On the other hand, in 1919 to 1921 Poland was a precarious, newly born nation who almost was conquered by the Soviets. So you might want to take that into account when trying to figure out how people voted.
Good point, but even then, German presence in the Corridor clustered in its southern neck, so a district-by-district plebiscite that sees a german victory in the land corridor between Pomerania and East Prussia is far from unreasonable. Most of the Polish majority clustered in the northwestern area of the Corridor, a potential Polish enclave. Therefore,a plebiscite may eaisly result in a land corridor for Germany, and an extraterritorial connection for Poland to the Enclave and Gdynia. The results of the Plebiscite would still be arbitrated by the Great Powers, and if most of the districts in the "neck" vote German, even if not all do, I still see germany and Birtain agreeing to create the land bridge for Germany, if Poland gets the extraterritorial railway and highway. Add editing the border in Upper SIlesia to the Percival-Demarinisa line (which the British-Italians originally proposed in 1921), and a sane fascist germany would fins the outcome satisfying.
Your chosen pod is after 5 years of Nazi Rule have done their damage? Why the frack would you do that?
Because the damage wrought by Nazism up to 1939 is relatively minor and with few truly damning long-term consequences, and I prefer to take the surety of the lesser evil (moderate fascist Germany since 1939) than risk an outcome that could be the best (surviving Weimar) or the absolute worst (Stalinist Germany since the early 1930s). From my PoV, pre-1933 death of Hitler PoD gives me no guarantee that it shall prevent a Communist Germany, quite the contrary, and pan-German 1930s Communism would suck worse for Germany and the world than even OTL Hitler, much so for a moderate Goring Germany. Therefore, IMO, it is better to kill Hitler in 1939 and take a sure lesser evil (moderate fascist Germany), than risk an outcome than could the best (suriving Weimar) or the worst (Communist Germany). Goering was born in 1893 and a shall have poor health (obese, drug addiction) so he likely dies in late 1950s or early 1960s. By that time, the Baby Boom generation is coming around and surely rebelling against the fascist regime, there shall be pressure from the pragmatic-reformist wing for liberalization to redress the economy and education and keep up the step with the USA, so in a few years (early to late 1960s) the regime collapses and Germany returns to democracy. In a decade (ealry to late 1970s) all traces of fascist regime shall disappear and Germany shall be a thriving democracy (just like other ex-fascist European countries) but with no loss of Pomerania, Silesia, Austria, Sudetenland, no division or Communist occupation. Killing Hitler in 1939 almost surely butterflies the Final Solution away (the Jews and Roma find themselves eventually subject to forced emigration) and the euthanasia program was stopped cold by Catholic opposition even under Hitler. The Nazi regime significantly damages education, but that shall be repaired partially first by reforms under the late regime and completely after return to democracy. WWII in Europe either doesn't happen or is fought by Germany in alliance with Western democracies against Stalin.
Other than the Ruhr Occupation, France harbored no hostile intentions towards Germany. Poland did, I admit. But France and Czechoslovakia wouldn't go to war to help Poland.
That was far from clear to 1920s and 1930s Germans, given the Little Entente. Anyway, Germany would need an amount of military supremacy to intimidate France from interfering and Czechoslovakia and Poland into giving back the Sudetenland, Danzig, a land connection to East Prussia, and Upper Silesia, even if Britain and Italy are friendly to Germany. And besides, military parity with France plus Poland and czechosloavakia does not make Germany the master of the continent, since France plus Britain may still be superior. It is France and its clients that need to be cowed, or order to have the latter be forced to give back what they stole. They won't do it willingly. Diplomacy alone won't cut it.
Why would Mussolini or the British do this?
For Mussolini: strong guarantees for Italian South Tyrol, German support for his claims in Yugoslavia and Ethiopia. For the British: they have a strong vested interest in having a detente with a strong, satisfied Germany to balance the Soviets.
Indeed. This is why the Ukraine remains part of Russia, and why Austria and the Sudetenland are still parts of Germany.
Last time I checked, Russia and Ukraine were different nations, and ethnic cleansings can settle any ethnic dspute for good.
The rest of your post displays some rampant nationalism, which is ironic given that you're an American.
ROTFL
Dude, wrong labeling, I'm Italian. My strong geopolitical sympathies for Germany and America both come from the idea that they are the best posed to accomplish great supranational-imperial unifications of their respective continents, and provide effective world leadership. Something I find supremely important.