Never said Poland was invaded for no reason. It was invaded and Germany did have a reason for it. Though linking to statements and numbers provided by Joseph Goebbels to a Press Pamphlet doesn't quite inspire much confidence in the casus belli. Let alone the German affinity for false flag attacks to justify aggressive policies at the time.
The only sources I've been able to find citing anything over 500 deaths on "bloody sunday" are a variety of apologia and white supremacist websites.
Ah yes. The (((truth))) is right here. It had nothing to do with the fact that the previous 400 years of English policy had almost always seen the English intervene on the mainland in the face of an expansionist power who they believed to be attempting to unify Europe(even if they were overall apathetic to the musings of Europe as a whole). First under Monarchy, then under simple expansionism.
Nothing at all to do with deterring Germany with the potential of fighting a 2 front war in light of Germany's occupation liberation of Czechoslovakia in violation of yet another pre war agreement.
As for atrocities(ignoring Goebbels spiel), if it was anything like the mistreatment of the Germans by the Czech's, then it could best be described as the sporadic and quite frankly rare show of aggression over a 20 year period of time which conveniently picked up in occurrence and intensity as the Nazi's infiltrated and funded various Germanic minorities political and covert actions in other countries It's not to say that tensions between German minorities and their ethnic majority hosts didn't exist(it certainly did), but to the degree the Nazi's claim it so is more than likely not to be outright fabrication.
On another note, while humiliation is not the word I'd use to describe France in WWI, the Franco Prussian war was certainly nothing short of humiliation for France. Loss of her Army, massive infliction of Reparations post war and the military occupation and annexation of territories with gradual withdrawal in some first and others dependent upon payment was certainly not what France had in mind during the course of the Franco Prussian war. Those terms DO sound awfully familiar...though it doesn't change that France was dumb to pursue such a Revanch driven policy before and post Great War.
Easy to have everyone employed when you get to define who or what constitute employment. I'm also not sure the Jews assaulted in the street or who's business were destroyed, deported minorities and 400,000 sterilized German citizens were particularly happy.
If by so many people you mean Germany then you'd be correct. Ignoring Spain's Civil war and Italy's expeditions into Africa, The only power that could probably be said to be re arming would be the Soviets. British re-armament was basically non-existant until Hitler's withdrawal from the League of Nations and his denouncing of the Geneva Disarmament conference. France had kept a steady pace of advances, not too strange for it, though even it did not fully begin to mobilize for war until a few days prior to the German invasion of Poland. Poland itself was in the middle of preparing for war, but French assurances of support had basically caused them to stop out of request
All everyone told Germany to do was chill. Instead Germany because a program of secret re-armament at first from as early as 1919, that was later exposed during NatSoc rule and subsequently caused reactionary mobilizations. No one was interested in war. That's why the Anglo-Franco diplomats pushed appeasement as hard as they did to start off. As for the towns and cities, I direct you again to Lebensraum. The ultimate and driving goal of Nazi Germany was to find NEW living space for Germans which they could not find in Germany. In order to get a Germany which does not engage in the preparation of war, NatSocs and most SocDems would probably have be disqualified outright or the concept of Germanic expansionism needs to die with WW1.
I don't disagree that public works are good. Though as you yourself have pointed out, there needs to be some type of reliable return on investment. The Military, of which is the worst of these options.
The Italian Regia Marina was the only reason the Germans were able to do anything in Africa. Unlike the Kriegsmarine, the Marina also had to take on the full forces of the British Surface fleet in the Mediterranean, while the Germans spent the whole war attacking allied convoy transports instead. On the note of Japan, they really didn't have any other outlook outside of straight surrender. Japan got absolutely BTFO by Russian Mechanized divisions when they attempted to enter through the Russian-Mongolian border. They were running out of supplies via embargoes and some of the world's most abundant natural resources lie in SE Asia, who's colonial overlords were preoccupied largely in Europe. The US was always a problem in these plans, though Japan seemed convinced that it could copy Germanic gambles and get away with it.
Secondly, the funny thing about war is that you don't always get to dictate the terms on which you fight it. Germany was running into larger and larger resource shortages in 1940. The bulk of its war effort subsidized by Soviet ore and oil that Stalin had been supplying. Germany's options were to either synthesize its material, which it wasn't anywhere close to in quantative amounts, continue waging a futile war of attrition against the British which it had no statistical chance of winning at that time, or it could take a gamble as it had done before in the Ardennes, in its militarization, in the annexation of the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia. Unfortunately for Germany, and fortunately for not quite everyone but a decent amount of everyone else, they failed.
It isn't Italy's or Japan's fault that the Germans, despite knowing the limitations of their own industry, continually pushed them over what they were able to manage.
It wasn't either's fault that Germany, rather than build smart, economical weapons of war instead devoted itself to producing some of the most complex and questionably reliable weapons of war(I'm looking at you Gustav). Though at least they looked good.
Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics. The Germans were great at the former but completely brain dead when it came to the latter Also I'm not going to reiterate again just how central the Racial policies were to Germany's goals so i won't.
Operation Sea Lion was, is and will continue to be nothing but a meme.
If you want a more accurate real life example of what would have happened, the Chinese have just the thing for you: https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/66540c7b-a562-42af-8f30-14f5563b8d83/TheBattleOfQuemoy.aspx
Stalin WAS planning to betray Hitler and vice versa. The difference was that Stalin thought they'd attack later rather than sooner and Hitler thought he'd be attacked sooner than later.
History favors the one who can write history. The Huns, Mongols, Vikings and such for example. Just about every single major piece of information we know about them was written by the literate classes of the people they conquered. The Lost cause of the South is another example of the losers of the war rewriting history. The Peloponnesian War accounts are almost entirely from Athenians, who ended up losing the war. Hell, the entire Easter Front of World War 2 and our collective knowledge of it TODAY is still damaged by the fact that most of the history was written by the Germans. The HUMAN WAVES meme, the One soldier carries the gun while the other carries the ammunition myth, the Polish cavalry charge into tanks myth ect...
Movies such as Enemy at the Gates don't do much to help dispel any of these myths, even if they are quite a nice watch.
In other words, we went speaking about European culture and people were being replaced with citizens of foreign nations in Current Year, to Speaking about European culture and people being replaced with citizens of foreign nations in the early-mid 20th century.