Well there are several reasons to why the Allies won and the Axis lost. One of the most obvious resons, is the invovations such as radar, the atomic bomb, Incidenaries, etc. Of cousre the The axis had their own inovations, such as the V rockets, the jet propsioned engine. However, these Axis advancements wouldn't change the course of the war do to the fact that the Axis had basic the entire world against them. And very few countries can support themselves let alone a secusful war effort. The Axis had only the resaech and resources it could gather within its borders.
Another factor was simply the East. If the Germans were not so greedy with its intital sweep into the Soveit Union it may have completely crushed all resistance in all of Europe and could of conquered a great majority over Africa. However, if you looked from the Soveit veiw of the war, all of their neiboring countries would have fallen. Having be completly surrounded by the Nazis and Japanese, the over one Million soldiers of the Red Army would have been easily been token over by the two joining forces.
Also a great factor was distance. Imagine how hard it was for Axis allies to keep in touch such as Nazi Germany and Japan? The War could have been much differnt if the Axis was completely joined such as if they were linked together as one nation instead of being seperated by several countries.
Answer: B) Americans should avoid thoughts, beliefs, and actions that are partial
Explanation:
Unrestricted submarine warfare is the practice of using submarines to attack and sink all forms of enemy shipping, whether they are military or civilian. It is most closely associated with the First World War when Germany's decision to use USW brought the US into the war and led to their defeat.
The Whigs faced a different scenario. The victory of James K. Polk (Democrat) over Henry Clay (Whig) in the 1844 presidential election had caught the southern Whigs by surprise. The key element of this defeat, which carried over into the congressional and local races in 1845 and 1846 throughout the South, was the party's failure to take a strong stand favoring Texas annexation. Southern Whigs were reluctant to repeat their mistakes on Texas, but, at the same time, Whigs from both sections realized that victory and territorial acquisition would again bring out the issue of slavery and the territories. In the South in particular, there was already the realization, or perhaps fear, that the old economic issues that had defined the Second Party System<span> were already dead. Their political goal was to avoid any sectional debate over slavery which would expose the sectional divisions within the party.</span>After an earlier attempt to acquire Texas by treaty had failed to receive the necessary two-thirds approval of the Senate, the United States annexed the Republic of Texas by a joint resolution of Congress that required simply a majority vote in each house of Congress. President John Tyler signed the bill on March 1, 1845, a few days before his term ended. As many expected, the annexation led to war with Mexico. After the capture of New Mexico and California in the first phases of the war, the political focus shifted to how much territory would be acquired from Mexico. The key to this was the determination of the future status of slavery in any new territory.
Both major political parties had labored long to keep divisive slavery issues out of national politics. The Democrats had generally been successful in portraying those within their party attempting to push a purely sectional issue as extremists that were well outside the normal scope of traditional politics.[2] However, midway through Polk's term, Democratic dissatisfaction with the administration was growing within the Martin Van Buren, or Barnburner, wing of the Democratic Party over other issues. Many felt that Van Buren had been unfairly denied the party's nomination in 1844 when southern delegates resurrected a convention rule, last used in 1832, requiring that the nominee had to receive two-thirds of the delegate votes. Many in the North were also upset with the Walker tariff which reduced the tariff rates; others were opposed to Polk's veto of a popular river and harbor improvements bill, and still others were upset over the Oregon settlement with Great Britain where it appeared that Polk did not pursue the northern territory with the same vigor he used to acquire Texas. Polk was seen more and more as enforcing strict party loyalty primarily to serve southern interests. Hope This Helps! Can I have Brainliest? Please:)
