No. If the Western Allies can cut a deal with the Valkyrie junta, the war in Europe can end many months in advance, and the WA can spare a hulluva lot of military assets they can use to level Japan. They have no need to bargain for Stalin's costly and harmful "assistance". And Joe is going to invade Manchuria at first opportunity for his own gain anyway.
Again, if Germany surrenders early, the Western Allies can spare a truckload of assets for Japan. They don't need Soviet help, the Germans make lack of Soviet occupation a term of their surrender, the WA have no motive to let the Soviet occupy what they never conquered. Stalin already got his sizable empire, err.. "security zone" in Eastern Europe.
First, don't compare Japan and Germany's situations; they were very different. By the time that Germany was defeated historically and Japan was next, the special relationship with Stalin was just starting to fall apart. At that time people trusted Stalin, but by the time Japan fell, Stalin was denied his piece in the mainland for being johnny-come-lately and because the Americans no longer trusted him nearly as much. With Germany, Stalin had lost perhaps 25 million people in the war and had been fighting it for longer than America had. There was absolutely not way to deny him part of Germany. He would take it if he had to.
The Western Allies' insistence about Stalin invading Manchuria had nothing to do with lacking the resources to tackle it themselves, rather, they did not want to spend the lives tackling 1 million Japanese soldiers there when they were going to invade Japan by themselves anyway and take those losses. Also, how exactly is Stalin supposed to be prevented from rejecting the peace deal that does not get him the occupation zone in Germany? The Wehrmacht, even concentrating all its forces in the East, wouldn't be able to stop the Soviets from breaking through. Give them a deal that denies Stalin his pound of flesh for the suffering the Soviet peoples have undergone under German invasion and he will go it alone, convinced he was betrayed by his erstwhile allies.
At this point the Western Allies and Stalin were pretty tight still. FDR had no desire to stab Stalin in the back and trusted him. He was more interested in punishing the Germans, which would mean giving the Soviets an occupation zone in Germany. Eurofed understand that as much as it pains you that the Soviets would be getting to rule over parts of Germany and commit atrocities, it was going to happen no matter what by this time. The question is whether the Germans were going to fight until the bitter end or surrender early and leave at least 1 million more Germans, not to mention millions more people of other ethnic groups, alive. Resisting the Soviets is not going to work out like you think. Eventually Stalin is coming, so it is a matter of working out a deal early to soften the blow rather than letting him march in and take what he wants by force.
Germany was finished at this point, so it would behoove all the new leaders to realize that and act accordingly. Lay down arms, let people out of the camps, admit to Nazi crimes and disavow them and Nazis, handing over all major party leadership, and generally just pray that the Allies are willing to play ball. Even if not, it is better than going down the way the Nazis did and would save many more lives. It also would probably help Germany's image in the West if they killed Hitler and immediately surrendered unconditionally (or with only minor conditions), willing to democratize under the auspices of America. The fighting to the bitter end thing coupled with the concentration camps really put the hate of all things German into many people in the West. If the Germans are the ones to wrap it all up, there would be a larger recognition of their contributions to peace post war. Perhaps, instead of the the French, the German resistance would be overestimated and given a special place in the national and international consciousness.