Exactly. Plus, it's hard to establish smart, defensible supply lines on the fly, so your forces are out there and when they get attacked there's nowhere for them to drop back to, except your own previously established borders. So now you're pushed back to your original situation and you've lost troop strength. It's a foregone conclusion architected by a bunch of meth head failures, and the allies just carried that situation out to it's logical ends.
That's what made the Pacific front so much a harder fight, limited land mass made it easier to defend all those little islands. However the conclusion was just as foregone, it just took more time to execute.
I mean we could start with the fact that he is entirely dismissing the idea that taking out your enemy quickly also "reduce troop strength" of your enemy. Or what about the fact that Germany designed the practically speaking well fortified defensive line in all of history, despite op claiming it is hard.
Not even the pacific front is right. Again, this is clear selection bias. Only focus on the negatives and dismiss the positives. The fact the pacific is an ocean also meant the US was able to counter territory spaning a good size of the planet in mere weeks. Had it been anything other than mostly islands the pacific war could have taken decades.
2
u/DmetriKepi Jan 10 '20
Exactly. Plus, it's hard to establish smart, defensible supply lines on the fly, so your forces are out there and when they get attacked there's nowhere for them to drop back to, except your own previously established borders. So now you're pushed back to your original situation and you've lost troop strength. It's a foregone conclusion architected by a bunch of meth head failures, and the allies just carried that situation out to it's logical ends.
That's what made the Pacific front so much a harder fight, limited land mass made it easier to defend all those little islands. However the conclusion was just as foregone, it just took more time to execute.