The Madagascar Plan

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#46

Post by michael mills » 13 Nov 2005, 04:37

Rejoinder to Obdicut:

The affluent Jews of the West had a long tradition of providing material support to their less fortunate racial brethren in Eastern Europe.

For example, it is estimated that in the 1930s about one-third of the Jews of Poland were "luftmenshn" entirely dependent on charity from abroad.

If those Jews had been transferred to Madagascar, the charitable support could just as well have been given to them there as back in Poland.

As for the question of what to do with the indigenous population of Madagascar, I note that the Jewish Establishment was calling for and supporting the transfer of millions of Jews to Palestine, a territory far smaller than Madagascar and also with an indigenous population. I dare the same thing could have been done with the indigenous population of Madagascar as was done with the indigenous population of Palestine, but that would probably not have been necessary since the enormous size of Madagascar would have allowed accommodation of both the existing indigenous population and Jewish settlers, far more easily than was the case in Palestine.

With regard to the plan for a reservation in Lublin District:

The German Government announced late in 1939 a plan to settle two million Jews (ie the remaining jewish population of the Reich and the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia, plus the Jews of the Generalgouvernement and those of the annexed Polish territories) on an area of 5000 square miles in the Lublin District.

That works out at a population density of 400 Jews per square mile. The proposal immediately evoked the cry from the Jewish Establishment that such a concentration of population was tantamount to a slow extermination because of the high population density.

However, it must be pointed out that there are places in the world today with far greater population densities, eg the Gaza Strip, and although the populations of those live in poverty and great psychological stress, their numbers are not declining.

The details of the Nisko plan, the size of the reservation and number of Jews to be settled there, and the claims that it constituted slow extermination, are from the book by Joseph Poprzeczny, "Odilo Globocnik: Hitler's Man in the East".

User avatar
Obdicut
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 07:39
Location: San Francisco

#47

Post by Obdicut » 13 Nov 2005, 05:28

Mr. Mills.
The affluent Jews of the West had a long tradition of providing material support to their less fortunate racial brethren in Eastern Europe.

For example, it is estimated that in the 1930s about one-third of the Jews of Poland were "luftmenshn" entirely dependent on charity from abroad.

If those Jews had been transferred to Madagascar, the charitable support could just as well have been given to them there as back in Poland.

As for the question of what to do with the indigenous population of Madagascar, I note that the Jewish Establishment was calling for and supporting the transfer of millions of Jews to Palestine, a territory far smaller than Madagascar and also with an indigenous population.
"For example, it is estimated..." -- estimated by whom? I know that you're not in the habit of sourcing your facts, but can you please provide a source for this? You might also be interested to know that luftmenschen (your spelling corrected) does not refer to paupers, but also to petty tradesmen, tinkers, cobblers, etc. Anyone just scraping by, basically-- but not 'entirely dependent' as you put it it. You also entirely overlook the charity that was internal to Europe, which was considerable-- and which vanished due to the rapine of the Fascist German state.

This is to entirely leave aside the point that providing charity to people in an industrial, well-developed nation goes a lot farther than in a generally undeveloped land.

"As for the question of what to do with the indigenous population of Madagascar, I note that the Jewish Establishment was calling for and supporting the transfer of millions of Jews to Palestine, a territory far smaller than Madagascar and also with an indigenous population."

You've hung yourself on twin horns, here. On the one hand, yes, the Jewish leaders were crying out for the transfer of millions to Palestine, but this was due to the oppression they were under already. There would have been no such outcry among others than hardcore Zionists (who were not representative, by any stretch of the imagination, of most Jews) for deportation and resettlement in Palestine.

The second horn is that you and I both well know what happened in Palestine, the tragedy, unfairness, and still-present horror of it. Civil war. If you are insinuating the plan would be the same-- i.e. simply add the Jews to the region and forment strife between them and the people occupying the land-- then that would be a grave charge indeed against the Germans.

Simply put, there is no way to populate Madagascar with Jews that provides for their safety, their well-being, and at the same time the safety and well-being of the citizens of Madagascar-- to say nothing of the bestial unfairness of forcing citizens of countries where they had lived for generations to be thrown out because of their race.


michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#48

Post by michael mills » 13 Nov 2005, 06:36

Obdicut:

"Luftmenshn" is the accepted transliteration of the Yiddish word, which is spelt lamed-vav-pe-tet-mem-ayin-nun-shin-nun.

The word indicated persons who "lived on air", ie had no profession, trade, business, or any other visible means of support. It did not include people like tailors and cobblers, traders with stock to sell, since those people did have a visible means of support, no matter how small.

User avatar
Obdicut
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 07:39
Location: San Francisco

#49

Post by Obdicut » 13 Nov 2005, 07:32

Mr. Mills:

Like many yiddish words, Luftmenschen (the creole spelling) has multiple meanings, and has changed over time. Before World War II, the most common meaning was "One more concerned with airy intellectual pursuits than practical matters; an airhead, or one with no practical abilities". That is still the most common meaning outside of the limited scope of referring to those Jews dispossessed during World War II-- do a simple google search. You'll find Augie Marsh, the hero of Saul Bellow's "The Adentures of Augie Marsh" referred to as a Luftmenschen, because he views philosophy and poetry greater than commerce. However, he continuously is involved in one scheme after another. It does not necessarily imply poverty or an inability to support oneself, although it can. As I cited, tinkers, cobblers, and other vagabond "air men" are Luftmenschen, as well as dreamy perpetual students, and wanderers in general.

I ask you again to cite the reference thet 1/3 of Jews were supported by charity from outside of Europe, or to retract the statement, in accordance with the rules of the forum.

(post edited for clarity and spelling)

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#50

Post by michael mills » 13 Nov 2005, 13:07

Obdicut,

What I wrote was this:


The affluent Jews of the West had a long tradition of providing material support to their less fortunate racial brethren in Eastern Europe.

For example, it is estimated that in the 1930s about one-third of the Jews of Poland were "luftmenshn" entirely dependent on charity from abroad.
"From abroad" means that the indigent Jews of Poland were supported by charity from outside Poland, not necessarily from outside Europe.

The affluent Jews of "the West" include those of Western Europe, as well as of the United States and other places. Even Polish Jews living and working in Germany and France used to send money back to their relatives.

I have read a large number of books on the siuation of Polish Jewry between the wars, and I cannot remember exactly which one contained the information about one-third of Polish Jews relying on charity from abroad in the 1930s; it could well have been several of them since it was a well-known fact.

I have a feeling it might have been this book:


"Poland: Key to Europe", by Raymond Leslie Buell (London, Jonathan Cape, 1939).

Buell's book is not specifically about the Jews of Poland, but is a contemporary account of the economic development of Poland between the wars. However, it contains a detailed section on the economic situation of the Jews in Poland at the time.

I would need to check back to see if it was that book, but I am not going to check every book I have read about the Jews of Poland.

Alternatively, it might have been in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia of 1943, which I have consulted a number of times. It contains a large amount of information about the dire economic situation of the Jews of Eastern Europe in the 1920s and 1930s.

User avatar
Obdicut
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 07:39
Location: San Francisco

#51

Post by Obdicut » 13 Nov 2005, 14:29

I would need to check back to see if it was that book, but I am not going to check every book I have read about the Jews of Poland
If you are going to post "facts", they are required, by the rules of this forum, to be backed by specific citation.

Since the polish census of 1931, states that of the roughly 3 million Jews, 42 per cent worked in factories, mines or crafting, and 36 per cent in trade and kindred branches. Your original contention was:
about one-third of the Jews of Poland were "luftmenshn" entirely dependent on charity from abroad."
The Polish jews were amazingly and bravely self-sufficient during this time period, actually. ALthough crippled by the boycotts and other repressive laws, they had a social and philanthropic network beyond compare.

From The War against the Jews: 1933-1945, Lucy S. Dawidowicz:
Despite the increasingly hostile atmosphere, the Polish Jews managed to maintain a vital community, with a vast network of religious, educational, philanthropic, social and cultural institutions, without comparison elsewhere in Europe.
and
About 3.3 million Jews lived in Poland before the outbreak of the war nearly 10 per cent of the total Polish population. More than three fourths of the Polish Jews lived in cities and towns, constituting 27 per cent of Poland's urban population. About 40 per cent were engaged in industry and handicrafts, over a third in trade and commerce, about 6 per cent in the professions. The clothing industry was largely in Jewish hands. The worldwide economic depression in the 1920s and 1930s and the active anti-Semitic policies of the Polish government combined to keep the economic level of the Jewish community low.
I'm afraid that I can't provide page numbers, as I no longer have my physical copy of this book. I was lucky enough to find the excerpts I needed on the web.

Please provide a direct quote or reference from any book if you want the claim that 1/3 of all Jews in poland were "entirely dependent on charity from abroad" to be taken seriously.

Further, you have not addressed any of the other points: The original topic, after all, is that of shipment to Madagascar. Can you answer any of the other points that I raised before we were diverted down a path of semantics and economics?

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#52

Post by michael mills » 14 Nov 2005, 04:46

As I stated previously, implementation of the Madagascar Plan would have been entirely dependent on an end to the war between Germany and Britain through Britain's acceptance of terms.

In that case, Germany would no doubt have written into the peace settlement with both France and Britain the requirement that both countries provide material assistance to the transfer of the Jews of the German sphere of influence to Madagascar and their settlement there. The merchant navies of Britain and France would no doubt have been able to provide all the shipping required to ferry the Jews to that destination.

To answer your questions:

A. The tiny amount of arable land in Madagascar.

I do not know what proportion of the land in Madagascar is arable. Do you know?

My ancient encyclopedia (1963) says that most agriculture in Madagascar as of that date was by small-scale producers cultivating the land with hoes. Presumably Jewish settlers using modern equipment could have produced far more food from the same area of arable land.

My encyclopedia also states that a large portion of the land was occupied by herds of cattle, and that the cattle were more important as evidence of weatlth than as a means of livelihood. Perhaps the Jews could have introduced commercial cattle farming; I am sure they would have enjoyed being cowboys.

B. The speed of resettlement, one million per year.

Plans are often over-optimistic and end up not being realised. The pace of resettlement would have in part depended on the shipping available for getting the Jews to Madagascar.

In any case, quite rapid settlement is feasible. How many Jews settled in the new State of Israel in the first few years after its creation? The number was quite substantial.

C. No plan for the native population.

European settlement in South Africa could have served as a guide. There the land was divided, with European settlers taking what they wanted and leaving the rest to the natives.

The number of European settlers in South Africa was at least as great as the number of Jews who would have settled in Madagascar, yet the land was able to accommodate both them and the native population, despite the fact that a large proprtion of South Africa is desert or semi-desert.

According to my encyclopedia, in 1963 the total population of Madagascar was 5.94 million, living on 230,035 square miles, yielding a population density of 26 persons per square mile.

In the same year, the population of South Africa was 17.06 million living on 472,359 square miles, yielding a population density of 36 persons per square mile.

If three million Jews were added to the population of Madagascar (which as I have shown is a more likely figure than the four million bandied about by the German planners), it would have raised the population density to 39 per square mile, not much above the South African level.

BY the way, in 1960 just over three million of the population of South Africa were classified as "white", a similar number to the number of Jews who would have settled in Madagascar. And of course the native population of Madagascar was a lot lower than the native population of South Africa. There would have been plenty of living space for all.

D. No plan for infrastructure or support of the Jews.

The British administration of Palestine did not provide much infrastructure there either.

Development of the Jewish settlements was achieved through Jewish investment organised by the Zionist movement in a number of countries. Zionist organisations also provided for the support of the Jews upon their arrival in Palestine.

Jewish investment that flowed in a fairly large volume to Palestine could equally well have flowed to Madagascar, providing infrastructure.

It should be noted that the German Government took the British administration in Palestine as a model for its proposed administration in Madagascar.

In the first few years of the war, Herbert Hoover organised food aid to Poland, 14% of which went to the Jewish population. If there was immediate distress among the Jews arriving in Madagascar, Hoover could as easily have organised food aid there as in Poland, particularly as the British economic blockade would no longer have been in place, since the Madagascar Plan presupposed an end to the state of war.

E. Attempt to have British and American Jews fund the resettlement was insane.

Why? British and American Jews were already providing a lot of charity to impoverished Jews in Eastern Europe, and were helping to fund Jewish settlement in Palestine. I do not think they would have stood back and allowed their ethnic brethren in Madagascar to starve.

In any case, once peace had been concluded with Britain and France on German terms, those two countries would no doubt have been required to support the process of resettlement.

User avatar
Obdicut
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 07:39
Location: San Francisco

#53

Post by Obdicut » 14 Nov 2005, 06:11

Mr Mills:
I do not know what proportion of the land in Madagascar is arable. Do you know?
The CIA factbook puts the percentage of Madagascar as arable land at 4%.
My ancient encyclopedia (1963) says that most agriculture in Madagascar as of that date was by small-scale producers cultivating the land with hoes. Presumably Jewish settlers using modern equipment could have produced far more food from the same area of arable land.
The only significant substienence crop grown on Madagascar is rice. During the time period of 1930, no advanced agriculture rice-harvesting techniques were available. The other main crops of madagascar are coffee, cloves, vanilla, and other spices, as well as bananas, none of which substantially benefited from the low-tech industrialization of the era. Never mind that the transformation of the agriculture from hand to mechanical would cost an enomous amount of money.

My encyclopedia also states that a large portion of the land was occupied by herds of cattle, and that the cattle were more important as evidence of weatlth than as a means of livelihood. Perhaps the Jews could have introduced commercial cattle farming; I am sure they would have enjoyed being cowboys.
Given that this time period was exactly when traditional farms were becoming outmoded and replaced by factory farms, and given that lifestock ownership is so innately tied to the social structure of the Madagascar culture, this is rather unfeasable. Why you are sure that Jews from a background of crop-farming, small trade, mining and industry would have "enjoyed being cowboys" is beyond me.
Plans are often over-optimistic and end up not being realised. The pace of resettlement would have in part depended on the shipping available for getting the Jews to Madagascar.

In any case, quite rapid settlement is feasible. How many Jews settled in the new State of Israel in the first few years after its creation? The number was quite substantial.


Between 1948-- the creation of Israel-- and 1950, 250,000 European Jews and roughly 10,000 Yemenite Jews settled in Israel, as well as roughly 600,000 Jews who-- and this is important-- were refugees created during the wars shortly after Israel's founding; there was a basic one-to-one exchange of Jewish refugees settling in Israel and Arabs resettling outside of Israel. So, basically, in the "first few years" after its creation, there was an addition of 260,000 to the population of Israel, or 1/4 of one years worth of the Madagascar plan. At that rate, it would have taken sixteen years to settle the proposed four million Jews onto Madagascar.

Sources: General progress Report and Supplementary Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953. Irving Howe and Carl Gershman (eds.), Israel, the Arabs and the Middle East (New York: Bantam, 1972), pgs. 150-168.

European settlement in South Africa could have served as a guide. There the land was divided, with European settlers taking what they wanted and leaving the rest to the natives.

The number of European settlers in South Africa was at least as great as the number of Jews who would have settled in Madagascar, yet the land was able to accommodate both them and the native population, despite the fact that a large proprtion of South Africa is desert or semi-desert.
Any comparison with South Africa is both repellent and pointless; large-scale European immigration there happened over the course of decades and dispossessed the native peoples, turning them into an underclass. If you are assuming this model for the Jewish resettlement on Madagascar, you ignore both the timeline of the European settlement in South Africa and that it was done by force, at the expense of the native peoples. If this was the plan, then it is both unrealistic and yet another charge of egregious misdeed against Germany.

BY the way, in 1960 just over three million of the population of South Africa were classified as "white", a similar number to the number of Jews who would have settled in Madagascar. And of course the native population of Madagascar was a lot lower than the native population of South Africa. There would have been plenty of living space for all.
Population density alone does not tell anything whatsoever. It is an entirely pointless statistic to cite-- it leaves out anything regarding the economic feasibility of that population number.
The British administration of Palestine did not provide much infrastructure there either.
And this is a rebuttal how?
Development of the Jewish settlements was achieved through Jewish investment organised by the Zionist movement in a number of countries. Zionist organisations also provided for the support of the Jews upon their arrival in Palestine.
Yes, they were able to sustain the-- as I have shown-- reasonable and gradual immigration to Israel.
It should be noted that the German Government took the British administration in Palestine as a model for its proposed administration in Madagascar.
It's hard to imagine a worse example to take.
In the first few years of the war, Herbert Hoover organised food aid to Poland, 14% of which went to the Jewish population. If there was immediate distress among the Jews arriving in Madagascar, Hoover could as easily have organised food aid there as in Poland, particularly as the British economic blockade would no longer have been in place, since the Madagascar Plan presupposed an end to the state of war.
And again, for some reason the rest of the nations of the world have to support the Jews who have been forced from their native countries, stripped of their citizenship, and forced to live somewhere else. Why?
Why? British and American Jews were already providing a lot of charity to impoverished Jews in Eastern Europe, and were helping to fund Jewish settlement in Palestine. I do not think they would have stood back and allowed their ethnic brethren in Madagascar to starve.
You continue to refrain from posting any source whatsoever for the "a lot of charity" claim. Please do so if you wish me, or any serious researcher, to view that claim as having any validity. In addition, just so you don't confuse yourself, you should probably stick with your original claim: That 1/3 of all Polish Jews were entirely dependent on charity from "The West".

And once again: Why should the American and British Jews be forced to pay for the Jewish settlement in Palestine? What gave Germany the right to depend on their assistance with their plan, especially when Germany was directly and solely responsible for any outcomes from this plan? That's like saying that my plan of kicking my kids out into the street is a feasible plan because the government can take care of them.
In any case, once peace had been concluded with Britain and France on German terms, those two countries would no doubt have been required to support the process of resettlement.
Why on earth would Britain and France have to pay for an illogical, immoral, and illegal action taken by Germany?

nny
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 19 May 2005, 18:11
Location: Mass, US

#54

Post by nny » 14 Nov 2005, 09:39


The CIA factbook puts the percentage of Madagascar as arable land at 4%.
For anyone else interested in the information in the CIA factbook :

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/fa ... os/ma.html


CIA factbook puts the arable land of Israel at 16.39 percent, and a total land area of 20,330 sq km, for a total arable land of 3,332 sq km.

Madagascar, according to the CIA factbook = 581,540 land area with arable land at 5.07 percent, for a total arable land of 29,484 sq km.

For a comparison the arable land of Israel / Arable land of Madagascar = 11.3 percent. In other worse Madagascar had (Arable land in Madagascar / Arable land in Israel) 745% more arable land than Israel.

Of course this is before Israel 'aquired' the Palestinian land, and I haven't bothered to calculate the arable land incorporated from conquered territories, since that is not what is important in this discussion.

Also I believe it was in USA Today that I read the population density for Gaza was 8,666 people / sq mile for reference.

Gaza, according to the CIA factbook, is 28.95 arable land, and land area of 360 sq km for a total arable land area of (.2895 * 360) = 104 sq km of arable land (population roughly 1.4 million.)

For Comparison, the Gaza strip has (104 / 1.4 million) .00007 sq km of arable land per person.

Israel has (3332 / 6.277 million) .00054 sq km of arable land per person.

Madagascar has (29,484 / 18 million) .0016 sq km of arable land per person. If the population of Madagascar was 22 million instead of 18 million (+ 4 million) this would amount to (29,484 / 22 million) .0013 sq km of arable land per person. This is 18.6 X the land in Gaza per person, and 5.6 X the land in Israel per person.

If any of my calculations are off, please forgive me, it is late and I am using the computer calculator :)

User avatar
Obdicut
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 07:39
Location: San Francisco

#55

Post by Obdicut » 14 Nov 2005, 10:45

NNY--

I assume that you know that Israel is dependent on food imports, and that you read my post above about the rate of immigration into Israel-- compared to one million a year, it was gradual as hell. Israel has had time to grow its economy in industry and high tech. In addition, the agriculture in Israel has been continuously developed for over three thousand years, so the small amount of land is highly efficient. I assume you also know that Israel is extremely dependent on financial aid from the United States-- without that aid, it would never have grown to the proportions it has, if it had survived at all.

Please explain what, if anything, comparing the growth of Israel with backing from the US (which stems from the Cold War) has to do with a plan to settle four million jews in an area already fully occupied by indigenous people over the course of four years.

The only comparisons so far drawn are the settlement of Israel, which displaced a people and led to a bloody war that is still being fought today, and the British subjugation of South Africa. If either of these is taken as a "defense" of the Madagascar plan, it should be noted that A) you're basically simply accusing Germany of acting horribly in a different manner and B) that the German plan for settlement in Madagascar is unrealistic in numbers, time frame, and depends entirely on assistance from other nations who have no reason to do so whatsoever.

Simply put, a plan to oust four million residents of countries where they have been living for generations upon generations and ship them to an unfamiliar already occupied land, either dispossessing the current residents or landing them in a state of de facto civil war would only be yet another massively unjust action by Germany.

So, either the Germans were seriously considering a foolish, tyrannical plan of resettlement, or the plan was a smokescreen while they figured out what they actually wanted to do with the Jews. There is no way to make Germany look good in this instance.

nny
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 19 May 2005, 18:11
Location: Mass, US

#56

Post by nny » 15 Nov 2005, 08:56

Obdicut wrote:NNY--

I assume that you know that Israel is dependent on food imports, and that you read my post above about the rate of immigration into Israel-- compared to one million a year, it was gradual as hell.
I don't claim to know any of this, I was using your source as a guide, if you don't like the outcome, use a different guide. I also don't know what a chart of 'gradual as hell' would look like in a scientific manner. Perhaps you could explain more fully what 'gradual as hell' looks like?
Simply put, a plan to oust four million residents of countries where they have been living for generations upon generations and ship them to an unfamiliar already occupied land, either dispossessing the current residents or landing them in a state of de facto civil war would only be yet another massively unjust action by Germany.
You don't have to tell me anything about the 'fairness' of this action, and please don't assume that I don't think this would be an unjust action. I grew up in a country that 'ousted' a FAR FAR greater number of "Negros" FROM their native lands, to 'OUR' acquired lands. I know what it means to live with the legacy of the massive rape of a race, on a FAR greater magnitude than the German deportation of Jews from eastern Europe to Madagascar would have entailed. What I don't approve of is the assumption that the deportation of Jews to Madagascar was genocidal in the way that the gas chambers were genocidal, which I believe is at the core of this conversation. That Madagascar offered an 'out' for the Jews, and 'western' allies, is uncomfortable to discuss, probably because it seems to spread blame outside of the nice heap leveled on the Nazis. This does not exonerate the Nazis for what they did in any way what so ever which I believe many 'reactionary' posters to this topic immediately assume.
Please explain what, if anything, comparing the growth of Israel with backing from the US (which stems from the Cold War) has to do with a plan to settle four million jews in an area already fully occupied by indigenous people over the course of four years.
I really don't see what I have to explain here, it was your post and your source. Maybe you could explain how the, in your words, US backed growth of Israel in an area already fully occupied by indigenous people could not have occurred in Madagascar, a land (From your sources) that was much more able to sustain a large increase in population?

User avatar
waffen
Member
Posts: 316
Joined: 12 Sep 2002, 09:25
Location: australia

madagascar

#57

Post by waffen » 15 Nov 2005, 09:20

:wink: read some but not all of the above and some well researched forum members have added a lot to this thread. i always was led to think that england was not for the resettlement of madagascar and hitler needed to much sea power and men to quickly move the jewish people out of the reich :idea: finally the germans would have had to put the infrastructure in place for the 3 million new arrivals at a time when war was the no 1 agenda. i welcome any of your comments :P

User avatar
Obdicut
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 07:39
Location: San Francisco

#58

Post by Obdicut » 15 Nov 2005, 12:58

NNY--

I really don't understand the obsessive belief that all moral blame is attatched to the Nazis. It's well known that the US and almost all Western countries refused Jewish refugees entry, that Britain's colonialsm set the stage for imperialist actions, that American slavery was possibly the worst and longest-lasting evil of the modern age, and following quickly on the heels of the displacement and persecution of the Amerinds. However, in this particular case we're talking about the Germans and their particular behavior towards the Jews. Comparisons with other nations will have no effect on the moral status of the Germans actions.

However, for any other nation to go along with this plan of Germany's would be, in effect, giving in to coercion. The deportation to Madagascar was not an "out", since nobody-- the Jews first and foremost-- believed that the Germans would engage in genocide. Anti-semetism had flared up often in Europe's past, but this was the modern age-- the thought there could be another era of terror on the scale of the Inquisition was unthinkable. The German and Polish Jews were an integral and vital part of those nations. Indeed, it seemed like economic and cultural suicide to persecute the Jews in the manner that they were; if history was to be beleived, the anti-semetism would die down after the depression ended. There was no reason for anyone to think that if the Jews were not shipped to Madagascar that they would all be killed.

Please remember we are not talking about Germany, now. We are talking about Nazi Germany. As far as I'm concerned, the two could not be more different, just as the America of slavery and the persecution of the Amerinds bears no relationship to the America of today. We are discussing history, not some scale of morality of nations.
I don't claim to know any of this, I was using your source as a guide, if you don't like the outcome, use a different guide. I also don't know what a chart of 'gradual as hell' would look like in a scientific manner. Perhaps you could explain more fully what 'gradual as hell' looks like?
As I showed above, the Jewish immigration into Israel was in the region of 250,000 a year. This would be much less than one million a year.

I really don't see what I have to explain here, it was your post and your source. Maybe you could explain how the, in your words, US backed growth of Israel in an area already fully occupied by indigenous people could not have occurred in Madagascar, a land (From your sources) that was much more able to sustain a large increase in population?
The main point was that the American funding of Israel occurred only after World War II in response to the new Cold War that immediately developed. There would be no benefit to America whatsoever in funding a Jewish settlement in Madagascar-- if America turned away Jewish refugees, why on earth would they fund a new nation for the Jews? The other mass funding came from Jewish Zionists, who would have no reason whatsoever to fund a Jewish immigration to Madagascar-- Madagascar not being the homeland of the Jews.

Last, as I have repeatedly said, any immigration into Madagascar would displace the indigenous peoples there by force, or forment a de facto civil war. Either scenario is just another evil.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#59

Post by michael mills » 15 Nov 2005, 13:44

Shortly after the First Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897, the British Government offered what was then called Uganda, actually the highlands of Kenya, as a place of settlement for the Jews of Eastern Europe, and Herzl actually accepted the offer.

Settling Jews in the highlands of Madagascar would not have been substantially different from settling them in the highlands of Kenya. The founder of modern political Zionism was prepared to accept the latter, so why not the former?

Eventually Herzl was compelled to decline the offer of "Uganda" by pressure from the more conservative Zionists of Russia, who insisted on Palestine and no other destination for religious reasons.

User avatar
Obdicut
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 07:39
Location: San Francisco

#60

Post by Obdicut » 15 Nov 2005, 14:09

Mr. Mills

Actually, the Uganda proposal was dropped by the British because it was totally impractical-- in all the same ways the Madagascar plan would have been. It was also rejected by the 7th Zionist Conference. There's nothing "conservative" about the Russian Zionists insisting on Palestine as a destination. In the end, it may all have been political maneuvering to show the British that Palestine, and only Palestine, would be accepted.

Herzl, although reaffirming that the eventual goal was Palestine, did accept Uganda as a way station-- and only a way station. When the proposal was finally rejected in 1905, the "territorialists", led by Israel Zangwill, split off from the main Zionist movement. They fizzled out and were completely disbanded by 1925-- sufficient historical proof that there was little support for the idea of a "homeland" outside of Palestine.

At any rate, that was back in the 1903-1905 time frame, and bears little relevance to the discussion at hand. By the time period that is under discussion, the Zionist movement was quite firmly aimed at Israel, and only Israel. In any case, the Uganda plan was never more than a "night station", a pathway to Palestine, quite unlike the Madagascar plan.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”