we were pretty much fuel self suficient during WWII, almost all fuel domestically produced, they only way the Axis could have had an impact is if the prevented they delivery of the fuel the troops. Which was not done in any large scale way IIRC…the best shot the Nazis had with Britain was with the U-boats….which ultimatley failed, as the U-boats went from hunter to prey

We lost at Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and the Phillipines (round 1).  These were early battles before we were completely ramped up to full steam.  After that, we pretty much rolled the Japanese all the back to their mainland (of course heavy losses were incurred throughout).  I don't think we ever lost a battle in the European theater unless you count Kasserine Pass in the Italian campaign.  The Brits and Russians suffered many defeats before we really turned the tide.

Midway was a fluke in a way...weapons production was just beginning to ramp up...but we had cracked the Jap code, yet still fought the battle with only 3 carriers, whose torpedo bombers (Devastators) were obsolete,  whose fighters were marginal (Wildcat)...only the dive bombers (Dauntless) were still  considered "modern". True, the torpedo squadrons were decimated (Torpedo 8 off the Hornet was eliminated IIRC), but becuase of luck and sheer guts of steel the dive bombers laid waste to the Imperial fleet.By all rights we should have gotten our butts kicked at Midway, but good intelligence, and some legendary pilots, turned the tide of the Pacific War on those days in June 1942.By Early 1944, the full force of American industrial/military might was being felt in the Pacific, and by mid-late 1944 most of the vaunted Imperial Japanese Navy was forming coral reefs in the bottom of the ocean. Not to be a nit-picker Don but the Kasserine Pass was the North African Campaign.The only other campaign that was questionable for a while as the strategic bombing campaign.The Fall of 1943 was very deadly to the 8th AF bombers (B-17's and B-24's) striking at Nazi Germany proper. Losses against the Third Reich by the bombers were unsustainable. If the widespread introduction of the P-51D in early 1944, and the corresponding drop in bomber losses, did not occour, good chance  (I think) the bombing campaign might have been suspended. And that would have been a huge loss

We lost at Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and the Phillipines (round 1).  These were early battles before we were completely ramped up to full steam.  After that, we pretty much rolled the Japanese all the back to their mainland (of course heavy losses were incurred throughout).  I don't think we ever lost a battle in the European theater unless you count Kasserine Pass in the Italian campaign.  The Brits and Russians suffered many defeats before we really turned the tide.

Don't Forget The Battle of the Bulge,  we (the US) suffered a major defeat before regrouping and counterattacking.  There was also the meatgrinder defeats in both the Vosges Mounatins of Northern France and the Huertgen Forest.  These battles are largley forgotten because they are not sexy enough for popular history.  In both places the Germans brought the US forces to a standstill and did not give up any ground until they retreated due to eventsw on other parts of the front.  Lastly, there is the allied defeat in Market-Garden inwhich the British 1st Airborne Division was not destroyed, it simply ceased to exist, albeit after heroic resistance for far longer than anyone thought possible.

Bot the Huertgen Forest and Vosges fights were strictly American on German affairs.  It was the US 7th Army in the Vosges and something like 15 or 20 green american divisions were fed into the Huertgen Forest over the course of 6 weeks.  I think the average casualty rate in the Huertgen Forest was something like 60-70%, but I may be off a little, it has been years since I studied either battle.In my book, a defeat is any battle in which losses are unsustainable or progress is stopped.  That puts most of WWI as defeats in my book, I dont count the capture of 1000 yards of ground for 100,000 plus casualties an acceptable or sustainable casualty rate.  That is what the fights in the Vosges and Huertgen more closely resemble than a war of movement.

When discussing force levels between theaters it is important to remeber the vast scale involved in the eastern front as compared to the Western.  To the western allies northern Europe was the big show, to the Germans it was a smal front when compared to the east.  that being said, the western border of germany is their industrial heartland, and without it, the war was definitley lost.  That is one good explanation for the Battle of the Bulge.  By late in the war, both fronts were equally important to Germany, it was imply a matter of the best place to use the forces they had available.  Unfortunately for the Germans, they gambled and lost in December of 1944.

The savagery of the fighting on the Eastern Front reflected the idealogical views of both sides.  In the east, World War II was truly total as the loser faced not just defeat but annihilation.  I have never read that being posted to the east was a punishment for German generals, in what source have you found that?  I would tend to discount it as being dubious at best.  Hitler routinely posted the best and brightest to the Eastern Front because he considered it THE decisive front of the war.

I would dispute Rommel's status as Hitler's greatest general.  He was an operational genius, but I would class von Manstein, Guderian, Rundstedt, and even Model as better generals than he.  Rommel lacked a basic understanding of the logistics of warfare that is required of any great general.