WI:No Solomans campaign?

I wondering how long WW2 would have taken the United States decided to go straight for the Marshalls and leave the South Pacific.
 
I wondering how long WW2 would have taken the United States decided to go straight for the Marshalls and leave the South Pacific.
Taking the SOlomans was a key end run around a lot of enemy defense assets and it gave us a shot at the Phillipines and eventually the home islands.

It was also textbook strategy, attack the enemy where he does not expect, where he is weak.
 
I wondering how long WW2 would have taken the United States decided to go straight for the Marshalls and leave the South Pacific.
The US needed to take the Solmans for a number of reason, the main one being to keep supply lines to Australia open.

With a POD of keeping the Phillippines say to late 42, and if Guam and Wake held out till backup reaches them. Then there where be no Solomans Campaign, but OTL once those islands fell to the Japanese, the Solmans campaign was going to happen.
 
The US needed to take the Solmans for a number of reason, the main one being to keep supply lines to Australia open.

With a POD of keeping the Phillippines say to late 42, and if Guam and Wake held out till backup reaches them. Then there where be no Solomans Campaign, but OTL once those islands fell to the Japanese, the Solmans campaign was going to happen.
That and the enemy did NOT see that stuff coming. Guadaalcanal was bad because it was technically i nthe Japanese rear area and they NEEDED to keep it or lose initiative i nthe war.
 
Attacking the Solomons was a brilliant play by warmaking pros, specifically attacking the enemy's logistics and cutting their supply chain.

Don't ATTACK their strong front, starve it. STARVE the phillipines, STARVE the Marshall islands.
 
Top