Is there still going to be an Israel if there is no Holocaust?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Futurist
Member
Posts: 1765
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Is there still going to be an Israel if there is no Holocaust?

Post by Futurist » 25 Sep 2018 03:08

If there is no Holocaust but with a relatively late PoD from our TL--for instance, having Britain and France stand up to Hitler over the Sudetenland in 1938, which culminates in a successful anti-Nazi military coup in Germany--is the state of Israel still going to be created?

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Is there still going to be an Israel if there is no Holocaust?

Post by jesk » 25 Sep 2018 05:08

Futurist wrote:
25 Sep 2018 03:08
If there is no Holocaust but with a relatively late PoD from our TL--for instance, having Britain and France stand up to Hitler over the Sudetenland in 1938, which culminates in a successful anti-Nazi military coup in Germany--is the state of Israel still going to be created?
It's easy to create. The second world elevated the United States and the USSR. These countries much more willingly helped Israel than France and Britain. Israel is heavily dependent on foreign aid. Germany was forced to help as a guilt ...

Futurist
Member
Posts: 1765
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Is there still going to be an Israel if there is no Holocaust?

Post by Futurist » 25 Sep 2018 05:22

jesk wrote:
25 Sep 2018 05:08
Futurist wrote:
25 Sep 2018 03:08
If there is no Holocaust but with a relatively late PoD from our TL--for instance, having Britain and France stand up to Hitler over the Sudetenland in 1938, which culminates in a successful anti-Nazi military coup in Germany--is the state of Israel still going to be created?
It's easy to create. The second world elevated the United States and the USSR. These countries much more willingly helped Israel than France and Britain. Israel is heavily dependent on foreign aid. Germany was forced to help as a guilt ...
Are you suggesting that there would have been no Israel in this scenario?

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Is there still going to be an Israel if there is no Holocaust?

Post by jesk » 25 Sep 2018 05:36

Futurist wrote:
25 Sep 2018 05:22
jesk wrote:
25 Sep 2018 05:08
Futurist wrote:
25 Sep 2018 03:08
If there is no Holocaust but with a relatively late PoD from our TL--for instance, having Britain and France stand up to Hitler over the Sudetenland in 1938, which culminates in a successful anti-Nazi military coup in Germany--is the state of Israel still going to be created?
It's easy to create. The second world elevated the United States and the USSR. These countries much more willingly helped Israel than France and Britain. Israel is heavily dependent on foreign aid. Germany was forced to help as a guilt ...
Are you suggesting that there would have been no Israel in this scenario?
Most likely the standard of living in Israel would be much below and at Jews the incentive to the Middle East wouldn't be to emigrate.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 4902
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Is there still going to be an Israel if there is no Holocaust?

Post by wm » 25 Sep 2018 09:48

Still going to be created. The Jews were promised their own state by the 1923 Palestine Mandate, so they were going to milk that opportunity dry.
Jewish revisionists under the leadership of Ze'ev Jabotinsky were preparing an army, well trained (by Polish instructors) and well armed (by Polish Army) to invade and reconquer Palestine.
That plan was terminated by ww2 but still, some of those people reached Palestine and create some resemblance of hell there - in 1942, in 1944 and later.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 848
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: Is there still going to be an Israel if there is no Holocaust?

Post by pugsville » 25 Sep 2018 10:51

Futurist wrote:
25 Sep 2018 03:08
If there is no Holocaust but with a relatively late PoD from our TL--for instance, having Britain and France stand up to Hitler over the Sudetenland in 1938, which culminates in a successful anti-Nazi military coup in Germany--is the state of Israel still going to be created?
I think you need to define your what if more fully no holocaust and no war are different things.

The crunch for Zionist/Jewish Immigration was the great Depression, closing of the Americas for Jewish immigrants who vastly preferred to immigrant there rather than Palestine, late 20s more Jews were leaving Palestine than arriving. Once the Americas were more or less closed many more Jews were pressing to go to Palestine.

By the Late 1930s the Jewish population in Palestine had pretty much passed the point of no return. They were not going to be satisfied with lesss than their own state, and the Native population was not going to accept from their point of view foreign rule.

The Second world war put things on fast forward. Without the war it might take a decade more. But Jewish immigration would remain pressing. British concerns were almost totally driven by perceived self imperial interest (though the Actual Mandate authorities had a life of their own, and to a large extent came around to believe the original Mandate Rhetoric to some degree) originally the Zionist project was seen as a why of securing Egypt so favoring the Zionists , but by the 1930s the deteriorating world security and the large numbers (relatively) needed to put down the Arab revolt drove policy decisions to somewhat more favorable to the Arab population (the white paper).

The Second world war enabled Zionist acquisition or military training, weapons and large numbers of desperate immigrants without these things they would be playing a longer game. Smuggling weapons, immigrants into Palestine, the British were always very very reluctant to use unrestricted force against Jewish Extremists the way they did against the Arab population (the measures enacted against the Arab revolt were never really used against the Jewish population).

if the British stick to the White paper the Jewish extremists would get more rowdy. Do they turn to large scale terrorism? Does the more Moderate Zionist Leadership put them down?

British policy could turn on India which would be a massive issue without the second world war, British leadership after the death of Cambrian in 1940, is highly unlikely to be Churchill I think without the war, his stance on India likely to see he remain in the wilderness. If India is allowed to go it's own way the whole nature of British policy could change it was the reason to be in the Middle East really, revolved around India (the only really economic colony)

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: Is There Still Going To Be An Israel If There Is No Holocaust?

Post by Robert Rojas » 25 Sep 2018 13:44

Greetings to both citizen Pugsville and the community as a whole. Howdy Pugsville! Well sir OR madam, in respect to your posting of Tuesday - September 25, 2018 - 1:51am, old yours truly would like to build upon your commentary by interjecting the often overlooked role of Edmond James de Rothschild of France in the subsequent creation of the State of Israel. The good Baron's not so inconsequential land holdings, business interests and infusions of capital in Lebanon, Palestine and Syria certainly laid a pragmatic infrastructural foundation for the adherents of Zionism under the guise of the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association. The Palestine Jewish Colonization Association was organized and inaugurated in year 1924 by Edmond James de Rothschild and was subsequently administered by his son James Armand de Rothschild. So, biblical prophecy notwithstanding, whether it be year 1948 or year 1958, the creation of the modern State of Israel was an historical inevitability. In their day, the renowned financial clout and political influence of the conglomeration that was the Rothschild's dynasty was not exactly a power to be trifled with! Well, that is my initial two Yankee cents worth on this latest hypothetical fishing expedition created by brother Futurist - for now anyway. In any case, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day no matter where you might just happen to find yourself on Terra Firma.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 1817
Joined: 03 Sep 2003 18:15
Location: Canada

Re: Is there still going to be an Israel if there is no Holocaust?

Post by maltesefalcon » 26 Sep 2018 01:07

Maybe Futurist should have their own sub-forum?

User avatar
Robert Rojas
Member
Posts: 2658
Joined: 19 Nov 2002 04:29
Location: Pleasant Hill, California - U.S.A.

RE: Is There Still Going To Be An Israel If There Is No Holocaust?

Post by Robert Rojas » 26 Sep 2018 06:03

Greetings to both cousin Maltese Falcon and the community as a whole. Howdy M.F.! Well sir, in light of your posting of Tuesday - September 25, 2018 - 4:07pm, old yours truly genuinely believes that you are on to something with your question and idea of MAYBE FUTURISTS' (plural) SHOULD HAVE THEIR OWN SUB-FORUM? I, for one, think it is a capital idea whose time is long overdue in coming. No, I have not lost my mind - at least not yet anyway! As you obviously know, we presently have the WHAT IF sub-forum which ostensibly deals with the rehashing of actual events from the historical past. Now, what if we had a WHAT WILL sub-forum which ostensibly deals with a FUTURISTC extrapolation of what the world will look like fifty or more years into the future. In short, WHAT WILL greater continental Europe look like in year 2042 one hundred years after the Fascist victory in year 1942 or WHAT WILL be the character and disposition of an ARYAN SOCIETY in year 2033, one hundred years after the ascension of Adolf Hitler to the Chancellorship of Germany in year 1933 or WHAT WILL the greater State of Israel's role be in the world in year 2048, one hundred years after gaining its independence in year 1948. The WHAT WILLS have endless possibilities. Since my arrival in the forum way back in year 2002, I have seen a thirst for this sort of FUTUROLOGY over and over again. And yes, I nominate brother Futurist as its inaugural moderator! I often wonder what the gentleman does for a living. Well, that is my latest two cents worth on this clearly expansive topic of interest - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day up in your corner of the GREAT WHITE NORTH of Canada - EH!?

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob :idea: :|
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it" - Robert E. Lee

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Is there still going to be an Israel if there is no Holocaust?

Post by South » 28 Sep 2018 14:44

Good morning Futurist,

To add a sub-title to their thread question: "Would there still have been a Jewish presence in this eastern Med section if no Holocaust?"

There was always a Jewish presence in this area and in the 20th Century, they had a political entity: "Jewish Agency".

European Jewish emigration to this area of the British Mandate of Palestine strengthened the preexisting Jewish presence both with numbers and skills/trades.

Focusing on this area's economic geography: the Suez Canal and the close proximity to the Saudi oil fields.......next the political geography......and then the geopolitics.

Balfour and then later Truman had political requirements to meet. Truman got assisted propulsion from General Secretary Tavarish Stalin. To displace or,at least, to weaken the UK and US presence, Tavarish Stalin announced that the USSR would recognize, de jure, a new Jewish state of Israel.

Note that the newly pending state was called "Jewish" - for obvious reasons. Note also this new state also had a Communist party: Dash/Hadash and it's leader was Tavarish Meir Vilner. Tavarish Vilner signed the Israeli Declaration of Independence and was the last signatory of the document to pass away.

Thus, ... and I'll add that an advisor and later a Secretary of Defense, Clark Clifford, told Truman that New York state's 41 electoral votes were needed for Truman to win the election.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 4902
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Is there still going to be an Israel if there is no Holocaust?

Post by wm » 15 Oct 2018 20:37

South wrote:
28 Sep 2018 14:44
There was always a Jewish presence in this area and in the 20th Century, they had a political entity: "Jewish Agency".
The Jews were a tiny minority there but they were influential in the Ottoman Empire where they found freedom and prosperity.
Thanks to that and the endemic Ottoman corruption, and thanks to the colonial capitulation system which isolated them from Ottomans laws they were able to to illegally settle more and more of their brethren there.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 1765
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Is there still going to be an Israel if there is no Holocaust?

Post by Futurist » 16 Oct 2018 06:13

maltesefalcon wrote:
26 Sep 2018 01:07
Maybe Futurist should have their own sub-forum?
Yeah, maybe I should. :)

P.S.: I've been reading everyone's posts here and elsewhere. Sometimes I don't have much to say and thus don't comment.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 1765
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Is there still going to be an Israel if there is no Holocaust?

Post by Futurist » 16 Oct 2018 06:16

pugsville wrote:
25 Sep 2018 10:51
Futurist wrote:
25 Sep 2018 03:08
If there is no Holocaust but with a relatively late PoD from our TL--for instance, having Britain and France stand up to Hitler over the Sudetenland in 1938, which culminates in a successful anti-Nazi military coup in Germany--is the state of Israel still going to be created?
I think you need to define your what if more fully no holocaust and no war are different things.

The crunch for Zionist/Jewish Immigration was the great Depression, closing of the Americas for Jewish immigrants who vastly preferred to immigrant there rather than Palestine, late 20s more Jews were leaving Palestine than arriving. Once the Americas were more or less closed many more Jews were pressing to go to Palestine.

By the Late 1930s the Jewish population in Palestine had pretty much passed the point of no return. They were not going to be satisfied with lesss than their own state, and the Native population was not going to accept from their point of view foreign rule.

The Second world war put things on fast forward. Without the war it might take a decade more. But Jewish immigration would remain pressing. British concerns were almost totally driven by perceived self imperial interest (though the Actual Mandate authorities had a life of their own, and to a large extent came around to believe the original Mandate Rhetoric to some degree) originally the Zionist project was seen as a why of securing Egypt so favoring the Zionists , but by the 1930s the deteriorating world security and the large numbers (relatively) needed to put down the Arab revolt drove policy decisions to somewhat more favorable to the Arab population (the white paper).

The Second world war enabled Zionist acquisition or military training, weapons and large numbers of desperate immigrants without these things they would be playing a longer game. Smuggling weapons, immigrants into Palestine, the British were always very very reluctant to use unrestricted force against Jewish Extremists the way they did against the Arab population (the measures enacted against the Arab revolt were never really used against the Jewish population).

if the British stick to the White paper the Jewish extremists would get more rowdy. Do they turn to large scale terrorism? Does the more Moderate Zionist Leadership put them down?

British policy could turn on India which would be a massive issue without the second world war, British leadership after the death of Cambrian in 1940, is highly unlikely to be Churchill I think without the war, his stance on India likely to see he remain in the wilderness. If India is allowed to go it's own way the whole nature of British policy could change it was the reason to be in the Middle East really, revolved around India (the only really economic colony)
Are you suggesting that Britain would simply abandon Palestine and the rest of the Middle East after India would have been granted independence?

Also, I think that the Zionist leadership would side with whomever would have been in their best interests. If Jewish extremists actually have a chance to drive the British out of Palestine, then they could side with them; else, they could probably side with the British.

BTW, is India still going to get partitioned in this TL?

pugsville
Member
Posts: 848
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: Is there still going to be an Israel if there is no Holocaust?

Post by pugsville » 16 Oct 2018 08:11

Futurist wrote:
16 Oct 2018 06:16
Are you suggesting that Britain would simply abandon Palestine and the rest of the Middle East after India would have been granted independence?
The British view Palestine as important for securing the Suez Canal, which was important as the "all red" route to India. Without India they is much much less reason to be that worried about Palestine. Increasingly like in 1948 the British government would be looking for a way of washing it's hands and walking away.

British Politics, the "die Hards" (conservatives opposed to home rule, anywhere India, Ireland, anywhere and set on the sun never setting on the British Empire) were relatively small loose grouping of British MPs who were without a real leadership support aside from Churchill. If Churchill does not become PM, some sort of Indian home rule would be enacted, and any partial solution would quickly escalate to full. British policy was generally muddling through by the Politicians trying avoid any major effect on domestic politics.

Futurist wrote:
16 Oct 2018 06:16
Also, I think that the Zionist leadership would side with whomever would have been in their best interests. If Jewish extremists actually have a chance to drive the British out of Palestine, then they could side with them; else, they could probably side with the British.
Absolutely, without a second world war, once the Arab revolt was put down, friction between the Zionists and Britain would intensify. Though the white paper was driven by the increasing tensions in Europe,and a need for "quiet: in Palestine, the level of troops that put down the Arab revolt was thought too much, the British goal was how can troop commitments be minimized and keep everyone happy, which of course was an impossible dream at this point.

The war recedes, the British would seek to water down the White paper, but Zionists demands would escalate. It's doubtful that small concessions would be enough to placate them, and almost nothing with placate the extremists.

If there was no second world war, there would be less Jewish immigrants trying to leave eastern Europe, but with the Americas mostly closed, and Zionists keen to lure them to Palestine the pressure would be growing.

I think overall it's like historically but less intensity , it's a slower Britain but almost all the same forces are at work, just simmering a bit slower without the impact of the war. I think the Zionists are over the hump by numbers at that point, and nothing can really stop them as any partial solution would have ongoing Jewish immigration , legal or not. Arming and training legal or not. Any real check on this growth by the British Mandate would lead to a dirty war, from which the British would have no real reason to stay and see through.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 1765
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Is there still going to be an Israel if there is no Holocaust?

Post by Futurist » 02 Feb 2019 23:33

pugsville wrote:
16 Oct 2018 08:11
Futurist wrote:
16 Oct 2018 06:16
Are you suggesting that Britain would simply abandon Palestine and the rest of the Middle East after India would have been granted independence?
The British view Palestine as important for securing the Suez Canal, which was important as the "all red" route to India. Without India they is much much less reason to be that worried about Palestine. Increasingly like in 1948 the British government would be looking for a way of washing it's hands and walking away.

British Politics, the "die Hards" (conservatives opposed to home rule, anywhere India, Ireland, anywhere and set on the sun never setting on the British Empire) were relatively small loose grouping of British MPs who were without a real leadership support aside from Churchill. If Churchill does not become PM, some sort of Indian home rule would be enacted, and any partial solution would quickly escalate to full. British policy was generally muddling through by the Politicians trying avoid any major effect on domestic politics.
This would mean no partition of India, correct?
Futurist wrote:
16 Oct 2018 06:16
Also, I think that the Zionist leadership would side with whomever would have been in their best interests. If Jewish extremists actually have a chance to drive the British out of Palestine, then they could side with them; else, they could probably side with the British.
Absolutely, without a second world war, once the Arab revolt was put down, friction between the Zionists and Britain would intensify. Though the white paper was driven by the increasing tensions in Europe,and a need for "quiet: in Palestine, the level of troops that put down the Arab revolt was thought too much, the British goal was how can troop commitments be minimized and keep everyone happy, which of course was an impossible dream at this point.

The war recedes, the British would seek to water down the White paper, but Zionists demands would escalate. It's doubtful that small concessions would be enough to placate them, and almost nothing with placate the extremists.

If there was no second world war, there would be less Jewish immigrants trying to leave eastern Europe, but with the Americas mostly closed, and Zionists keen to lure them to Palestine the pressure would be growing.

I think overall it's like historically but less intensity , it's a slower Britain but almost all the same forces are at work, just simmering a bit slower without the impact of the war. I think the Zionists are over the hump by numbers at that point, and nothing can really stop them as any partial solution would have ongoing Jewish immigration , legal or not. Arming and training legal or not. Any real check on this growth by the British Mandate would lead to a dirty war, from which the British would have no real reason to stay and see through.
Do you think that the Zionists would have been more or less successful in their war of independence (in terms of their territorial conquests) had Britain's exit from Palestine been more slow-motion as a result of no Nazis and no WWII?

Return to “What if”