The Madagascar Plan

[waffen]

where in the internet could i find the zionists 7th conference notes . OBDICUT made note to this being , as reqiured by the forum ,when making statements of fact, please use a reference! is there actually any availiable info to the zionists meetings notes or decisions or statements during the period 1933 to 1948

[Obdicut]

Wafenn--

The 7th Zionist Conference is a reference.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... tcong.html

That took four seconds to find using Google. It would have taken you the same.

Were there any of my facts that you wished to dispute, or are you just being obstreperous?

[waffen]

thanks that was quick. but can you tell us how to read the zionist notes for 1933-1948

[David Thompson]

waffen -- You said:

thanks that was quick. but can you tell us how to read the zionist notes for 1933-1948

You are the one who asked for the reference, and Obdicut provided it. That's all you've got coming. If you want something more, go get it.

[Obdicut]

Waffen-- while I have no clue what that has to do with the discussion under question, here you are-- also from the same site, and also easily findable.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... onman.html
Do you have any specific points to make?

[waffen]

i have studied for many years propaganda and yes nazi proaganda which did never run away from there claims of a world jewish zionist plot,my point firstly david is i have now some veiws from the zionists site dating 1923 to 1948,secondly they were supplied to me by a forum member . and in accordance of this site being a forum to discuss most aspects of ww2 i find it a great source of info relating to the ideolgy of both the 3rd reichs history and the struggle of the zionists to return to there biblical homeland. and hope the axis HISTORY forum members and guests can and will continue to draw on its world wide membership of men and women and boys and girls to look at both the winners and loser of ww2 political and ideology battles both with the pen and the sword kindest wishes and regards to all. waffen 8)

[walterkaschner]

Having just returned from several days out of town, I find this thread still has some life in it so will add one more thought of my own.

Apparently in an attempt to demonstrate the feasibility of the Madagascar Plan with regard to its effect upon the indigenous population, Michael Mills points us to the experience of the European colonization of South Africa which he seems to believe is in some way comparable:

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 proportion 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.

With all respect, such a comparison strikes me as utterly inapt and indeed demonstrative of an astonishing (coming from Mr. Mills) lack of knowledge both of South Africa's history and of its geography. It holds no more water than a bottomless bucket.

Putting aside the way-station established on the Cape by the Portugese in the mid-16th Century, the first serious attempt to establish a European settlement in South Africa occurred in 1615, when the British East India Company initiated an ill fated plan to settle the Cape area with British convicts at the rate of 100/year. This came to nought, but in 1652 Jan van Riebeck arrived at Table Bay with instructions from the Dutch East India Company to establish a permanent settlement designed to reprovision Dutch ships on their way to and from the Far East. At that time the local indigenous population of the Southwestern Cape area is estimated to have been about 50,000. Elphick and Giliomee (eds.) The Shaping of South African Society, 1652-1840 (Maskew Miller Longman, 1989) at 3, cited in John Reader, Africa: A Biography of the Continent (Alfred A. Knopf, 1997) at 451. These were Koisans, a migrant, semi-nomadic and pastoral people who had gradually drifted Westward into the theretofore virtually uninhabited area as a result of pressure from the Bantu tribes which were advancing Southward. The population density in the area was exceedingly low, as the rainfall patterns and nutrient deficient soils produced grasslands that could only be used seasonally for grazing their herds, but not the year around.

The European migration into South Africa remained at a mere trickle for the next century and half. When the English captured the colony from the Dutch in 1806 it still held less than 30,000 inhabitants of European descent, and the indigenous Koisan population had dwindled by about 2/3rds, due primarily to the ravages of a smallpox epidemic.

The European population of the Colony, which was then finally transferred to the rule of a foreign though a cognate nation, consisted in 1806 of about 27,000 persons, mostly of Dutch, with a smaller number of German or French, descent. They had some 30,000 black slaves, and of the aboriginal Hottentots [Koisan] about 17,000 remained. Nearly all spoke Dutch, or rather the rude local dialect into which the Dutch of Holland had degenerated, for the descendants of the Huguenots had long since lost their French.

James Bryce, Impressions of South Africa (The Century Co, 1900) at 111.

It was not until much later in the 19th and 20th century that discoveries of the mineral wealth of South Africa together with improved agricultural technologies and industrial development led to a rapid increase in the European population (which did not, in itself, have much of an effect on the decline of the remaining indigenous Koisan people). But the huge increase in the overall South African population during the past 150 or so years has been primarily due to the influx of Bantu peoples, who were not themselves indigenous to the region when the first European settlers arrived, and many of whom are engaged in other than agricultural pursuits.

It seems perfectly obvious to me that raw population density in and of itself is subject to such a host of variables as to make it far too thin a reed to support the conclusion which Mr. Mills seeks to draw from it. And indeed, my imagination is simply far too feeble to perceive any rational basis whatsoever for assuming that the effect of cramming 4 million Jews into the island of Madagascar over a four year period would have been no more deleterious to the indigenous population (or to the immigrants) than that experienced in South Africa by the gradual accretion over a period of three centuries of a population of some 3 million of European origin. To put it in Texan: "That ole dog jist won't hunt!"

Regards, Kaschner

[michael mills]

I think Walter Kaschner may have misunderstood the purpose of my reference to South Africa.

As I see it, Obdicut appears to be taking the view that the German plan to settle the Jews of the part of Europe under its control in Madagascar was somehow not real or feasible. If I understand him correctly, he seems to be implying one of two things:

1. The Madagascar Plan was never real, and was simply a camouflage for more sinister plans; or

2. The Madagascar Plan, if implemented, would simply have amounted to slow genocide of the transferred Jewish population through starvation, disease etc.

He raised a number of points which he seems to consider render the Madagascar Plan inmpracticable or somehow genocidal. One of these was the existence of an indigenous population.

My purpose in introducing the example of South Africa was to show that historical experience demonstrated that it was possible to settle some millons of Europeans on a territory that already contained a relatively large indigenous population.

The fact is that the territory that became South Africa contained a fairly large population of Bantu agriculturalists and cattle-herders, concentrated mainly along the eastern coastal area (Eastern Cape and Natal) and Northern Transvaal, with lesser concentrations on the High Veldt and in the lower lands to the west, near Botswana.

In the course of the 19th century, European settlers moved into the area inhabited by Bantu populations, and gradually pushed them back in a series of wars for territory. In the Eastern Cape, the Xhosa were eventually pushed back east of the Kei River into the area that became known as Transkei, in the course of the so-called Kaffir wars.

In Natal, the Zulus were pushed north into Zululand. In the eastern part of what became the Orange Free State, the Soto were pushed east across the Caledon River into the mountainous area that is today Lesotho. In Transvaal, the various tribes were confined to the lower lands in the extreme north, the extreme east (now the Kruger National Park), and the extrme west (Bophutatswana).

Apart from the areas into which the Bantu population had been confined, the rest of the land became an area for European settlement and exploitation. Members of the indigenous peoples were only allowed to enter and reside in that area as (theoretically) temporary labour on European-owned farms and mines.

I was saying that the same sort of process could have been applied in Madagascar. The indigenous population could have been moved to reserves, and the rest of the land used for Jewish settlement. Madagascar is so large that it could have accommodated the indigenous population on a smaller area as well as a large number of European Jewish immigrants (whose number, as I have demonstrated, would have been less than four million). For all we know, some of the indigenous population might have ended up working as labourers on Jewish-owned farms, similar to the situation in South Africa (or Rhodesia or Kenya).

[Dan]

The population density in the area was exceedingly low, as the rainfall patterns and nutrient deficient soils produced grasslands that could only be used seasonally for grazing their herds, but not the year around.

Some areas are like that, some very rich and with good rainfall. The Cape area is very much like Southern California. The low population density was for the same reasons that California had a low population density before the Whites came, and the huge, export oriented agricultural industry of the Cape is due to the same reasons that we have today in California.

The European population of the Colony, which was then finally transferred to the rule of a foreign though a cognate nation, consisted in 1806 of about 27,000 persons, mostly of Dutch, with a smaller number of German or French, descent. They had some 30,000 black slaves, and of the aboriginal Hottentots [Koisan] about 17,000 remained. Nearly all spoke Dutch, or rather the rude local dialect into which the Dutch of Holland had degenerated, for the descendants of the Huguenots had long since lost their French.

If you look at the date the book that is quoted, it is right in the middle of the Second Boer War, and it's obvious propaganda "Nearly all spoke Dutch, or rather the rude local dialect into which the Dutch of Holland had degenerated" (the language my kids grew up with and were educated in) should serve as a red flag as to the value of the book. In addition to the under reporting of the White population the plurality was German, with about 25 percent French as well.

James Bryce, Impressions of South Africa (The Century Co, 1900) at 111.

A contemporary book in my library by the same sort of English speaker describe the race of Charlize Theron as particularly ugly. The Brits were trying to drum up support for a war that was hugely unpopular internationally, and they used some of the same techniques the neocons use today when describing Arabs and Arab history.

over a period of three centuries of a population of some 3 million of European origin.

There are 6 million Whites there, but perhaps I'm reading this wrong.

[walterkaschner]

Michael Mills wrote:

I think Walter Kaschner may have misunderstood the purpose of my reference to South Africa.

*************************************************************************************

My purpose in introducing the example of South Africa was to show that historical experience demonstrated that it was possible to settle some millons of Europeans on a territory that already contained a relatively large indigenous population.

Actually, that's pretty close to what I perceived to be the purpose of Mr. Mills' reference to South Africa. My own post was intended to suggest that the reference totally failed to serve his purpose, and that the South African experience provided no reasonable basis whatsoever for assuming the feasability of the Madagascar Plan. On the other hand, as I've indicated before, I join Michael Mills in his opinion that the Madagascar Plan was not "simply a camouflage for more sinister plans." I am perfectly prepared to take Himmler at his word in his May, 1940 memo and accept that at that point of time "direct" genocide was not his intent, but of course if the deported Jews were to suffer (along with the indigenous population) and eventually expire, he couldn't care less.

In the first place, the Madagascar Plan contemplated the deportation of a greater number of Jews (even assuming, as Mr. Mills suggests, that the 4 million figure was exaggerated) over a four year period than the total European population of the entire Union of South Africa amounted to after 300 years of immigration (1652 - 1951) - and into an area less than 50% as large. [ According to my old (1959) edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in 1951, of the entire population of the Union of South Africa, 2,642,000 inhabitants considered themselves "European"; and the Union of South Africa covered an area of 472,359 square miles compared to Madagascar's 228,000 square miles.]

In the second place, although until very recently population estimates for South Africa were prone to substantial error, nonetheless there was clearly not a "relatively large indigenous population" in the territories initially settled by the Europeans. In the Cape area, the "Hottentots", who were a migrant, pastoral people, had virtually driven out the "Bushmen" who were essentially hunter gathers. And the Hottentots were relatively few in number. As indicated in my prior post, in 1806 the Hottentot population in the Cape Colony was estimated at only 17,000, and although its number had been vastly reduced by a smallpox epidemic in the late 18th century, the Hottentot population in the Colony could, due to its migrant, pastoral culture and the restraints imposed by climate and relative infertility of much of the area, never have been large.
Even in the areas beyond the Cape Colony (e.g. Natal, the Transvaal, the Orange Free State) which experienced a substantial influx of European migrants in the late 18th and 19th century, the population density of the indigenous Bantus, who in their migration South and Westwards had pushed the native Koisans out, was quite low, apparently because of an extreme drought with resulting famine and highly destructive warfare among the indigenous Bantu tribes (the mfecane).

Although the mfecane in many ways promoted the political development of southern Africa, it also caused great suffering. Thousands died because of famine and warfare, and thousands more were uprooted from their homes and were forced to travel great distances, many to become refugee laborers in the Cape who sought work at any wage. Perhaps the most significant result in terms of the future was that large areas of South Africa were temporarily depopulated, making it seem to Europeans that there were unclaimed lands in the interior into which they could expand. [My emphasis].

The Library of Congress Country Studies, South Africa "Shaka and the Rise of the Zulu State" link:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?f ... ID+za0019)

In the third place, the rate of European immigration into the areas that were later joined to the Cape Colony to form the Union of South Africa skyrocketed toward the end of the 19th Century due to the discovery of gold in the Transvaal (which, incidentally, IMHO was one of the principal causes of the 2nd Boer War.) These were not settlers who pushed indigenous populations off their lands; indeed, the mines themselves were a potent magnet which served to attract the immigation of native laborers for the employment they offered.

And finally, in the fourth place, if the possibilities of the Madagascar Plan are to be judged by the experience of South Africa, it seems to me that reason demands that that experience should be limited to the Cape Colony, which is only slightly larger (279,000 sq. miles) than Madagascar (228,000 sq. miles), and whose immigration was not stimulated by the discovery of rich mineral resources, in which Madagascar is also lacking. It's population in 1951 was about 4.4 million, roughly comparable to 4.1 million for Madagascar, but of that 4.4 million, only 935,000 considered themselves of European extraction - which at least to me demonstates that it has no bearing whatsoever on the possibility of settling "some millions of Europeans on a territory that already contained a relatively large indigenous population."

And incidentally, in judging the effect of cramming 4 million Jews on top of the indigenous Madagascar population, consider the fact that in 1991 - the most recent date for which a casual search turned up data - the annual Gross National Product for Madagascar was all of US$ 210 per capita, and in the opinion of the World Bank Madagascar was the 10th poorest country in the world!!! The Library of Congress Country Studies, "Madegascar", Link:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?f ... ID+mg0008)

Dan wrote:

over a period of three centuries of a population of some 3 million of European origin.

There are 6 million Whites there, but perhaps I'm reading this wrong.

I obviously should have made this clearer! I was looking at the [well almost] 300 year period from the founding of the Dutch Capetown settlement in 1652 to 1951, which was the date closest to the time of the German's interest in the Madagascar Plan for which I could find population estimates. As indicated above, the Encyclopaedia Britannica estimated 2,642,000 Europeans for that year, which to be on the conservative side and to correspond to Mr. Mill's 1960 figure I rounded up to 3 million.

But I can't understand Dan's figure of 6 million Whites at present. According to the CIA World Factbook, South Africa's population as at July 2005 was 44,344,000, of which 9.6% were White. That comes to a White population of about 4.26 million, which is pretty far from 6. But Dan's knowledge of South Africa carries a lot of water with me, and he may have a better source. I've never lived in South Africa as he has, and indeed know precious little of the country, although some forty years ago as a young lawyer I did a considerable amount of work on a couple of Bond issues which the new Republic sold on the US market, and at that time with all the arrogance of youth thought I had learned a lot, which I now know was precious little..

Dan also suggests that, as it was published in 1900, James Bryce's Impressions of South Africa, which I quoted from in a prior post, may have been intended to influence public opinion regarding the Boer War.

A contemporary book in my library by the same sort of English speaker describe the race of Charlize Theron as particularly ugly. The Brits were trying to drum up support for a war that was hugely unpopular internationally, and they used some of the same techniques the neocons use today when describing Arabs and Arab history.

That is certainly a possibility, but I frankly doubt it. I had last read the book decades ago but dug it out upon the stimulation from reading Michael Mills' post. James Bryce was, in his day, a highly respected lawyer, historian (author of The American Commonwealth, a book which was still studied in my Government class at College), diplomat (extremely popular Ambassador to the US in the early 1900's) and prominent member of the Liberal Party, which was strongly opposed to the Boer War. I haven't reread the book in its entirety, but it deals, as it's title indicates, with Lord Bryce's impressions of South Africa formed during a visit he made there shortly after the Jameson Raid in 1895. He has some harsh things to say about the Boers in the Transvaal, but some equally harsh about the Uitlanders. And he sees as well many good and admirable qualities among the Boers, and expresses a great deal of sympathy toward their desire to be independent and just be let alone.

Moreover, my copy of the book is its 3rd edition, and in its Preface Lord Bryce states that the book was writen in 1897, before the Boer War commenced. Indeed, it ends with a rather optimistic prediction of the course of events to be expected after the Jameson raid, which in his Preface Lord Bryce expresses great regret that such did not occur. Indeed, he places great blame for the War on the Uitlanders and the Jameson raid, which he feels led to a burning animosity against the British among the theretofore peaceful and even friendly Boers in The Orange River Republic and Cape Colony, and a further hardening of hatred among the Boers in the Transvaal.

On the other hand, Lord Bryce was the head of the Commission that investigated and published the notorious report on German brutalities in Belgium during WWI (the "Bryce Report") which was a highly effective tool for British propaganda and was subject to much heavy post-war criticism as such, although I have the impression (for which I can't provide a source) that more recent scholarship suggests that the report was factually sound.

But of course Lord Bryce was a bit too ancient of days to have been able fully to savor the delights of Charlize Theron, and of course he may have been too much of a blue-nosed Liberal in the Gladstone tradition to have been enraptured, even momentarily, by her charms, but somehow I can't conceive of his dismissing her and her race as "particularly ugly."

Regards, Kaschner

[michael mills]

And incidentally, in judging the effect of cramming 4 million Jews on top of the indigenous Madagascar population, consider the fact that in 1991 - the most recent date for which a casual search turned up data - the annual Gross National Product for Madagascar was all of US$ 210 per capita, and in the opinion of the World Bank Madagascar was the 10th poorest country in the world!!! The Library of Congress Country Studies, "Madegascar", Link:

Perhaps the settlement of some millions of European Jews in Madagascar, with the financial support of the affluent Jewries of Britain, the United States and other Western countries, could have led to the large-scale development of the country, lifting it out of its position as the 10th poorest country in the world.

After all, Palestine was a dirt-poor country when European Jews began to settle there at the end of the 19th century. It was still pretty poor just before the middle of the 20th century, when there were only about 700,000 Jews settled there.

Now that patch of land is highly developed, and supports a Jewish population of over four million. That development was achieved through massive financial support from the wealthy Jews of the West, together with other large-scale financial aid from Western Governments under pressure from the Jewish Establishments in those countries.

No doubt if the Jews of the German area of influence in Europe had been transferred to Madagascar, the Jewries of the West would have provided the same financial assistance they in reality have provided to the Jews who settled in Palestine, and would have used their influence to induce Western Governments to supplement that aid.

[Obdicut]

Mr Mills.


You continue to make an analogy between the settlement of Israel and that of Madagascar, despite having been shown repeatedly that is without merit. Again, here is the refutation.

Perhaps the settlement of some millions of European Jews in Madagascar, with the financial support of the affluent Jewries of Britain, the United States and other Western countries, could have led to the large-scale development of the country, lifting it out of its position as the 10th poorest country in the world.

After all, Palestine was a dirt-poor country when European Jews began to settle there at the end of the 19th century. It was still pretty poor just before the middle of the 20th century, when there were only about 700,000 Jews settled there.

As you note, it was still pretty poor by the middle of the 20th century-- before it became so useful to the United States in exerting control over the Middle East against the Soviets. During the time period of the proposed Madagascar plan, the Western world was at the height of a depression. Economic aid from Western countries for a new settlement for Jews (not the most popular of peoples to Western countries, as shown by the turning away of refugee boats and the vast amount of anti-semitism in America at the time) would not have been forthcoming. If you have any logic that shows why in the midst of a depression there would have been an outpouring of aid for a settlement in Madagascar based on extremely dubious planning, please explain it.

You also continue to talk about the population of Israel as though it has any bearing on the proposed plan to transport four million Jews within four years. Even allowing for a stretch of a full 100%, and there would only be half a million transported per year, that vastly exceeds the rate of immigration to Israel at any point in its history. You have failed in any way to show how this rate of immigration could be achieved successfully. The population of present-day Israel is also completely irrelevant.

No doubt if the Jews of the German area of influence in Europe had been transferred to Madagascar, the Jewries of the West would have provided the same financial assistance they in reality have provided to the Jews who settled in Palestine, and would have used their influence to induce Western Governments to supplement that aid.

You completely ignore that much of the support for Israel was caused by the horrors of the Holocaust-- and that that support was vastly limited until 1979. United States joined an embargo on weapons sales to Israel, the 1949 Tripartite Agreement on weapons, and did not sell any arms to Israel intil 1962, while selling vast amounts of arms to the Arab nations. Before 1971, Israel got just around $280 million in military aid, all loans. about half of the approximately half-billion dollars of economic aid was also provided in the form of loans. During that time, the Arab states got about four times as much aid, 3.2 billion dollars-- including vast amounts to Palestine, for which the US remains the largest economic supporter, ironically enough. Also, the Arab states benefitted from France and England, which both still held territorial interests during this time period.

The inital gifts of aid to Israel were to cope with refugees from the Holocaust, during the time period 1951 to 1954, to promote peace in the region. The total of these gifts were 191 million dollars, or 96.45 million dollars in 1935 terms. During that time period Israel took in 600,000 Jews. Even if we ignore that taking in people at a quicker rate necessarily means more spending per person, that would mean that to absorb four million over eight years (again, allowing for the Germans to have 100% margin of error in their calcuation of speed) that would mean that 7.8 billion dollars of aid (in 1935 dollars) would be required over the time period of eight years, during the worst depression of the modern era. To give perspective, the entire US government tax income in 1935 was 3.609 billion dollars (US Budget for Fiscal Year 2006) in 1935 dollars. During this time period the US was engaged in deficit spending to revitalize its moribund economy: I see no way that 1/3rd of the government budget would be allocated to aid for Israel alone, nor that private sources could provide the necessary one billion dollars a year-- since 1950, the total amount of money raised by "Israel Bonds", by far and above the largest private source of income for israel, is 13.5 billion dollars-- and please note that Israel Bonds are not gifts but interest bearing bonds. To give modern perspective, one billion dollars a year in 1935 dollars is 13.8 billion dollars a year in 2005. Compare this to the US's 16.5 billion dollars of US foreign aid, total (OECD report, 2004) during 2003.

Again, you ignore the depression of the era during which the Madagascar immigration was to take place. You also talk about the "influence" of the Jewish community in the Western governments, which was not even enough to get the immigration quotas for German children under the age of fourteen ("Jew" not being part of immigration quotas) In fact, the inter-war period in the United States was the time of greatest anti-semitism and lowest Jewish influence in the history of the United States (Father Coughlin's anti-Jewish speeches, Henry Ford's vocal and virulent anti-semitism, the rise of the Klu Klax Klan in the South and northern Mid-West, and many quoatas limiting Jewish enrollment in colleges and quotas on Jewish teachers allowed at colleges). Although Britain strongly resisted anti-semitism and the (very small) Jewish population there had influence out of proportion to its size, it was still during this time period that the Evian Conference of 1938 was held, and immigration from Germany strictly limited despite the objections of the Jewish community and the fears that the situation of the German Jews as becoming more and more dire. To blithely state that the Jews in the interwar period had influence in Western governments that could prompt those governments to support a plan such as the Madagascar plan is to completely misrepresent the facts of the period.

Source for US-Israel aid numbers: Clyde Mark, Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance, (DC: Congressional
Research Service, 1997-2003); JTA, (February 27, 2003)

[Dan]

Perhaps I've been the victim of propaganda. We were constantly told that the US and others active in the fight against Apartheid deliberately underestimated the number of Whites, and 6 million was the total that we were taught. Perhaps it is 4.5 million. And I guess

Nearly all spoke Dutch, or rather the rude local dialect into which the Dutch of Holland had degenerated

Could be true, but still a rather mean way of speaking of the mother language of 10 million people. (The Coloureds speak Afrikaans as a mother language. They are the descendants of the Bushmen and Hottentots, and they far outnumber Whites today).

Speaking of Jews in SA (unless the figures I was taught were also exaggerations) there were about 250,000, although the last numbers I heard were 100,000 due to moving to greener pastures. The most powerful White politician, Tony Leon, is a Jew as was the (last I heard) ambassador to the US, a guy named Swartz. The leadership of the Communist Party was hugely disproportionately Jewish, as is the millionaire class, like those involved in the diamond industry. There are lots of Jewish farmers as well, like my neighbor, a Russian Jew who was an ostrich farmer.

The key to any large population in either Madagascar or any nation in Southern Africa is large scale irrigation schemes, with a large dam able to support an extra 1-3 million people. It takes lots of time and money, though, and those Jews would have sat in tents for years.

[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.

This is completely a matter of opinion, and I would argue that public opinion would be against you in this fact. I would be willing to bet that far more "Africans" died in the slave trade, than "Jews" in the holocaust. To say that this argument has no 'moral status' on Germans actions is misleading and naive. First, Morality is a state of mind, and a point of view. This is undeniable. If you want to say something about the Madagascar Plan and its genocidal nature, please suggest it in the proper terms, IE that the Polish first suggested it and the Nazis (NOT the Germans, as you would suggest (I'm an American, not a Republican)). If the Madagascar plan was QED to exterminate the Jews, then the Polish plans for Madagascar were QED to extermination, the US / Belgian Slave trade was QED to exterminate Black people. The list goes on.

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.

Thank you, I would never assume you were talking about the racist slave traders of years ago and the Americans of today. Likewise I would hope you and others wouldn't compare the Germans of today with the Nazis of any years ago. As far as the "giving in to coercion", I don't really believe the Germans were trying to get other nations to 'foot the bill' of the Jews, as you would suggest. They wanted a racially pure Germany, this included pushing every other race out, that they didn't consider Jews "Germans of a seperate religion" is a fact. Possibly in their delusion that the Jews controlled the US, the Soviet Union, etc they assumed that these countries would be willing to support the explusion of the Jews from German occupied territory. Obviously this was wrong. Possibly they didn't really care, maybe they thought "Germans made Germany, Germans evolved in Germany, Germany should be for Germans, anyone else should be expelled". Thus anyone who was not German was to be expelled from Germany, the Poles, the Czechs and any other foreign race. Of course after WWI the Poles were given their own homeland, as were the Czechs, and these should be recognized. But obviously the Nazis didn't recognize these boundries, maybe they had some sort of German "Manifest Destiny" and wanted the 'land that was due them'. Of course this is all conjecture on my part.

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.

I understand, I have read excerpts of "The Seventh Million" and how many Israeli Jews viewed victims of the Holcoaust. That they had virtually no sympathy for these survivors doesn't mean anything to me. Your assumption that Zionist aims have some sort of sway on what I consider "just", is wrong. I don't really care about American funding of Israel before, during, or after WWII (Did Israel exist before or during WWII?). I understand that during a famine in Africa, was it Operation Solomon? The US sent troops to help evacuate Jews from starving (To Israel). Operation Moses and Jonah I believe were also involved in saving Ethiopian Jews? But what about non-Jewish Ethiopians? Nothing, no one wanted them. That a number of non-Jews ( I venture to say Christians ) misrepresented themselves as Jews so they could be rescued from the famine is at least part of a tale of the tragedy.

Your point seems to be that no one would have funded the Jews being expelled from German occupied territories in 1938 / 39 because IYW :

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

I don't disagree with this assessment, but the Nazis didnt' believe they should be responsible for the Jews either, they probably didn't really care if Jewish brethren in the US or Palestine, Russia, Canada or France would help take care of the exiles, they didn't view the Jews as Germans at all, and they wanted to create a "Germany for Germans". Removing the Jews from Germany was obviously a top priority, finding someone to take care of these exiles was probably very low on their list. The Jews, in their eyes, were not Judaic Germans, but Jews posing as Germans.

Likewise because of this argument I believe the creation of Israel is a good thing, if Israel had existed prior to 1933 maybe the next 10 years would have turned out much differently. IMO it is unforunate that Israel had to be created in a country which was already occupied by a large number of people, whom now exist in ghettos and are labelled in my country almost universally as 'terrorists'.

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.

I 100% believe that statement even though Madagascar should be replaced with Palestine, in which I'm sure that distinction alone would sway many peoples opinions. I am not convinced that because a person is "brown skinned", they should give up their land, and similarly I don't believe that because a person is living on 'holy land' they should similarly give up their land.

[Obdicut]

I 100% believe that statement even though Madagascar should be replaced with Palestine, in which I'm sure that distinction alone would sway many peoples opinions. I am not convinced that because a person is "brown skinned", they should give up their land, and similarly I don't believe that because a person is living on 'holy land' they should similarly give up their land.

I, personally, see the creation of the state of Israel as a huge mistake, but one for which the Europe, Russia, and America bear the main responsibility for. If immigration from Germany in larger numbers was allowed into America, Zionism would never have taken hold. If the Russians had not practiced centuries of anti-semitism, Zionism would never have taken hold. If Germany had embraced the Jewish additions to their culture, Zionism would never have taken hold. Hell, it would be easy to write an alternate history where the First Islamic Civil war had never occurred and the Islamic nations had retained their high culture, their integration of the Jews, and acted as a check against European colonialism and expansion.

But all that is speculation. Europe, America, and Russia were anti-semetic, Zionism did rise, and Israel was created, and more unbelievably, actually survived. The creation of Israel and the displacement of the Palestinians was an immoral and wrong act, in my opinion. However, the rate of expansion and immigration is miniscule compared to that proposed in the Madagascar plan.

If you want to say something about the Madagascar Plan and its genocidal nature, please suggest it in the proper terms, IE that the Polish first suggested it and the Nazis (NOT the Germans, as you would suggest (I'm an American, not a Republican)

The Polish did first suggest the plan, and even launched an exploratory committee to analyze Madagascar's suitability.
The committee's leader, Major Mieczyslaw Lepecki, thought that Madagascar could accept 40,000 to 60,000 Jews. This figure was debated by the two Jewish members of the committee, who thought that 20,000 to 30,000 could be settled there. As you can see, this "Madagascar Plan" bears no resemblance to the Madagascar Plan of the Germans. (If you are going to say the 'Polish' suggested it, it is entirely fitting to say the 'Germans' carried it on-- nations are, for better or worse, identified with their rulers. America invaded Iraq, not the Republicans.) Source: Browning, Christopher. "Madagascar Plan." Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. Ed. Israel Gutman. New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, 1990.


I think the Madagascar plan shows either a complete lack of regard and concern for the well-being of the Jewish citizens of Germany, or that it's part of the "magical thinking" of the Nazis, whereby all plans are good simply because they come from Nazi thinking. My main point, throughout this debate, has been that the Madagascar Plan had no practical reality to it whatsoever. I do not think the idea of extermination of the Jews was inherent in the Madagascar Plan; I do think that the plan shows how the Nazis viewed the Jews; not as citizens of the country owed obligations by the state of welfare and protection, but outsiders, a problem to be dealt with.

As far as the "giving in to coercion", I don't really believe the Germans were trying to get other nations to 'foot the bill' of the Jews, as you would suggest.

All my commentary in that regard has been in response to Mr. Mills fanciful posts that the Western nations could "easily" support the Madagascar Plan, and would. As is stated clearly in the Madagascar Plan itself, the plan was to be paid for by the confiscation of Jewish property-- another ridiculous and unworkable aspect of the plan, since the amount of money necessary to support the exodus would not have been sufficiently provided by such confiscation, nor would the export of that amount of money out of Germany been acceptable to the Germans.