This is completely incoherent.
Incoherent to what ?
The further rising numbers of jobless ?
The growing gap between the majorities incomes and costs of living ?
The further diminishing of social benefit payments ?
These were the reasons that caused to a great extend the election success of the NSDAP in the July election and these factors were perceived still further worsening until the November election by the majority of the electorate. ... and not some 'artificial' economical indicies or ratings or whatever.
Therefore it must have been something else what caused the electorate to turn away from Hitler and NOT whatever claimed economical recovery invisible to the overwhelming majority of contemporaries.
He wanted to be Chancellor, not a supporting member of a coalition. For the leader of by far the biggest party, this was not an unreasonable position.
Maybe he had some point in claiming chancelorship by his electoral victory. ... only that electorial success didn't count much at this time of the development of the political life of the Weimar Republik.
... as well as with Hindenburg and the govermental establishment/civil service.
... and also not for Hitler.
He wanted not only Chancelorship but also the right to appoint ALL of the goverment aka all ministries of the Reich including even the Reichswehr with men of his choice aka Nazis.
He also wanted ALL power in Prussia aka the position of the overall "Reichskommissar" for Prussia who then appointed the single "Kommissars" for finance, internal affairs, economy etc. ... not a single Kommissar of internal affairs submitted (
at least officially and administratively, Göring first had to "win over" his powers from the civil servants in place - not a too easy and quicl task)to the Reichkommissar for the whole who even after 30th January 1933 was still von Papen.
Hitler also demanded the unquestioned support of the Reichspresident in issuing order under the pretext of Article 48 as Hitler perceived it Hindenburg had done to Brüning and von Papen so far what was simply not true. Brüning as well as von Papen had to deliver quite some arguing by the then rendered experts of the civil service in their respective fields (
agriculture, finance, industry, economy, etc.) to get their decrees signed by the old man. Brünings memoirs as well as the rembrances of the leader of the presidential bureau Otto Meißner are telling in that respect.
And Hitler was unwilling and unable to negotiate at all or even think of some kind of compromise. The "negotiations" in that respect in OTL consited of a few preliminarey indirect contacts between Schleicher and v.Papen with Göring and Strasserr IIRC and one single meeting with Hindenburg lasting not even half an hour in which Hitler simply "demanded" ... full stop.
He was Chancellor, and Göring was also Minister of the Interior for Prussia, with control of police forces throughout the "state" of Prussia, which was about half of Germany. The Nazis used Hitler and Göring's powers to crack down on the SDP and KPD even before the Reichstag Fire; also, I believe, to provide state resources to the NSDAP.
And compared to what he demanded in summer 1932 - see above - he got truly only few.
It should also not be forgotten that the by everyone as such perceived most powerfull post - leader of the Reichswehr aka Reichswehrminister Blomberg - was selected and inaugurated even befor Hitler and without Hitler's say in it.
... despite the claimed "closeness" of his Chief of staff Reichenau to the NSDAP.
Hmmm, if ... your "looting theory" would have some substance at all then why for heavens sake did Hitler and Göring have to arrabge for the "secret" meeting with economists on 20th February (almost) forcing them to ... erhmm ... "donate" 3 million plus RM for the NSDAP ?
Would Schleicher actually be able to arrest Hitler? Or Thalmann? If Hitler was arrested, would that provoke a general rising by the SA?
YES. Pls read all of my posts.
IMO Van der Lubbe was telling the truth, and he said he was moved to act at that time by "fascist rule", i.e. Hitler's being Chancellor. So if no Chancellor Hitler, no Fire.
Ofc. you are entitled to have your own opinion and belief about van der Lubbe. But your interpretation and selected acceptance of sources of the events around the Reichstags fire are somewhat ... simplicistic.
Van der Lubbe had a revolutionary communist prehistory including being even too radical for the "mainstream" communists in the Netherlands. He also traveld Germany at least in transit already before 1933.
And as it seems he was invited to Berlin by germans at least known to his then internationalist communist group . There he lobbied within german communist groups for an 'direct action'. Soemthing he did already in the Netherlands but noone listened to him there. ... as reported by german communists and GDR funktionaries after the war
However, if not Marinus van der Lubbe ... then just jump on another of the many explanation attempts of who actually was responsible for the fire : the Nazis themself.
Or in the mentioned scenario : Schleicher let's some strawman/men fire up the Reichstag or something else.
IMHO there are quite some chances for this fire to happen in the spring of 1933 even ITTL.
As said, your equation :
no Chancelorship of Hitler
=> no fire of the Reichstag
=> no emergency decrees and follow ups
is IMHO just too simple to fit even on OTL.
