What Is the Preferred Strategy For the US in Axis and Allies? Why?
What Is the Preferred Strategy For the US in Axis and Allies?


You answered your own question - the simple "shuck-shuck" strategy devised by Don Rae. The reason it works is because infantry are cheap and defend at 2, but only attack at 1. Therefore you can build an impenetrable infantry force that can withstand a large German offensive push and keep Germany hemmed into mainland Europe, freeing Russia and the UK to focus on pushing back Japan and tipping (or keeping) the IPC balance in favor of the Allies.


  Do our strategists know something that America's "real life" military didn't know?


There were many reasons why "shuck-shuck" was not implemented in real life. Among them include:


Geopolitical reasons - remember, the Allies only grudgingly allied with Russia. They were viewed as the lesser of two evils and a necessary ally to help end the war. Also, in real life Finland was attacked by Russia in 1939 in the Winter War. Then, from 1941-1944, Finland allied with Germany and declared war on Russia and aided Germany in attacking Leningrad. Given that they were at war with Russia, I doubt Finland would have permitted the US and UK to march troops through their country to assist in the defense of Russia.
Logistical reasons - moving troops from Norway to Karelia takes "one turn" in the game, but would be more labor and time intensive to accomplish in reality given the topology and climate of that region. Also, I presume the infrastructure to move millions of troops, equipment, and foodstuff was not in place and would need to be built. 
Sociological/psychological reasons - how positively would the American public respond to a war strategy that boiled down to, "We send millions of our own boys into the arctic and down into Russia to have a staring contest with the Germans. We'll liberate France when we get around to it. Also don't forget that this was not long after World War I, which was notorious for brutal trench warfare that resulted in pointless, high casualty offensive actions and long standing stalemates. It would be hard to sell the public on a repeat of a "dig in and wait"-type strategy.
Economic reasons - the US has the economic means and raw materials to produce modern weaponry at a scale that couldn't be matched by the Axis powers. The US had not been engaged in warfare for years, suffered bombing runs on their mainland factories, and so forth. It wouldn't make much sense to have the US focus on building a large defensive troop position when they could focus on building battleships, bombers, planes, tanks, and so on. Also, in real life the value of a human being is worth more than 3 IPC. :-)