Probably, because if it won in the West then Germany didn’t have any great strategic interests in the oceans and turf to be contested by Japan and America compared with its strategic and other interests in conquering the USSR.
However, the problem for Germany was that if it left America and Japan to thrash it out then the likely result was that America would defeat Japan and assume control of its conquests, notably most of the world’s rubber supply in Malaya and a huge component of the world’s oil supply in the NEI (to which Germany had, in a sense, title by conquest of the Netherlands) and to a lesser extent in Burma, along with various minerals and other things useful to resource-poor Germany in those territories which Japan would have made available to its Axis partner.
Given Germany’s poverty in such resources as America would acquire by supplanting Japan, Britain and France as the colonial power in the Pacific and South East Asia, allowing America to obtain them would only ensure that the new world order would be a contest between the Titans of Germany and America.
These are good reasons for Germany on a strategic basis trying to deny those resources to America and therefore not leaving it to thrash it out with Japan.
On the other hand, Germany’s primary concern is the USSR and it would be foolish to divide its forces by taking on the US at the same time. (Which, of course, Hitler would not do as in reality he was wise enough to avoid a war on two fronts. :rolleyes: )
America and Germany could have divided the world between them, with America getting the Pacific, China, maybe Siberia, and former British possessions from India eastwards, and Germany most of the rest in Europe and around the Mediterranean.
Then Germany and America set up trade relations for mutual benefit, pretty much like the Allies and the major Axis powers did after the war anyway. :rolleyes:
Trade always trumps wars, in the long term. It wouldn’t if the merchants had to fight the wars from which they profit, before, during, and after.
).