Hitler wasn't planing on permanently occupying france, and he wasn't planning on leaving locals to rebell in the eastern conquests. A lot of Hitler's "madness" can be attributed to not admitting defeat or failure.
He could neither control France nor the Eastern conquests. Hitler was not a mastermind administrator, and lacked knowledge in howto handle foreign countries. The nazis, with the German model, would had failed in other countries, which they occupied and did not understand. No, the plan was not a permanent occupation, but it was planned to last for a while. A too long while, and a big mistake.
You keep referencing times in the war, where things started to look bleak from a german perspective (like increasing resistance in france which grew in strengh and efficincy with decreasing numbers of forces in france and defeats on the eastern front). Obviously a system based on strength and superiority cannot sustain itself in that situation. At the same time, support inside of Germany was large and oppsition had no real grounds to establish in.
The support in Germany was not that large, it was more the common people that had no chance anyway and had to continue their daily life. Not against does not signify supporting. What I'm arguing is that the system based on strength and superiority would not had survived on the long run, even if victorious, due to it being based around Hitler.
I'm not trying to say there was any real possibilty for a German military victory without an internal collaps of the Soviet Union. But: IF that victory could have been achived I don't see where your idea of coups or revolution come from. Germany had a solid line of very popular and high ranking officials to take over after Hitler, plans set-up for political power to be transitioned and, in case of a victory in the east, would have a big "achivement" to sustain public support for a while. I don't really see how a German victory in for example 1942 in the Soviet Union (most likely followed by peace deals with the Allies) would lead to a crumbling of the state over the next few years. The power and resources gained as a result of the war would have led to high living standards for most Germans, it would have further increased nationalism and the person responsible for that would have been Hitler, which would have allowed him space to slip up for a while without having to fear widespread resistance to him. I definitely fail to see how, in the timeframe this game sets, this supposed inbuild instabilty would have any chance to be a problem.
If a victory was achieved, troops were already far from France and the grip lost in the West and Africa. The Allies would had profited of the war dragging on in the east, which even a Soviet collapse would had required. Or the German military would had turned and fought the Allies, but then would had faced huge resistance in the East. The ambitions were simply too big on the long-term in order for Germany and the Axis to handle the situation. And this is disregarding nukes, Japan, the US etc...
I get your point that victory in the east was close to impossible. I get the problem of fighting far superior numbers which would (and did) eventually decide the war. I don't really see your point of fighting more enthusiastic troops though. A lot of the Red Army, especially in the beginning, wasn't really happily serving. I fail to see any part of your argument regarding a post victory germany getting major internal problems, especially on central european ground in any timeframe important to the game.
My point concerning the troops is not that the Red Army itself was more enthusiastic, but rather that it launched enthusiasm against Hitler and his regime within Europe amongst the many communist sympathisers. This was something which Hitler didn't want to consider, as he ideologically thought communists and socialists were weaker and that he had already done the necessary purges. Even if victorious against the Soviet Union, this would had caused a lot of problems for Hitler internally.
If we consider that not many nazi/fascist states existed in the first place I would really like to see where you get your idea of their instability from. We have Italy -> defeated in war. Germany -> defeated in war. Hungary -> defeated in war. None of these had internal stability problems untill they faced defeat in war. On the contrary. In Italy Mussolini's rule became more and more absolute from 1922 till 1940 and in Germany Hitler consolidated his power and had no problems with resistance at any point before the war with the Soviet Union. There are no signs of internal problems untill the day the leaders lose their image as strong, which they do when they face military defeat.
When the dictator in these states lost his "image" of the great leader, died or lost wars, instability started. I'm arguing that Hitler would had become too mad and weakened his regime crucially, even f the war had been won. Because the regime relied on him and his person, and if turned mad, not even the German propaganda machine could had handled it, as different factions and interests would had turned the realm apart. Also, Hitler was not in the best health, and even if victorious he would had had health issues, and probably died early. Finally, I think it is important to remember that Hitler lost the battle of Britain too, which we couldn't had won with his strategy unless a major UK-collapse, so already there he faced a military defeat.
