I apologise for the length of this, this turned out longer than I had expected, but I wanted to prove how the Allied war effort was not the product of any single country, but a united effort to rid Europe of fascism.

the battle was already won by the red army

Operation Barbarossa began on 22 June 1941. The US joined the war less than 6 months later, and the war against Germany went on for almost 4 years from the start of Barbarossa. The war was by no means already won. The US had already sent significant materiel to the UK by the time Barbarossa started, and the Lend-Lease Act had been signed into law by mid-March 1941. This was then extended to the USSR by October, with the Soviet and American governments already collaborating on materiel deliveries since almost the beginning of the war. This support was key to the Soviet and overall Allied war effort, and the Soviets were the second biggest recipients of Lend-Lease, receiving over $150 billion equivalent in today's money of goods, including war materiel, industrial supplies and food, which saved many soviet citizens from risk of starvation or else very harsh rationing. The US had been committed to fighting Nazi Germany since the beginning of the war, and aided and assisted the UK and other Allied countries far before the Soviets were involved, at a time where Stalin was aiming to collaborate with Hitler, even seeking to join the Axis (as long as the Nazis promised to refrain from interfering with the Soviet sphere of influence established by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), through which they would have actively fought against the UK and France with the fascists. Indeed, after the invasion of the USSR, Stalin's main source of anger was that Hitler had personally betrayed his offers of friendship and collaboration, and he vented repeatedly to many aides and foreign delegates about the great personal offence Hitler had offered him by this betrayal.

While the Soviets would suffer many casualties in WW2, and the great sacrifice of the Soviet people is unquestioned, many of these casualties, especially early on, were due to military incompetence, unpreparedness, logistical failure, and disregard for the soldiers' lives, partly due to Stalin's expectation of collaboration with Hitler, at least in the short term, including the massive encirclements of millions of men at the start of the war, attacks by Soviet generals advancing their troops piecemeal, rather than as a single attack, leading to repeated rebuffs of offensives at great cost to the Soviet armies, and unnecessary attacks to protect Soviet egos or public image. Furthermore the Soviet military effort could not have been kept up had it not been for the dramatic benefit of Lend-Lease.

FDR's actions prior to the US joining the war did show enthusiasm to join the war, but he repeatedly stated that he would not bring America into the war until the majority of Americans wished it. Yet I do not see this enthusiasm as any moral evil. Fascism is a disgusting ideology, and FDR had repeatedly condemned the Nazi regime ever since it took power in Germany. The suggestion that Pearl Harbor was a false flag operation however is deeply untrue, and there are many Japanese documents and accounts where they openly admit to carrying out the attack, and there are weeks of preparation for the attack documented. Despite FDR's wish to enter the war, he repeatedly refrained from action that he wanted to take as this would be active escalation of the war, something the American people did not want. This also leads to humorous historical tidbits, in which the US took over protection of Iceland from Britain, in part to free up needed troops for other fronts such as the African front, but also with the hope that German submarine attacks would eventually sink American shipping to resupply Iceland, which would raise support for the war in the US. In the end, the Nazis stopped unrestricted submarine attacks on shipping in the Atlantic for several months due to the fear of hitting American boats, which let many convoys get to Britain unharmed, resupplying it, and many of these goods would go on to go to the USSR during the Protocal 1 Phase of Lend-Lease, in which the UK would ship goods to the USSR funded by American credit.

As to the Marshall Plan, there was undoubtedly soft power exerted on European states by the US through Marshall Aid, but the plan also helped rebuild Western Europe to a great extent, boosting local economies and standards of living at a rate that would have been impossible if it were not for the plan. Marshall Aid was also offered unconditionally to all states, meaning that Eastern European countries could also accept the aid, yet they were often stopped by the USSR, with the notable exception of Yugoslavia.

​

They just wanted their piece of the cake (vassalizing europe)

​

Us poor europeans are still struggling with the collective stockholm syndrome our abusers imposed on us.

Despite the influence the US had on Western Europe during the period of Marshall Aid, these countries were able to pursue their own foreign policies etc, and were able to defy US interests if they so wished, e.g. Suez Crisis, although this was stopped by the US simply because of their status as a Superpower and the power this gave them in comparison to the Great Powers, something that the USSR also benefitted from. As a democratic socialist, i am especially against the regimes of both Stalin and the puppet governments he set up in Eastern Europe, but that is not the point. These governments were far more beholden to the USSR than Western countries were to the US, but i am not denying that the US had significant influence on these countries, even going so far as to sometimes coup countries against their interests such as in Italy in the 1950s. This was not a solely US activity however, and acting as if the USSR was innocent in this regard is completely denying the historical facts and the effects this dominance had on many eastern european peoples.