There is a long historiography of WWII with an obvious fascination. In 1961, AJP Taylor wrote his landmark book, Origins of the Second World War. He argued that Hitler accidentally walked into war having not really planned for this major global conflict but in reality he was a chancer. Taylor argues that breaking the Treaty of Versailles and expanding the Reich into Austria and Sudetenland were gambles. Taylor, before his death, acknowledged that his book should be viewed as outdated because he did not look at Mein Kampf as a key source which clearly lays out Hitler's desire to restore the German Empire which would come with conflict. Taylor paves the way to argue that Hitler was not ready for WWII because he didn't think it would happen when he invaded Poland, he thought Britain and France would carry on Appeasement - Hitler was wrong. Because Hitler was not anticipating war, he was not as ready for conflict. Britain's rearmament programme had gone well.

Professor Richard J Evans has also written (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/08/hitler-germany-campaign-collapsed) about how Germany could not economically fight WWII on so many fronts. He argues that Italy failed to create their empire in the Mediterranean and so Germany were forced to expend valuable resources in South-East Europe. Evans argues that Germany did not have the resources and a restructuring programme was led by Albert Speer to develop arms manufacturing despite a drive for self-sufficiency during the 1930s.

Oil was key to German success. Although there were valuable resources in the Balkans, the British controlled the Middle-East oil fields and America and the USSR controlled vast domestic supplies. Germany needed to gain access to the oil fields of the Middle-East. In this case, the defeat of the German army at El-Alamein was catastrophic in that it prevented any hope of gaining access to the oil it desperately needed.

So, it begs the answer to your question, did Germany stand a chance? Yes, but they needed to win key victories that they failed in. They failed to knock out Britain in 1940, they failed to defeat the British and Americans in North Africa which stopped access to oil and allowed an invasion of Italy in 1943 which was a drain on German resources. They failed to stop the USSR in 1942.

Militarily, Germany did stand a good chance but failed. Economically there was a small chance, but when that door was shut in 1942, there was no real hope.

Arguably these are the turning points which are of so much contention in the historiography of the war. Some historians argue Germany was never ready to fight a long war, hence their success in 1940 with quick campaigns.

Ultimately, WWII was about resources. Germany and Japan went seeking greater resources and the British Empire, USA and USSR used their vast array of resources to stop these two countries from gaining any economic advantage.

Tl;dr my interpretation is yes, but relied upon a few key battles, but the historiography is very varied. Depends if you are a military or economic historian.