The Africa Korps...

[Benoit Douville]

What if the Germans had won the battle in Africa and also conquer the Middle East and destroy the muslims!!! Maybe it would be peace right now in the Middle East region. Think about it. This message is apolitical...

[sylvieK4]

I know that the Jewish community in British Palestine was making plans for resistance in the event Rommel and the German forces did take the region. Who knows how effective that would have been, or how long it could have operated.

Although many arabs today express a support for Hitler and National Socialism's view of Jews, I think these people would have been in for a terrible surprise if they were around then, and if Germany had conquered the Middle East. I would not be surprised if the Germans would have enslaved or killed many arabs. I could imagine Hitler using the arab population back then to get rid of the Jewish community in the Middle East (exploiting them as "useful idiots"), and then getting rid of them too.
In that sense there might be peace in the Middle East today - as all the modern-day combatants would have been wiped out.

[voorst]

I don't think Nazis would destry muslims because both Himmler and Hitler had a good opinion on them and their "war-religion".
Second, muslims could, with revolutions and disorders, free Middle East from British Forces (even if not without german military support).
Linking with muslims can be found when Palestine and Afghanistan politics visited Germany giving a sign of their support against Brits.

[sylvieK4]

Of course Hitler had good relations with muslims. In the Balkans, there were SS divisions composed of Muslims. A part of their uniform was the fez. Hitler and Himmler had close ties with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al Husseini - a rabidly anti-Jewish Muslim cleric. The Germans used al Husseini and other Muslims in order to achieve their own goals - not out of admiration for Islam or the Semitic arab people. If Germany had captured and held the Middle East, they would not have kept up the pretense of cordiality.

I agree with voorst, in that there were many things the arab muslims could have done to fight against the British. Although Germany did try to organize such activities, those that were carried out never created any serious problems for the government of British Palestine.

The Arab Muslims were a means to an end for the Germans. Once they outlived their usefulness, the Muslims would never have been considered as long-term, post-war, partners in any way, shape or form. If Hitler had taken the region, the Semitic arab muslim populations would likely have been enslaved by the Germans, and ultimately - gradually - wiped out after the Jews of the region were disposed of with their assistance.

[voorst]

Although Germany did try to organize such activities, those that were carried out never created any serious problems for the government of British Palestine.
The Arab Muslims were a means to an end for the Germans. Once they outlived their usefulness, the Muslims would never have been considered as long-term, post-war, partners in any way, shape or form. If Hitler had taken the region, the Semitic arab muslim populations would likely have been enslaved by the Germans, and ultimately - gradually - wiped out after the Jews of the region were disposed of with their assistance.

Just 2 considerations:
1- Iraq subversive activities were far more intense and ended only with
british army intervention..but in Palestine the number of british divisions was too high to permit disorders to become something more.
2- muslims were a means, i agree, but what about the treatment for them after the war? Maybe puppet governments like Scandinavian's or Vichy, and not necessary enslaving (that would become really hard to enslave so many millions of men ).

[sylvieK4]

It is not so difficult in the sense of enslaving them as subject peoples whose primary purpose would be to serve German interests - not unlike the position of the Slavs, Poles. Subject peoples to be controlled and exploited. (Not enslavement in the sense of the Roman world with absolutely controlled live in servants, or enslavement in the sense of the American South with unpaid labor working plantations or such. Rather, they were likely to be subject to the wishes of the Germans, as the Arabs have been dominated and subject to the wishes of the Persians, the Seljuk Turks, Mongols, Alexander Greeks, Romans, Byzantines Greeks, Egyptians, European Crusaders, Kurds (Saladin), Ottoman Turks and others.) Perhaps they would have been laborers in oil fields and so forth to fuel the Reich and its Empire.

Controlling them and exploiting them was likely the plan of the Germans at that time, had they the opportunity to take the Middle East. Of course they would have had to have a puppet government of some kind. Likely there would have been a figure head - perhaps even the Mufti himself, had the Germans been successful. However, the real power would have been Germany. To ensure control, Germany probably would have sent a Plenipotentiary and maintained a very strong military presence to ensure the arabs towed whatever line the German government set for them. There would be no realistic arab autonomy. No more than Pu Yi or his "subjects" had in relation to the Japanese Empire while he was Manchu "Emperor" in Asia.

[voorst]

It is not so difficult in the sense of enslaving them as subject peoples whose primary purpose would be to serve German interests - not unlike the position of the Slavs, Poles. Perhaps they would have been laborers in oil fields and so forth to fuel the Reich and its Empire.

In that sense i agree.But i can't find it so different from the previous situation under Brits. :roll:
For the peoples it never changes something...