Any long war scenario and the only question is when and how the Union defeats the Confederacy.
Not necessarily. On paper, Great Britain should have utterly annihilated their thirteen rebellious colonies. The United States should have subdued North Vietnam without breaking a sweat. There's more to winning a war than who has the most men or the most guns. I would agree the South had no chance of winning by force of arms alone after Gettysburg and Vicksburg. But there was a real possibility that Lincoln might have lost the election of 1864, which could have resulted in a negotiated settlement of the war.
Nor does one see Soviet-wanks the way one sees Nazi-wanks
The Nazis are a convenient trope for fiction since everyone agrees they were evil. There isn't as much accord on the nature and the scale of the Soviets evil (though there ought to be.)
no subject
Not necessarily. On paper, Great Britain should have utterly annihilated their thirteen rebellious colonies. The United States should have subdued North Vietnam without breaking a sweat. There's more to winning a war than who has the most men or the most guns. I would agree the South had no chance of winning by force of arms alone after Gettysburg and Vicksburg. But there was a real possibility that Lincoln might have lost the election of 1864, which could have resulted in a negotiated settlement of the war.
Nor does one see Soviet-wanks the way one sees Nazi-wanks
The Nazis are a convenient trope for fiction since everyone agrees they were evil. There isn't as much accord on the nature and the scale of the Soviets evil (though there ought to be.)