What was the dire situation for the allies in 1941?
Dec 7, 1941 was japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that caused lots of damage to US navy-- so one part of Dire situation was the entry of a new axis partner with lots of damage potential and the resultant supplies from US diverted to pacific theater instead of getting to England and North Africa front. Another problem was the Battle of Atlantic Uboat V convoy system- Uboats were sinking lots of supply ships, England was getting short on munitions and food, aviation fuel. 1942/43 the US shipyards were making more ships tonnage than were being sunk, the Germans had attacked Russia so they diverted lots of troops from Mediterranean fronts, US had had a sea victory against Japan to halt main advances- so by the end of 1942 things were looking better for allies, lots better than 1941 when Britain was facing Germany and Italy almost alone, France out of war basically with half the country occupied and other half neutralized/german dominated in war conduct, Italy in North Africa threatening the Suez Canal supply lines, the US officially neutral but helping a lot with supplies first to Canada- but not as many supplies available as US production was just getting geared up toward full capabilities a year or 2 later- factories still in planning stage or just being built for aircraft,shipping. British troops had retreated from Greece, Norway, Crete- barely holding in Gibraltar and channel- Jersey Isles had been taken by Germans and the Dutch and Belgium's, Danes were full occupation instead of partial occupation or neutral as in WW1. 1941 'Allies' in most of 1941 was the British commonwealth and colonies- most of the rest of Europe was under German control or neutral favoring the Germans with the Russians sort of helping Germany with supplies-- and Britain as noted having trouble getting supplies into country due to U boats effective tactics not yet countered by convoy with Sonar and escort carriers until as previously noted 1942/1943..
Why did the Western Allies allow the Soviets to invade and occupy Eastern Europe when they declared war on the Nazis for doing the same thing?
The Soviets didn’t ‘invade and occupy’ but the basis for your question draws attention to one of the major fundamental ironies of WW2, recognised at the time most notably by Churchill.In a practical sense The West had ‘made a trade’. The price of leaving the hard ground fighting required to defeat Germany to The Soviets, conveniently triggered by Hitler attacking them in the first place, was watching on while the victorious Red Army rolled through setting the scene for establishing ‘puppet’ Communist regimes. There was simply no will to initiate another major European war to push Stalin’s forces out of Eastern Europe and the Baltic region (and highly doubtful they had the strength to do so, a topic for another answer), leaving what they considered the lesser evil- the expansion of the Soviet Union.
Why didn't Nazi Germany invade Sweden?
Trust me….I’m as antiswedish as a half Swede can get today. I think most things about Sweden today is rotten. Politics, feminism, crime, immigration. All issues that make Sweden somewhat a bizarre and crazy country.However…Although it is true Sweden supplied Germany with valuable iron/ore, let Germany drive through the country to fight Norway, and stopped the British and French from gaining a foothold in Scandinavia potentially making a German invasion of Norway more complicated, the following should also be remembered about Sweden during WW2.-Hitler did have a backup plan to invade Sweden. Especially if they would allow English troops to be stationed on Swedish soil. Sweden hoped to avoid both Allied and German troops, staying neutral.-Lots of Danish resistance fighters and Jews fled Denmark and got refuge in Sweden. Danish resistance was allowed to hold meetings with allies and plan operations. Gestapo/Abwehr/SD on the other hand was harassed and hindered working undercover in Sweden/Germany.-Like the Danes and Norwegians, the Swedes considered communist as being a greater threat than fascism/Nazism. They rather support Finland against Russia, than regarding the Nazis as enemies. Likewise, even the Danish resistance at the end of the war, despite their bitter feuds with nazi occupation, had their sights set on halting communism.While many Danes, and especially Norwegians can never forget the Swedish “betrayal”, Danes in particular still thank the Swedes for harboring fleeing resistance fighters, letting them organize the halting of communism and the harboring the jews.Besides, while the Swedish king might harbor some sympathies towards the Germans, the Norwegians had a full fledged nazi collaborator in Vidkun Quisling, while the Danes had the Schalburg Korps collaborating with the Germans. So perhaps the Swedes were really not that much worse than the rest. They just got more lucky.
Did Germany/Japan made any positive contributions in any of the foreign territories they occupied during WWII?
Intentionally or unintentionally?Intentionally? I am honestly hard pressed to find any kind of examples. The Germans and Japanese normally plundered their colonies for everything that they were worth, robbing homes, seizing assets, shipping industries back to the homeland. And normally when these areas were liberated, they either became devastated through the fighting itself, or due to scorched earth policies. The closest thing i can find is that German sometimes built railroads in their colonies, and that their rule was sometimes more efficient.Unintentionally? Yes. The brutal Japanese occupation of much of Asia caused the emergence and strengthening of independence movements. Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines. They were determined to control their own future, not leave it to colonizers who failed to protect them. Their independence movements were sometimes even supplied by their former colonial masters, who hoped to resist the Japanese, only to find the guns pointed at them post-war.When the Germans occupied Czechoslovakia, they split the state into two parts, the Czech half(which was formally annexed) and the Slovakian independent state. This unintentionally made the eventual Czechoslovakian split easier, as the framework was already there.
Explain how the relationship between america and russia changed between 1943 and 1949?
need help with this question:/ the main things i need are - - the tehran/yalta/potsdam conference -the long/ novikov telegrams -The truman doctrine/the marshall plan -cominfrom/comecon thank you so much if you could help
How did Hitler respond to the successful invasion of France by the Allies?
a. He reconquered the beaches of Normandy. b. He invaded the Soviet Union. c. He personally surrendered to Soviet troops in Berlin. d. He ordered a counterattack in Belgium.