Jewish Spitzberg

Spitzberg (Svalbard) was a territory administered by Norway but open to economic development by anyone, by treaty.
Let's assume that a Jewish community comes to dominate the Russian owned coal mines there. Why, who knows. Maybe the superintendent is Jewish and has lots of relatives, or something. Later the Russian civil war increases the population even more. Maybe they start producing salts using freezing concentration, and when German salts go off the market because of the war they make a lot of money and expand.
Later, when the Nazis take over Germany it is the only other place besides Shanghai that they can go without a visa and it's cheaper to get to than Shanghai. The coal freighters go back empty, after all. The population goes up even more. They import Swedish iron ore from Kiruna and Finnish iron ore from their NiCuCoPgm mines, and open some steel mills.
The increased population opens more coal mines and increases production to serve the European market, using cheap skilled labor to add value to their coal and the Swedish iron ore and Finnish NiCuCoPgm ore.
In World War II the coal is necessary and they keep going. The US supports them in becoming independent the way we supported Iceland against Denmark after the Germans occupied Denmark.
After World War II they are running out of coal, but the US wants a major military base there and they provide support services and industrialise and go into high technology with all the refugees that came there after the Holocaust and the Russian conquest of Eastern Europe.
 
Well, currently they only have a population of under 3,000 so I wonder how many people it can possible host. My guess is that if it more then doubles or troubles in population (with a least half being Jews) your probably get a Finnish or Germany operation to occupy the islands and deport the Jews, that many Jews would catch Hitler's attention. He pushed Finland for 3 years to give up its 1,000 Jews and would have succeeded if Stalingrad had gone the other way or dragged out for another couple of months.
 
Just because it is territorially small in OTL, doesn't mean that it couldn't support more people if oil-rig-like structures were constructed. I can easily see the Allies defending it early in WW2. The only real problems I can think of involve food - what if German subs blocaded / surrounded the islands?
 
Has one of you ever been there? I have, and I think that it will be difficult to support a large population. The place is in the arctic, meaning that you have polar winter for six months of the year, and most of the terrain is covered by harsh mountains and ice. As opposed to Iceland, you do not have any hot springs or active volcanoes.

I think that it might be possible to have several thousand people there, but food will have to be imported, as well as most other goods.
 
In Wikipedia I read the Germans even occupied the place when they conquered Norway. So it's probably not the safest refuge for Jews.

A natural development of some coal and mining business slowly expanding also wouldn't be fast enough imo to help more than a few thousand people.

A better possibility might be a very rich Person foreseeing trouble in continental Europe and deliberately starting a predominantly jewish settlement there in the 1920s - even including souvereignity. Norway being the only country granting such souvereignity to a few of the Svalbard isles for a hefty price, a little exodus of a few thousand people in the beginning starts.

The place is bigger than Switzerland and should therefore be able to house a lot of people. But what are they supposed to do with a bunch of snow covered rocks in freezing climate and polar days and nights?

Trading is difficult as the harbors are probably frozen during parts of winter. Fishing is pretty difficult for non-professionals because of all the fog, ice and other bad weather-conditions. The competing professionals already there will also probably be difficult to deal with. Mining will probably not draw too many jews to this place, as at least in Germany Jews were pretty much excluded from such work and therefore rarely trained for it.

To feed a lot of people even under difficult economic and weather conditions, it would probably be necessary to create wintergardens in masses. I imagine some kind of cheap mass produced modules with living, transportation and working areas on the ground floor and a wintergarden on the top floor, covering both flat lands and southern hill and mountain sides. Inbetween enough space to let all the snow fall to and remove it if necessary.

While this would create all the jobs needed to draw more and more people to those Isles, it would also be very inefficient, especially at the beginning, so that standard of living would stay rather low. It might still be enough to draw a few hundred thousand people to the isles, considering economic problems and suppression of minorities in Europe.

But when in the 30s, conditions get even worse for the Jews and other minorities of Germany and some other countries, many more might go to this place. It might be offered as temporary quarter until they find a less hostile environment, to attract even more people. The ones who don't have enough money to pay for their journey to the isles, the stay there, and the journey to the next place have to work for a certain time to pay for it. The others will also be given work opportunities, so that more people can be given shelter. So the number of people there rises to a few million. At the end of the 30s, when the war breaks out, Jews and other prosecuted minorities from all over Europe come to the place, while defence is being upped.

With Svalbard not producing much more than it needs herself, extermination of the Jews not official policy of Germany yet, and not very many riches found there, the Germans might not even try to occupy the place after they took Norway. Instead, the Jews might make all the Svalbard isles their territory by joining Great Britain in the war against the axis. The British station some of their troops, ships and airplanes there, while the Svalbards give the British some much needed scientists, engineers, recruits, and so on. While the Germans are conquering France, the size of the Svalbard army is increased significantly, the English helping them in their training.

The Germans will therefore not be able to hide their ships in the area between Svalbard and Norway, which strengthenes allied positions there significantly and reduces efforts to find and eliminate German war ships.

Svalbard in the meantime builds up an army of small submarines and torpedo boats which help liberate the North Sea and later even the shipping lanes in the Baltics, so that the Germans have difficulties getting iron ore.

After the Germans attack Russia, Svalbard feels strong enough to attempt the liberation of Norway. The Germans don't have a possibility to put too many troops there, so resistance is within expectable limits. Svalbard lands in the north and fights her way towards the south, with some more surprise landings to encircle German resistance. Svalbard also advances towards Finland and either forces her to get a separate peace agreement with Russia or fight on two frontiers. While I do expect Finland to be too strong to be conquered by even a few million strong Svalbard, I expect it to be possible to keep Finland from attacking Norway successfully. Should Finland break the neutrality of Sweden to break the deadlock, Sweden should usually join on the allied side, which would also be fine. Once the Problem with Finland is solved, a faster route to help Russia is opened, so that Germany will feel even more pressure on her eastern frontier.

Once the US joins, Svalbard has even more material available. Submarines with mines, torpedos, cannons and later even rocket launchers regularly attack the coasts of Germany and her occupied territories. Planes make sure no German operations in the north stay undiscovered. The D-Day landings include a few thousand Svalbard troops. When the Allies reach Belgium, Svalbard and Norwegian troops liberate Copenhagen and other Baltic isles under German occupation. From there, bombing operations on Germany can be done much more effectively and frequently than from Britain, after air superiority is achieved. Due to all this and more, the war ends half a year early.

Interesting PoD for this ATL: Svalbard doesn't expect an attack on Russia and attempts the liberation of Norway too early, so that Barbarossa is actually cancelled or at least postponed once more. Germany is much better able to solidify her gains in Europe and therefore much more a problem for Britain and Svalbard. In that position, Germany might feel even stronger than in OTL though, and declare war on the US pretty directly after the Japanese attack Pearl Harbour. Maybe even earlier. That would even out odds again. May also be that Russia attacks some time in 1943 or so if they think they can get away with it.
 
Well, just one issue on which I'd like to comment...the distance from Svalbard to Germany is a bit too much for WW2 minisubs or torpedo boats. And well, there also is the problem with the floating ice for about half a year... :)
 
sikitu said:
Well, just one issue on which I'd like to comment...the distance from Svalbard to Germany is a bit too much for WW2 minisubs or torpedo boats. And well, there also is the problem with the floating ice for about half a year... :)

How about supporting them with a few larger subs? How about equipping them with more fuel? Germany had problems because their small subs were limited due to British naval superiority - they couldn't easily recharge their batteries close to Britain with engines as that would have been detected, for instance - the Svalbards wouldn't have that problem. The ice shouldn't be a problem for subs or slow boats - slow is possible where air superiority is achieved.

But for mastering a few thousand miles, the boats and subs would have to be big enough to allow showering and the likes. I imagine living quarters of small camper-van size, and three to four people.
 
Last edited:
The big problem is the six months of pack ice. The place is worse than Greenland. Even with glass made with all that coal for greenhouses, it still will be as dependent on imported food as Berlin or London or any other city.
 
wkwillis said:
The big problem is the six months of pack ice. The place is worse than Greenland. Even with glass made with all that coal for greenhouses, it still will be as dependent on imported food as Berlin or London or any other city.

Truth spoken. BTW, there has been a German attack on Svalbard in WW2. Tirpitz shelled Barentsburg and IIRC some troops were landed to blow up certain installations.
 
wkwillis said:
The big problem is the six months of pack ice. The place is worse than Greenland. Even with glass made with all that coal for greenhouses, it still will be as dependent on imported food as Berlin or London or any other city.

I also suppose that's a big problem. Even if fishing, fish farming, populating the coast lines with animals which don't eat the same as the people, and so on is included. The best approach might be to start producing whatever can be produced locally and try to sell it abroad. After the Germans took the Netherlands, wintergardens might also be an opportunity to produce flowers, which might be traded in Britain for more food.

It would be interesting to know how many square meters of wintergarden would be needed per person for sufficient food production. I suppose a wintergarden in this area would deliver about as much food as conventional farming in countries with moderate climate. In that case, we'd need about 2000 square meters of wintergarden each. Less if there are other food sources. There should be enough space for that, but it'd be a lot of work and material.

Either way, building wintergardens is probably mainly useful as a past time for the ones who aren't able to produce something with a market value. Among other jobs like building and expanding harbors, air fields, streets, dams and so on. They will also give access to a little bit more fresh and diverse food and therefore a more healthy diet.
 
President Ledyard said:
That's almost as silly as a Spitzberg ruled by armored polar bears.

Isn't it ruled by polar bears? :)

Personally, I like such extreme scenarios because I believe humanity should and will some day expand into space and it will need technologies like this in order to achieve this. If we can't even settle a place with a few million people just because it's a little bit cold, how are we ever supposed to settle far more hostile places like Moon and Mars?

Also, I see it mainly as an economic problem - under extreme conditions, the same standard of living can only be achieved with more effort, if we have the same population density. As effort is usually pretty constant, that means standard of living is lower under extreme conditions. But if the basic necessities like food production, housing, and so on get really cheap due to rationalisation, even in those places, the difference becomes marginal, and people can live at nearly the same standard everywhere, earning their income with services and products that are mostly independent of location.

Also, I prefer rational arguments like "... can't work because of ..." instead of just calling something silly.
 
Top