Roosevelts' Road to Russia by George Crocker, not just for Yalta, but also the earlier Cairo and Tehran meetings.
Compare also the tenets of the so-called Atlantic Charter (which very quickly after WWII ended became merely a "press release" and "un-signed by the principals") with the positions of the chess pieces in August 1945.
To quote Professor H. E. (Elmer - not in the ham radio context) Barnes' paper "Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century":
"These selfsame anti-revisionist critics, who so heatedly denounce Revisionists for revealing and underling Roosevelt's responsibility, are the very ones who also vehemently content that, as a fundamental moral imperative, we simply had to enter the second World War to preserve our national self-respect and promote the safety and preserve the civilied operation of the human race. Hence, Roosevelt's success in putting us into this war should appear to them to be greatly to his credit as a stateman - "a good officer," as Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. has described him in this connection. Elementary logic would make it seem clear that the anti-revisionist writers should be grateful to Revisionists for having demonstrated Roosevelts' responsibility for this great and benign achievement far more definitively and clearly than the anti-revisionists have ever done. By denying his responsibility for what is to interventionists a superlative act of humanitarian statesmanship the anti-revisionists are depriving him of the credit due him for his allegedly comprehensive service to mankind."
Or, just who made the US the policeman of the world?
Or, what happened to the US Congress and their "declaration of war" duty? Involvement in Korea, say, came very easily, and much more easily ever since.
Or, when asked, "Who won WWII?" - just ask any Pole or the tens of millions that vanished behind the curtain thingy.
“Elementary logic would make it seem clear that the anti-revisionist writers should be grateful to Revisionists for having demonstrated Roosevelts’ responsibility for this great and benign achievement far more definitively and clearly than the anti-revisionists have ever done. By denying his responsibility for what is to interventionists a superlative act of humanitarian statesmanship the anti-revisionists are depriving him of the credit due him for his allegedly comprehensive service to mankind”
That is not a case of elementary logic. There are other matters for consideration. However much some would like to praise his leadership in bringing civilization back to Western Europe and parts of Asia, or whatever, clandestinely conspiring to precipitate war, up to and including allowing ourselves to be attacked, is just wrong.
You see, one can want war, and one can say we waited too long to get into war, without believing any means of entering the war are allowed. Therefore, even if war is what you wanted, the manner by which FDR entered the war is not necessarily justifiable. For most people, it’s not a matter of “by any means possible”. The author of that paragraph knows better. Morality is complex.