Had the Holocaust not occurred, how much more developed would science and technology be?

CaliGuy

Banned
Had the Holocaust not occurred (the best way to do this is probably to kill Adolf Hitler early enough), how much more developed would science and technology be today?

Basically, the Jews are a very talented people (in terms of their wealth, how much Nobel Prizes they win, et cetera) and thus I was wondering how much of a boost the development of science and technology would have if six million additional Jews as well as their descendants survived.

Indeed, any thoughts on this?
 
That's a very difficult question to answer. It's difficult to predict what millions of people could have done. Also, I'm not sure about the idea of stereotyping Jewish people as smart and wealthy. I think that without the Holocaust, the Zionist movement wouldn't have gained as much backing and Israel wouldn't have been created. So you'd also need to look at the effects that a more stable Middle East would have on the world. Also, it would be possible that there would be a delay in the invention of atomic weaponry. First, there wouldn't be a need for it without WWII. Second, a lot of the scientists on the Manhattan Project were European Jews and wouldn't have had as much of a reason to become involved in creating such weapons of mass destruction. Of course, there would probably still be a Pacific War and, without nukes, Japan would need to be invaded.

With a delayed making of nukes, it's possible that less investment would go into them for the Cold War and more investment would go into other stuff. It's hard to say, though.

Another point I would make is that I don't think that Adolf Hitler had so much sway that WWII would have been prevented if he had died prematurely enough. I think a more plausible solution would be to have WWII start over Czechoslovakia instead of Poland, thus not giving the Nazis as much time.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Warning
That's a very difficult question to answer. It's difficult to predict what millions of people could have done. Also, I'm not sure about the idea of stereotyping Jewish people as smart and wealthy.

For what it's worth, it does appear that Jews are more successful and prosperous than gentiles are:

NOPE

Indeed, regardless of what one thinks about the political agenda of the author of that blog, the source for the information in the link above appears to be reliable:

http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss14

I think that without the Holocaust, the Zionist movement wouldn't have gained as much backing and Israel wouldn't have been created.

It's possible; indeed, it might depend on how exactly Britain handles Zionist insurgents in Palestine.

So you'd also need to look at the effects that a more stable Middle East would have on the world.

Would the Middle East be much more stable without Israel, though? After all, there would still be Sunni-Shia, Islamist-secular, et cetera tensions in the Middle East even without Israel.

Also, it would be possible that there would be a delay in the invention of atomic weaponry. First, there wouldn't be a need for it without WWII. Second, a lot of the scientists on the Manhattan Project were European Jews and wouldn't have had as much of a reason to become involved in creating such weapons of mass destruction.

That I agree with.

Of course, there would probably still be a Pacific War and, without nukes, Japan would need to be invaded.

Would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor if the Nazis weren't already in control of most of Europe, though?

With a delayed making of nukes, it's possible that less investment would go into them for the Cold War and more investment would go into other stuff. It's hard to say, though.

Agreed. Of course, there might not even be a Cold War in this TL if countries such as France don't have their military power destroyed in WWII.

Another point I would make is that I don't think that Adolf Hitler had so much sway that WWII would have been prevented if he had died prematurely enough.

Frankly, it probably depends on whether or not another Nazi is able to lead the party and deliver as much success to it in this TL as Hitler did during the Great Depression in our TL.

I think a more plausible solution would be to have WWII start over Czechoslovakia instead of Poland, thus not giving the Nazis as much time.

That could work; indeed, whatever results in much less Jews under Nazi rule certainly helps for this. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For what it's worth, it does appear that Jews are more successful and prosperous than gentiles are:

Indeed, regardless of what one thinks about the political agenda of the author of that blog, the source for the information in the link above appears to be reliable:

http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss14



It's possible; indeed, it might depend on how exactly Britain handles Zionist insurgents in Palestine.



Would the Middle East be much more stable without Israel, though? After all, there would still be Sunni-Shia, Islamist-secular, et cetera tensions in the Middle East even without Israel.



That I agree with.



Would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor if the Nazis weren't already in control of most of Europe, though?



Agreed. Of course, there might not even be a Cold War in this TL if countries such as France don't have their military power destroyed in WWII.



Frankly, it probably depends on whether or not another Nazi is able to lead the party and deliver as much success to it in this TL as Hitler did during the Great Depression in our TL.



That could work; indeed, whatever results in much less Jews under Nazi rule certainly helps for this. :)

Come on, there have to be a million better ways to make that point than linking to a white power blog. Use some common sense.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Come on, there have to be a million better ways to make that point than linking to a white power blog. Use some common sense.
Apologies for using a questionable source to make my point here. :(

Anyway, here goes:

The current world Jewish population is 14.4 million. Without the Holocaust, it would probably be between 26 and 32 million (or perhaps a little bit higher than that, since that study appears to have been from 2009 whereas we are now in 2017):

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-population-of-the-world

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090422121852.htm

Thus, we might see something like a doubling of the world's Jewish Nobel Laureates right now in a no-Holocaust scenario. In turn, this would mean 70 (rather than 35) Chemistry Jewish Nobel Laureates, 105 (rather than 53) Physiology/Medicine Jewish Nobel Laureates, and 105 (rather than 52) Physics Jewish Nobel Laureates. Alternatively, if a doubling of this is too optimistic (since new discoveries might be harder to make as more and more things are discovered), then we could use a 1.5 ratio here instead--thus resulting in 53 (rather than 35) Chemistry Jewish Nobel Laureates, 80 (rather than 53) Physiology/Medicine Nobel Laureates, and 80 (rather than 52) Physics Jewish Nobel Laureates.
 
I'm not sure about the idea of stereotyping Jewish people as smart and wealthy.
Since the smarter, luckier, & richer Jews survived, given 2000yr of oppression & pogroms, it makes sense the survivors would be smarter, luckier, richer, & more adaptable (more useful to Gentiles).
a lot of the scientists on the Manhattan Project were European Jews and wouldn't have had as much of a reason to become involved in creating such weapons of mass destruction.
Not in the same era, but the Bomb would still happen, as a prestige weapon, if nothing else.
there would probably still be a Pacific War and, without nukes, Japan would need to be invaded.
Japan could have been defeated without invasion.
With a delayed making of nukes, it's possible that less investment would go into them for the Cold War and more investment would go into other stuff.
Likely. That said, there's a better chance of a European War without them, as the Sovs attack, without nukes to deter them...:eek:
I think a more plausible solution would be to have WWII start over Czechoslovakia instead of Poland, thus not giving the Nazis as much time.
Maybe. War in 1938 leaves Britain (at least) much less well-prepared to fight. War against the Sovs will go better.

Also, you've got U.S. industry less-prepared to produce weapons for the Brits, & U.S. public opinion less inclined to become involved.

You do have no German-Japanese alliance, yet; it may be possible to prevent one. It may, just, be possible to avoid a Pacific War, with a bit smarter diplomacy. I expect Japan would behave much as OTL, so invasion of IndoChina & (probably) attack on Pearl Harbor (1940?).

With Hitler gone, & Europe at war in '38, does FDR win in '40?

U-boats probably don't do as well in ATO.
 
Something else to remember: while Mengele's experiments were motivated by pure sadism, rather than genuine scientific endeavour, his work ended up accidentally producing medical information that (for obvious reasons) cannot ever be replicated. This, of course, raises significant ethical issues, but the information does get used. A friend of mine (a difficult birth) owed their life to that information.
 
Last edited:
Although one does find many Jewish names among the great thinkers and scientists, I know quite a few decidedly blue collar ones too. But I get the notion. I agree, among those dead might have been any number of candles ready to illuminate our future. But I think one also assumes they would benefit the USA.

Now I step back and butterfly the Nazis entirely and this means one sees much of this innovation flowing out of German generally, and to a lesser extent "Austro-Hungarian", universities. Before the war these nations had a strong presence in all the fields and I think that lead would remain. And I think one might put a lot of those scientists in German universities together. And yes, there are a lot of Jewish names to put in those labs, maybe more so, so who knows just what is done.

And it is not merely talent but the institution, Germany in particular seems to have had a better system to develop, patent and translate into product the sciences, one the USA built during and after the second world war, the British did well but seem to be spotty, and other countries are all over the place. Absent the war and cold war one might see more stuff being openly published and I think that has a real effect. With science it is hard to tell how fast the leaps might come, the discovery is just that, the science has always been, we simply have not put pieces together. And just because we have a paper on the science does not equal hardware out the factory door. But I think one might use some guesses.

Despite great progress during the First World War, aircraft technology effectively stunted until the 1930s, despite some advances, on the eve of the war most planes were still biplanes and not entirely metal, but all the ingredients were there to leap into the future, including jets and super sonic flight. War can be the mother of necessity but you need necessity for investment. Electronics got a big boost by military need but might have saw a better path as radio, television and the telecommunications industry did the research. So imagine television coming on in the 1930s. Spurs recording and transmission technology. Might push the development of better receivers and displays. We might see the consumer electronics boom a full generation early. Or it might be locked inside a state-owned monopoly with little incentive to innovate. Pick your butterfly.
 
Well it means Germany likely retains Austria, possibly the Sudetenland, and if the new guy listens to Doenitz and Schacht, the war begins in 1944 or 1945 with Germany perhaps having 2nd gen jets, assault rifles, type XXI subs, and Panther tanks as standard equipment.
 
Civil aviation is probably ahead a bit, with the first big pressurized airliners, like the Connie, in service around 1940. Jets maybe a bit later, or maybe not...more advancement thanks to pressure of war, less attention to civil jets ditto, so... Flying boats will survive a bit longer, without the massive airstrip building of the war.

The biggest impact probably is cultural: books & plays written that weren't OTL; movies made in Germany that weren't OTL (presuming German Jews don't flee to Hollywood or London).
war begins in 1944 or 1945 with Germany perhaps having 2nd gen jets, assault rifles, type XXI subs, and Panther tanks as standard equipment.
The year might be right, but I'd guess only the likes of He-280s, not even Me-262s (tho better engines), no Type XXIs (Dönitz was too technophobic; there might be Type XIs in larger numbers). I'm dubious about the MKb being standard, either.
 
Well it means Germany likely retains Austria, possibly the Sudetenland, and if the new guy listens to Doenitz and Schacht, the war begins in 1944 or 1945 with Germany perhaps having 2nd gen jets, assault rifles, type XXI subs, and Panther tanks as standard equipment.

There's the age-old question of: paid with what? Remember what Schacht wrote to Hitler in January 1939?

That's not even getting in the other age-old question: wars tend to accelerate tech development. The Panther, for instance, was the direct result of direct pressure (read that as: German casualties) caused by the T-34.
 
Top