ehm, yes, but no. Yes, if the US hadn't been brought in forcefully that might have been how it went down, but that's not quite how it really was. Roosevelt was very keen on keeping us out of the war for other reasons. Everyone saw it as Europe's problem, although we sent supplies to the British because we were rooting for them, and there was plenty of reasons to be rooting for them beyond even just the basic "one side is a totalitarian dictatorship and the other is an ally" that's as obvious a fact to just saying "murder is bad".
But the underlying piece behind what both Roosevelt and his opposition was telling Americans while he was running for president: "I'm not sending Americans to go die in Europe, unless I really have to" and then Pearl Harbor happened so he really had to. At that point because the entire Axis had declared war on the US there was really no other choice. We never just joined in because we knew we'd win, we joined in because the Axis literally asked for it.
Honestly what that ambassador said looks kinda like modern international "Mud slinging" so to speak, some of it is factual and some of it isn't, and we do the same thing to them lol. The whole US vs Soviet Russia thing as well with Henry Wallace was mostly after WWII, during The Cold War. Especially much longer after the European Theater had ended in the Ally's victory, the Soviets being a part of the allies for the time being. By that moment, the US went to go nuke Japan twice, while Truman was in charge.
And even so, is it so bad that the US may have had an interest of making Soviet Europe an area full of democracies? I mean the alternative was a dictatorship that was just as bad, if not, actually worse than Hitler's German Reich. If that half of Europe wasn't taken over by the Soviets, I'll bet you that the Soviet Union would still actually be a thing today because it was so hard for them to hold onto all that area like that for so long financially.
Yes, of course the Soviets saw that interest as trying to destroy them, and rightfully so because this was the second time they got invaded by Europe and they got their asses brutally slaughtered on mass for a good solid minute there. They figured "you know what, while we kick this shit down, lets make sure this shit stays down and turn our area into satellite states so we don't get invaded yet again" You have to realize though this wasn't World War II anymore at this point, this is now Cold War era.
Something else to realize, Eastern European area that was held under Soviet control was pretty damn tired at that point of being lead by dictatorships, and so you saw many people fleeing the region into the arms of democracy when Gorbachev started to let The Iron Curtain unravel on its own in Hungary, and ripped apart The Berlin Wall.
Bottom line: if there's anything that the US- well actually both the US and the Soviet leaders should be apologizing for is The Cold War. There's no use to apologizing for hypothetical history tho like what you're doing. When politicians talk about making democracies these days in the Mid East, that idea of theirs is very much so different than the idea of spreading democracy back in WWII era.