AH Challenge: give jews and muslims a common enemy

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Actually, prior to the Nazis' rise, Germany was one of the most philo-Semitic nation in Europe, meaning that really it was just less anti-Semitic than other countries.

In the late 1930s, I'd say the top five anti-Semitic (meaning where anti-Semitism was most accepted) countries in Europe were, in order:
  1. Germany
  2. Poland /USSR tie
  3. Romania
  4. France
I'd say Hungary was worse than France. Pretty much all Central Europe was anti- semitic. Even though the French extreme right was bad, that situation was most like the situation with the German far right during the 20s.
 

Hendryk

Banned
In the late 1930s, I'd say the top five anti-Semitic (meaning where anti-Semitism was most accepted) countries in Europe were, in order:[/SIZE][/FONT]
  1. Germany
  2. Poland /USSR tie
  3. Romania
  4. France
In the late 1930s France had a Jewish prime minister.
 
Somehow make the Roman Empire last until the rise of the Caliphate, and you will probably see Jews and Muslims active their Abrahamic wonder-twin Powers.
 
How about an expansionist Domination of the Draka? Or a cannibalistic, Chernobog-worshipping Russian Empire?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I'd say Hungary was worse than France. Pretty much all Central Europe was anti- semitic. Even though the French extreme right was bad, that situation was most like the situation with the German far right during the 20s.

Actually, I'd say Hungary was surprisingly not anti-Semitic. Horthy actually did quite a lot to make sure the Jewish population was left largely unmolested. It wasn't until 1944 and Germany's removal of Horthy that the situation of the Jews in Hungary got really bad.

In the late 1930s France had a Jewish prime minister.

This is true; I had forgotten about Blum. Still, my definition was based on where anti-Semitism was more accepted/acceptable, not necessarily dominant, standard, etc.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
That justifies nothing. Had I said something about this one time we had this black president, I'm sure you'd be quick to point out how generally racist we are.

This is actually a rather good point; just because a member of a minority group does not mean there are no issues/tensions/etc. between said minority group and the general populace.
 

Hendryk

Banned
That justifies nothing. Had I said something about this one time we had this black president, I'm sure you'd be quick to point out how generally racist we are.
Actually I wouldn't have, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

To be fair there are examples of, say, societies in which male chauvinism is widespread, and that nonetheless manage to have a female head of state or government. But the fact remains that to claim that France was one of the more antisemitic European countries in the early 20th century is a gross and unfounded exaggeration. France was a pioneer in the implementation of equal rights for Jews.
 
How about an expansionist Domination of the Draka? Or a cannibalistic, Chernobog-worshipping Russian Empire?

Both a bit hard to pull off with post-1900 PODs. :(

Now, a *fascist, anti-Muslim Russian state with it's traditional interest in warm-water ports...

Bruce
 
But the fact remains that to claim that France was one of the more antisemitic European countries in the early 20th century is a gross and unfounded exaggeration. France was a pioneer in the implementation of equal rights for Jews.

Just to be contrarian, I'll note that the France of the Dreyfus case was a bit different from the France of 1791, and that Prussia emancipated its Jews nearly half a century before the British did...

Bruce
 
Switzerland

/thread.

As Hashasheen pointed out, there is the example of Swiss politicians. It is a current real life example of a possible unifying threat to both Jews and Muslims.

The threat doesn't have to be one of pogroms and genocide. Cultural suppression can be another unifying threat.
 
Anyhoo, the way I see it French anti-semitism was just part of the national left-right polarization, with Eeevil Jews being just one of the prime bugaboos of the conservative Right, associated with the whole complex of pathologies they saw as characterizing the Republican left. If the Right in France was very antisemitic, the Left was - well, not particularly philosemitic, but quick to defend a falsely accused Jew as part of their ongoing struggle with the conservative forces. The French far right surely would have been bad news for Jews if they had taken and held power - but it took a Nazi invasion to put them even partially in power OTL [1], and would have required a Nazi WWII victory for them to remain in power - in which case the Jews and Muslims would have had worse things to worry about.

Bruce


[1] There were some rathier nastier types than Petain on the French far right
 
I must say that the Nazi victory one was something I came up with, but I never imagined The USSR, thanks everyone.
Oh and By the way The POD doesn't have to bee after 1900 thats just when they have to be acting friendly towards each other.
 
Well, with a non-Muslim expansionist Persia or Iran, they could both unite...after all, the Iranians aren't Semites. (Someone even referred to them as "Aryan"...)
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
The French far right surely would have been bad news for Jews if they had taken and held power - but it took a Nazi invasion to put them even partially in power OTL

"Partially" is not the right word. The vast majority were actually in power; Petain was only in charge of Vichy because he was the most popular, high-profile person in France who was willing to be a collaborator. The Vichy regime was largely in the hands of virulent anti-Semites like Henriot, Déat, and Darnand.

Nor should we forget the riots of 1934 when the far-right almost took power. Granted, it didn't happen, but they came awfully close. Indeed, the main faction in the riots was Action Francaise, a movement not particularly noted for its philo-Semitism.

...after all, the Iranians aren't Semites. (Someone even referred to them as "Aryan"...)

The Iranians are Aryan. Not necessarily only in the ridiculous Nazi definition of the word (though they did consider Iranians fellow Aryans), but in the actual ethnographic sense.
 
Last edited:
Wikiquote said:
The Political Testament of Adolf Hitler (1945)

in German

  • Under the guidance of the Reich, Europe would speedily have become unified. Once the Jewish poison had been eradicated, unification would have been an easy matter. France and Italy, each defeated in turn at an interval of a few months by the two Germanic Powers, would have been well out of it. Both would have had to renounce their inappropriate aspirations to greatness. At the same time they would have had to renounce their pretensions in North Africa and the Near East; and that would have allowed Europe to pursue a bold policy of friendship towards Islam. (4th February 1945)

Our Italian ally has been a source of embarrassment to us everywhere. It was this alliance, for instance, which prevented us from pursuing a revolutionary policy in North Africa. In the nature of things, this territory was becoming an Italian preserve and it was as such that the Duce laid claim to it. Had we been on our own, we could have emancipated the Moslem countries dominated by France; and that would have had enormous repercussions in the Near East, dominated by Britain, and in Egypt. But with our fortunes linked to those of the Italians, the pursuit of such a policy was not possible. All Islam vibrated at the news of our victories. The Egyptians, the Irakis and the whole of the Near East were all ready to rise in revolt. Just think what we could have done to help them, even to incite them, as would have been both our duty and in our own interest! But the presence of the Italians at our side paralysed us; it created a feeling of malaise among our Islamic friends, who inevitably saw in us accomplices, willing or unwilling, of their oppressors. For the Italians in these parts of the world are more bitterly hated, of course, than either the British or the French. The memories of the barbarous, reprisals taken against the Senussi are still vivid. Then again the ridiculous pretensions of the Duce to be regarded as The Sword of Islam evokes the same sneering chuckle now as it did before the war. This title, which is fitting for Mahomed and a great conqueror like Omar, Mussolini caused to be conferred on himself by a few wretched brutes whom he had either bribed or terrorized into doing so. We had a great chance of pursuing a splendid policy with regard to Islam. But we missed the bus, as we missed it on several other occasions, thanks to our loyalty to the Italian alliance! In this theatre of operations, then, the Italians prevented us from playing our best card, the emancipation of the French subjects and the raising of the standard of revolt in the countries oppressed by the British. Such a policy would have aroused the enthusiasm of the whole of Islam. It is a characteristic of the Moslem world, from the shores of the Atlantic to those of the Pacific, that what affects one, for good or for evil, affects all. (17th February 1945)
The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France. (2nd April 1945)
Keep looking for a common enemy, it's not Hitler, apparently. Fascinating potential for a Nazi POD here though!
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Keep looking for a common enemy, it's not Hitler, apparently. Fascinating potential for a Nazi POD here though!

We must make a very clear distinction here. Iranian/Iranic and Turkish/Turkic Muslims would probably have no reason to stand against Hitler (I don't believe Nazism had any genocidal designs on Altaic peoples like the Turks, but I may be wrong.)

Arab Muslims, however, would have ample cause to resist Hitler. To the Nazis, Arabs were just as Semitic as the Jews. There was acutally a good deal of debate within the SS as to what to do with the Arabs who volunteered for the Waffen-SS, and in the end Himmler grudgingly allowed it only because things were starting to look bad.
 
Top