Really? That would’ve been an interesting endeavor.
Argentina had a fair amount of antisemitism and so there were restrictions on Jewish migration.
Most Likely Destination of Jewish Refugees and Fate of Judaism After Holocaust with No Israel?
- Thread starter PGSBHurricane
- Start date
- Status
Really? That would’ve been an interesting endeavor.
Argentina had a fair amount of antisemitism and so there were restrictions on Jewish migration.
Indeed. If you are interested, you can read about it in the book I linked in my first comment, chapter six: https://books.google.es/books/about...y&hl=es&gl=ES&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Then it would probably not be a likely destination.
Last edited:
But the big POD here is Israel not forming. This could turn the plight of Jews into a cause celebre, and what's being debated is whether Eva Peron would take up that cause and welcome Jews to her country.
Argentina welcoming Jews and Nazis is reflective of Argentina's often capricious governance.
Argentina more had schizophrenia on judaism. Ie right wingers were antisemitic but certain factions like Borges werent.
So would Argentina happily turn Buenos Aires into the Jerusalem of the South and then indulge in race baiting once its economy collapses each week?
Brazil was, from what I've seen, a bigger draw in Latin America for Jews than Argentina IOTL, with 35,000 coming between 1946 and 1958 according to this article:
It would also help explain the jump from 70,000 to 96,000 Jews from 1950 to 1960 IOTL. And there was far less migration from Brazil to Israel IRL than from Argentina to Brazil.
It would also help explain the jump from 70,000 to 96,000 Jews from 1950 to 1960 IOTL. And there was far less migration from Brazil to Israel IRL than from Argentina to Brazil.
I'm watching these YouTube videos on Appalachian mountains. And one thing that strikes me about them is, they are basically empty. You can put all the Jewish people of the world there and the mountains wouldn't know it. My problem always was, why didn't they do something similar. If they were a part of USA, a Jewish state, no one would dream about fkin with them. And they would have been forever at peace to better themselves, and in turn, better USA. Every country Jews went to in numbers, prospered. Having own country? There's hundreds of tribes of people around the world numbering millions more without their own country. Take Tamils for example. 77 million Tamils around the world, a great civilisation arguably older than the Jewish civilisation. A once empire that shaped a huge part of the world. And they don't have their own country. It's ok to not have your own country. I'm just curious why it was decided that Jewish people should be sent to a desert to be surrounded by people who only wish them death. Yes, today's Israel is nice and developed. But when they were sent there as traumatized refugees, that was not the case. I just wonder how much they would have been achieved if greater part of their intellect and effort is not spent on survival but on bettering themselves and the world.
Yes, it is rationally an excellent idea.
But the Appalachian people of the 1940s and 1950s weren't known for being paragons of tolerance and would not have been exceptionally welcoming of a tide of European Jews to their lands.
But Vargas seemed to have a tinge of antisemitism in his rhetoric. But if the plight of Jews became a cause celebre, would Vargas open the door to hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees?
So, could there have been some Jewish migration to Costa Rica in the same vein? Costa Rica remained an island of stability amidst the chaos of Central America during the Cold War, and so would it have been an attractive location for Jewish settlement?
Because you're discounting about 1,900 years of inwardly directed propaganda (for lack of a better term) that kept them unified, prevented their assimilation, and gave them a heritage that they identified with as great, strong, etc.
The Jews of the early 1900s were not a people like the Tamils, who though greater in number were not as persecuted. They were the survivors of 1900 years of migrations and expulsions, who had attritioned by conversions and killings, and reinvented themselves time and again while still holding to the dream and the memory. If you went back to Roman times, not all of modern Israel and Palestine was uniformly Jewish. Not all of it was even ethnically Jewish, as the Idumeans and others had converted, after having once been neighbors and enemies, and there were still significant non-Jewish Canaanite communities.
But once you went from "this is our land we have lived here since time immemorial despite the rise and fall of empires" to "we have been expelled from our homeland, lost our holy sites, and made to feel as unwelcome across the world", you created an "us versus them" situation that was repeatedly enforced across dozens of generations.
Was it ludicrous to give them any credence that they had an inviolable and unbroken claim to a portion of the Levant that had not been majority-Jewish (let alone Jewish-ruled) since before Christianity entered Europe? Yes, of course. But the 1900s was the period of creating ethno-states rather than diverse populations. It was the period where Jewish people, on the heels of experiencing the largest pogroms of their history, unable to migrate in mass numbers to the New World like the Castilians, Irish, Scottish and Germans before them, needed somewhere to go, anywhere at all. Why not their ancient homeland? Why not Jerusalem?
You can understand the perspective of the Jewish Congresses of the time. You can understand why the British and French really didn't give a shit about the region besides protecting the Suez or wanting bragging rights over Jerusalem.
I wouldnt take Vargas rhetoric very seriously, its the same guy who was publically an atheist but prayed to saints in his house and baited Germany into supporting brazilian industrialization under the conditions we joined the Axis only for him to immediately side with the americans afterwards
He's the kind of person who'd drop any facade of antisemitism the moment you offered him a penny
The real question is if the brazilian government would think there's any benefit and profit to be made from accepting all those jews into the country, if yes they'd embrace the cause just as eagerly as they deported communist jews to Germany just a few years back in exchange for nazi money
As mentioned above, Brazil and Argentina were incredibly capricious
I think a lot of “alternate Israel” ideas just don’t work because they ignore so much context and history. Real life isn’t some min maxing efficiency thing.
Gukpard
Gone Fishin'
Something to say is that Vargas permited american antisemitism and it was not very effective. What is used to claim that Vargas was a light antisemite is that he didn't veto the law of quotas of 1934 that copied the quotas of the american law limiting the entry of mentally ill, african and jewish immigrants, but the law was not followed and the number of entries of these three peoples increased progressively during his government.
Laws in Brazil are optional, thankfully for this specific case.
Last edited:
The romani are a better comparison due to also having european discrimination.
It's funny, that was just the position of territorialism and Isaac Steinberg's Freeland League for Jewish Territorial Colonization.
Vargas has got to be the biggest weathervane imaginable: he made deals with fascists and communists, and then threw both off the bus!
So would Vargas, if he got PR and mon-ay, welcome Jews to Brazil? And would he give them some unused jungle land, or would those refugees settle major cities and the South?
Gukpard
Gone Fishin'
He would get them even without PR.
If the axis wins and press him to not accept he still would allow rich jews to pass by. The interesting thing is not Vargas, but Perón. Perón (who was an axis sympatiser) was one of the most pro jewish leaders in Latin America and almost monopolized the jewish imigration in the continent.
And ratlines hence the obsession with argentina on this thread and montefiore had set the groundwork with territorialism.
- Status