Oddly, the militaries and public of France, Britain, the Benelux, and Scandinavia didn't prefer fascist regimes.
About France, this is hilariously untrue, need I have to mention how Vichy France was massively popular among the French, and Petain a venerated retired general, up to very late in its parable ? The French right-wingers and would-be military dictators enthusiastically seized their own opportunity for their own brand of nasty fascism as soon as they got one. "The divine surprise of defeat", as Charles Maurrais said. In Britain and Sweden, there never was a similar opportunity, and Benelux and Norway shifted far too quickly to pure military occupation for the local fascists to set up something truly their own.
Hitler's ideology was just WW1 German victory plans taken to their logical conslusion.
Sure, sure, because between setting up Baltics and Ukrainians as vassal states with German princes in the Kaiserreich economic spheres, and exterminating them there is no difference, sure. William II was just Hitler with a funny hat, and Stalin was just implementing plans laid down by Nicholas II wehn he exterminated the Kulaks.
The heer refused to fight the Nazis when they were asked if they would, if push came to shove;
Same happened in Italy. Sadly, nowhere in continental Europe, pre-WWII armies were going to pick a fight with fascists without a direct order from an head of state they acknowledged as legitimate and really meant it.
and they helped intrigue to bring down von Seeckt.
Hardly a main cause of Nazi takeover.
And of course they all stood silent through 1933 and 1934, and throughout the rest of the decade.
Honestly, how many among the German people, or the other European peoples, cared so much about democracy as an ideal that they were going to put it before and above getting some economic security, public order, and satisfaction of nationalistic grievances ? Maybe one in three or two out of five, if it went down to making a choice in the ballot box, or giving passive allegiance to a regime ? And maybe one in five of them, if it went down to risk personal safety to defend democracy ? The way the 1920s-1930s officer coprs were trained and recruited, deeply seeped in far right wing sensibilities, how can we expect them to have more democratic sentiments than the public itself ?
Besides, your statement is false, the first well-organized attempted military coup happened in 1938, and failed for the kind of outrageous coincidences (Chamberlain accepting Munich terms a few hours too early) that routinely punctuated Hitler's career an saved him from coups and assassinations. Fuses failing to fire, bombs moved and schedules changed at last minute... how does the military resistance (or ofor that matter, civilian lone wolves like Georg Elser) bring direct responsibility for that kind of thing ?
Of course not. WW2 isn't about the Allies winning; it's about how the Germans managed to lose to bumbling incompetents.
Of course not. Everyone knows that the invincible Soviets had the infallible guarantee to win every World War the moment it starts, no matter the odds, opponents and situation, thanks to their magical Siberian factories, cloning facilities, and officer corps directly trained and inspired by the Gods of wank... err war themselves. No one and nothing could ever stop them, it was only the cowardice of their leaders and unsportsmanlike American threat of nukes that kept them from effortlessly conquering everything to the Atlantic like they were foreordained to.
Pff. Nobody saves France in 1940. Never. A pure military engagement, and instead we get ink spilled over this.
I have seen "Stalin backstabs Hitler in May 1940" TLs.
That's fine, but I blamed the generals who are leading this post-coup Reich.
And of them, how many can be directly and substantially linked to previous Nazi or Wehrmacht atrocities, to such a degree that bringing the Nazis down does not wipe the slate clean ? Passive allaegiance to the regime does not make anyone a monster. The generals tried the coup previously and by sheer unluck, failed, every failure amping the historical tragedy, when the military situation made a political opening possible. Bringing down a dictatorship is difficut enough when the dictator is screwing up the nation and making himself unpopular with the people and the elites, when he's piling up successes and popularity it is effectively impossible, even if such successes drip the blood of some minority or other nation. Such is human nature, nationalism and self-interest almost always trump humanitarian idealism.