Are u here to have a productive and informed conversation or can I just block u now?

Some maxims military strategic theory transcend accessible technologies, and the fact that Hitler (thankfully) sucked at military strategy was no secret to his own high command. There's no hindsight to be had here when his own contemporaries saw the looming failure of his military operations.

It wasn't that close to defeat; British production was still out producing German in aircraft and the notion that the RAF was going to fall was bad intel, wishful thinking by the German high command or deliberate mildec. I think it's a bit overdramatic to claim the RAF was at its breaking point when most airfields remained operational and the military industry still buidling replacements. The British had solid air defense and early warning radar, international pilots, and plenty of juice left to punish the Luftwaffe.

It also didn't help that instead of smartly attriting the UK's air-military-industry to gain total air superiority, Hitler ordered a campaign of terror against the people of Britain, who were far more resilient than what Hitler believed.

I agree. There are oil fields in eastern Russia but they weren't well developed then. They would have never been able to sustain an occupation of the territory in the USSR while holding the rest of their gains in China and SW Asia against the Allies. Maybe the US may have just entered the war on its own at that point. Roosevelt was certainly convinced that war was on the way, and prepared as well as he could for it. Pearl Harbor was basically a gift to the US government for public support against Japan.

I disagree. Even if Hitler and Mussolini succeeded in holding North Africa and the Middle East, the UK would have continued resistance. Hitler would have needed to take naval superiority from the UK and somehow dissuade international support to the isles without provocation. Hitler also failed to sustain an effective strategic bombing campaign over the British isles and did not succeed in pressuring the British through direct flights over their homeland.

They had planned on it iirc but realized that they would be not have a strategically viable position because of their overextension and the threat from the US. I don't think it's easy to speculate what a IJA invasion of eastern USSR would look like. Would it take pressure off of Hitlers Wehrmacht? Or would it have pushed the US to strike first? The IJN surely would have been very upset about it, and had already thrown their weight around to get rid of Matsuoka in Jul 1941. Japanese military internal rivalry sabotaged a lot of strategic ground operations and planning. I think it would have been disastrous for Japan, regardless of the Soviet response.

I'd make the bolder claim that once it became evident that the Axis was facing a long-war, that the inevitability of their defeat were set. Nolan makes this argument in "The Allure of Battle". Both empires simply lacked the industrial and manpower capacities to sustain their combat losses against the Allies. I'd argue that even after the blitz of Poland and France, the events that followed were mostly inevitable due to the Axis' geopolitical posturing. They were victims of their own fanaticism and delusions of racial and cultural superiority.

I think the UK's unwillingness to surrender was the key. Even if the USSR did not get invaded by Hitler (an unrealistic scenario given Hitler's ego), the UK would hold on with logistical support from the Anglosphere and material from the Americas. Germany would have had to escalate naval presence to prevent this, and that would provoke the US into involvement. I think had not Japan done Pearl Harbor, I believe it was only a matter of time before German u-boats and public outrage drew the US into active conflict with the Nazis. Escalation did really seem inevitable.

I don't think the nature of WW2 and geopolitical reality would have just permitted the Axis to simply "stop". Those empires had military momentum and strategic goals that prevented a clean end to expansion or conquest. Much of this was material demand. Fanaticism was also a major factor. Thus, I can't see many realistic scenarios in line with what you are asking about, even if for some reason the US never got involved in the war.

I did want to add that China has always had a lot of people, so that changes the dynamics of available labor and would therefore change the need for a chattel slavery system ala Dixie.

Hi, amateur (and minor degree holder) of Chinese history, language and culture here. This is somewhat dependent on the historical period, but there is evidence of chattel slavery (along with convict slavery) used for megastructures like the Great Wall and irrigation/land reclamation projects in the flood plains during the Qin and Han. There is also evidence that the caste systems during and preceding the Han supported inherited slave-status, i.e. you were a slave if your mother was one. This shows up in Confucian works occasionally. The popularity of slavery seems to have waxed and waned throughout China's dynastic eras. One of my Chinese professors explained the Chinese word 人民 renmin as proof of social stratification and evidence of feudal slavery. Not sure how right he was on that, but interesting idea.

IMO traditional bondage and commodification of women in China counts as slavery, and that's seen throughout its entire history. Not chattel slavery but slavery nonetheless.

Expansionistic dynasties surely would have taken war slaves, and there seems to be evidence of this in various complied histories like the Tangshi. Of course, you have the Yuan dynasty that enslaved many peoples both endemic and foreign to China, and the rendering of the native Chinese to second class citizens. This occurs during Qing (they were invaders as well), but you see a decline and eventually abolition of slavery post 1909. This did not really end indentured servitude or convict labor systems that were then adapted by the CCP's Laogai system (Chinese analog of the Soviet gulag).

I don't know if one has ever found any evidence for the chattel slavery similar to the American South's systems, but I'm guessing it's probably still possible, although many of the conditions that made the American system monolithic (colonialism, capitalism, industrialist, etc.) may not have been so at any point in Chinese history.

I have not read many scholarly works on slavery in China, but the evidence for multiple systems of slavery do seem to exist throughout its history, from imperial correspondences to pieces of art. It would be worth research, and would make a good history grad thesis.