I don’t think so. It was clear that after the Battle of Stalingrad, which way the war was headed. The only difference between the U.S. enterring the war was after how many Russians had died and how much Soviet occupied territory the U.S. would be willing to accept in a post-world. The Soviets made sure their industrial heartland was out of reach of the Nazi’s and even if Stalingrad had been held by the Nazi’s... (I would cite Rise and Fall of the Great Powers here, but I dont have my copy with me)...
I think a good comparison is that between the Battle of Stalingrad with that of the Battle of Midway.
That's what I used to think. The overwhelming historical consensus is that Stalingrad marked the point when Nazi defeat was inevitable. This consensus assumes, however, that Britain and the USA were allies in the war effort against Germany, thereby tying down German forces in Western Europe. A separate peace treaty* with Germany would have freed Hitler to move all his forces to the Eastern Front, just as the earlier pact with the Soviet Union allowed Germany to concentrate its forces on its western borders to invade Western Europe. Germany could have won a single front war against one continental-sized power. It couldn't have won a two-front war against three continental-sized powers. Note that without the US in the picture, the Soviets would have lost all Lend Lease aid, which even Khrushchev viewed as critical to the Soviet war effort.
* In fact, a separate peace treaty with Germany accompanied by British and American material sales to the Nazis (in the same way the Soviets supplied the Nazi invasion of Western Europe) would have finished the Soviets off.
With all due respect, no serious person gives a rat's ass whether you think so or not. You are a self-evident idiot.
Russia may have inevitably won the war, but if Stalingrad fell, Stalin and the Bolsheviks might have been removed from power, and with it Communism.