Compare and contrast the tactics and strategy in both the pacific and european theater

The Pacific theater involved mostly island hopping--seeking out battles on selected islands while skipping others. The islands that were skipped were cut off from supplies and reinforcements, and little by little the Allies got close enough to invade Japan. Japan was too far from the U.S. or its allies, except China, to invade directly, and China is further west than Japan, so it couldn't be invaded first. Of course, no invasion was necessary.

The Chinese fought hard against the Japanese, but they also spent a lot of time fighting among themselves, so they did not significantly help the U.S. effort. Except that they tied down a million soldiers, which is no small feat.

In Europe, the Allies attacked North Africa so they could invade Italy. I'm not sure if they intended to invade Germany from Italy, but there was a second, larger invasion of France. From there they pushed on Germany.

The Soviets attacked the Nazis from the east, and they carried out the brunt of the fighting in Europe. So the idea was a pincer effect, attacking from both east and west.

In both theaters, bombing of cities where war material was manufactured was essential. Part of the purpose of the Africa campaign was to cut off Middle Eastern oil supplies, which were essential to the Third Reich.

Defeating Germany was a higher priority than defeating Japan.

The answer is a and hi how are you doing