Thanks Petri.

Poles and Eastern Europeans would disagree with your assessment of FDR's 'interest' in independent states.

The US didn't declare war on Hitler over Polish sovereignty, nor were they fighting for European democracies.
FDR even supported Vichy candidates over Free French(as any Frenchman will tell you).
FDR left Truman(who viewed Stalin very differently) with American guarantees of Soviet domination over previously democratic states.
American policy in regards to Europe was not as altruistic as Britain's, start to finish.

Yet though Churchill argued that the whole reason for war with Hitler in the first place was Polish sovereignty, he also insisted that his first duty was the preservation of the Empire. He was even against Indian Independence. He even made trips to Canada in fear their support was waning. Quebec itself refused to volunteer as they had for even the First World War and since Dieppe and Hong Kong, Canada was not happy.

I stand by my worry that if Churchill had to decide between a stronger post-war British Empire...
and a weaker collapsing Empire given credit in history books for taking Hitler down with it,
Churchill would choose King and Empire over finishing off Hitler himself.
Lord Halifax was already pressuring for the recinding of 'unconditional surrender' demands, saying that it took away the motive and support of the German Underground to remove Hitler and the Nazis.

Sources.
'Liddel Hart's History of the Second World War.'
"Total War" 'The Causes and Courses of the Second World War."
Calvocoressi, Wint, Pritchard
"The Battle of the Bulge" MacDonald
*however, those, to my recollection only infer that had the plan succeeded it could have, according to whom?, forced a separate peace in the west. But of course those historians can't quote from biographies and files only released after those publications.

As for Battle of the Bulge/ Ardennes ...I have on hand:

"Secrets of WWII": "Secrets of the Battle of the Bulge"
Time Life Video
BBC WorldWide.

"The Secret War": "The Battle of the Bulge"
Time Warner? Video
or Turner Life?(it was only in vhs and its packed away somewhere)

"The Century of Warfare" Vol IV
Normandy to the Rhine
The End in Europe
Vol VI
Iron Curtain

"The Second World War"
Classic Pictures UK
"The Battle for the West Wall" Vol XVIII

Military Blunders of WWII...Macksay
and
Military Intelligence and Cover-Ups of WWII...Hughs-Wilson

How Hitler Could Have Won World War II...Alexander.

I believe, from what I can grab in the library here.

But be careful. There is alot of revisionist nonsense being printed/filmed too.
I tend to trust 'official biographies', especially those that leave themselves open to lawsuits if they lie. Not necessarily those done by family friends or colleagues, but from various sources and interviews.
I've found that BBC, The History Channel, Science and Discovery and even Biography from A&E(PBS) tend to avoid the cherry-picking revisionists. Especially if it is a British series that takes a little wind of the sales of its own people.

I even had a Russian friend come in to translate interviews of Zhukov for instance to make sure the subtitles were right when a new dvd released had him admitting they could have lost the Battle for Kursk. I'm pretty sure that wasn't in Soviet movie theatres before now. Some fascinating stuff coming to light. The problem is, as you infer, who to believe.

The world is tired of our 'without a doubt' 'proven beyond a shadow of a doubt' 'the numbers don't lie' 'we have witnesses' 'SLAM DUNK' on Weapons of Mass Destruction and divert pressure from Bin Laden because we've proved Saddam was behind 9/11.
The world doesn't believe us anymore.

To be fair, unlike the American media, I do believe I recall the BBC and some British/European being more sceptical of these 'Slam Dunks'.

ps... if you know of any more, especially new stuff from new released files, please let me know ok?