FDR was certainly under the influence of Stalin’s agents both in how he conducted World War II and how the peace terms were settled. For instance, Churchill wanted to invade Europe directly from North Africa instead of coming through Normandy, which was Stalin’s preference because it gave him more opportunity to gain ground in Eastern Europe. However it’s a bit much for the author to conclude that we didn’t win the war. Stalin did not get everything his own way—despite FDR’s lapses, there were other forces at work in determining U.S. actions. For instance, Stalin’s agents wanted to de-industrialize Germany as part of the peace terms; they did not get that, largely due to resistance from representatives of Wall Street who also had some say in U.S. policy. W. Averell Harriman reported that during his last month of life FDR finally realized Stalin had been using him and was angry about it. By the time Truman came in, the pro-Soviet faction of the State Department represented by people like Alger Hiss was facing growing resistance from others wary of the Soviet threat. Truman had little patience with the Soviet diplomat when they tried to lie to him the way they’d been doing to FDR and basically told him off. When Truman dropped the bomb on Japan, it was not part of the Soviet game plan, and Stalin had to accelerate his timetable in Asia rapidly. We did win the war, but we would have won more quickly and won the peace terms more decisively if FDR had been more vigilant against Stalin’s influence.
However, within the context of this topic, consider the immediate period after the VE and VJ surrender signings.
Would the European countries, free prior to WWII, believe the Allies had restored that freedom? What, for example, would the Poles say? Oddly, Poland was invaded from the West and Britain goes to war; a couple of weeks later Poland is invaded from the East and not a peep from Britain.
Or, FDR being fully aware of Katyn, does nothing. This after the fan-fair of the "Four Freedoms" and the Atlantic Charter "raise" hopes of a just peace, ..., etc. [Note: Nothing is ever signed, however.]
In the recent Freedom Betratyed:Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War (editor George Nash), is chapter and verse from the US Treaty of Recognition of the USSR and the direct results of that FDR Administration decision. Stroke FDR's ego and wonderous things happened, stroke current President's ego and ... Same script?
To add another path - How is it that the USSR, under Lend-Lease, got nuclear materials in the Spring of 1943 - long before the Trinity test? And the winner is Harry "The Hop" Hopkins - Agent No. 19 from the Venona Project OTP decrypts, and FDR's "stroking" alter ego. USSR industrial espionage was the norm under Lend-Lease (e.g., the IL-2 "Sturmovik" warplane had the US-borrowed "Vee" engine as its powerplant).
The Founders truly believed in an informed public, with an underlying assumption. Free and unbiased reporting on the issues of the day - as in the Federalist Papers discussing the adoption of the US Constitution. This assumption became a non-starter with Wilson (recall the "method" of the US entry into WWI) and that continues even today.
The only "bump in the road" or divergence has been with the advent and use of the internet, blogs, ... In that vane, consider the current action of the AG on the press ...
“For instance, Churchill wanted to invade Europe directly from North Africa instead of coming through Normandy, which was Stalin’s preference because it gave him more opportunity to gain ground in Eastern Europe. However it’s a bit much for the author to conclude that we didn’t win the war.”
Churchill got his wish with the epic fail in Italy in 1943; the Normandy “foothold in Europe” was necessary because the “toehold” in Italy couldn’t get past Albert Kesselring’s defense (which cost a lot of allied lives). Churchill knew Britain had lost the war because they had declared war to defend Poland, and the Poles were enslaved at the end of it anyway. What did British troops die for?