Britain makes peace in 1940 - What happens to the Jews?

[panzerplatten]

After the failure of the evian conference, which heydrich had hoped, would make his job much easier, with the agreement of the 27 or so nations to take Jewish refugee's from germany. The Madagascar plan kicked in, and has been spoken about already on the thread. Required the British on board as an allie of Germany, especially for its merchant Fleet, with regards the envisaged transports.
of coarse the initial plan was worked out not by the RSHA but by Franz rademarcher, who presented the first memorandum for Madagascar to martin Luther on 3rd June 1940, 3wks before the official surrender of france, at that point there were still 3.25 million Jews under germanys Control,
Of coarse the plan was only to be implemented after Germany's anticipated end to the war which they thought to be 42!, peter longrich has argued conviningly, the project clearly anticipated a huge death toll among the deportees and possibly even entailed a conscious attempt at physical ectermination, either way even with the British on board I think the plan to rid Europe of Jews would still have commenced,
Mark,
Excuse any thypo errors I'm replying from smart phone.

[BDV]

Also, without the state of war, how is Germany going to force Axis partners like Hungary or Italy to exile their Jews.

Miklos Horthy, the hungarian dictator made his opposition to de-jewification pretty clear and pretty public. And Mussollini, who before joining with Adolf, had (opportunistically) expressed semitic-tolerant views publicly, imposed little in terms of antisemitic measures with actual teeth while in power. Bulgaria refused to take part in the Final Solution, and even the Romania dictator restricted the romanian Endlosung to the jews of Bessarabia.

Spain, in a more favourable economic state in case of peace, will also be able to accept more Jews. Countries like Greece and Jugoslavia would be neutral, will definitely not give up their own citizens, and will probably be able to absorb refugees. Turkey too, might [be able/willing to] assist jewish refugees more than historically.

Only Germany and Vichy stand like countries with leadership devoted to the Endlosung of their entire Jewish populations.

If peace (ceasefire, more likely) comes in 1940, the Jewish push for an Jewish state in Palestine is not going to stop. The ideea of jewish settlement of Madagascar would likely fizzle as badly as historically.

[michael mills]

Those who argue that the transfer of European Jews to Madagascar would have resulted in a huge death toll, in fact be a form of extermination, present absolutely no proof in support of their view, relying entirely on conjecture.

The fact that the native population has experience a ten-fold increase since 1900 demonstrates that it is entirely possible to suvive and flourish on Madagascar.

As for the sea voyage from Europe to Madagascar, Terry Duncan and others who claim that there would have been outbreaks of disease resulting in a mass mortality of the passengers should have a look at the voyage of the "Duneera", a British ship that conveyed interned German civilians, mostly German Jewish refugees, from Britain to Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMT_Dunera

The Duneera voyaged through the tropics, and the passengers were rather coarsely handled by the British crew, who hated them as "Huns", ignoring the fact they were actually refugees from Hitler. So bad was the treatment that there was an official inquyiry, leading to the censure of crew members. Nevertheless, there was no mass mortality of the passengers.

Another example is provided by the transport of convicts from Britian to the colony of New South Wales in the first half of the 19th Century. Although the journey in sailing ships took several months, a large part of which was spent in the tropics, there was no huge mortality among the transportees, although there was some. Most of the transportees arrived safe and sound, and also diud not die off in large numbers after their arrival, even though they were performing hard labour.

The German plan was to transfer one million Jews per year for a period of four years, on the assumption that the total number of Jews to be transported was four million. (In fact, the German estimate was greatly inflated, since at the time the German Madagascar Plan was formulated the Jews of territory under Soviet control, ie more than half the total Jewish population of Europe, was not included).

That would mean one thousand voyages per year, assuming one thousand passengers per ship (the "duneera" actually carried 2,542 internees), sailing from Mediterranean ports via the Suez canal, perhaps a three-week journey at most. That does not seem an impossible task, involving perhaps 200 ships shuttling back and forth. Those ships could have been provided by Britain and France, possibly also Italy and Greece.

During the period of transfer, and once the Jews were settled in Madagascar, it is fairly certain that they would have received material support from the United States, certainly from the Jewish community there and quite possibly from other private charitable organisations and from the United States Government itself.

By the time the war broke out, one-third of the Jewish population of Poland, about one million persons, was dependent for its material existence on charity provided by the Jewish community of the United States. There is no reason to believe that that charitable support would not have continued once those indigent Polish Jews had been transported to Madagascar.

Between the beginning of the war and the entry of the United States, various private charitable organisations in the latter ccountry provided considerable food aid to German-occupied Poland. By agreement between those organisations and the German authorities, 14% of the aid was directed to the Jewish population, about double the proportion that Jews represented of the population of the German-occupied areas. Again, there is no reason to believe that that aid would have been discontinued.

For the past half-century the United States Government has been providing substantial aid to the Jewish State in the Middle East. It might well have provided similar aid over a similar period of time to a Jewish colony in Madagascar.

[Terry Duncan]

As for the sea voyage from Europe to Madagascar, Terry Duncan and others who claim that there would have been outbreaks of disease resulting in a mass mortality of the passengers...

Michael,

You seem to suffer from some strange compulsion to misrepresent things people say, is this to defelct attention from the paucity of your case, some psychological need to construct strawmen, or is it just to be anti-social? Nowhere did I saw there would have been outbreaks of disease resulting in mass mortality, I simply pointed out the real world problems that need to be considered. I would prefer it if you addressed the points I made and not claim I said something I patently did not.

Is it possible to make a journey without losing a passenger? Of course.

Do passengers sometimes die during long voyages even when kept in excellent conditions? Yes.

Did the Germans keep the Jews in good health or were they kept on starvation ration in unhealthy conditions? The latter.

Would this make packing them onto ships travelling through the tropics highly dangerous? Yes.

A very quick search brought up the following incidents with cruise ships that illustrate how quickly a bug can spread in what can only be described as good conditions;

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/captain-greyb ... ess-b.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 65631.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology ... hit-170288

Of course the Nazi's made much of the health hazzards to be faced when dealing with Jews, needing 'disinfestation' facilities almost anywhere they moved them to, and the poor conditions the Jews were kept in would also mean they were not in the best condition to resist the effects of travelling on such a journey. The Russian Baltic Fleet famously travelled much through the tropics on the way to the far east in 1905, burials at sea became a daily occurrance once they reached the tropics, and this was from amongst men fit for military service who were on ships that were not crowded. And all this is before the effects of tropical diseases are considered, as it is not unusual for northern Europeans travelling the tropical and equatorial areas for the first time to have an encounter with maleria!

So bad was the treatment that there was an official inquyiry, leading to the censure of crew members.

Bad by British standards. Note that none died en-route. That there was an official enquiry that censured the crew says a lot. Perhaps you would like to tell us of the mortality rates for Jews arriving as Auschwitz as a comparison? Did the Nazi's hold an enquiry and censure the people who thought packing people into cattle wagons without water was a good idea?

[michael mills]

You seem to suffer from some strange compulsion to misrepresent things people say, is this to defelct attention from the paucity of your case, some psychological need to construct strawmen, or is it just to be anti-social? Nowhere did I saw there would have been outbreaks of disease resulting in mass mortality, I simply pointed out the real world problems that need to be considered. I would prefer it if you addressed the points I made and not claim I said something I patently did not.

If Terry Duncan is not claiming that there would have been mass mortality of the Jews being transported to Madagascar during their voyage, under the scenario of the counterfactual that we are discussing, then there is nothing to argue about.

I am saying that there is no reason to believe that, if the state of war between Germany and Britain had been ended (which would also presume a final peace settlement between Germany and France), and the Madagascar Plan had proceeded, there would have been any substantial mortality of the Jewish transportees during their journey.

As part of the peace settlement, the German Government could have made the British and French Governments responsible for the logistics of transporting the Jews to Madagascar, including providing the ships and provisioning them. The German Government would have had every incentive to do that, since it would offload the costs onto the defeated nations.

But the bottom line is that if Germany had achieved victory in the West in 1940, through compelling Britain to make peace, there would have been absolutely no reason for it to have proceeded to the physical destruction of European Jewry which in historical reality it did do. The reason why it would not have done so is that, with peace in the West restored, there would have been no obstacle to solving the "Jewish Problem" through mass emigration, which had always been the German Government's first option, as proved conclusively by its actions in the pre-war period.

This thread is a speculation about what would have happened to the Jews if Britain had made peace in 1940, and I have provided the definitive answer, namely that the German policy of forcing the Jews to leave Europe, which had commenced before the war, would have continued and probably been successful.

One poster complained that the above statement is tantamount for blaming Britain for the physical destruction of most of European Jewry. Of course it is no such thing. It is pointing out the salient fact that the historically real physical destruction of European Jewry perpetrated by the German Government was the result of certain conditions precedent, most importantly the German failure to defeat either Britain or the Soviet Union. If those conditions precedent were not present, there is no reason to assume that the German Government would have resorted to mass extermination.

[Sid Guttridge]

One thing stands out about this thread - the only argument is over what degree of misery and misfortune was to have compulsorily befallen the Jews left under Nazi control.

No discussion here about Jews being restored to their jobs and property and accepted as full citizens of a Nazi-dominated Europe.

So, however disinterested the British may or may not have been in the fate of continental Jews, for the latter no good would come of Britain making peace in 1940.

Cheers,

Sid.

[BDV]

By Barbarossa time German treatment of jews had taken a distinct exterminatorial character, either directly, eg Kiev, or by patsy proxies, Jassy/Odessa.

[Von Schadewald]

The Dunera was almost torpedoed by a u boat, had it not been for the British guards throwng the German Jews' luggage overboard. The following u boat crew examined the floating luggage and seeing German writing inside them, assumed that the ship was transporting German POWs and thereby desisted sinking her!

As for the sea voyage from Europe to Madagascar, Terry Duncan and others who claim that there would have been outbreaks of disease resulting in a mass mortality of the passengers should have a look at the voyage of the "Duneera", a British ship that conveyed interned German civilians, mostly German Jewish refugees, from Britain to Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMT_Dunera

The Duneera voyaged through the tropics, and the passengers were rather coarsely handled by the British crew, who hated them as "Huns", ignoring the fact they were actually refugees from Hitler. So bad was the treatment that there was an official inquyiry, leading to the censure of crew members. Nevertheless, there was no mass mortality of the passengers.

[michael mills]

One thing stands out about this thread - the only argument is over what degree of misery and misfortune was to have compulsorily befallen the Jews left under Nazi control.

No discussion here about Jews being restored to their jobs and property and accepted as full citizens of a Nazi-dominated Europe.

So, however disinterested the British may or may not have been in the fate of continental Jews, for the latter no good would come of Britain making peace in 1940.

Sid,

Surely you can tell the great difference between Jews losing their citizenship and jobs and property, and being slaughtered en masse.

The pre-war policy of the German Government toward the Jews under their control was to progressively deprive them of their citizenship, jobs and property, and finally drive them out of the country.

If war between Germany and Britain had ended in 1940 with Britain accepting Hitler's terms, then we can be certain that that pre-war policy would have continued,extended to all parts of Europe under German control or subject to the German Government's will. Hence, all the Jews of Europe west of the Soviet frontier would have lost their citizenship and property, and wopuld have been compelled to leave Europe, possibly to Madagascar or some other place of exile.

But that is quite a different matter from rounding the Jews up and shipping them off to extermination camps, or shooting them en masse where they lived.

If we accept the "functionalist" interpretation of the extermination of European Jewry, as most historians now seem to do, eg historians such as Kershaw who sees it as "improvised", then the causes of the German Government's move to physical extermination of the Jewish population rather than its expulsion must be sought in the coursae the war took, namely the German failure to defeat Britain the Soviet Union, and hence the increasing likelihood of a German defeat.

Under the counterfactual scenario that we are analysing in this thread, that is of Britian making peace in 1940, those conditions precedent would not obtain. That is to say, Germany would no longer be at war with Britain, and would no longer be subject to the British blockade, and no longer in danger of food shortages, sinbce it would be able to import food.

Furthermore, free of any conflict in the West, Germany could have turned its full force against the Soviet Union (perhaps with France and Spain as additional full allies), and quite possibly could have achieved full victory by the end of 1941.

Given the end of conflict, there would no longer be any obstacle to the German Government's goal of expelling all Jews from Europe, either to Madagascar, or to Central Asia, or both. In that case, assuming the correctness of the "functional" interpretation, there would have been no need to kill all the Jews in order to render Europe "Jew-free", and it is reasonable to conclude that the German Government would not have done so.

Therefore, the difference between the factual version of history, ie Britain did not make peace in 1940, and the counterfactual, ie Britain did make peace, is that in the former case there was a mass extermination of European Jewry by the German Government, while in the latter case it is most probable that the Jews would have been expelled and there would have been no mass extermination.

Therefore, it is a nonsense to claim that " for the [continental Jews] no good would come of Britain making peace in 1940". A very great good would most probably have accrued to the Jews, namely not being killed.

Being deprived of property and exiled to a distant, undeveloped island is obviously a hard fate. But it is better than being killed; while there is life, there is hope.

Can you not see that, Sid?

The Jews sent to Madagascar or Central Asia would live in poverty, to be sure. But today many tens of millions of humans live in the direst poverty. Why should the Chosen People be any different?

Obviously, from a Jewish point of view, being forced to live in Madagascar rather than in Berlin or Paris would represent an enormous fall in standard of living. I myself would not particularly like being sent to Madagascar to scratch a living there.

But being sent to Madagascar is not a fate worse than death. There is no fate worse than death.

[michael mills]

By Barbarossa time German treatment of jews had taken a distinct exterminatorial character, either directly, eg Kiev, or by patsy proxies, Jassy/Odessa.

BDV,

What you are forgetting is that in this thread we are not discussing the actual historical circumstances in which Barbarossa took place, ie in a situation where Germany was still fighting a war with a Britain backed up by an ostensibly neutral United States, and therefore could no bring its entire force to bear on the Soviet Union.

What we are discussing is a counterfactual, where Britain makes peace with Germany in 1940. In this counterfactual, Barbarossa takes place under entirely different conditions, with Germany being much stronger, and a much greater probablity of Germany's achieving victory.

Please bear that in mind.

In this counterfactual, the objective circumstances that caused Germany to adopt exterminatory policies would not have been present, so there is no reason to assume that Germany would have adopted those policies. There is every reason to believe that the expulsion plans that we know the German Government was developing, such as the Madagascar plan, or the White Sea plan, would have proceeded.

[Von Schadewald]

There is no fate worse than death.

To be in the wrong section of the Afterlife is a fate worse than death.

[Terry Duncan]

To be in the wrong section of the Afterlife is a fate worse than death.

What if there isnt an afterlife? If that is the case it makes the killing of people even more heinous as it ends all existence for that being.

If Terry Duncan is not claiming that there would have been mass mortality of the Jews being transported to Madagascar during their voyage, under the scenario of the counterfactual that we are discussing, then there is nothing to argue about.

I am not saying it is certain. What I am saying is that the voyage has hazzards with people in good conditions and in good health. With people in poor health, especially those that may have been on starvation rations, and in poor conditions the chances for an outbreak of some disease or illness increases greatly. If you believe the Nazi's would insist only people healthy to travel would be allowed to do so, and that those not fit enough would be fed and treated until fit to make the voyage, then mass deaths may well be avoided. If however people in poor health are crowded onto ships ill-suited for the purpose in order to move them quickly, it is inviting problems.

Then we need to consider how this mass of people could be accomodated on Madagascar, the conditions that would meet them there, and the likelyhood of outbreaks of disease taking hold there. Places like this did not obtain the name 'The White Man's Grave' for lack of reason.

[michael mills]

Then we need to consider how this mass of people could be accomodated on Madagascar, the conditions that would meet them there, and the likelyhood of outbreaks of disease taking hold there. Places like this did not obtain the name 'The White Man's Grave' for lack of reason.

Terry, you need to brush up your African history and geography.

The "White Man's Grave" was tropical West Africa. Highland areas such as Kenya or Rhodesia, even though situated in tropical and equatorial latitudes, were eminently suitable for European settlement, since the cooler temperatures at the higher elevations were a safeguard against the sort of tropical diseases that ravaged the lowlands.

Most of Madagagascar is a highland, with an equable climate just as suitable for European settlement as the Kenyan highlands. I suggest you have a look at the climatological statistics for Antananarivo sometime; you will find that like Nairobi it is never very hot nor very cold.

If European Jews could settle in such a god-forsaken place as Palestine was at the beginning of the 20th Century, there is no reason why they could not settle in Madagascar.

I have already addressed the issue of material assistance for the Jews arriving in Madagascar in one of my earlier posts. No doubt they would receive aid from the wealthy Jewish community of the United States, in the same way as the early Zionist settlers in Ottoman Palestine received aid from Jewish organisations that enabled them to survive and prosper.

With people in poor health, especially those that may have been on starvation rations...

The only Jews who were on starvation or semi-starvation rations in 1940 were those of German-occupied Poland. No other Jews within the German area of influence in Europe were on starvation rations. And in German-occupied Poland the official rations, at a starvation level, were supplemented by food aid coming from private charitable organisations in the United States by agreement with the German authorities.

A part of the Jewish population of German-occupied Poland was suffering greatly from malnutrition, but the majority were not. Photographs taken in the Warsaw Ghetto in the summer of 1941 (not official propaganda, but private photos taken by a German soldier) show a population that appears adequately fed, and definitely not starving, although some malnorished beggars appear.

And as I wrote, the peace terms granted to Britain and France could have required them to provide the logistical support for the transports of Jews to Madagascar, including food and medical supplies. On top of that would come other aid from Jewish organisations outside Europe.

The German authorities had allowed Jewish organisations in the United States to provide aid to their racial brethren in occupied Poland, so there is no reason to believe that they would not have permitted similar aid to be provided to Jews on the voyage to Madagascar and after their arrival.

[JonS]

Cases of chikungunya fever (between 1952-2006) have been reported in the countries depicted in red on this map.




Malaria Disability-adjusted life year


Disability-adjusted life year for all causes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2004

Madagascar might not be as bad as some parts of Africa, but compared to Europe? But ignore all that, because Mills tells us that Madagascar is a swell place to raise kids.

Edit: this is, of course, all beside the point, since there is no frigging way that misunderstood bunch of humanists were going to send the Jews anywhere other than to their deaths.

[michael mills]

Edit: this is, of course, all beside the point, since there is no frigging way that misunderstood bunch of humanists were going to send the Jews anywhere other than to their deaths.

This sort of dogged assertion of ill-informed opinion, expressed in a rather coarse form, is no substitute for reasoned analysis based on solid historical fact.

The solid historical fact is that in peacetime the German Government did not send Jews to their deaths. It sent them out of the country, but to places where they could live.

Until October 1941, there was no ban on Jews leaving German-controlled Europe. The ban was imposed at a time when Germany was still at war with Britain, and now also with the Soviet Union.

If the state of war between Britain and Germany had been ended in 1940, as proposed in this thread, it is most probable that no ban on Jewish emigration would have been imposed.

The reason for the ban on emigratioin, imposed in October 1941, was to prevent Jews joining Germany's enemies. In a situation where peace had been restored, there would have been no enemy for the emigrating Jews to join.