Czechslovakia being an artificial state to damage Germany is a statement that has no evidence behind it, and Hitler clearly wanted more than just Sudetenland as clearly shown by Germany's invasion of the non-German Czechslovakia early 1939. Not sure about Czechslovakia's border with Hungary; not concerned about it either. It's a non-sequitur argument that doesn't change anything about Germany's imperialist ambitions back then.
Well Britain and France obviously had to take action against Hitler after September 1939. They did nothing to stop the German invasion of Sudetenland in 1938 when the German military was much weaker, hoping that it would end there. It didn't. Germany later took over the non-German parts of Czechslovakia as well in 1939. They did nothing to stop that either, so Hitler than invaded Poland thinking the same would happen. Obviously the war declarations came this time, but even then Britain and France didn't actually do much to help Poland, and France even gave up a brief offensive against Germany. Regional war about West-Prussia in Poland that was stolen from Germany after World War I? More like territory stolen by Prussia from Poland after the third Polish partition. You must not be too fond of Poland aren't you?
Even then, Hitler obviously wanted more than to just reclaim pre-1918 Imperial German territory.
How does a 'regional war in German territories stolen from Poland' explain the existence of the General-Government, the occupation of Polish territory not previously controlled by Germany before 1918? How does that explain the cultural destruction of Poland? How does that explain Hitler's mad decision to end the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and invade the Soviet occupied territories in Poland? How does that explain the Hitler's decision to invade Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, all of which were neutral states before 1939? How does it explain Hitler's invasion of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia in 1941? The fact is Germany started and escalated World War II in Europe, and posed such a threat to the rest of the world that it took several allied armies from several nations to crush the Nazis.
It might be a bit hard for you to grasp as a German nationalist, but everyone else who knew about World War II at the time would've definitely supported the allies. Did the allies really fight to save the Jews? I wouldn't know about it. Does it matter? No. Anyone living outside of the Axis powers (and some living inside) would've supported the allies. The Polish resistance who fought to free their country from the Nazi yoke would've supported the allies. The British civilians who were being bombed by German bombers would've supported the allies. The Russian soldiers ready to defend the motherland would've supported the allies. Even the French were grateful for their liberation from Nazi tyranny by the allies in 1944.
And so you bring up the proposition that most German soldiers who fought in the Wehrmacht were actually nice people. Can you actually prove this? There's different sides to different stories, and the Wehrmacht were known to commit a lot of war crimes. Still, like many other arguments you bring up, what kind of people the soldiers were is simply irrelevant. It's irrelevant because Nazi leadership, you know, the guys who actually held power, were made up of monsters like Bormann, Brunner, Eichmann, Goebbels, Goeth, Hess, Heydrich, Himmler and Hitler. No nice guys in sight. I won't comment on relations between French civilians and soldiers and German soldiers either, because it's simply irrelevant.
It's a well established fact that the Russian soldiers who served in the Red Army didn't do so because of any loyalty towards Stalin, but because of their devotion to defending the motherland from the fascist invaders. But does that change the fact that the Soviet leadership invaded and occupied Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania pre-1941, and the rest of Eastern Europe post-1944? You're not one to hesitate when it comes to criticising the Soviet Union.
True, the American democratic system isn't perfect, but to say that America isn't a real democracy isn't a fact, but opinion, considering that they have the world's oldest constitution.
Any criticisms of the American system can easily be used to criticise any other country in the world. I hear the EU has too much power over its member states, and unlike Obama, no one ever voted Barroso into power. Not that it really matters though, because it's an irrelevent topic. And talking about NSA surveillance is not only irrelevent, it has no place in a World War II discussion (the NSA didn't exist during World War II).
So you dare to call out the United States and Australia for their poor treatment of their indigenous populations. Colonialism might have been a major cause of suffering in the 19th century, but by the 20th century much of the crimes against indigenous people had ended. In the 20th century, there was no genocide against anyone caused by Australia and the USA. In the 20th century they had more freedom than Germany did under Hitler. In the 20th century, only the Soviet Union could rival Germany for most amount of suffering caused.
What makes the Nazi Genocide so unique isn't just the number killed (6 million Jews + other Holocaust victims like Slavs, Romani and the disabled), but the number killed in the span of just 6 years, and the need for allied armies to put an end to it.
It seems you have a habit of beating the allied nations for their crimes as a way of discrediting their sacrifices they made destroy the Nazis. Should I point out that mentioning indigenous mistreatment is actually irrelevant? It didn't happen during 1939-1945, and it didn't even happen in the 20th century. It's not only irrelevant, it's ad hominem.
Your last point is about the possible scenario of German victory during World War II. You acknowledge that the Nazis wanted to exterminate the undesirables, but you think that the Western Europeans would've simply accepted their lives under Nazi tyranny. The only Western Europeans that might have accepted the reduction of a continent to a prison would've been those living in neutral countries uncontrolled by the Nazis, like Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland. No dispossessed citizen would've completely accepted German rule over France, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece and Yugoslavia as long as people like Churchill still existed to keep fighting against tyranny.