First you have to ask what you mean by "winning", so I'll open up a couple straightforward options, that stand in contrast to history. (Each of which necessarily has to begin at the point of having "started" WWII in Europe, which I'm going to peg at the invasions of Poland, France, the low countries, etc.)
Roughly in descending order of "winningness":
Of these the first is just not possible historically. Even had the Pearl Harbor attack not happened, the Americans would have eventually entered the war almost certainly. Moreover, even without the Americans in the war the Eastern Front is a nightmare for the Germans in any reasonable sense. Lend-Lease materials and equipment significantly advantaged the Soviets in that campaign and without that materiel the Soviets may not have been able to turn the tide of the front so rapidly and drive the Germans across Eastern Europe so rapidly. However, the alternate is unlikely to be a rapid German victory, it's more likely that the Eastern Front drags on even longer and becomes even more grueling, perhaps ultimately ending in stalemate, though it's more likely the Soviets would win eventually due to their stronger logistical/strategic advantages (especially in manufacturing and resources). It's very unlikely that conflict resolves into a settled peace due to the extremely brutal animosity between the Germans and the Soviets, almost certainly it only resolves as a complete military victory by one side or the other, and it's very unlikely that the Germans could have pulled such a thing off. They're military was built for campaigns like the capture of France, quick summer wars, and that showed when they were trapped in Soviet territory through the long winters with long supply lines and their advantages were squandered.
And, unquestionably, with the Americans in the war there was no realistic outcome of a German victory. Even had the Germans done better here and there (say they did better in the East and they pushed back the initial D-Day invasions) the long-term evolution ends up looking more like the Japanese home islands in 1945, a country increasingly bombed (eventually by nuclear weapons), its logistics crippled, its industry crippled, its supply lines crippled, its population starving, etc. In that scenario Germany ends up either more or less dying, eventually being defeated as its forces weaken, or surrendering in preference to death.
OK, so let's look at the second scenario, a negotiated peace where Germany keeps territory. This, I would say, is actually plausible. Imagine a history where things went slightly differently. Hitler doesn't invade the Soviet Union. The Japanese don't advance against the US/UK in the Pacific in 1941 quite yet. Depending on how things developed with the UK it's conceivable that if they were down and out enough (and they were getting there) they could have negotiated a peace that allowed continued German occupation of much of the territory they had conquered by early 1942. If Europe was "at peace" by the time the Japanese made their move in the east, more so if the Axis powers had disbanded their alliance, then the US/UK might have been distracted enough by the Pacific War to care about liberating Europe. It's not such a crazy thing to think of, since the democratic versus communist Cold War situation persisted for about half a century under comparable conditions. Once the "hot" war in Europe had stopped, then I think it would have been difficult to start it back up again, even with the US potentially involved.
The other options are, I think, very much less likely, because they basically imply a continuation of active fighting after 1941/1942, and if that's the case then it's very unlikely that anyone on the Allied side would look at the state of things and think they didn't have a pretty good chance of winning. One might imagine some freak occurrence or series of occurrences that might sap the will of the Allies to continue and drive them to seek peace, but that seems like too much of a stretch. Even had the Germans done considerably better in the Battle of the Bulge, for example, they were still losing desperately in the East at that point and their fate was essentially sealed.
In short, realistically no. Ultimately Hitler was Hitler, and that meant he wasn't content with just Poland, France, etc. and wanted to push his luck as far as it could go (which was very much farther than it actually could). Logistics defined most of the major wars of the 20th century, and Germany was at a considerable disadvantage in logistics and resources during WWII.