I know what you were implying but it is not an accurate understanding of the situation at the end of WWII. Stalin had DRIVEN Hitler out of Eastern Europe (traditionally part of the Russian sphere of influence) and had MILLIONS of soldiers there. There was NOTHING we could have done to change that. Stalin never attacked US forces so he didn't really "turn" on us any more than we "turned" on him once it became clear that we had different strategic intentions and needs.
It is sheer nonsense to claim that the geopolitical realities in Eastern Europe could have been changed by anything other than a massive military attack. An attack of which we were not capable at the time. Nor was anyone "sold out" by FDR.
In addition, after the fall of Hitler we had hopes Stalin would help against Japan which was still unconquered.
Never stated to be favor of patton's idea of attacking the russians. But I do think he called the situation right. The country had enough of war and still needed to finish the job in the pacific. But you have to admit that the russians went far beyond their sphere of influence. I would call that turning on your allies. We went in there to free europe from hitler and ideally speaking, all of the eu contries should have been free after his defeat. They all didn't get that.
And the Russians were a great help in the pacific. (SARC)After we finished the japanese off. And they still are holding on to some of Japanes territory.
"Stalin never attacked US forces so he didn't really "turn" on us "
Do you realize how many thousands of US soldiers were kidnapped byt Stalin and never returned?