I'm talking about a different timeline entirely. A different Germany, with more focus on the West, and better planning, COULD have defeated France and Britain, even with outright controlling the oh-so-precious Czech factories.
How different?
If you still have Hitler assuming power, there is a very finite amount of difference possible. If you eliminate Hitler you also eliminate the rather crazy risks he took (virtually all of which worked until Barbarossa). No sane ruler would have remilitarized the Rhineland, pulled the bluff in the Czech Crisis, etc. This means Germany doesn't ignore the Versailles Treaty, hoping the French & British are still weary from the last war and don't crush them any time between 1934 and (ITTL) 1942 when Wehrmacht forces are strong enough to prevent a massive overmatch.
This Hitler-less Germany never develops the military needed to make war at the level outlined. The Treaty put severe caps on the German military, making it more of a constabulary force than a military (max 100K troops, no conscription, all long serving troops to reduce militia, NO weapons manufacture of any kind, no tank, no subs, no artillery, no military aircraft of any kind, a modest navy unable to match up against even a segment of the fleets of any of the victorious powers). Hitler ignored all that, and, amazingly, got away with it. It is stunningly unlikely that any other ruler would even try to make the mover he did. No Hitler means no war machine; Hitler means no hope for allies and no long time period to build up a military that ignores everything that Hitler wanted. You keep Hitler, and you get the package, not some mallable clay model.
The only way to get a Hitler who makes all the ballsy moves he made, but isn't impatient, anti-semitic, dismissive of non-Aryans, and able to make alliances with the rest of Central & Eastern Europe while being able to build a massive military machine AND not bankrupt the country in the process is via ASB.