Germany succeeds in deporting the Jews

[Kevin Renner]

Let's say for sake of arguement that the Nazis get a peace in the West in late summer 1940. Maybe Dunkirk doesn't happen. The BEF gets captured. Halifax becomes PM and sues for peace. How ever it happens it does. As part of the peace Germany succeeds in deporting at least the Jews of Western Europe.
Who would benefit most from accepting a large number of educated into their societies. I think the US would of course benefit but I don't see it happening. They may take somebut not all. I'm thinking maybe Brazil and Argentina . Argentina had a fairly large Jewish community at the time. Brazil was somewhat smaller. Any ideas.

And no I am not trolling

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Who would take them? No one was willing to take tens of thousands of German and Austrian Germans pre-war and from 1933-39 only about half of the German/Austria/Czech Jews managed to get out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis#.22Voyage_of_the_Damned.22

After the Holocaust the US wouldn't take most of the Jews in DP camps in Germany. That was part of the reason the Nazis started thinking about the Madagascar Plan, because there was no other place to send them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

Effectively the world largely abandoned the Jews before and to a degree after WW2.

 

[Vrykon]

The Germans wanted to deport the Jews to Madagascar. Those who are able to flee before the Nazis get to them would try to go to Palestine, the Americas, Australia or NZ. Brazil and Argentina were dictatorships at the time IIRC, maybe Chile would be more attractive. But no state is going to accept millions of Jews so I guess most are stuck in Madagascar (assuming no israel, which would be fun to see in a TL were nazis are successful).

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The Germans wanted to deport the Jews to Madagascar. Those who are able to flee before the Nazis get to them would try to go to Palestine, the Americas, Australia or NZ. Brazil and Argentina were dictatorships at the time IIRC, maybe Chile would be more attractive. But no state is going to accept millions of Jews so I guess most are stuck in Madagascar (assuming no israel, which would be fun to see in a TL were nazis are successful).

There is no Israel in 1940 ITTL, as the British couldn't accept greater Jewish immigration without another Arab uprising, certainly not millions of Polish Jews, which is why the White Paper was issued in 1939.

 

[lionhead]

Let's say for sake of arguement that the Nazis get a peace in the West in late summer 1940. Maybe Dunkirk doesn't happen. The BEF gets captured. Halifax becomes PM and sues for peace. How ever it happens it does. As part of the peace Germany succeeds in deporting at least the Jews of Western Europe.
Who would benefit most from accepting a large number of educated into their societies. I think the US would of course benefit but I don't see it happening. They may take somebut not all. I'm thinking maybe Brazil and Argentina . Argentina had a fairly large Jewish community at the time. Brazil was somewhat smaller. Any ideas.

And no I am not trolling

The "final solution" was thought up specifically for this problem, they had nowhere to deport them to. So, they came up with genocide.

 

[zoomar]

The "final solution" was thought up specifically for this problem, they had nowhere to deport them to. So, they came up with genocide.

Genocide was always the plan. Deportations and concentration camps for Jews and other racial undesirables were always seen as interim measures. The Nazis aimed ultimately for global, or at least, European domination. And whenever the Nazis achieved hegemony, genocide, either by slow starvation or fast murder was what happened. Implying that genocide was not always the Nazi intent misses the point of what Nazism was.

 

[Eivind]

An interesting scenario would be an alternative First World War where Germany was allied with Russia against France, Britain and the Ottoman Empire. In such a war Germany might have avoided unrestricted submarine warfare, as it would be less dependent on supplies by the sea, hence it would be easier to avoid that the United States entered the war. So, let us assume that Germany and Russia won the war and divided the Ottoman Empire in a similar way to how France and the UK did OTL. My idea is that Germany and Russia would be more positively inclined than Britain to allowing Jewish immigration to Palestine, as both countries were pretty anti-semittic and would welcome this opportunity to get rid of the Jews.

 

[thaddeus]

always think the alternative to Holocaust (although nearly as bad) would be conversion of General Government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Government into quasi-Jewish area.

(since that's where majority of Polish Jews already were)

and the economic output is too great to tamper with?

OR

somehow Poland is maneuvered into becoming a co-belligerent with Axis, and while harsh on their Jewish population they don't commit genocide (i.e. most of Jews remain out of German control)

 

[Viriato]

In making my thread about a Jewish East Africa I tried to read as many sources as I could about the Germans and their Jewish policies. Unfortunately the Nazi officials seemed to be very vague at best. Up until 1942 it seems that the goal was to get as many to simply leave Germany as they could. They Central Office for Jewish Emigration was established just to do that, strip the Jews of their possessions and have them emigrate.

There were even agreements like the Haavara Agreement to get Jews to move to Palestine. This helped some 60,000 German Jews settle in Palestine between 1933 and 1936 when the British strictly limited migration. The problem in the 1930s was that the depression had closed the doors to Jewish migrants. In addition, the United States was unwilling to alter its immigration quotas to admit more Jews. South Africa strictly limited Jewish immigration in 1936, Argentina had been open up until 1930, and Canada and Australia refused to take Jewish refugees at first with Canada eventually allowing those with relatives in Canada to arrive and Australia opening the doors to 15,000 over three years.

Jews who were able to obtain visas from neutral countries (Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey) were still able to emigrate after 1939. By 1942, there was nowhere to send the Jews and the Nazis advised the neutral powers that their Jewish citizens should leave areas under German control.

 

[Meadow]

Genocide was always the plan. Deportations and concentration camps for Jews and other racial undesirables were always seen as interim measures. The Nazis aimed ultimately for global, or at least, European domination. And whenever the Nazis achieved hegemony, genocide, either by slow starvation or fast murder was what happened. Implying that genocide was not always the Nazi intent misses the point of what Nazism was.

I'm not sure we can be clear cut. Genocide was always on the table as an option, but what was 'always the Nazi intent' was really 'a Jew-free Europe'. There was some - not much, but some - room to debate how that would be arrived at.

One can, of course, legitimately argue that that aim cannot be realistically arrived at without genocide. Which may be what you're saying.

 

[Lateknight]

I'm not sure we can be clear cut. Genocide was always on the table as an option, but what was 'always the Nazi intent' was really 'a Jew-free Europe'. There was some - not much, but some - room to debate how that would be arrived at.

One can, of course, legitimately argue that that aim cannot be realistically arrived at without genocide. Which may be what you're saying.

I don't know that much about details of nazi belief but I don't really think they happened to commit genocide I think was always part of the plan.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I'm not sure we can be clear cut. Genocide was always on the table as an option, but what was 'always the Nazi intent' was really 'a Jew-free Europe'. There was some - not much, but some - room to debate how that would be arrived at.

One can, of course, legitimately argue that that aim cannot be realistically arrived at without genocide. Which may be what you're saying.

I don't know that much about details of nazi belief but I don't really think they happened to commit genocide I think was always part of the plan.

That's the whole point of the intentionalist vs. functionalist debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism

 

[Vrykon]

There is no Israel in 1940 ITTL, as the British couldn't accept greater Jewish immigration without another Arab uprising, certainly not millions of Polish Jews, which is why the White Paper was issued in 1939.

I can see Germany throwing boats of jews on Palestine to incite Arab rebellion against the British and force them out of the Middle East.

 

[torten]

I can see Germany throwing boats of jews on Palestine to incite Arab rebellion against the British and force them out of the Middle East.

What about buying elderly ships, packing them with jews, and chucking out in the middle of the north sea so the British/French have to pick them up or let them die.

 

[Kevin Renner]

Note I said Western Europe. For France that means 250,000 people. Belgium another 60,000. Holland 150,000. Germany is around 500,000. The French could possibly invoke a Madagascar policy of their own with forced immigration. This could be to Madagascar as mentioned along with Algeria possibly. In order to get the UK and commonwealth countries to accept a portion of Dutch and Belgian Jews could the BEF held hostage. We will release the POWs if,,,,,,

Of course the idea does border on ASB territory

 

[Meadow]

That's the whole point of the intentionalist vs. functionalist debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism

Thank you for posting this, I was going to do exactly that. Lateknight is wrong to imply there are absolutes here, it's one of the biggest, most significant and still-raging debates in post-war academia.

 

[lionhead]

That's the whole point of the intentionalist vs. functionalist debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism

Interesting indeed. Well i suppose i am a functionalist then. LateKnight and zoomar are intentionalists i guess.

I can't recall Adolf Hitler openly talking about genocide, only ethnic cleansing and discrimination. It were the officials in the Wannsee Conference, headed by Heydrich, that started the full scale systematic genocide. Adolf Hitler wasn't present, though ouf course he knew about it taking place and knew what the result could be and simply fully approved the decision, just like Hermann Goring, Himmler etc.

Of course its debatable whether the scale of the murdering at the start can already be seen as the start of the actual holocaust, instead of the start of the more broader mass murdering that started after that conference. I'm not sure about the scale of the killings, in contrast to the deportations and imprisonment.

Its not off topic too as the OP asks if its possible the nazis could have deported them, instead of genocide. But the genocide was inevitable in the eyes of the nazis, yet not the original plan. imho.

On a side not i have to say that i have to prevent myself from crying as i write this, the cruelties and horror of the holocaust can never be forgotten when discussing this topic. its rememberance day in The Netherlands tomorrow so its extra close and i don't think i'm going to be discussing this then, out of respect.

 

[Vrykon]

Note I said Western Europe. For France that means 250,000 people. Belgium another 60,000. Holland 150,000. Germany is around 500,000. The French could possibly invoke a Madagascar policy of their own with forced immigration. This could be to Madagascar as mentioned along with Algeria possibly. In order to get the UK and commonwealth countries to accept a portion of Dutch and Belgian Jews could the BEF held hostage. We will release the POWs if,,,,,,

Of course the idea does border on ASB territory

Not Algeria, the northernmost part was considered as French as Paris. Vichy had stripped the local Jews of their rights, though I don't think they were deported like the mainland jews were.
Besides Madagascar, Guyana or some pacific islands is a possibility - far away from Europe, nothing interesting there, scarcely populated so no local rebellion to fight off.

 

[Kevin Renner]

Would it of mde sense for a neutral such as Argentina or another South American nation to take in x number of people who meet certain standards of education levels or useful trades people. IMO the Holocaust could still happen in the east in this scenario. But it could be a different kind of Holocaust. Eastern European Jews restricted to a large agricultural ghetto employed solely as farm workers living on subsistance diets. Its not a pretty thought. Pretty much any action the Nazi regime takes in Poland or the rest of Eastern Europe is going to be despicable. Nazi Germany was one of the most dispicable governments to ever stain human history. The only reason I can't say worst is the Khemer Rouge gave them a good run for the money

 

[Alex1guy]

What about buying elderly ships, packing them with jews, and chucking out in the middle of the north sea so the British/French have to pick them up or let them die.

Too expensive and nowhere near fast enough , they are wanting to displace hundreds of thousands of people remember.