Carl Schwamberger wrote:What I would expand this with is the US use of African & Latina American labor and men for the military. Defacto or by conscious design those two labor pools were under used into 1944.
Hmmm I wonder why the US didn't import more black/brown workers? [Google: Jim Crow, Chinese Exclusion Act, Operation Wetback]
Again, if we remove all historical political and cultural constraints, it's feasible for the Anglos to have won the war. You're adding America's horrific racism to the list of things that have to change.
Carl Schwamberger wrote:there is the usual question of if just counting ground combat forces is a accurate measurement for estimating the overall situation & outcomes. Theres a reason the US & Britain invested heavily in air power and doubled down on that investment as the war progressed. Were the leaders correct in that, or should they have sent the airmen and factory workers to the infantry?
What's the argument? That the JCS was wrong in believing that the US would have needed a stronger army, absent the SU?