The WEST germans to the arms of the capitalist, also more material to accuse west germany of being a continuation of the nazis, because now they probably would be, so easier to keep the western soviet puppets scared in place.
Last edited:
PC - Israel created from german territory post WW2?
- Thread starter EnvarKadri
- Start date
Assuming WWII went as OTL, the Soviets aren't in control of Holstein.
Given Stalin's track record with the Jews, I'm not sure he'd be able to keep them there, or if he'd even desire to set up such a thing in the first place. I can see the whole thing turning into a Jewish Autonomous Oblast on the Baltic, with Jews never making up a majority of the country and the whole thing eventually being folded back into Germany.
"Forced to move here by Stalin" does not sound like a recipe for a long-lasting Jewish state, especially if his successors are more open to allowing emigration from it to Israel.
Not really, no. Germany here has demonstrated the ability and desire to invade countries and commit genocide, the Arab ones haven't, especially not in the late '40s, which is when this decision is being made. If they knew about the history of OTL Israel, maybe they'd decide on somewhere else, but they don't.
Well my old man lived in Poland and to the end of his days he didn't know who he feared more them or Russia....and we live in Canada. I wouldn't want to live next door to such a threat, and I would not force anyone else to do the same !!!
Just sounds like more punishment to me.
The problem with this idea was that Israel wasn't given to the Jews, they took it. So first we need someone to want to set up a second Jewish homeland, it's pretty much given that it would be USSR. So where could we see it being set up. I think the most likely places would be East Prussia as the most likely, Pomerania as the second most likely and Silesia as the least likely. There's not really any other realistic choices, at least not one which wouldn't result in East Germany not being viable.
I think the Germans would learn to live with the loss of this territory, we would likely see slightly more antisemitism in Germany, but it will likely mostly disappear like revanchism did. East Prussia would likely result in very little increased antisemitism, as it was obvious Germany would lose it anyway. Pomerania less so. But I think Germany will pretty much accept it. I also think we will see the same development in how Gemany saw the Holocaust as in OTL, it's pretty much part of domestic kulturkampf, which I can't see ending any other way in a West Germany looking like OTLs.
I think the Germans would learn to live with the loss of this territory, we would likely see slightly more antisemitism in Germany, but it will likely mostly disappear like revanchism did. East Prussia would likely result in very little increased antisemitism, as it was obvious Germany would lose it anyway. Pomerania less so. But I think Germany will pretty much accept it. I also think we will see the same development in how Gemany saw the Holocaust as in OTL, it's pretty much part of domestic kulturkampf, which I can't see ending any other way in a West Germany looking like OTLs.
I doubt it. Years about being fed antiSemetic propaganda, in come the Jews who force Germans in large amounts off their land?
Goebbels would dig himself out of his grave to applaud you for doing such a masterful job driving people into the Nazi's hands.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
If nothing else, the knock on effects are likely to make Germany far less open to immigrants/give it a stronger ethnic identity (Look at those regions populated in France by decendents of repatriatied Pied Noirs for an example). Assuming we still end up with a unified Germany in the future (likely) and a generally conservative France with a EU type instiution, expect it to be far less open. (for good or for ill depending on your opinion)
David Ben-Gurion once said to Lord Moyne that the only way to make a post-war Jewish state in Germany was if the Jewish refugees were herded there at gunpoint. No one wanted a Jewish state in Germany. The Zionist movement didn't want East Prussia, or Uganda, or Argentina, or any of the other proposed areas. They wanted Eretz Yisrael, ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, and for it to be a safe haven from persecution. Putting it in East Prussia guarantees that this state would be targeted.
I could see Stalin deciding Kaliningrad/East Prussia would make for a decent spot for a Jewish ASSR. He supposedly was quite close to deporting all of Soviet Jewry to Birobidzhan before dying historically.
Germans (and maybe Lithuanians depending on how the boundaries are drawn) being testy with the Jews and Jews feeling very uncomfortable would be features, not bugs, in the eyes of Comrade Stalin. He deliberately drew OTL SSR borders to result in eventual ethnic tensions.
Deporting all of Soviet and East European Jewry to Kaliningrad is workable (in the Soviet sense).
Alternatively, if you want to be cheeky, you could establish a Jewish homeland in the Volga German ASSR, which is the eastern half of today's Saratov Oblast. Technically, it is a Jewish homeland in "German Territory" - just different Germans than OP intended.
I'm sure the Kaliningrad Jews and the Norweigans would get along due to their shared love of smoked salmon.
Germans (and maybe Lithuanians depending on how the boundaries are drawn) being testy with the Jews and Jews feeling very uncomfortable would be features, not bugs, in the eyes of Comrade Stalin. He deliberately drew OTL SSR borders to result in eventual ethnic tensions.
Deporting all of Soviet and East European Jewry to Kaliningrad is workable (in the Soviet sense).
Alternatively, if you want to be cheeky, you could establish a Jewish homeland in the Volga German ASSR, which is the eastern half of today's Saratov Oblast. Technically, it is a Jewish homeland in "German Territory" - just different Germans than OP intended.
I'm sure the Kaliningrad Jews and the Norweigans would get along due to their shared love of smoked salmon.
Last edited:
I think the underlying assumption in these threads (which pop up every so often) is that Palestine was "given" to the Jews after WWII.
It wasn't.
In 1945, there were half a million Jews in Palestine. They lived in dozens of communities, including 3 large cities, as part of a greater community stretching back to the 1870s. They have a pseudo-government that levied taxes, built and maintained roads, built and maintained power plants and power lines, had a postal service (though that was largely replaced by the British), had a police force, had a militia, had a parliament, and many of the other trappings of a "real" government. The declaration of a Jewish state in Palestine in Jewish-majority areas was a recognition of an already-occurring situation more than it was a gift, though the precise boundaries were externally decided (in particular, the awarding of the mostly-empty Negev to Israel).
There were Jewish nationalist groups subscribing to Territorialism (We'll take any territory for a Jewish state) around the turn of the century, but they eventually died out. It was an alternative path to Zionism, but had much less support at its peak. Zionism could rely on a historical connection to the land in question.
The Territorailsts were all "armchair Zionists". They hung out in cafes in Vienna and Zurich and talked. There was never large-scale Zionist settlement anywhere except Palestine.
Would a European territory "given" in 1900 have worked? Maybe. After WWI? Still maybe, less likely (already 80,000 Jews there).
By 1945? Dead on arrival. Only Stalin forcing Jews to move somewhere and preventing them from leaving could have done it.
As others said, voluntarily Jews wouldn’t want to be anywhere near Germans after WW2 and this would cement antisemitism in Germany since the Nazis said the whole time that Jews will steal german land and now suddenly it happens and unless you force Jews to go there, few Jews will want to live so close to Germany
Well for most of his life Stalin was pragmatic enough to have jews serving in the politburo( like Lazar Kaganovich) and if he really creates his own version of Israel, he will probably try to hide his anti-semitism
This depends on who is his successor
Even under Krushev leaving the URSS wasn't exactly an easy thing to do
As @Jackson Lennock pointed out Stalin could use this jewish state to have more controll over eastern europe
Would they be given weapons? And we have to remember that Jews weren't given Palestine, but where instead giving a passing nod that they could own half of it. The half including all the places with Jewish settlements, plenty of areas still with Palestinians everywhere, PLUS the empty Negev. They ended up needing to militarily take and hold the land themselves. The Soviets orchestrated pogroms in Poland to discredit Poles, though I believe high Polish church members and others refused to accept that the Jews didn't have it coming or something. It came from a quote where a bishop or cardinal refused to denounce the violence. Also, why would the Soviets depopulate an area just for Jews? They wanted Kaliningrad for themselves so they had an ice-free Baltic port (this was at the time when there was still the fiction going on that the Baltic states hadn't been annexed by the Soviets) and the Poles were needing to be paid off somewhat from the loss of their land, and so they had somewhere to put all the Poles and and Ukrainians from their land. They did put a lot of their own Ukrainians in Pomerania and Silesia, though as they gave them money, nice buildings, and larger farms they did better than the when the Russians ethnically cleansed their half of Galicia and dumped everyone in tundra without buildings. Also, we need to look at how the Soviets kept eliminating groups deemed foreign. Before and during WWII foreign communists were constantly murdered, and basically any group in the border would be almost completely removed, until or unless a Soviet SSR or puppet state was made, at which point they might be dumped there. I don't see their being enough Polish Jewish left to form a strong state, and given how the Soviets called Jewish groups Fascists if they said the Holocaust had a focus on killing Jews rather than liquidating 'surplus workers'. That was mostly during the time of Stalin and such, though. Afterwards when things settled down Jews were probably just expected to stay put, and not ever ask if they could leave, lest they be deemed Zionists. The Soviets might welcome foreign Jews to whatever this independent state would be, but I imagine it would end up like all the other times they offered amnesties, or tried getting Russians, Armenians, and others to come 'home'.
The problem is that the Roman massacre happened a few thousand years before the Holocaust
FillyofDelphi
Banned
I can see the principal behind it. If you're going to compensate the victim, there's a very sound legal and moral logic that it should come at the expense of the victimizer. But it's an "armchair argument": built on principals rather than facts on the ground
Define "them". The Holocaust happened to those who wound be doing the settling and their immediate community which they knew and interacted with. Crimes done to people they don't know if ever could but happen to share a certain set of beliefs is alot less emotionally salient, especially since those were conducted by a group that wouldent be their immediate neighbors
I don't think the Jews are going to want to live in a chunk of former germany because it might tickle some sense of poetic justice
i also agree with the point that such a move is like to just foster anti semitism in the area (look at how antisemitism flourished in the levant!)
The problem is I can see exactly why if your a Jew in 1945 (not forgetting that 1933-45 is far from the only bad times for Jews) you might well only feel safe in explicitly Jewish run and maintained society (or at least one with Jewish primacy and where Jewish safety is a primary goal). But the paradox is such a society has to be formed out of pre-existing situation that is not that, and there will be repercussions.
I'm not sure this is particular correct in it's wider inference, as in yeah there was about half a million jews in post 1945, but those figures had increased greatly from the 1878 figures and 1922 figures (for lets face it fairly obvious reasons)
1878 Ottoman census puts the total in the area of 20,000-25,000
1920 British government report has it up to about 76,000 (and citing the recent russian Pograms as contributory cause)
So at both points a distinct minority of total 472k and 700k population respectively. So the declaration of the Jewish state where in 1945-8 there was Jewish majority might be a recognition of an already occurring situation in terms of what had been a very recent change, but it was a recent change. (and of course post 1948 this continues)
Sorry if you're not inferring that then ignore all this
i also agree with the point that such a move is like to just foster anti semitism in the area (look at how antisemitism flourished in the levant!)
The problem is I can see exactly why if your a Jew in 1945 (not forgetting that 1933-45 is far from the only bad times for Jews) you might well only feel safe in explicitly Jewish run and maintained society (or at least one with Jewish primacy and where Jewish safety is a primary goal). But the paradox is such a society has to be formed out of pre-existing situation that is not that, and there will be repercussions.
I'm not sure this is particular correct in it's wider inference, as in yeah there was about half a million jews in post 1945, but those figures had increased greatly from the 1878 figures and 1922 figures (for lets face it fairly obvious reasons)
1878 Ottoman census puts the total in the area of 20,000-25,000
1920 British government report has it up to about 76,000 (and citing the recent russian Pograms as contributory cause)
So at both points a distinct minority of total 472k and 700k population respectively. So the declaration of the Jewish state where in 1945-8 there was Jewish majority might be a recognition of an already occurring situation in terms of what had been a very recent change, but it was a recent change. (and of course post 1948 this continues)
Sorry if you're not inferring that then ignore all this
Last edited: