[flagged]
Had Hitler not gone forward with Operation Barbarossa, the entire outcome would have been differently.
Note that attack was on the Soviet Union was on 22 June 1941, long after most of the 'friendly dictatorships across Eurasia' were already established.
While US policies did cause lots of problems, the power for the US to prevent those happening is greatly overstated above.
There are several good books by Mark Harrison and others who explain while it may have shortened the war and help speed the recovery of their economy a tiny amount, it was a drop in the bucket.
As history shows, shorting the war was in the US's interests.
We forget that the US was an active participant in the Russian Civil War, and war-weariness from WWI was one of the reasons we lost that war, along with several after WWII.
The above also ignores the interwar politics like how the Irreconcilables blocked the US joining the League of Nations or the Neutrality Acts that were passed due to isolationism and non-interventionism.
While there were valid concerns that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh and almost certainly played into Hitlers ability to rise to power, isolationism and non-interventionism of the US didn't help.
The US recognizing the USSR in 1933 was during the depression, and during a period of Japanese expansionism, and far more complicated than some form of appeasement as suggested above.
The popular cultural myths are really just propaganda, the Lend Lease wasn't as large or as meaningful as is claimed.
Don't know which claims you're referring to, but if you like you can take the matter up with Khrushchev, Zhukov and others directly:
I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. ... He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.
https://www.rbth.com/history/327846-henry-wallace-magadan-ko...
If the US was being nice to Stalin during WWII, it was because they needed Russia to defeat Hitler (Oh, and previously, they'd been nice to Hitler hoping he'd take out Stalin but ole Adolf had an inconvenient "I am a tricky military genius" complex and things didn't work out right).
Also, anti-communist campaigns somewhat abated in run-up to WWII because Stalin managed to turn the world's communist parties into extensions of Russian policy so they could be used to quash radical movements (in the US, the CP was far preferred over the anarchist IWW etc, In Vietnam CP supported the French going into WWII, etc).
And maybe a random US official was fooled by Stalinist theater but I'm pretty sure the situation of the US government was looking the other way in the same that any state looks the other way when a friendly state does something embarrassing.
Which had precisely nothing to do with the mass repressions in the years following.
Meanwhile the actual Manhattan project was chock full of soviets.
McCarthyism is just what happens when you listen to paranoid demagogues. It was literally a culture war against liberals. Gee, sounds familiar.
Contributing to the rise of McCarthyism was: >a growing obsession with perceived dangers posed by internal subversion in general and Soviet and Communist Party espionage in particular, fueled by reports, some public and some held within the government, of Russian spy operations in North America, accompanied by a new Communist "hard" line that echoed general Cold War tensions;
So, correct: The Manhattan Project(full of academics, some(many?) of whom happened to be liberal) was as you put it "chock full of soviets" and the natural reaction to that realization was to clamp down on liberals.
How did Russia establish a friendly communist government in Hungary in 1919 when it had no troops there? Actually England armed the Romanians to overthrow the Hungarian communist government.
Of course, the US, England etc. invaded Russia and fought the Red Army during/after World War I with the Polar Bear expedition etc.
Stalin dissolved the Comintern during World War II, and the Communist Party USA dissolved as a political party as well at that time.
With Albania and Yugoslavia, Red Army troops passed quickly through a small corner of Yugoslavia and offered little help to Tito.
Insofar as China, the Soviet ambassador as far as I know was the only one who accompanied Chiang Kai Shek to Taiwan. Mao took China back from the Japanese with little help.
Greece probably would have become communist after World War II, but for the Truman doctrine and US involvement, Russia did not get involved at all.
Moscow's lack of support helped in the breaks in relations - with Yugoslavia, Albania and the Sino-Soviet split.
What you're saying is rather ahistorical.