Ask a question

What Was The Allie;s Strategy For Winning The War In Eurpoe In The Pacific

U.S. allied wartime strategy in europe and the pacific?

The Anglo-American strategy was somewhat different from the Soviet one. The Soviets simply went for a destruction of Axis forces in the field. The Anglo-American idea was more directed to crippling the Axis ability to carry on the war effort. In the European theater, this began with a naval blockade (not particularly important there) and securing the British oil supply in the middle east, followed by strategic bombing and a step-wise approach to taking ground, in part based on what could be done. But the Normandy invasion was to a degree based on northern France's proximity to the Ruhr, Germany's industrial center.
The Pacific war was somewhat more straightforward, too. The US submarine fleet cut off the home islands, and the main strategy was to burn Japanese cities and their industry to the ground. The island-hopping was designed to gain bases for the heavy bombers to do the burning, and the little M-69 incindiary bomb was the main weapon of that theater, strategically speaking.

What strategy did the U.S.use to win the war in the Pacific?

The main strategy was island hopping. You only took on the Japanese on the islands that you needed or that had airfields. If an island was not important and did not have an airfield, they just bypassed it as the Japanese on those islands were essentially out of the fight and could be taken care of later.

That is why years after the war they were still finding Japanese soldiers on the islands that were bypassed. They did not hear the war was over and they continued to fight. That is an interesting story in itself.

What was the Allies' strategy for winning World War 2?

At first, due to Pearl Harbor, the United States forestalled the "Germany First" strategy to strike back at the Japanese. After the victories at Midway and the Coral Sea, the U.S. turned its attention to Germany. The strategy dictated that the U.S. and Britain would begin their campaign against Germany by invading Northern Africa, therefore tying down German divisions that would be sent to the Eastern Front.

After the defeat of the Axis forces in North Africa, the U.S. prepared for the invasion of France, but they were persuaded by Britain to attack the "weak underbelly" of "Hitler's Fortress Europe" e.i. Italy, which helped tie down even more divisions that would be sent to the Eastern Front.

After the capture of Rome after a campaign filled with large numbers of casualties, the U.S. persuades Britain that the only way to defeat Germany is to attack through France instead of continuing through the mountainous land that covered Northern Italy. The Soviet Union went on the offensive during the summer, easily overwhelming the poor German defenses.

In the Pacific Front, the United States, after the battles at Midway and the Coral Sea, began an offensive that would be continued throughout the whole war. In fact, the Japanese NEVER repelled any amphibious attack the U.S. put into operation.

Just my two cents.

-Alexander

What was the Allied strategy in the Pacific during WWII?

The whole strategy was defense at first but that part is boring.The offensive strategy the allies used in WW2 was called island hopping. The allies decided trying to get straight to japan would be to hard. So they decided to take baby steps they would start with taking islands on the outskirts of japanese territory, and slowly but surely the allies were getting closer to Japan.When they got close enough they started to bomb mainland Japan as the allies slowly moved even closer 1 island at a time. They were planning an invasion of Japan until america had a major breakthrough in nuclear technology and behold we had our first atom bomb.We no longer had to invade Japans mainland which could cost millions of lives in the long run. We instead offered Japan the chance to surrender. When they said no we dropped 1 atom bomb, when they said no again (which they might not have even said no the second time, there is thought to be a mistranslation and when the Japanese responded they said along the lines of surrender talks are in progress, but that was mistranslated to never) we dropped another one and they finally surrendered ending World War 2.Not a bad strategy it might've taken a while but it was very effective.

What was the long-range strategy for winning in the Pacific?

A combination of island hopping - capturing islands across the Pacific to use as air bases for eventual air raids on Japan,and to use as bases for a potential invasion of the Japanese Home Islands later in the war, and attacks on the Japanese merchant shipping fleets to prevent supply of islands held by the Japanese and the shipping of raw materials from Japanese occupied areas back to Japan for use in Japanese war industries.

The overarching purpose of allied war strategy was a,b,c or d?

a. winning the war in the Pacific first
b. pursuing the war in the pacific and the war in europe equally
c. letting the russians fight the war in the pacific
d. defeating germany first

What did the Allies' strategy of "island hopping" in the Pacific involve?

Jaylen,
the simple answer to this good question is: "C" - Attack only on islands that were not well-defended.

There are exceptions to this "rule of thumb" however in the Island hopping campaigns. Iwo Jima and Okinawa were heavily defended and very much needed. Long story on these two islands here. The other exception was the faulty intelligence related to the Island of Peleliu. Battle of Peleliu, (codenamed Operation Stalemate II) was not supposed to have been as long drawn out as it had become and the U.S. Marines took heavy casualties on this island because of the faulty intelligence.

"Hit 'em where they ain't" was the slogan of the time - exceptions however apply to everything.

Hope this helps,
Gerry

What were the strategies used in the Pacific War?

After the United States entered World War II the decision was made among the Allies to concentrate on winning in Europe first, followed by then prevailing in the Pacific. However it was obvious that doing nothing in the Pacific but fighting a holding action could lead to the Japanese seizing Australia, New Zealand, India, Hawaii, the Aleutian Islands, and ultimately, the West Coast of the United States. Therefore, a strategy was needed by Allied forces in the Pacific which would tie up the most Japanese forces. That meant going on the offensive, as defensive combat is historically almost always a strategic failure. So the concept of island hopping was implemented. Its primary purpose was to bypass heavily fortified islands and leapfrog toward the Japanese homeland by taking the least defended islands. The primary objective was to get close enough to the Japanese homeland so that meaningful aerial attacks could occur, and that's what was done. It proved to be a very successful strategy.Once within bombing the range of the Japanese homeland, Allied forces were faced with the almost impossible task of invading Japan. A successful invasion would require approximately 3 million troops, with attendant shipping and air power. Allied casualties were expected to be in the neighborhood of 1 million. The development and use of atomic bombs, however distasteful, resulted in far fewer casualties among both the defenders of the Japanese homeland (which would have been every inhabitant older than a toddler) and the Allied forces, and was itself a successful strategy.

What was the Allied military strategy in the Pacific campaign?

The US and its allies in the Pacific developed and implemented dual campaigns to advance on Japan.  The Southwest Pacific campaign, under Douglas MacArthur, was charged with advancing through New Guinea, the Admiralties, and then retaking the Philippines. The Central Pacific campaign, under Chester Nimitz, advanced through the Gilberts, Marshalls, Marianas, and Ryukyus with the ultimate goal of combining with MacArthur's forces to invade Japan.  As Otto Hahn-Herrera mentioned, this included "hopping" or bypassing Japanese garrisons and islands.  With the exception of the Philippines, the Allied strategy was only to take those islands or geographic locations that were needed to support the continued advance towards Japan.  The bypassed Japanese garrisons were blockaded. An important, but ultimately secondary campaign was the Solomon Islands campaign which was launched to isolate the major Japanese base at Rabaul and provide support to the Southwest and Central campaigns.  Although secondary in strategic objectives, the campaign, especially at Guadalcanal, was responsible for inflicting tremendous strategic damage on Japan's naval sea and air forces, making the other campaigns easier.  Another secondary campaign was conducted in the Aleutian Islands to eject Japanese forces from that area.

How did the war in Europe shape Japan's strategy in the Pacific?

European theater and Pacific theater were very different wars. Among the Allies, the USSR didn't even declare a war on Japan until the US dropped the nuclear bomb. France was not there. Britain offered only a feeble resistance (only major success was in defending India). Thus, it was all a US vs. Japan show in the Pacific. It primarily involved the Navy, primarily involved islands and very little POWs involved.Europe was a different war. Germany was surrounded by Russian and Anglo-American troops. It was far more complex and primarily involved armies. Japan's campaigns were independent of Europe's and it had no ideology bond with any of the European powers. It warred Russia in 1904. Then 10 years later, it fought along with Russians & took over German territories in East Asia after WW-I. Then 20 years later, it aligned with the same Germans to fight the world. Japan invaded Mongolia and China before Hitler invaded Poland (starting the WW-II). Thus, Japan would have been in war in the Pacific regardless of European events. In fact, had Hitler coordinated with Japan in attacking the Soviet Union and utilized the elite Japanese troops, the results of the Soviet campaign and the entire war could have been different.However, Japan was greatly benefited by European distraction. It quickly absorbed French Indo China and took over parts of British empire (such as Malaysia and Burma).