WI: A World War II and a Third Reich WITHOUT the Holocaust.

Alternatehistorybuff5341 · Dec 22, 2009

I am unsure if this thread topic has been posted before, but I still wanted to post it.

Lets say that Adolf Hitler, instead of killing The Jews and other non-Aryan rces, simply deported them to other countries or kept them segregated alla South African Apartheid and Southern US Jim Crow Laws. What would be the effects on World War II, The Third Reich, Jewish History ((IE: Zionism/Israel)) and World History if there was no Holocaust?

John Masaki · Dec 23, 2009

I would think that the resources nominally used in the Holocaust would have been spent on the war itself. That would have plenty of butterflies all by itself.

Sol Invictus · Dec 23, 2009

I don't think that the holocaust actually drained a lot of resources. The manpower used to man the camps was quite low, often it was 'outsourced' to the various nationalities of the Nazi 'Empire'. Also several camps doubled up as industrial centres using slave labour. I would hazard a guess that it was a net gain. Nazi Germany still would have employed death squads in Russia to mop up resistance, by it Jewish, slavic of whatever.

Though there would be numerous consequences by removing the holocaust the war itself would not be greatly effected.

Blue Max · Dec 23, 2009

The Critical Question here is whether this new arrangement is preferable to the people oppressed by Stalin and the Soviet Union. Even in OTL, the Wehrmacht managed to recruit all kinds of Ostruppen, including the Linz Cossacks, to their side. A Germany that is not interested in racial purity or at least would be pragmatic to win the war first has a very strong shot of beating at least the Soviet Government.

The Soviet People had excellent reason to fight behind Stalin when the stakes are racial annihilation. But without such motives, the Soviet Armed Forces would have very poor instead of very high morale. Demoralized forces surrendering en masse to the Wehrmacht or outright defecting happened somewhat in OTL in the opening stages in Barbarossa. The Soviet Union might not outright collapse in 1941, but this is how Germany could easily grab Moscow and Leningrad in her opening move.

Would the loss of Moscow BEFORE Pearl Harbor stop the Japanese? Suddenly, the Northern Option becomes very plausible. While the Mukden Army could never hope to win against the forces positioned against it in OTL, if the Soviet Union is melting against Germany Japan may very will try it.

No Pearl Harbor and the United States might well find the United Kingdom has been forced to peace out against Nazi Germany before they can get a DoW.

Keith Robertsson · Dec 24, 2009

IIRC, the biggest drain on the war effort was the railroad tonnage used for transport to the camps.

juanml82 · Dec 24, 2009

Is it a possibility? I'm not talking about political will and definitily not trying to justify the holocaust at all. But, was there enough food in Nazi occupied Europe to feed everyone? I think it wasn't (not that it was the reason for the OTL holocaust - they did it out of hatred and cruelty) and therefore a smaller scale holocaust would have happened anyways.

Regarding the Madagascar, did the Germans have the available shipping capacity to send the jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc so far, in time of war? Or would they try something closer or don't try it at all?

Would the loss of Moscow BEFORE Pearl Harbor stop the Japanese? Suddenly, the Northern Option becomes very plausible. While the Mukden Army could never hope to win against the forces positioned against it in OTL, if the Soviet Union is melting against Germany Japan may very will try it.

I don't think it would. The Japanese needed oil and they could get it in the NEI but not in Siberia.
A less ruthless occupation of the USSR in '41 however, can cause the effect you described as there isn't yet time for hunger to cause damage.

mattep74 · Dec 24, 2009

Sol Invictus said:
I don't think that the holocaust actually drained a lot of resources. The manpower used to man the camps was quite low, often it was 'outsourced' to the various nationalities of the Nazi 'Empire'. Also several camps doubled up as industrial centres using slave labour. I would hazard a guess that it was a net gain. Nazi Germany still would have employed death squads in Russia to mop up resistance, by it Jewish, slavic of whatever.

Though there would be numerous consequences by removing the holocaust the war itself would not be greatly effected.

IIRC the Nazis used up a big chunk of their railwaycapasity and trains to use for the camps and they were given priority to supplytrains for the front

Corbell Mark IV · Dec 24, 2009

Blue Max said:
The Critical Question here is whether this new arrangement is preferable to the people oppressed by Stalin and the Soviet Union. Even in OTL, the Wehrmacht managed to recruit all kinds of Ostruppen, including the Linz Cossacks, to their side. A Germany that is not interested in racial purity or at least would be pragmatic to win the war first has a very strong shot of beating at least the Soviet Government.

The Soviet People had excellent reason to fight behind Stalin when the stakes are racial annihilation. But without such motives, the Soviet Armed Forces would have very poor instead of very high morale. Demoralized forces surrendering en masse to the Wehrmacht or outright defecting happened somewhat in OTL in the opening stages in Barbarossa. The Soviet Union might not outright collapse in 1941, but this is how Germany could easily grab Moscow and Leningrad in her opening move.

Would the loss of Moscow BEFORE Pearl Harbor stop the Japanese? Suddenly, the Northern Option becomes very plausible. While the Mukden Army could never hope to win against the forces positioned against it in OTL, if the Soviet Union is melting against Germany Japan may very will try it.

No Pearl Harbor and the United States might well find the United Kingdom has been forced to peace out against Nazi Germany before they can get a DoW.

The Soviet peoples were not facing racial annihilation, but terrible oppression, which would not be much changed just by removing the Holocaust.

Now the freeing up of Rail capacity and additional slave labour...

I find it hard to believe that that would make enough of a differance to let the Nazi take Moscow.

Of course I probable have trouble wrapping my mind around the scale of the Holocaust.

Hmm, not committing genocide could have some "healthy" butterflies on Hiltlers mental stability, with "positive" results for his conduct of the war.