Eegore
Serious Thumper
Offline
SuzukiSavage.com Rocks!
Posts: 8403
|
I can see how land-holding is a measurable factor towards victory. I don't consider casualties to be a strong factor as a lower casualty rate is actually more desirable.
I've never done the math but I suppose taking the time in battle, square acreage loss/gain ratio and casualty numbers could be calculated. I know Stalin did a rather poor job regarding initial defense application and general strategic application was poor. Shooting your own men, which was common, certainly added to that casualty rate.
I imagine Russia would have turned things around eventually, but nowhere near as fast without Allied assistance including the US supply drops. It would have taken decades maybe.
I don't think the US in exclusivity "won" WWII, I feel it was a combination of forces. However I don't think especially in 1950's America that anyone thought the US did it alone, but when painting up a banner it was easier to put "We won!" than "We Contributed in part to a Combination of Forces that Won!"
One thing I have noticed is that too many people think Pearl Harbor started WWII in general, and many don't know how late D-Day happened. Saving Private Ryan to many was where WWII began.
|