The question could use some clarity, but is not unreasonable.
In fact, a book was written pretty much on this subject. The Wages of Destruction. Haven't read it, plan to.
As a 50-ish French guy, no, it wasn't uncommon to hear older French people say something like "well, he was batshit evil but did fix their unemployment". By people who were not in the least sympathetic to Nazis. My mother, among others, who was a lieutenant nurse in the Resistance (I have seen the papers for it).
Think about it from an economically naive contemporary's point of view: Germany is facing massive economic crisis in the early 30s and is then humming along by 38. Everyone has a job. The country is even able to build a massive army. Miracle, no?
Well, no. It turns out that the Nazis massively overspent, using borrowed money (spending skyrocketed, German tax revenues didn't budge much). So, yes, I'd argue that, having made his choices from '33 on, one way to avoid default was to go pillaging.
Showing economic incentives is not being sympathetic to Nazism. If you gamble and then go on a murderous robbing spree to pay for it, then people will identify your debts as being a factor, but need not forgive you in the least.
And, going back to my remark that it wasn't (and probably still isn't) an uncommon statement by people, that makes it all the more important to debunk the fact that "there was NO German economic miracle from '33–'38". They borrowed massively and overspent. But the Nazi system most certainly did not magically "solve" the economic problems that plagued everyone else during the Great Depression.
It's also an interesting coincidence, that just around that time, FDR decided on his Keynes-inspired deficit spending "pay them to dig holes, pay them to fill them back in". This was a novel approach at the time, I wonder if anyone in the Nazi camp was tracking Keynes as well.
Yet, the nature of FDR (and subsequent stimulus packages) and the Nazis was very different, mostly due to the Nazi extreme emphasis on arms. Imagine two destitute men, both getting loans from a bank. One gets a shave, some new clothes and goes job-hunting while taking night classes. The other gets a spiffy new suit, goes partying on the town and buys himself a very expensive gun so he can rob people. All that money spent on rearmament by the Nazis was going to be wasted if they hadn't gone to war.
And then one way to pay for the "miracle" was to go to war, pillage and steal. Ask the Dutch, who suffered a massive famine in late '44, how good the Nazis were at sucking up money and goods, in this case without any racial motivation, just greed.
"Guns and butter" was always the Nazis' easy way out, that's how come they didn't even really go onto a full war economy until much later, around the time Speer took over.
The Nazis didn't have to embark on their atrocities, no. And the end result was massive impoverishment for Germany. But they did lay the foundations for needing to either plunder or default by their own early choice of economic policies. And in fact by concentrating so much on military spending.
So a question asking whether they were facing, self-imposed, economic pressures to go to war in 38 or 39 is not unwarranted and is in fact a glaring indictment of all their economic policies up to that point. Policies that made them popular.
Absent war in 39, Nazi Germany was not an economic success story that went rogue. It was a failure and con job from the start and this is a fact that is not nearly well-known enough.