How was the U.S' "beat Hitler first" a good strategy during WWII?

Question

im not sure exactly how to explain the strategy that used with germany and Japan

Answer 1

The idea of 'Beat Hitler First' was not to divide the allies politically over the question of should the U.S, Britain, France and Russia go after Germany or Japan - or both simultaneously.

Japanese military successes in the Pacific and China were a concern to the U.S as Japanese power spread in the Pacific. While this also concerned Britain, it was Britain who insisted that they go after Germany first. For the U.S and Britain, going after Japan would have been a high priority. However, if the allies were divide their forces and not provide adequate support to defeating Germany, it would weaken France and Russia from taking on Germany.

It was necessary for Britain and the United States to come to some sort of agreement - because if they did not the issue would divide the allies politically.

If Russia collapsed like France did - Hitler would not only control Europe but would also then be able to turn his attention fully towards helping his Japanese ally and then by devoting his whole attention to attacking Britain.

By defeating Hitler first, the U.S and Britain were isolating Germany from further supporting the Japanese - who were now bogged down in China and South East Asia.

Answer 2

The decision to "beat Hitler first" as you put it, was largely a political decision forced on America by her allies. Our two main allies in World War 2 was England, and Russia/USSR. They where european powers that wanted help to repulse the invasions of Eurpose. Also there was quite possibly a certain amount of racism involved, in helping the anglo european countries first.

Was it a good decision? Well it all worked out relativly well. Because we waited to concentrate on Japan after the defeat of Hitler's Germany, the atomic bombs had reached completion and could be used. Had it gone the other way around, beating Japan instead of Germany first, the atomic bomb might have been dropped on Berlin instead of Hiroshima and Nagisaki. Also, the Pacific Ocean is a big place. There was more space, to trade for time there then there was in Europe. Finishing off the war in Western Europe before putting the full force of the American Military into defeating Japan, also succeeded in securing the full (for whatever good that was) support of all the allied superpowers, as well as cutting off Japan's most powerfull ally and the source of quite a bit of technology.

By finishing off one opponent before the other, that allowed us to concentrate the bulk of our manufactoring to one area of conflict at a time. Additionally it helped to secure allies with which to fight Japan with. Russia for instance shares a border with China, which Japan had invaded.

If there are reasons that made that a good strategy, those would be them. Who's to say if it was the best strategy. Hindsight is 20/20.

Answer 3

Well, due to the fact that Hitler started the second front with Russia, the US and the Allies knew that Hitler could not keep up the supply lines. The Russians could whittle down the Germans with the help of US materials and aid long enough for the English and Americans to develop a strategy for invasion on the Atlantic coast. Hitler was beyond stupid and delusional.

Japan had to be the last to be conquered because of their imperialist views and that the Emperor was a god. The Japanese were not going to give up easily. If it weren't for the A-Bomb, millions would have been killed....

Hope that helps.

Answer 4

The reasoning of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill was that Germany and the European war had to be settled first for a number of related reasons.

First, the Japanese were handicapped by a limited resource and technical base, while the Germans were less so.

Second, the Germans had a higher capability of developing nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction.

Third, both the British and Russians were hard pressed, and needed immediate assistance.

Fourth, the Allies could not be conquered in the Far East, but could in Europe, which relates to reason 3.

History has vindicated their policies.

Answer 5

If you want to know anything about military strategy - you take your opponent's capital city first. It is similar to taking the King (or Queen) in Chess. After that they surrender. This strategy has been used time and time again, no matter what war, no matter what country. Since Berlin was closer and easier to take (it was the second front - the Germans had the bulk of their armies facing the Russians in the East), the Allies (please be aware that it was not only the U.S. that was fighting against Hitler) only had to go through France (or Italy) to get to it. As for the Japanese, the capital of Tokyo was thousands of miles away, and the Japanese were spread out over thousands of miles across Asia.

Answer 6

Most of the previous answers are good. I will add this: after the Battle of Midway when we took out Japans aircraft carriers they were beat in the end, and hadn't a chance to win, and everyone, including the Japanese, knew it.

Not the case in Europe and North Africa.

Answer 7

massive troops...massive tanks...massive involvement...Japan had the seas...not a worry over europe...Japan had conquered little compared to hitler..you have to set your priorities....mainly in combat....Hitler was more of a threat..England was too close...only defense they had was the english channel...so the priority was to save england...good luck

Answer 8

Because their objectives were clear. People knew what they were fighting against and fighting for. That's why America did so well In WW2.