Effect of an early Israel on Nazi strategy & WWII

This what-if query was inspired by pages 215-216 of W.D. Rubinstein's, The Myth of Rescue

Rubinstein page 215-216
If the State of Israel had come into existence ten or fifteen years earlier, would this have helped [rescue people from the Holocaust] in a central way? Self-evidently, a very significant number of Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe would have fled there prior to Hitler’s invasions of their countries; if Palestine/Israel had survived the war unscathed, presumably those Jews, too, would have survived the war. Yet, as we have seen previously, it is easy to overestimate the political clientele for Zionism among eastern European Jewry prior to the Holocaust; at the time, even when Nazi Germany existied, most Jews were adherents of other ideologies – Bund Socialism, Strict Orthodoxy, Marxism – which were explicitly anti-Zionist, and showed no interest in migrating to the Hebrew-speaking Yishuv, economically primitive and under constant Arab threat. Some historians have also argued that had Israel existed during the war, it might have saved Europe’s Jews in other ways. For instance, Lucy S. Dawidowicz, seldom a proponent of overly sanguine ‘might-have-beens’ of Holocaust rescue, nevertheless states without qualification that:

"Without political power Jews had no chance for survival. Had a Jewish state existed in 1939, even one as small as Israel today, but militarily competent, the terrible story of six million dead might have had another outcome. As a member of the Allied nations, contributing its manpower and military resources to the conduct of the war, a Jewish state could have exercised some leverage with the great powers in the alliance. Even though it would not have diverted Hitler from his determination to murder the Jews, a Jewish state might have been able to wield sufficient military and political clout to have inhibited Slovakia, Rumania, and Croatia from collaborating with the Germans in that murder. A Jewish state could have persuaded neutral countries to give Jewish refugees safe passage. A Jewish state would have ensured a safe havem. A Jewish state would have made the difference."​
It is genuinely surprising to read-alas-such a naïve and improbable statement in the writings of an author as astute and intelligence as Lucy S. Dawidowicz. Unfortunately, even if Israel had existed and attempted to use its ‘military and political clout’ to change the anti-semitic policies of ‘Slovakia, Rumania and Croatia’, it was Hitler and Hitler alone who had the final say about the fate of the Jews in these countries, just as he did in Hungary. Indeed had an independent Jewish state existed in Palestine during the war, the fate of the Jews may have been very different, but not in the way imagine here: Hitler might well have made its conquest and destruction a much higher priority than it was actually given. Rommel had only ten divisions in North Africa; with the destruction of Israel and the extermination of perhaps 1 million Jews there as his goal, Hitler might have agreed to give him twenty, thirty or whatever number of Axis divisions was necessary for a successful drive through Egypt (incidentally seizing the Suez Canal) to Palestine, doubtless fanning Arab anti-British and anti-Jewish nationalism every inch of the way. Given what we know about Hitler, which possibility was more likely?


So, let's posit an Israel established about 10 years earlier. The Peel Commission's recommendations are adopted in the ATL, and mandatory Palestine is partitioned between Jordan, and an independent Jewish state of smaller dimensions than Israel (it does not have the Negev, which goes to Jordan, or the Jaffa-to-Jerusalem corridor, which remains British for the meantime). Formal partition is implemented no later than early 1938.

First off, will Hitler's military priorities change in the way that Rubinstein imagines? Would Hitler make destruction of the Jewish state in Palestine an urgent priority goal, perhaps stripping resources from other campaigns in order to support the Afrika Korps more? For instance, Hitler postpones Barbarossa a year to pursue the defeat of the British in the Middle East and invasion, occupation and destruction of Israel in 1941?

In the realm of Hitler's intentions and what his followers have been ideologically primed to accept, it seems like a Middle East campaign to destroy a Jewish state could be very attractive to the Nazis. On the other hand, delaying Barbarossa slows down the German race's acquisition of permanent Lebensbraum. A Middle East campaign would destroy racial enemies, but offers no land for German settlement, and leaves a major power on the European continent to coexist with Nazi Germany for at least another year.

How might Hitler's military priorities have changed vis-a-vis the Middle East with Israel established in 1938?

Now, even supposing Hitler is willing to commit more to the Middle East, willing to double or treble the divisions in the Afrika Korps, is he able to do so?
Even supposing he is willing to postpone Barbarossa to complete the conquest of the Middle East in the meantime, would the logistical obstacles to supporting any larger force than OTL across the Mediterranean simply have been too great to allow the Germans to complete the conquest of Palestine, regardless of Hitler's priorities and intentions?
 
This what-if query was inspired by pages 215-216 of W.D. Rubinstein's, The Myth of Rescue

Rubinstein page 215-216



So, let's posit an Israel established about 10 years earlier. The Peel Commission's recommendations are adopted in the ATL, and mandatory Palestine is partitioned between Jordan, and an independent Jewish state of smaller dimensions than Israel (it does not have the Negev, which goes to Jordan, or the Jaffa-to-Jerusalem corridor, which remains British for the meantime). Formal partition is implemented no later than early 1938.

First off, will Hitler's military priorities change in the way that Rubinstein imagines? Would Hitler make destruction of the Jewish state in Palestine an urgent priority goal, perhaps stripping resources from other campaigns in order to support the Afrika Korps more? For instance, Hitler postpones Barbarossa a year to pursue the defeat of the British in the Middle East and invasion, occupation and destruction of Israel in 1941?

In the realm of Hitler's intentions and what his followers have been ideologically primed to accept, it seems like a Middle East campaign to destroy a Jewish state could be very attractive to the Nazis. On the other hand, delaying Barbarossa slows down the German race's acquisition of permanent Lebensbraum. A Middle East campaign would destroy racial enemies, but offers no land for German settlement, and leaves a major power on the European continent to coexist with Nazi Germany for at least another year.

How might Hitler's military priorities have changed vis-a-vis the Middle East with Israel established in 1938?

Now, even supposing Hitler is willing to commit more to the Middle East, willing to double or treble the divisions in the Afrika Korps, is he able to do so?
Even supposing he is willing to postpone Barbarossa to complete the conquest of the Middle East in the meantime, would the logistical obstacles to supporting any larger force than OTL across the Mediterranean simply have been too great to allow the Germans to complete the conquest of Palestine, regardless of Hitler's priorities and intentions?


Hello
you say Israel will be founded in 1938?
This could have deep consequences...

first - the "early Hitler" wanted to "clean" europe from "filthy jews"... mass killing was the second step - so you can do a madagascar-plan in 1938/39 before the war...

i bet, with an existing israel, a lot polish and russian jews will go to this place - that has nothing to do with nazi germay but with antisemitism in these countries.. so less jews in hilters way

if such "israel-plan" would come to existence... the nazis could tranport their 500.000 jews to this isreal (first goal of hitler was "judenfreies Deutschland" - this he could do without spend money or time - so it could be possible)

i don´t know what he would do with the jews in europe (for example in poland) - will he terrorize em and kill em? or will he send them to israel?

even if he do the second - we also do not know what he want to take israel and kill the jews there...

but logical fist steps would be
a.) push the jews out of germany (38/39)
b.) afer poland 1939 - he also would force the jews from there - the jews that do not want to go will propably be die in a ghetto or camp
c.) many jews from all european countries will move in 1938-40 to isreal, fleeing antisemitism...
d.) after barbarossa i think hitler will start killing the jews in his way - he belive he is winning...
e.) i have no clue about hitler and israel - i doubt he will do a conquest - but i bet if he can reach it he would try to kill em all...

i hope this was usefull for you

greetings
 
raharris1973

I think their both wrong. I can't see many Jews leaving eastern Europe before it's too late, not to mention possibly not having the funds for it or being allowed to. Also how many would be able to settle and be welcomed in such a small state.

On the other hand Hitler might make conquering Israel a higher priority but the key factors are logistical. Rommel had his problems but was very astute at living off a shoe-string and often what he could get from the British. If Hitler tries to triple the force involved then most will probably be stuck about Tripoli as they simply can't be moved to the front. In the process consuming a hell of a lot of shipping for moving them to Libya and the supplies needed to feed and fuel them. It might make the final capture of Tripoli more difficult but could really scupper any attack on Egypt.;)

As such I could see a fair number of Jews escaping to Israel, mainly the more liberal and educated as their likely to be more willing to move and have the resources to. As such a number would survive and I think a small but powerful Jewish Corp or even Army might well serve in the British army but I fear the majority would still die in Hitler's camps.

The other question would be how this Israel, especially if there was a sizeable number of refugees, would affect Britain's relation with the Arabs under it's control. You would probably have more people listening to the Mufti of Jerusalem and probably more pro-Axis uprisings and unrest.

Steve
 
This will not be a popular idea but this is what I would see Nazi Germany doing. I would see them encouraging Jews to move to Israel. I would see them actually supporting Israel in a fight against Britain and possibly getting the surrounding Arabs in on it too. They might encourage an enmity between Jews and Arabs taking a page from the British divide and conquer, or they might stabilize the region as a protectorate sort of like Spain.
In the end they would expect all Jews from conquered lands to live in Palestine/Israel.
716_Ausweisung_aller_Juden.jpeg


this does not mean they would not still go after Jewish communists and other Jews they deemed enemies of the state.
 

Riain

Banned
Aside from how it affected other countries would the holocaust be a necessary event to galvanise the Jews themselves? Without it could European Jewish attitudes to an earlier Israel could be a bit 'take it or leave it', perhaps being seen as just another option to them if they do decide to leave Europe?
 

Vladimir

Banned
If partition was implemented, the Arabs would have likely attacked, and would have met well-armed Jews that had been covertly arming themselves, as happened in OTL. Israel expands to its pre-1967 borders like it does in OTL. Arab Jews are expelled early, and settle in Israel.

With a Jewish state, German Jews flee to Israel. When other European nations are conquered, the Jews who escape and sail towards Israel are welcomed with open arms instead of being stopped by the British and deported to Cyprus. Israel sends IDF troops to join the Allies during the North African Campaign. All Holocaust survivors after the war are granted unlimited entry into Israel instead of displaced persons camps or being stopped by the British from entering.
 
First, why does the UK just up and let what's currently a colony of its own in a very geopolitically sensitive area form a separate state? Second, what happens to the Arab Revolt that would be launched just at this same time? Third, how precisely do the Israelis *get* the UK out of there? Their brilliant decision was to wait to revolt *after* WWII, if both Arabs *and* Jews rise up at the same time.......:eek::rolleyes:
 
If partition was implemented, the Arabs would have likely attacked, and would have met well-armed Jews that had been covertly arming themselves, as happened in OTL. Israel expands to its pre-1967 borders like it does in OTL. Arab Jews are expelled early, and settle in Israel.

With a Jewish state, German Jews flee to Israel. When other European nations are conquered, the Jews who escape and sail towards Israel are welcomed with open arms instead of being stopped by the British and deported to Cyprus. Israel sends IDF troops to join the Allies during the North African Campaign. All Holocaust survivors after the war are granted unlimited entry into Israel instead of displaced persons camps or being stopped by the British from entering.

At this point the British Mandate is occupying Palestine just as the German military threat is becoming one of clear and present danger. Why on God's Blue Earth is the UK going to allow the Mandate to break up into a Jewish state that in origin must of necessity be anti-British? The Arabs tried a massive revolt at this time against the UK and got smashed, the Haganah tries this in 1936-9 the same would happen to them. If they decide to do this and the Arabs decide to wait and see about events then there goes Israel as we know it and a Jewish state in Mandate Palestine at all.
 
raharris1973

I think their both wrong. I can't see many Jews leaving eastern Europe before it's too late, not to mention possibly not having the funds for it or being allowed to. Also how many would be able to settle and be welcomed in such a small state.

On the other hand Hitler might make conquering Israel a higher priority but the key factors are logistical. Rommel had his problems but was very astute at living off a shoe-string and often what he could get from the British. If Hitler tries to triple the force involved then most will probably be stuck about Tripoli as they simply can't be moved to the front. In the process consuming a hell of a lot of shipping for moving them to Libya and the supplies needed to feed and fuel them. It might make the final capture of Tripoli more difficult but could really scupper any attack on Egypt.;)

As such I could see a fair number of Jews escaping to Israel, mainly the more liberal and educated as their likely to be more willing to move and have the resources to. As such a number would survive and I think a small but powerful Jewish Corp or even Army might well serve in the British army but I fear the majority would still die in Hitler's camps.

The other question would be how this Israel, especially if there was a sizeable number of refugees, would affect Britain's relation with the Arabs under it's control. You would probably have more people listening to the Mufti of Jerusalem and probably more pro-Axis uprisings and unrest.

Steve

Um, at this point it's the UK that's controlling Palestine so an Israel in the 1930s is a major setback for the British, not least as it indicates the UK can't hold on to colonies of major strategic significance. British global prestige will be shot and with this goes a WWII scenario as per OTL. Poland will be totally isolated, and when the German-Soviet war comes circa 1942 Europe goes Red. The UK failing to hold on to Palestine will butterfly away WWII as we know it and will vastly alter the entire geopolitical situation all out of proportion to the size of Palestine.
 
first - the "early Hitler" wanted to "clean" europe from "filthy jews"... mass killing was the second step - so you can do a madagascar-plan in 1938/39 before the war...

As early as the 1920s Hitler wanted to kill the Jews. Not expel, kill. He said to one of his closest confidents that if the Nazis came to power he would ensure that gallows were set up in every city so that every Jew could be hanged, including women and children. There's no doubt that his objective from the begining was the murder of the Jewish population of Germany, and eventually the world.
 
As early as the 1920s Hitler wanted to kill the Jews. Not expel, kill. He said to one of his closest confidents that if the Nazis came to power he would ensure that gallows were set up in every city so that every Jew could be hanged, including women and children. There's no doubt that his objective from the begining was the murder of the Jewish population of Germany, and eventually the world.

Not to mention what Nazi propaganda would make of the kind of Haganah terrorism required to expel the British from Palestine and Arabs from *Israel. The Nazis would use it to paint Jews as inherently treacherous and incapable of being peaceably ruled and claim that this is one shining example of their babble about race-war, while the UK's prestige and I can't emphasize this enough has fallen more seriously than it did IOTL to Yamashita. Of course this being Nazi propaganda a great deal of it would be vulgar lies appealing only to those already primed to accept it and would vastly oversimplify what exactly happened.

I do think that the creation of an Israel in the late 1930s is one of those things whose butterflies are far more dramatic than the OP and most discussion here is thinking through.
 
Not to mention what Nazi propaganda would make of the kind of Haganah terrorism required to expel the British from Palestine and Arabs from *Israel. The Nazis would use it to paint Jews as inherently treacherous and incapable of being peaceably ruled and claim that this is one shining example of their babble about race-war, while the UK's prestige and I can't emphasize this enough has fallen more seriously than it did IOTL to Yamashita. Of course this being Nazi propaganda a great deal of it would be vulgar lies appealing only to those already primed to accept it and would vastly oversimplify what exactly happened.

I do think that the creation of an Israel in the late 1930s is one of those things whose butterflies are far more dramatic than the OP and most discussion here is thinking through.

Pfft, not that they had much trouble already. Within a few years Hitler had audiences of thousands believing theories so lunatic he should have been thrown in a mental asylum. Even some of his fellows Nazis, mainly the more "intellectual" ones that founded the party, found him and his supporters like Hess and Rohm to be over the top. I mean it's truly incredible how utterly batshit his theories were.
 
Last edited:
Pfft, not that they had much trouble already. Within a few years Hitler had audiences of thousands believing theories so lunatic he would have been thrown in a mental asylum. Even some of his fellows Nazis, mainly the more "intellectual" ones that founded the party, found him and his supporters like Hess and Rohm to be over the top.

Right, but in this case they're making the claim when the British Empire is pretty clearly on the outs and the balance of power in a key region for both sides in a *WWII has just been turned on its ear.
 
Right, but in this case they're making the claim when the British Empire is pretty clearly on the outs and the balance of power in a key region for both sides in a *WWII has just been turned on its ear.

I agree, the British Empire will be changed dramatically, and with that much of world politics.
 

sdrucker

Banned
Not to mention what Nazi propaganda would make of the kind of Haganah terrorism required to expel the British from Palestine and Arabs from *Israel. The Nazis would use it to paint Jews as inherently treacherous and incapable of being peaceably ruled and claim that this is one shining example of their babble about race-war, while the UK's prestige and I can't emphasize this enough has fallen more seriously than it did IOTL to Yamashita. Of course this being Nazi propaganda a great deal of it would be vulgar lies appealing only to those already primed to accept it and would vastly oversimplify what exactly happened.

I do think that the creation of an Israel in the late 1930s is one of those things whose butterflies are far more dramatic than the OP and most discussion here is thinking through.

Speaking of butterflies, does a Jewish State formed due to the Peel Commission recommendations stay a part of the Commonwealth? That has implications for how prepared the Jewish State is for what would be WWII (if it still happens on schedule).

For one thing, the Haganah in OTL benefitted from the experience gained by veterans of the Special Night Squads (serving with Orde Wingate, who conducted what today would be called counterterrorism), the Palmach that served with the British in Syria and Lebanon against the Vichy French in 1941, and the Jewish Brigade that fought in Italy and other theatres with the British. This version of Israel wouldn't have the advantages of a core group of independently motivated, offensive-minded leaders, nor the exposure to WWII tactics that gave the Israelis an advantage over the Arab forces in 1948. Other than the Arab Legion, you really couldn't say the same about the other Arab armies.

A Jewish State with early independence might not have the relative advantages they had in 1948 (retrospect talking; not really obvious at the time), and have a more conventional territorial defence force, which might have put it in worse shape viz. its neighbors if it survived the war and the Arab states became independent.
 
Last edited:
..thoughts and a bump.

SteveP
The other question would be how this Israel, especially if there was a sizeable number of refugees, would affect Britain's relation with the Arabs under it's control. You would probably have more people listening to the Mufti of Jerusalem and probably more pro-Axis uprisings and unrest.

I could think they would try more, but I don’t see them being any more militarily successful than in OTL’s wartime uprisings or the Arab-Israeli wars.

Riain:
“Aside from how it affected other countries would the holocaust be a necessary event to galvanise the Jews themselves? Without it could European Jewish attitudes to an earlier Israel could be a bit 'take it or leave it', perhaps being seen as just another option to them if they do decide to leave Europe?”

In OTL, although pre-war emigration to Palestine was much, much smaller than postwar, the ascent of Hitler still set off a relatively high level of migration, dwarfing the pre-1933 period. Some form of statehood or dominion-hood would encourage higher than OTL migration. This would be combined with a lack of the American alternative.
The choice of whether it was worth it to move to Israel prior to Nazi conquest would hinge on many factors, most of all an assessment of local anti-semitism or the likelihood of coming under German authority. As such, I would think German and Austrian Jews would be most prone to moving. German wars against Czechoslovakia and Poland would be something jews in those countries would see as a realistic threat, encouraging more migration than in OTL. However, it will barely make a difference to English or Italian Jews, and most French Jews would assume they were either not at risk or not at risk at least as long as they lived far from the German border (based on the results of the last war).

Vladimir
When other European nations are conquered, the Jews who escape and sail towards Israel are welcomed with open arms instead of being stopped by the British and deported to Cyprus.

Of course, those who in OTL were kept away from Palestine and housed in Cyprus, were also being kept out of the death camps. The people who got to the point of getting shut out of Palestine in WWII were the same ones who had *already* escaped the Holocaust.
 
Debatin' the Snake

Snake
At this point the British Mandate is occupying Palestine just as the German military threat is becoming one of clear and present danger. Why on God's Blue Earth is the UK going to allow the Mandate to break up into a Jewish state that in origin must of necessity be anti-British?

I think this is overly rigid thinking. Why does an Israel have to be anti-British? What about implementation of the Peel Plan, or any other scenario allowing creation of a dominion of Israel federated or allied with Britain, or just Jewish control over Palestine Mandate immigration policy. Britain granting any of these immediately obviates the prospect of Zionist uprising against British authorities


Snake
Um, at this point it's the UK that's controlling Palestine so an Israel in the 1930s is a major setback for the British, not least as it indicates the UK can't hold on to colonies of major strategic significance. British global prestige will be shot and with this goes a WWII scenario as per OTL. Poland will be totally isolated, and when the German-Soviet war comes circa 1942 Europe goes Red. The UK failing to hold on to Palestine will butterfly away WWII as we know it and will vastly alter the entire geopolitical situation all out of proportion to the size of Palestine.

Right, but in this case they're making the claim when the British Empire is pretty clearly on the outs and the balance of power in a key region for both sides in a *WWII has just been turned on its ear.

I think there is something to this and it is very worthy of discussion. I think you’re perhaps still overstating the case though. You seem to make it an absolute axiom that a Britain that is willing to decolonize, is also a Britain that has necessarily also lost the will to fight for the European balance of power. Maybe it is impossible to get Britain fighting in a WWII fought *after*decolonization, but it is worth exploring the question on its own, maybe in another thread.

However, the closest analogous situation, which is admittedly not very analogous, suggest Britain could decolonize and still fight. In 1783 Britain key colonial possessions and a lot of prestige. But it went on to lead European coalitions and to field massive armies to defeat Napoleon. Likewise, Britain and France fought in the Falklands, the Persian Gulf and Libya, even after decolonization.
 
I agree, the British Empire will be changed dramatically, and with that much of world politics.

Changed for the worst. If Palestine's gotten independence by this time, keeping India in the Empire will require either Generalplan Ost-in-India or the UK being a German sideshow lacking anything of the muscle it had IOTL.

Speaking of butterflies, does a Jewish State formed due to the Peel Commission recommendations stay a part of the Commonwealth? That has implications for how prepared the Jewish State is for what would be WWII (if it still happens on schedule).

For one thing, the Haganah in OTL benefitted from the experience gained by veterans of the Special Night Squads (serving with Orde Wingate, who conducted what today would be called counterterrorism), the Palmach that served with the British in Syria and Lebanon against the Vichy French in 1941, and the Jewish Brigade that fought in Italy and other theatres with the British. This version of Israel wouldn't have the advantages of a core group of independently motivated, offensive-minded leaders, nor the exposure to WWII tactics that gave the Israelis an advantage over the Arab forces in 1948. Other than the Arab Legion, you really couldn't say the same about the other Arab armies.

A Jewish State with early independence might not have the relative advantages they had in 1948 (retrospect talking; not really obvious at the time), and have a more conventional territorial defence force, which might have put it in worse shape viz. its neighbors if it survived the war and the Arab states became independent.

The problem is not just the form of independence, here we have Jews getting a state of their own. What happens when India sees this?
 
I think this is overly rigid thinking. Why does an Israel have to be anti-British? What about implementation of the Peel Plan, or any other scenario allowing creation of a dominion of Israel federated or allied with Britain, or just Jewish control over Palestine Mandate immigration policy. Britain granting any of these immediately obviates the prospect of Zionist uprising against British authorities

Because with Germany re-arming and appealing to the Arabs and potentially able to menace India the UK will give up Palestine when Hell freezes over, voluntarily. And the prospect of India seeing this and deciding "OK, Mac, cough us up our own country now" will but escalate that. And if the UK fails in spit of dropping the hammer then its days as even a middling power are over.

I think there is something to this and it is very worthy of discussion. I think you’re perhaps still overstating the case though. You seem to make it an absolute axiom that a Britain that is willing to decolonize, is also a Britain that has necessarily also lost the will to fight for the European balance of power. Maybe it is impossible to get Britain fighting in a WWII fought *after*decolonization, but it is worth exploring the question on its own, maybe in another thread.

However, the closest analogous situation, which is admittedly not very analogous, suggest Britain could decolonize and still fight. In 1783 Britain key colonial possessions and a lot of prestige. But it went on to lead European coalitions and to field massive armies to defeat Napoleon. Likewise, Britain and France fought in the Falklands, the Persian Gulf and Libya, even after decolonization.

If Israel goes independent, India will demand its own independence shortly thereafter. If the UK can't hold on to the tiny Mandate, it will be driven out of India in five minutes. A UK that fails to suppress a pre-WWII Zionist Revolt is a UK no longer a European power in any serious sense, and its role in Nazi strategy thus will be irrelevant. The Soviets and French become by default the major players in an anti-Hitler coalition, Israel will be a Nazi propaganda gift that keeps on giving (and yes, their propaganda would be 99.999999% lies, but propaganda and truth are not remotely connected).

The result of an independent Israel automatically removes an Allied coalition as per OTL. It's either joint Soviet-American victory or Red Europe on the one hand or an apocalyptic mutual destruction stalemate between the Nazis and Soviets on the other hand.
 
The Indian domino....

Because with Germany re-arming and appealing to the Arabs and potentially able to menace India the UK will give up Palestine when Hell freezes over, voluntarily. And the prospect of India seeing this and deciding "OK, Mac, cough us up our own country now" will but escalate that. And if the UK fails in spit of dropping the hammer then its days as even a middling power are over.

If Israel goes independent, India will demand its own independence shortly thereafter. If the UK can't hold on to the tiny Mandate, it will be driven out of India in five minutes. A UK that fails to suppress a pre-WWII Zionist Revolt is a UK no longer a European power in any serious sense, and its role in Nazi strategy thus will be irrelevant. The Soviets and French become by default the major players in an anti-Hitler coalition, Israel will be a Nazi propaganda gift that keeps on giving (and yes, their propaganda would be 99.999999% lies, but propaganda and truth are not remotely connected).

The result of an independent Israel automatically removes an Allied coalition as per OTL. It's either joint Soviet-American victory or Red Europe on the one hand or an apocalyptic mutual destruction stalemate between the Nazis and Soviets on the other hand.


You're still setting up the question as a binary between a revolting, anti-British Israel, or a Palestine Mandate with exactly the same lukewarm policies towards the Zionists as OTL.

But what about a Dominion of Israel, or an Israel Free State in the Commonwealth. Do concessions to the Zionists within the framework of the commonwealth automatically spark the Indian revolution?

By your logic, why didn't the Indians react to the establishment of the Irish Free State with all-out revolution? Why didn't the granting of Dominion status to weak little New Zealand cause the Indians make demands for far-reaching self-government and fight on until London conceded on all points?

Why didn't the the British retrenchment and formal independence for Egypt, Jordan and Iraq in the 1920s provoke the instant Indian revolution you are talking about?

The Indian reaction to concessions to the Zionists, under duress or by negotiation, is indeed an interesting question.

However, how did the Indians (and London) see the racial pecking order at the time? No doubt the Indians didn't think that white European superiority was natural or right, but many took said dominance as a fact of life. Is Zionist success vis-a-vis London considered an example of Asians winning a victory that Indians should logically expect to emulate, or would it be seen as irrelevant to India as it is just a bargain between two different sets of Europeans, with the Indians knowing that London would be willing to hammer their rebelliousness much harder than any white man's rebelliousness?
 
Top