Allied military strategy in WW II had changed since the battles of WW I and faced new challenges that required coordination and cooperation on levels never seen before. This paper will discuss identifying the strategic problems, differences in the types of strategy to employ, cohesion between land, sea, and now airpower, and how those decisions were accomplished.
Eikmeier gives four basic questions that must be answered to frame strategic problems. The first question, “what is the current state or environment,” is critical in identifying as many factors as you can that will affect the outcome. Stark gives his assessment of the situation in the Western Hemisphere with expansion of Germany and their allies. Stark focuses on the importance…show more content… Great Britain wanted to focus on the sure victories and established operations such as Torch and the invasion of Sicily. This follows the teachings of Sun Tzu, “The expert commander only strikes when the situation assures victory.” The US Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed this plan of action because it would prejudice other of other operations against France and the bombing missions against Germany. The US strategy follows closer with theories outlined by Clausewitz, one example being that “supply is the item other than engagements which most directly affects the fighting.” Churchill further pushed his own agenda to focus on North Africa and then northern France but on a more moderate scale. This delay was in contrast to the US belief that the need to return to Europe was immediate because of the opportunity of Germany to improve their position during the inactivity. Clausewitz discusses the possibility of inaction to have moderating effects on the progress of war to include the restoration of balance between the sides. Despite differences in which strategy to use, both sides agreed that Germany must be defeated prior to turning their focus on Japan. This common analysis allowed for the compromises in strategy which aligned with Sun Tzu’s assertion that “no country has ever benefited from protracted…show more content… The Allied Naval strategy favored Corbett in application of forces to establish “command of the sea.” Corbett’s definition of command of the sea details the importance of controlling the lines of communication rather than the conquest of territory. The use of naval power to provide blockades and defense of supply lines was outlined by Stark in his “Plan Dog Memo.” The land forces were reliant upon the Navy for movement across the Mediterranean as the Allied advanced moved from North Africa. The D-day assault of beach positions, and transport of the massive Army formations, demonstrated the power of the Navy to command the