I've heard similar stories about Napoleon using sulphur dioxide to kill rebellious Haitian slaves in the holds of ships. But, I've never seen any actual proof of said claims.
There, page 11, it’s in french
I've heard similar stories about Napoleon using sulphur dioxide to kill rebellious Haitian slaves in the holds of ships. But, I've never seen any actual proof of said claims.
There, page 11, it’s in french
Finally, the requirement in the original post that there can be no communist revolution in Russia also greatly diminishes the chances of a Holocaust. As Time Snyder convincingly argues, a key factor in making the Holocaust so effective in the East was the (false) equation of Judaism and Bolshevism. This was then combined with the fact that Stalin controlled most of this area (either since 1928 for the Ukraine or since 1939 for Eastern Poland and the Baltic areas). When the Nazis came in an easy way for minor officials to prove there weren't really Bolsheviks was to kill some Jews. Consequently, the Holocaust was much much worse in the East than in the West.
Yeah, that's a really good point. The "Final Solution" was finalized in 1942/1943, but even before that, it was preceded by the mass murder of Jews on the Eastern Front with the flimsy excuse that they were either partisans, possible partisans, possible future partisans, or something like that. I'm not sure if the Nazis couldn't have found some excuse to get their way up to the final mass extermination stage of the Holocaust, but it would have certainly harder for them to ramp up to that point without the war against the USSR.
Charles Maurras of Action Francaise was very very Hitler-like. He founded AF in response to the Dreyfus affair and blamed the whole thing on the Jewish Republic. In the 1920s he condemned Versailles for not being harsh enough, called for killing an Interior Minister (who was Jewish and wanted right-wing leagues disarmed), and was sent to prison for 8 months by issuing death threats against Leon Blum.
Sorry, but i don't have as much faith in mankind as you, anti-semitism was common throughout europe, if germany could do it i'm sure there is a timeline where france did it.
Beside, if you switch the victims from jews to algerian muslims, you can definitely find a way for france to commit a holocaust scale genocide with a 1900 POD in algeria.
Were there many people in Russia back then who could be called proto-fascist?
The problem with colonial holocausts is that the colonial power is dependent upon the colonized population to provide for the livelihood and the value of its colony. If one kills all of the colonized people then the colony ceases being useful. The only time when this actually makes sense is in a settlement colony, like the British and American genocides in North America and Oceania. Algeria was a settlement colony, but the native population was very large and useful to the French. One can easily see extreme repression, vast amounts of loss of life, famines, etc. but an actual full-scale genocide of the population intended by the French is unlikely, even if there were "jokes" that all that it would take for the French to solve the Algerian problem would be to give every Algerian settler a pistol and 9 bullets.
What does this mean? How does urbanization prevent human experimentation?Additionally for Russia Germany and Poland are too urbanised to allow for effective experimentation.
Baron von sternbergRussia is the obvious choice. Antisemitism happened in France, of course, but Russia had the longer and deeper history of it.
the cross of fire makes vichy seem like cub scouts.
What does this mean? How does urbanization prevent human experimentation?
Also, I dont think Poland was that much more urbanized than Russia
Hilberg in _Destruction_ volume 1 pretty much refutes this given the exit visa system in place.that in the beginning the Nazis just wanted to deport the Jews