I've seen a lot of listed reasons for the duration of the war against Germany, however I haven't seen what I consider to be the most relevant.
The German Nazi's had already shot their load in Russia and by the time of Normandy they were already losing. The Allied invasion accelerated the Nazi defeat certainly, but IMO they were going down anyway.
But I'm sure no one in the DBM/MSM/DNC would ever do anything other than look at dates.
After all what do the conditions on the ground have to do with anything.
Most Military Historians would not agree with you. The Germans lost almost a million men in the West. Without that drain on their forces the Russians probably would of been held on the old Polish border and the Carpathian mountains.
Barbarossa, the great Soviet offensive that breaks open the East Front did NOT kick off until July 1944. With out the German forces being tied down in Italy, the Balkans and Normandy, it probably would not of succeeded. The Germans could not win the war, but they may have been able to drag it out to a negotiated settlement.
I was referring to the 6 years post war to secure the peace, and the 40 subsequent years the troops remained. Let history be our guide. Someone needs to ask the dems if our Germany and Japan policy was a quagmire and a dismal failure. Using their logic, keeping troops in Germany and Japan just 3 1/2 years securing the peace instead of decades would have been a more intelligent military strategy. That's what they're suggesting in Iraq, an area far more volatile and less industrialized.