> … the US would have had the opportunity for a lasting victory instead of a stalemate. I am sure I'm missing the point, but the US (together with the other al

> … the US would have had the opportunity for a lasting victory instead of a stalemate. I am sure I'm missing the point, but the US (together with the other allies) did achieve a lasting victory. It surely wasn't a theoretically optimal victory, but it was unquestionably lasting (for about 70 years, apparently). Am I factually wrong, did I misinterpret your meaning, or is it something else?