1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Olegator [25]
2 years ago
8

4. How did fighting in Europe differ from the Pacific? 5. How did the Allies win?

History
1 answer:
blondinia [14]2 years ago
4 0

The major difference between Europe and the Pacific was the approach. In Europe, the Allies needed to make one major landing before engaging in traditional land battle.

The Pacific theatre forced the Allies to make landing after landing and then hold territory on their way to Japan.

The US one in the Pacific by taking key islands and using airplanes to control the region.

You might be interested in
Which of the following was not a problem associated with American cities in the early 1800s?
Naddik [55]

Answer:

sdkjvncjsdfncsdjckfadsnfmksdacnadmskjcasdmknlcma

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Which word best describes President Kennedy's initial approach to civil rights issues?
aksik [14]
President Kennedy was Cautious
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
12. Why did the southern cotton industry have a hard time recovering after the Civil War?
expeople1 [14]
<span>The correct answer is letter A. Foreign competitions drove the price of cotton down. Due to Abraham Lincoln’s Union Blockade, the South was not able to market their millions of bales of cotton. He had the precautionary measure that Europe would intervene with the export of cotton, but they did not. As a result, cotton production increased in other parts of the world (e.g. India and Egypt) making America lose its monopoly in the cotton industry. </span>
6 0
3 years ago
In ce a constat "politica faptului implinit" , bazîndu-vă pe hotarîrile Congresului de Pace de la Paris (1856) și a Conferinței
velikii [3]

this should be under French

3 0
3 years ago
WAS THE BOSTON TEA PARTY MORALLY JUSTIFIED?
Igoryamba

Answer:

1. Yes

Explanation: British were bad to the Colonists, the British took over the homes of the colonists. And the British wanted to fight and take over the country they found.

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Here in Georgia, c______ (non-military personnel) grew victory gardens and purchased war bonds to support American forces in WW1
    5·1 answer
  • Nativism led to U.S. laws prohibiting immigration from what country?
    10·2 answers
  • What is similar about the north and south leaders during the civil war
    14·1 answer
  • According to the excerpt, who had more power under the Articles of Confederation?
    9·1 answer
  • John bell’s constitutional union party served what purpose in the election of 1860?
    5·1 answer
  • Why would the phase “ controlling wages and prices “ complete this diagram ?
    8·1 answer
  • 1. What crazy thing happened at Jackson’s inauguration reception at the White House?
    10·1 answer
  • As a general, Ulysses S. Grant was what
    10·2 answers
  • The great compromise was between which two groups
    8·1 answer
  • From what country did most<br> immigrants arrive on the West<br> Coast during the 1800's?
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!