Not really. Neither the US or the USSR were 'talked into war' by skilled British diplomats, FDR and Stalin weren't infants in politics who need a guiding hand.
T
The russians and the US were each different cases, each with vastly different starting positions, and each with vastly differnt agendas. In the case of the Russians, they entered the war as allies of the germans, with close economic ties, and a desire on the part of the Russians to co-operate in the destruction of the western powers. it was only after the german betrayal of the the Russians that the Russians could be approached by Allies. At least until the latter part of 1943, the various negotiations undertaken by the allies with the russians were overwhelmingly conducted by the British. The ofocial alliance documents, signed in June 1942, between the allies and the Russians were drawn up by mostly British diplomats, and the terms negotiated by British politicians. The british in that first six months kept the US allies fully informed of developments, but it was not the US that drove these negotiations. Basically, they didnt know how to.
Moreover, at least until 1944, the main re-supply route remained the arctic convoy route, followed by the Persian route. Both these routes were opened up, guarded and maintained by British efforts. in the case of the Arctic route, it was British warships, and by far in the majority british registered merchant ships until 1944 that provided the transport. In the case of the Persian route, it was again British controlled rolling stock, taken mostly from India, British engineers, British military forces (along with some Russian forces) , that took over Persia and opened up that supply route. Later, the Americans did provide substantial numbers of Hevy prime movers and engineers. It was also the Americans that opened up the alaskan route , but both these efforts came much later.
Similalry, the initial aid provided by the allies to the Russians were taken from British controlled stocks. There were seven major re-supply convoys undertaken in 1941. None of these were supported or carried US equipment (ther were items of lend Lease equipment, but these were drawn from British controlled stocks. US aid did not really begin to kick in all that much until 1942, and did not take a dominant position until 1944. So in both a diplomaic and material sense the Russian/Allied alliance was formed and mainained by the british for a very long time.
They had their own strategic plans which happened to coincide.
This is about as far from the truth as can be got. the Russians were in alliance with the germans. They were interested in European domnination and were playing a pretty active role in achieving that, short of active involvement. In terms of military hardware the Russians were the most heavily armed nation on earth. Stalinist foreign policy was expansionist and aggresive.
The US at the beginning of the war was essentially intraspective (inward looking) with only a passing interest in foreign relations. Their military was almost totally unprepared for war, and the country remained essentially pacifist and antiwar. Two men alsmost single handedly turned that situation around.....FDR and Churchill, but that took time, and the initiative for rearming and reassessment of the American position came from British goading not from within. The Grand Alliance, which you are so quick to dismiss did exist, and its stearing authority was controlled by an organization called the Joint Chiefs (a british initiative) which remained under British dominatioon until well into 1943. Wartime political directions also remained under british domination, with the Americans tagging along for the ride until well after the casablanca conference of mid 1943. The formation of the Atlantic Charter (the foundation of the UN, and primary objective in wartime foreign relation for the allies) was a British initiative. The "Europe First" doctrine was insisted upon by the british and agreed to by the Americans, doctrines such as "Pont Blank" the bomber offensive and many other critical foreign policy and military planning inititives were all dictated to by the british. Not that the Americans were unwilling...they were more than willing....they wanted the brits to help them learn. In terms of exchange of military tech, the Brits selflessly gave nearly all their secrets to the Americans under tizard and others. Sure there was self interst at work here, but the moral leadership (I know, you have already acknowledged to Michael you dont understand the concept of morals, but I can assure you existed at least in the Allied camp) in all the key areas of the Allied war effort remained a British dominated area until well into 1943. It was because of this and the reluctance of the british in 1942-3 to the opening of a second front that led to the abandonment of the round Up strategy ( the promised cross channel attack in 1942) that led to its abandonment. Despite the obvious huge production and manpower potentia of the Americans, throughout 1942 their ability in Europe to project remained severely limited. numbers of Fighter squadrons could be just about counted on one hand....the first bombing missions of about squadron size were not undertaken until July, in minscule proportionsd. By that stage the british had already commenced 1000 bomber raids over Germany and were gradually fighting for and winning air superiority over france (though you dispute this, with as usual no supporting evidence and without the slightest understanding of what the term "air superiority" actually means). At the torch landings, the initial US land committment was just less than a Corps, whilst the british committed the equivalent of an army, with a further army engaging the Germans from the east, and a further two armies ready in Britain for rapid action if necessary (one Canadian)
Just like he wasn't talked into forming a allience of convenience with Hitler in 1939, when it suited his goals, he didn't need Churchill's nonsense who did not befriend the USSR, but hostiled it until it entered the war.
Wrong. Stalin did enter an alliance with the germans in 1939. It was called a nonagression pact, but it went much further than that. The Russians actively assisted in military operations with the Germans in destroying Poland. if thats not a military alliance I will be a monkeys uncle. And Stalin was fooled by the germans. He actively sought military alliance with the Germans and made the cardinal error of trusting them. Which seamlessly explains Churchilss hostility toward them. Not that Churchill needed much of a modus operandi to justify his hostility. He saw Stalin for what he was, but given the closeness of the Soviets to the germans, and the fact that the british were reading that diplomatic traffic in its entirety, ther is little wonder why the British and Churchill in particular were hostile to the russians. Despit the russian duplicity with the enemy, the british made repeated attempts to warn the Russians about what was coming. The Soviets chose to ignore those warnings, besotted by Hitlers lies and their own ambition.
Similarly, FDR's mind was on hauling the US economy out of the great depression and secondly, which has been an ambition of US presidents in the last 50 years establishing the US as the dominant power of the 'Western Hemisphere' in weight of US industrial power (a situation not unlike that of the 2nd Reich under the Kaiser I must add), and taking control of sea trade and securing markets for the US industry. A newly emerging industrial power challanged the old colonial powers.
Rubbish, mostly. The US was completely disinterested in European dominance or colonialism. They advocated a rather naive policy of free trade and open door access to markets. The Amnericans had no interest in European wars or domination or foreign control. Thats was directly the reason they were prepring for war against the closed door minded Japanese.
The US did not engineer their entry into WWII on the basis that they needed the economic stimulus or were recovering from the depressiuon. The US was still recovering from the depression, but it is absolute poppycock to argue that the US prepared for war because they needed to stimulate their economy. The US drift to war pre-1941 was the product of active efforts by Churchill and FDR to contain Nazi aggression. It was fanned by the German use of unrestricted mercantile attacks on neutral shipping in the pan-American neutrality zone. this was essentially a repeat of German sea behaviour of 1917.
The British were hoping that the US will join (US intentions to do so were quite clear to anyone) and save their ass. But it was the US who named the price for that - we save your ass, in exchange you hand over your trading position and markets. Just read the Atlantic Charter. Britain wasn't in the position to lead or set the conditions of this 'grand alliance'
.
Again rubbish. i have read the Atlantic charter and it says nothing of the sort you are clainming. In the finish the Brits became the junior partner in the miltary alliance. in the finish the USA came to dominate the politics of the west and its economy, but this was not the reason for its entry into the war, nor was the british playing second fiddle to the American diplometically or militarily in 1941-2. It was the other way around in fact
...? 
