But
@Emperor Tippy, you just showed it's possible. Aren't there pages of threads showing it is?
Not in any kind of detail or with any kind of credibility.
Saying "shit is different" and "these are some of the highest level differences that you need to pay attention to" is drastically different from saying "this is what China would look like in a world without the European theater of WWII".
I mean just for starters, globalization exists because the US needed to bribe NATO into existence to counterbalance the USSR because global communism in control of the Eurasian landmass was an existential threat to the US.
A Nazi empire to counterbalance the USSR means no existential threat which means that the US doesn't need to bribe up NATO which means no globalization. That is the ENTIRE economic and grand strategic order of the past seventy years tossed out. That everything will be different is manifestly obvious, what those differences actually are is an entirely different story.
Or again, the British Empire is still around. Without the breaking of the British economy by having to fight WWII, the BE will remain extant and the US will not be in a position to break it. That single change, alone, is enough to make an unrecognizable global order. Just for starters, the British control all the ME oil in such a situation.
China is a nation that is almost entirely dependent on global geopolitical forces, trends, and issues that it was (and to some extent still is) utterly unable to influence. How China would be shaped with drastically different forces/trends/issues is impossible to answer, and that assumes that you are willing to make fiat decisions about what those initial changes are.
I'm not sure that there would actually be a Pacific War without a European War.
If Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, the pacific war occurs. If Japan doesn't attack Pearl Harbor, the US is unlikely to take military action.