You're right about what would have happened to the Slavs, though I doubt you're correct about the Brits. They were higher up on the racial hierarchy and the Germans weren't interested in settlement in Western Europe anyways.

 I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say the US military industrial complex funded Hitler. First of all it didn't really exist at the time - US military spending was tiny until they began building up at the end of the thirties. The mil-ind complex that we know and love today only really came into being with Korea and the onset of the permanent large scale military that came with the Cold War. Secondly, even if you mean industry in general, you're wrong.  They had no problem trading with Nazi Germany, but that's about it. And if you're talking about the US subsidiaries in Germany, the only real alternative would have been to just write them off since Nazi Germany had pretty strict restrictions on repatriating profits.  Now, if you want to argue that they funded Weimar, you'd have more of a point - loans to Germany funded its huge current account deficit and allowed them to pay reparations to France and Britain which let them pay off loans to the US which then went back to Germany. This was conscious policy on the part of the US and its business elites. Plus there was large scale direct investment. But the whole game began breaking down in the late twenties and the Depression killed it off.

As far as German industry goes, it is true that they were quite happy to work with Hitler, but even there the Nazis were a second choice. They would have preferred a standard issue conservative dictatorship, which is why they tended to support the DNVP before 1933. When it became clear that they needed his popular appeal,they (and the also very powerful agricultural lobby and the military and civil service elites) still thought they would be able to control him. They were wrong. Hitler did clamp down on the anti-capitalist wing of the NSDAP in 1934, but in return he got to run the show with the old elites in a very much subordinate position. They got to make tons of money and not deal with those pesky unions and voters, in return they did what they were told.

Some strange historical assertions here.  I have read a LOT of history books about WWII and there are very few of your arguments that I find true.

1. Britain was not much of a target for Germany.  After the Battle of Britain, the Germans decided that there was little on that island worth having so they turned their attention east.

2. It is VERY unlikely the Germans could have ever won against USSR.  If you measure battles by people involved and casualties, 95% of what is called WW II was between USSR and Germany.  The "contributions" toward the defeat of the Wehrmacht by the Western countries were barely important.  And only the delusional would consider Montgomery's efforts meaningful.

3. The contributions of the so-called Western mil-ind complex in building up German power was tiny.  Just remember, the provisions in the Versailles Treaty were extracting wealth from Germany at FAR greater rates than the monetary flows in the opposite direction.  Remember also that German industrialization had blown by England's long before 1914 so they hardly needed western mil-ind "help."

The outcome of WW II would have been to total domination of Europe by Stalin's forces if USA and Britain had stayed out of the conflict after Barbarossa.  I really do not see how the history of the era can be read any other way.  Of course, that doesn't mean other histories are not told.  In fact, it is a rare American who even KNOWS the USSR was involved in WW II--much less the role of the Red Army in the defeat of the Wehrmacht.  Unfortunately, it sounds like the "history" taught in Britain is just as goofy as the history we were taught.

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"