These questions will be rotated as time permits. If you have a question that you would like to see answered, just drop me an email. Please place this in the subject line: Net's WW II FAQ's.  Please note that all answers are the express opinion of  me! <g>  I use internet sites, books, interviews and library research on which to draw my conclusions.  Remember to cite the web sites and their authors as your information "sources" (listed under the questions) for your bibliography.

WW II FAQs

The Question Hotlinks

#1.  What does the "D" signify in D-Day, and the "H" signify in H-Hour?
#2.  Explain why a Policy of Appeasement was folly in dealing with Hitler in the 1930's
#3.  Why is Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union, considered one of the turning points of the war?
#4.  Why is World War II considered to be the end of WW I?
#5.  What was President Wilson's role in ending the isolationism and the Nuetrality Acts?
#6.  What caused World War II? (Note: This also ties into Question #4.)
#7.   Is the concept known as "Victor's Justice" why the Nazi's were tried for war crimes and US was not tried for dropping the Atomic Bomb on Japan?
#8.  Why wasn't President Roosevelt, Truman, or any of their advisors questioned for war crimes during WW II for sending thousands of Japanese civilians to Internment Camps?

Question #1

Q.What does the "D" signify in D-Day, and the "H" signify in H-Hour? The terms D-day and H-hour are used for the day and hour on which a combat attack or operation is to be initiated. They designate the day and hour of the operation when the day and hour have not yet been determined, or where secrecy is essential. The letters are derived from the words for which they stand, "D" for the day of the invasion and "H" for the hour operations actually begin. There is but one D-day and one H-hour for all units participating in a given operation. It is unnecessary to state that H-hour is on D-day.

When used in combination with figures and plus or minus signs, these terms indicate the length of time preceding or following a specific action. Thus, H-3 means 3 hours before H-hour, and D+3 means 3 days after D-day. H+75 minutes means H-hour plus 1 hour and 15 minutes.
Planning papers for large-scale operations are made up in detail long before specific dates are set. Thus, orders are issued for the various steps to be carried out on the D-day or H-hour minus or plus a certain number or days, hours, or minutes. At the appropriate time, a subsequent order is issued that states the actual day and times.
The earliest use of these terms by the U.S. Army that the Center of Military History has been able to find was during World War I. In Field Order Number 9, First Army, American Expeditionary Forces, dated September 7, 1918: "The First Army will attack at H hour on D day with the object of forcing the evacuation of the St. Mihiel Salient."
D-day for the invasion of Normandy was set for June 6, 1944, and that date has been popularly referred to by the short title "D-day."
Source: The General Service Schools, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Combat Orders (Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: The General Service Schools Press, 1922)..

Question #2
Q. Explain why a policy of appeasement was folly in dealing with Hitler in the 1930's
Hitler was always changing his mind! He would sign a pact one day and in a month, he would change his mind and break it! Like telling someone a secret and having them swear they will not tell, then in a month you find everyone knows!  Due to the policy of Appeasement (the giving in to a potential aggressor in order to avoid an all out war), Adolf Hitler was able to annex Austria (the Anschluss) and the Sudentenland.  It was exemplified by the Munich Agreement between British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler.

There is a great book called: The Chamberlain-Hitler Deal by Clement Leibovitz, which you can get at the library! You can look over the the following links that describe the book and give reviews! On the main link, you can also email the author! I suggest after you have researched the topic, you contact the author with any additional questions! I am sure he would be delighted to share his knowledge with you!  I have contacted many authors and sites with additional questions. They have always written back quickly and are more than happy to be of help!

The policy of appeasement and the causes of War
http://www.ualberta.ca/~cleibovi/home.html
The Chamberlain-Hitler Deal by Clement Leibovitz, compellingly shows that Chamberlain struck a deal with Hitler according to which the latter was given a free hand in Eastern Europe (Soviet Union included). In return, Hitler would abstain from attacking Western Europe. With this book, the matter now is an established historical fact. Hitler later thought that Chamberlain could not deliver the promised freehand. When Chamberlain realised that Hitler was determined to first attack the West, he gave Poland a unilateral guaranty. He did so in the hope that it would soon become reciprocal, and it did, and would therefore force Germany to make war on two fronts. For more information and for book reviews, refer to The Chamberlain-Hitler Deal
Citation: Leibovitz, Clement., "The policy of appeasement and the causes of World War II"., [http://www.ualberta.ca/~cleibovi/home.html], 1999.

The Chamberlain - Hitler Deal
http://www.ualberta.ca/~cleibovi/homepage.html
Has the following clickable links: Introduction by Tony Benn
•Review in the Israeli Journal Haaretz by Yossef Alghazi •Review in the Magazine Outlook

Question #3
Q. Why is Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union, considered one of the turning points of the war?
It could have changed the outcome of WW2 if the Germans had been successful in taking over Russia! On August 23, 1939 he signed the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact. Naturally, hilter had no intention of keeping this! That is what Operation Barbarossa is all about! Hitler wanted the Soviet industries and their output capabilities to aid the german war effort! The Soviets were slow to understand that hitler wanted not only to take them over - but the world!

Get this book at the library:  The Soviet Union and the Origins of the Second World War : Russo-German Relations and the Road to War, 1933-1941.  The focus on the Nazi-Soviet pact leads him to question the inevitability of the Second World War and to suggest possible alternative scenarios and outcomes. [Additional information on this from Mr. Tom Adkins: Actually what needs to be stressed here is that Hitler sought Lebensraum (space for living) - it wasn't the industries, per se, and it wasn't to aid the German war effort, really. It was his long-term vision for Germany, that she must have soil to be great, to support her population. That soil could be found in the east. As he said in Mein Kampf (going from memory) - "When we speak of land, we speak largely of Russia and her vassal border states".]

You can outline your paper this way. With a small amount information on the first three bullets below:

• The first German - Soviet Pact - what it said. Why it was doomed to fail!

• The reasons for Operation Barbarossa .... industrial capabilites, general resources (the land itself) that Hitler wanted.

• The reasons it failed....... troops, allies helping.....scorched earth policy of the Soviets, weather = winter.

[Additional information on why it failed also from Mr. Tom Adkins: How about the simple fact of size, refusal to surrender of the Soviet state, and the harsh German treatment of the occupied territories (that is, they were not liberating, they were conquering). Tactically, it was arguably the diversion of forces toward Kiev in late summer - Moscow was then out of reach.]

Main thrust of your paper:

• What would have been the outcome if this would have failed???? Germany would have had the Industrial strength & Resources to intensify their war efforts! What if Germany would have been able to mobilize all the resources.... What if the soviets had not practiced the scroched earth policy and the germans had gotten hold of these materials? How would that affected the remainder of the war? The book I mentioned above should be able to supply you with a ton of information!

Here are some excellent sites that will help you:

Spartacus School: Operation Barbarossa
Operation Barbarossa: The Failure of Nazi Ideology at the Eastern Front
ThinkQuest: Operation Barbarossa
Operation: Barbarossa
Barbarossa
http://www.yad-vashem.org.il/month_in_holocaust/chronology/june/chronology_1941_june_22.html
The war was meant to fulfill Hitler’s Lebensraum plans. Germany’s goal was not only to defeat the Red Army, but also to destroy it and the Soviet Union in a mammoth and ruthless tide of annihilation...
Hitler's Directive No. 21: Operation Barbarossa
Extract from the Commissar's Order For "Operation Barbarossa," JUNE 6, 1941
German Invasion of the USSR(GI - WW2 Commemoration)
http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_6.html
Excellent link - describes the diplomatic efforts, military strategy and more!!!
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CAMPAIGNS IN THE BALKANS AND THE INVASION OF RUSSIA
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/balkan/20_260_5.htm
Great link on how other campaigns influenced Operation Barbarossa!

Books or Magazine articles:
Fatherland by Robert Harris
"If Hitler Had Won World War II" by Shirer, William
History Today Magazine, Dmitry Oleinkov and Sergei Kudryashov, 'What If Hitler Had Defeated Russia?,' tr. J. Crowfoot, 45 (May 1995), pages 67-70.
"If Hitler had Won the Second World War" by Lukacs, John
What If? by editor Robert Cowley (gathered essays by military historians who imagine what might have been)

Question #4
Q. Why is world war two considered to be the end of world war one?

People say that because of the many failures of the Versailles Treaty, which was supposed to end hostility in the European region. Instead it escalated bad feelings on Germany's part. Here are some major points on why it was destined to fail:

a.) It made Germany accept total guilt for starting the war,

b.) gave away too much German land,

c.) took away Germany military

d.) It was a dictated peace, meaning Germany had no say at all in it's contents.... they were just told where to show up to sign it.  All these led to Germans feeling persecuted and allowed someone like Hitler to come to power. Also, the League of Nations had no means to enforce its decisions.

Here are some particulars of the treaty:

The Treaty of Versailles granted France many of its demands. Germany had to return Alsace Lorraine and give France control of the coal mines of the Saar region for 15 years. Germany also lost land to Poland. To give Poland access to the Baltic Sea, the Polish Corridor was created. This was a strip of land that separated East Prussia from the rest of Germany. The Baltic Sea port of Danzig became a free trading city, controlled by neither Poland nor Germany.

German territory on both sides of the Rhine River were demilitarized. To  prevent Germany from again becoming a military threat, the treaty also reduced the German army to 100,000 men, with no heavy artillery, tanks, or warplanes. Germany also lost its overseas territories in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific Ocean. Its African colonies were given to France and Britain as mandates.  The treaty required Germany to pay reparations-war damages- to other nations. Germany had to make up for loss of property, factories, farms, ships, and other things destroyed in the war.

The various nationalities in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire carved out their own states. The peacemakers recognized these as independant nations. Czechs and Slovaks formed the new country Czechoslovakia. The Croats and the Slovenes joined with Serbia to form Yugoslavia. The new Austria, greatly reduced in size and power, and was forbidden to unite with Germany. The Ottoman Empire was stripped of all its lands outside Turkey.

League of Nations a former international organization, formed after  WW I to promote international peace and security. The basis of the League, the Covenant, was written into the Treaty of VERSAILLES and other peace treaties and provided for an assembly, a council, and a secretariat. A system of colonial mandates was also set up. The U.S., which failed to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, never became a member. Based in Geneva, the League proved useful in settling minor international disputes, but was unable to stop aggression by major powers-e.g., Japan's occupation of Manchuria (1931), Italy's conquest of Ethiopia (1935-36), and Germany's seizure of Austria (1938). It collapsed early in World War II and dissolved itself in 1946. (The League established the first pattern of permanent international organization and served as a model for its successor, the UNITED NATIONS.)

The fairness of this treaty to Germany was debated for years. Critics pointed out that the Kaisers gov ernment had already been toppled. The burden of carrying out the treaty fell on a new democratic German Government, making it difficult for this new Government to survive. Which led to the rise of the third reich and hitler to come to power.
Citation for the particulars of the Treaty: Frose, Donna. "IGCSE History - Inter-War Period - Versailles"., [http://www.west-teq.net/~dmf/vers.htm], 1996.

Question #5
Q.  What was President Wilson's role in ending the isolationism and the Nuetrality Acts?
As for his role in ending the isolationism and the Nuetrality Acts - he started to supply our allies with ships, materials for war and basically abandoned the Nuetrality Act in a very quiet way. He was opposed to the Neutrality Act from the very beginning, but the majority of Americans were not. First you have to consider the economic ramifications of declaring war on Germany and/or Japan. We shipped quite a bit of materials to these countries and to stop this would be an economic hardship on the US.( Materials like fuels, ores and other building materials) Secondly, America had strong banking ties to these countries. Thirdly, they were not a threat to us in the initial stages of the war. Germany was just gobbling up little countries that were next to it.
Until Canada declared war on Germany and Germany started practicing unrestricted submarine warfare, we were content to sit back and watch. We were being attacked, albeit indirectly, by the Germans in the Atlantic Ocean. They were practicing unrestricted submarine warfare. They had already sank a few passenger ships in the Atlantic. Roosevelt announced that naval ships on convoy duty would not wait for hostile action but would take the initiative in attacking Axis war vessels. In carrying out this policy, an American destroyer, the Reuben James, was sunk by a German submarine west of Iceland on October 30. On November 13, Congress repealed the most troublesome provisions of the Neutrality Act of 1939, thereby sanctioning trade with Great Britain and permitting American merchant vessels to be armed.

The Japanese has signed a pact with Italy and Germany to against anyone that went agaisnt them. (Tripartite Pact) This pact was directly aimed at the United States, when and/or if they entered the war. (Japan's aggressive behavior started earlier in the 30's when they took over Manchuria.) Japan also wanted to take over the Pacific and be the dominant force. The Japanese hoped that a surprise attack at Pearl would destroy most of our fleet in the Pacific area. We had already passes the United States Export Control Act of July 2, 1940. This had prohibited the export of basic war materials, which threatened Japan with supply shortages and damaged their trade. So they were not too thrilled with the United States to begin with! All this contributed to the bombing at Pearl!  Our policy of isolationism changed after the attack at Pearl Harbor.

You can get information about the Nuetrality Acts 1935-1941at:
Neutrality Acts
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/neutralityacts.html
U.S. Reaction to Japan and Hitler = isolationsim
http://ac.acusd.edu/History/WW2Timeline/Prelude04.html
FDR in WW2 -
http://www.pathfinder.com/@@dSJnZgcATPdDIhqq/time/magazine/domestic/1994/940418/940418.history.html

Here is the site about the Tripartite Pact and Associated Documents
The Avalon Project : Tripartite Pact and Associated Documents
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/trimenu.htm

Question #6
Q.  What caused World War II?
You have to understand what happened at the end of WW I and how that impacted Germany. The Versailles Treaty was placed into effect by the League of Nations. It made Germany accept total guilt for starting the World War I, gave away a lot of land to other countries involved in WW I, it took away Germany's ability to have a military. The League of Nations had no legal means to enforce its decisions, so it was a lame organization. The countries were supposed to listen to it and had agreed to do so.

Hilter decided to ignore and go against it, secretly building up the German miltary arsenal of manpower and planes. The Germans felt persecuted by the Treaty to start with and there was a bad depression. The Germans were making reparation payments which helped make it worse. That allowed Hitler's nazi party to gain more power. The weaker the economy, the more seats they won in government! He came to come to power by playing on these feelings. He promised jobs and to make Germany stronger.

The emergence of aggressive nationalism in Japan, Italy and Germany, including Japanese expansion into China; Italian invasion of Abyssinia and her involvement in the Spanish Civil War; the German rearmament and German Foreign Policy from 1933 - 39 ....... all contributed to the start of WW II!

I have a great site that will give you an understanding of what was going on in these Interwar years. It basically shows you what each of the players were thinking and what hitler wanted for Germany that the German people believed!

InterWar years - Versailles Treaty
http://www.west-teq.net/~dmf/vers.htm
InterWar Years - Hitler
http://www.west-teq.net/~dmf/hitler.htm
League of Nations - successes/failures/terms/aims/members
http://www.west-teq.net/~dmf/vers.htm#league

Citation  to use for the above site: Frose, Donna. "IGCSE History - Inter-War Period"., "IGCSE History - Inter-War Period: 1919 - 1939",[http://www.west-teq.net/~dmf/index.htm], 1996.

Question #7
Q. Is the concept known as "Victor's Justice" why the Nazi's were tried for war crimes and US was not tried for dropping the Atomic Bomb on Japan?

"Victor's Justice" is one of the terms that is used to describe or help to describe why the Nuremberg Trials
were flawed. That the justice applied was not uniform and that the "winners" of the war basically applied "their" justice to the trials. That they tried the enemy more as scapegoats than as a real criminals. When you apply this term to war crimes, in a sense it is true to a certain extent, because there were no real international laws that would have applied at that time. There was nothing in the Rules of War to cover the magnitude of what the Nazi's did to the populations of Europe. The mass scale of what the Nazi's did, had to be addressed. It is true that it was the "victor's" governments were the ones that made them. But many governments were involved by putting their most intelligent legal minds to work to make these laws. It wouldn't make sense to have the people you are trying to convict for atrocities help make the laws, would it? Of course not!

(The other way this term is applied is that it is named for Colonel Victor E. Delnore. He took control of Nagasaki during the Allied Occupation of Japan in 1946. His assumption of command marked the transition from regular military operations to civilian affairs rule. The Nagasaki Military Government Team underwent some changes during Delnore's three years in command, but generally it consisted of himself in charge, assisted by an Executive Officer and an Adjutant. The form of firm control he used was also known as Victor's Justice.)

Let me differentiate between the Nazi war crimes and the dropping of the bomb........ most of the crimes that the Nazi's were held accountable for, were crimes against humanity. The crimes were for medical experimentation, mass executions, senseless cruelty, outright murder and the slave labor camps that starved the people to death while working them to death. The difference between these crimes and the A Bomb is quite apparent after studying what the Nazi's were doing on a mass scale against the populations of Europe. The destruction of the cities by the A Bomb was supposed to end the war, not prolong it and was "NOT done to wantonly punish the inhabitants".

Here is a definition of war crimes from my alma mater, please remember to cite them: Control Council Law No. 10, Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace and Against Humanity, December
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/ccno10.htm
- b) War Crimes. Atrocities or offences against persons or property, constituting violations of the laws or customs of war, including but not limited to, murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population from occupied territory**, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.  ** Note we never occupied Japan until after the war was over.

The US decided to drop the bomb was to try to end the war without having to invade mainland Japan. That was the main reason given , that it would save hundred's of thousand's of American soldiers lives by having it end before it got to that point. The Japanese would have defended their homeland down to the last person. The losses would have been staggering for both sides. If by using the bomb to end the war and avoid that, that is what was going to be done.

Truman and other top brass at the time, with the exception of Eisenhower, had no doubts about using the bomb on Hiroshima. They regarded the bomb as a military weapon, to be used in a just war, against the enemy.

But we also had a few other reasons to drop the bomb:

1. We also wanted to convince the Soviets of the United States' superiority. We were afraid that Russia was going to try and take over some of the countries that were defeated in WW II. (Which is what they tried to do! Think about the Berlin Wall and why it went up)

2. We had spent quite a bit of money developing it, around 2 billion, so why would we develop something without showing the world what we had? We wanted to show our military superiority and flex our muscles at the same time.

Here is my web page that has tons of sites where you can learn more about the Bomb:

WW2 Special Topics - Atomic Weapons Decisions
http://members.aol.com/TeacherNet/Atomic.html#Decision

You can also research this Subject, By using any of the encyclopedias. Do a Word search on "The Manhattan Project", "Atomic Bombs", "Hiroshima", "Nagasaki" or "Los Alamos".

Let me also mention that many allied soldiers were tried for war crimes against the various occupied territories at the end of the war. Quite a few were executed too. So, for the most part, the rules for war crimes were spread evenly and adhered to.  But, we may never know how many war crimes went  totally unpunished.  A giant exception was the KATYN WOODS Massacre, which the Nazi's were blamed for, but was done in fact by the Russians. On April 13, 1990, fifty years after the massacre, the USSR for the first time admitted its responsibility for these murders.

Here is a great site on Massacres of the Second World War -
http://www.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres.html

Question #8
Why wasn't President Roosevelt, Truman, or any of their advisors questioned for war crimes during WW II for sending thousands of Japanese civilians to Internment Camps?

Under International Law: Internment is a well established component of international law. It permits a country to intern those aliens residing in its territory who are subjects or nationals of any country with which the former is at war.

According to following document, these laws were upheld in the US internment of the Japanese and Germans, so legally there were no war crimes committed by our President or his staff.  Ethically speaking, it is another story!

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 287,
entered into force entered into force Oct. 21, 1950 http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y4gcpcp.htm
- Go first to SECTION IV - REGULATIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF INTERNEES - Article 79. Located about 1/2 way down the page. Also look at Articles 39 - 43.

Secondly, the internment of the German-Americans and Japanese-Americans in the United States, although reprehensible and ethically very wrong, did not compare to the concentration camps of the Nazi's. The treatment of the people interred in the camps of the respective governments were very different. The German and Japanese were not forced to work, were not deprived of food and had habitable living conditions. I am NOT trying to justify what was done to the Japanese or German Americans...... let me outline the differences and the similarities below for you:

Differences: Hitler's camps were put up for one reason, to ultimately kill all the inhabitants of the camps! This was accomplished through working, starving or directly gassing the inmates to death. When you were sent to any of these camps you were NOT expected to leave it. While the United States had some Japanese-American and German -American Internment interment camps set up, their purpose was to "hold" the inmates until the war was over. They were told that they had to sell their businesses/homes and move into the relocation centers, basically until the end of the war. They received pennies on the dollar, in terms of what their assets were worth. Only a few were able to hang on to what they had before this happened, most lost everything! Some Germans and Japanese were able to get back their property or hang on to it and reclaim it after the war ended. Most survivors of the concentration camps, lost everything, their families were dead, their property belonged to their neighbors or the state. They could not reclaim it! People who did try to reclaim property were killed by the inhabitants of the town for even daring to try to go back. You see, the war had ended but the feelings against the Jews were so well ingrained from the years of propaganda, that the people still felt that they were subhuman....... anti-semitism thrived long after the end of the war. Sadly, is still strong even today.

Similarities: were that people were sent to camps against their will, were not allowed to be free and were deprived of their assets and their basic civil rights under our constitution. (You might find it interesting to note that the US only convicted 10 people of espionage and they were all Caucasian!)

War Crimes basic definition:  WAR CRIMES** are violations of the rules of war. These rules, which limit the type and extent of violence permissible in war, are partly laid down in written treaties (laws) and partly consist of unwritten customs.** from GI -- World War II Commemoration.  Offenses against any of the rules of war, whether established by treaties or by international custom, constitute war crimes. So when German Jews and gypsies were transported to concentration and extermination camps pursuant to the Nazi master race theory, all this was part and parcel of a criminal war policy.

Here is a definition of war crimes from my alma mater, please remember to cite: Control Council Law No. 10, Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace and Against Humanity, December
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/ccno10.htm
- b) War Crimes. Atrocities or offences against persons or property, constituting violations of the laws or customs of war, including but not limited to, murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population from occupied territory**, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

In closing, both countries(Germany and the United States) have apologized and are now paying reparations to the people who were interred in these camps. If I remember correctly, the Japanese internees were given between $20 - 50,000 as compensation by the US government under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.  I am unsure if the German-American internees
were given any compensation as they were denied the same status as the Japanese in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. As far as I know, they have yet to be compensated. As for the German government and it's reparations...... how can you really begin to compensate someone for what they went through in the Nazi death camps? Watch your entire family slowly die by disease, starvation or work or seeing them march off to the crematorium, never to be seen again?

       or      The World War II

TeacherNet:     Isn't he cute?

© Copyright 1998-2002 SSG All Rights Reserved