only when they look either unavoidable or easily winnable. The Nazis were war-fetishists, and killing Hitler in 1938-9 doesn't get round the Germans having built a war economy in a peacetime state.
And in the same circumstances, there is no convincing reason why their anti-Semitism would progress beyond existing legal discrimination or forced emigration at the worst.
Because slave labour can actually be pretty handy?
The thread asked for a "Nazi" Germany, so my PoD provides one. It is indeed more likely that the death of Hitler would bring the Heer at the helm, but that would no more be a fascist regime, so for the sake of this discussion I focused on the less likely outcome of the regime stabilizing under an alliance of party moderates and the officer corps.
Such a state is
less Nazi, but describable as Nazi. And I still see no way to bring it into alliance with the Entente.
He could still stumble into a general war, given the "right" cricumstances. It's far from inevitable, but the man was prone to make bad mistakes about enemy powers' ability and willingness to fight (see: Winter War, Barbarossa, Korean War).
Example one: Stalin makes the seemingly quite reasonable assumption that tiny countries with minimal industry are easy targets. As soon as he learns that this is not necessarily the case, he backs down.
Example two: Stalin clings desperately to the belief that a large land war is not coming yet, and exposes his country to disaster through his timidity and refusal to provoke the enemy.
Example three: Stalin sends only unofficial volunteers and equipment to aid the risky endeavour begun by his ally.
Clearly the portrait of a man given to rash aggression.
Stalin wasn't averse to taking
risks, but nothing is going to make him intentionally pick a fight with multiple great powers.
Sure, sure, I eat Slav liver for breakfast.


It is more accurate to say that I hate Communism
Any particular reason why communism is worse than the other tyrannies that comprise the majority of human history?
and I loathe Britain for keeping Europe disunited,
So many things wrong with this...
1) If we ever
did, "we" were a handful of statesmen, most of them unelected, all of them dead. Its as reasonable as me saying "I loathe Germany for bombing our cities"...
2) Except that the Germans totally did bomb our cities. The idea that Britain alone kept Europe disunited is laughable. Turns out Europe doesn't want to unite under some historic conqueror's rule, whatever us Brits think. Has our diplomacy has been perfectly succesful at accomplishing its aims since Queen Liz I? Nobody told me.
3) Germany acts in its national self-interest, and this is
good. Britain acts in its national self-interest, and this is
evil. Oh, sure.
I don't agree with the milder variety of Indian or Irish Anglophobe, but I can understand him and sympathise with him. This, not so much.
so practically all my fancy PoDs result into Ameriwank USA and/or a Europe united by some kind of Western European empire that crush the British Empire and somehow de-wank Communism.
There are no wanks in OTL. "Wank" refers to an
implausible level of contrived success, and OTL is by definition plausible. If we allow OTL to contain "wanks", the word immediately becomes useless. You think communism was wanked IOTL (in spite of how it now survives in only a handful of countries - not an inevitable outcome) because you don't like communism. If I abused the word in the same fashion, I'd call OTL a Naziwank 'cos I don't like Nazis. But OTL happened, so let's deal with it.
I'm actually otherwise neutral at worst about the success of a strong non-Soviet Russian Empire (which always has the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Far East as alternative expansion options) and it is an European hegemon as good as any other in my book (I'm simply less familar with the right PoDs to wank it).
Of course, late Tsarist Russia was a land of Jews being beaten up in the street by Black Hundred thugs, of people living in
caves below a prosperous city (Odessa), of workers shot for trying to protest peacefully, and of mass land theft from the Kazakh people.
Not saying it was worse than Stalin (it wasn't) or would have become worse than Stalin had it carried on that way (it could be as bad, but it wouldn't have to be). I just like how human suffering is okay when communists aren't to blame.
It is however correct that given a choice between non-genocidal fascism and communism, I'm typically going to pick the former.
Why, I must ask? Based on womens' rights alone, I'm with the reds.
Blame my rabid Zionist sympathies <waves Israeli flag> if among all the manifold victims of Nazi atrocities, I feel most driven to find a butterfly way of keeping the Jews' skins safe in any Nazi-victory scenario. If it is plausible at all, I would keep all of those victims alive, genocide being the threshold of what makes such a scenario insufferably dystopian in my eyes, but if there is a choice to be done, I have some favorites. If you wish, this is my excuse to sneak a wanked *Israel in an otherwise rather popular TL kind.
Sorry, but I just don't like the idea that anyone deserves death more or less because of colour or creed.
Most of history is people killing and opressing one-another. Changing history makes it better for some and worse for others. I prefer not to make moral judgements about that.
So why do we assume that there's "a choice to be done"? The Jews were race-enemy #1, and also the most accesible. If you for some reason prefer dead Poles to dead Jews, you shouldn't be rooting for the Nazis.
As I reckon things, many more of them would survive than OTL, and that's a definite good thing in my book. But this is not really the case for the scenario we are discussing.
You know what would save the Jews without even making them uprooted migrants in a hostile country?
Soviets at the Elbe, 1942.
The political and diplomatic constraints of alliance with the Western powers would either force Nazi-lite Germany to tone down its antisemitism even beyond its pre-war levels,
Hehe. So we assume, firstly, that the Nazis would change their policies for the sake of allies (like how they stopped shooting communists to please Stalin, I guess, or stopped believing that Asians were inferior for the Japanese?); and secondly, that the Entente give enough of a shit to necessitate this?