Why was the Allied strategy effective(In WWII)?

Question

Why was the Allied strategy effective(In WWII)?
I've been doing research for about 4 hours for a research paper and have found very little information. What i need is A)one paragraph that summarizes the major event or topic (who, what, when, where, and how) and B)one paragraph that proposes the possible answers to the question at hand. any information at all regarding this would be GREATLY apperciated. Thanks you in advanced

Answer 1

1.) The Allies determined early on that Germany was the greatest threat, and had far better coordination than the Axis. This meant that from the beginning the, Pacific Theater was going to get less resources, and the Navy and Army planned accordingly (island hopping and isolating fortresses, rather than invading heavily fortified islands). The Navy even referred to it as "Hitting them where they ain't."

2.) Britain and the US chose to choke off their enemies ability to wage war and reinforce their armies, while protect their own ability to move men and materiel across the Atlantic. In the Pacific, the US submarine fleet sank a huge amount of Japanese shipping - denying them the very resources they went to war for. In the Atlantic, they worked hard to protect their own fleets from the German U-Boat fleet. To knock out key industries, they bombed Germany and Japan heavily (Japan from the Aleutians and later Saipan, Germany from Britain).

3.) The Allies chose to first clear the Axis out of Africa - giving them badly needed combat experience (both in general, and in coordinating with each other) in an easier campaign than was expected in France and Italy. This meant that the Allies weren't landing green US troops in France and Italy once they started their invasions.

4.) Conversely, the Soviets were completely ineffective until mid-1942. However, once they stiffened and started to fight a war rather than play as much politics with their army, they effectively used propaganda and the harsh Russian winters to bleed the German army dry (Stalingrad is an excellent example). The Russians then fought the war in the most effective manner possible: using their huge manpower and economic advantage to crush the German armies, rather than the Allied methods of essentially knocking the Germans legs out from under them, then using superior tactics.

A good comparison can be found by how the Russians and US/Britain invaed. Russia just threw troops and tanks into the meatgrinder. The US and Britain bombed the German industries, created an effective Double Cross system that caught every single German spy in Britain to feed the Germans false information, and decoded Enigma to allow them to listen in on most German communications - in other words, through excellent intelligence, planning, and technical ability.

The effectiveness is shown in the casualties:
USSR: 10.7 Million
Germany: 5.5 Million
Japan: 3 Million
Hungary: 300K
Italy: 306.4K
Poland: 400K
US: 407.3K
UK: 382.6K

As you can see: the US's casualties are comparable to Poland, which suffered instant total defeat to the Germans, less than 10% of German casualties, and about 4% of USSR's casualties.

Answer 2

the concentration of the allies replace into to combat a '2 front conflict' interior the Pacific and in Europe because of the fact they had to. They desperate between the two, Europe and defeating Hitler replace into extra significant (because of the fact Hitler replace into the lots better threat). maximum of their concentration would consequently be on Europe the place Britain and the U. S. would artwork mutually alongside with the Soviets, mutually as the U. S. as a rule took care of the conflict interior the Pacific by skill of itself. Russia replace into 'excused' from the Pacific conflict because of the fact it replace into so not basic pressed beating Germany. as quickly as Hitler replace into defeated it replace into agreed Britain and the Soviets would do lots extra to help the U. S. with the Pacific. This replace into their show technique.