The Jewish problem and solution in CP victory world

[mikegold]

What do you mean "Jewish problem?".

He means the fact that Jews in Eastern Europe were oppressed and excluded to the extent that, at the time, it seemed that integration into the majority society was never a viable option. With the benefit of hindsight it seems that this could have happened in a less dystopian 20th Century (if Eastern Europe's 20th Century wasn't a dystopia, the term has no meaning). It certainly seemed unlikely at the time, however.

I am a little uncomfortable with the term though, given that historically it had very racist and even genocidal connotations. I know that in the 1910's timeframe it wasn't perceieved that way - one might also have spoken of the Polish Problem, the Irish Problem, etc., and often with the most beneficial of intentions. Even so, it might be better to be clearer in the OP if not in the thread title.

There are three plausible options for World Jewry at this point, politically speaking: a Yiddish speaking state in Eastern Europe, a Zionist state in Palestine, or political (if not linguistic) integration over time into the local majorities. The first two - and perhaps the third as well - require a Great Power sponsor, or an exceptional amount of luck. Mass emigration and genocide are the other, more depressing, possibilities, of course.

I don't see a Sephardic statelet in Salonica as realistic by this timeframe, btw. The city did have a Ladino-speaking Jewish majority in the early 20th century, but what power is going to end up simultaneously opposed to Greek, Bulgarian, and Turkish claims? The right POD might give you a British protectorate that evolves in that direction, but it would have to be long before WWI.

 

[Devolved]

What do you mean "Jewish problem?".

Quite. What does he mean. I would raise a red flag if I could be bothered.

 

[I Blame Communism]

If Germany wins in 1918 there's going to be extensive anti-semitism. From 1916 on the 3rd high command had moved from a policy of including Jews in the Burgfrieden and suppressing anti-semitic manifestations towards the use of the Jews as a scapegoat for public anger about inequality of sacrifice and the broken promises of the imperial system. The army, by making it known that a 'Jewish military census' had been felt necessary and conducted but not publicising the result (which was that Jews were in no way 'shirking') was complicit in this. It wasn't a systematic persecution - as has been pointed out, there were a few very important Jews in Germany's civilian industrial community - but it was running rampant on right-wing circles that are going to be able to drum up public opinion in the kind of society arising from a victorious Germany. One ought not to entertain illusions in that regard. A victorious kaiserreich is not the country to go bleeding its heart about eastern European Jews.

Also, there were Jews beyond the Pale in Russia: they (and many gentiles) had fled east to escape the war in huge numbers, and indeed the Pale had been legally abolished even before February. The arrival of Jews, identified as it was with social breakdown, provided fuel for popular anti-semitism, which was often really a thoughtless protest against wealth and power inequalities or anything you didn't like. "Down with the Jew Kerensky! Long live Trotsky!," etcetera.

The Ukrainian nationalist intellectual leadership, also, were not for the most part anti-semitic themselves (which is a lot more than you can say for the Whites). They made very little effort to control their peasant-soldiers, but this was a time of mass social collapse and nobody could really control anything: even the Red Army, which of course was masterminded by a Jew from Ukraine, certainly had its outbreaks of anti-semitic violence among the common soldiers at times. Mind, by 'independent' Ukraine we presumably mean the Hetmanate, so that's moot.

 

[Snake Featherston]

He means the fact that Jews in Eastern Europe were oppressed and excluded to the extent that, at the time, it seemed that integration into the majority society was never a viable option. With the benefit of hindsight it seems that this could have happened in a less dystopian 20th Century (if Eastern Europe's 20th Century wasn't a dystopia, the term has no meaning). It certainly seemed unlikely at the time, however.

I am a little uncomfortable with the term though, given that historically it had very racist and even genocidal connotations. I know that in the 1910's timeframe it wasn't perceieved that way - one might also have spoken of the Polish Problem, the Irish Problem, etc., and often with the most beneficial of intentions. Even so, it might be better to be clearer in the OP if not in the thread title.

There are three plausible options for World Jewry at this point, politically speaking: a Yiddish speaking state in Eastern Europe, a Zionist state in Palestine, or political (if not linguistic) integration over time into the local majorities. The first two - and perhaps the third as well - require a Great Power sponsor, or an exceptional amount of luck. Mass emigration and genocide are the other, more depressing, possibilities, of course.

I don't see a Sephardic statelet in Salonica as realistic by this timeframe, btw. The city did have a Ladino-speaking Jewish majority in the early 20th century, but what power is going to end up simultaneously opposed to Greek, Bulgarian, and Turkish claims? The right POD might give you a British protectorate that evolves in that direction, but it would have to be long before WWI.

I fully expect that this will continue but the phrasing "Jewish problem" is not a good choice of words even if it's meant to reference how bad that repression would be. The Jews of Eastern Europe and Central Europe will certainly remain a repressed minority no matter where they are, but the idea of Zionism as a means to resolve this repression won't have a universal embrace by any means. And if the CP win then the odds of states with Jewish full-scale generals turning into anything approximating Nazism are slim to none, and Nazism will remain a backwater ideology of the southern German northern Austrian regions.

 

[mikegold]

The Jews of Eastern Europe and Central Europe will certainly remain a repressed minority no matter where they are, but the idea of Zionism as a means to resolve this repression won't have a universal embrace by any means.

Never did (though it was close to universal in the Jewish world between about 1967 and 1995, and an overwhelming majority from 1948 to the present). The bigger problem is creating conditions on the ground to support carving states out of the Ottoman Empire. Given that its one of the Kaiserreich's most critical allies, why would they do this? And once the Turks maximize Mesopotamian and Arabian oilfields, they'll have the power to resist the various rising independence movements.

The Zionists never had a problem finding individual sellers in Palestine. But once they start reaching a critical mass, the Turks will get nervous and crack down on immigration to Palestine. They didn't oppose Jewish immigration per se, but they very wisely don't want to create a new nation with aspirations of statehood on their own soil.

It's not impossible to have Germany support *Zionism* in Palestine, but it requires a.) Turkey to be an anti-German power, b.) Germany to win the war, and c.) Germany to win the colonial war, and particularly in the Middle East. In other words, not OTL's WWI.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Never did (though it was close to universal in the Jewish world between about 1967 and 1995, and an overwhelming majority from 1948 to the present). The bigger problem is creating conditions on the ground to support carving states out of the Ottoman Empire. Given that its one of the Kaiserreich's most critical allies, why would they do this? And once the Turks maximize Mesopotamian and Arabian oilfields, they'll have the power to resist the various rising independence movements.

The Zionists never had a problem finding individual sellers in Palestine. But once they start reaching a critical mass, the Turks will get nervous and crack down on immigration to Palestine. They didn't oppose Jewish immigration per se, but they very wisely don't want to create a new nation with aspirations of statehood on their own soil.

It's not impossible to have Germany support *Zionism* in Palestine, but it requires a.) Turkey to be an anti-German power, b.) Germany to win the war, and c.) Germany to win the colonial war, and particularly in the Middle East. In other words, not OTL's WWI.

Sure, but I mean it'd be even less so than IOTL. Any attempt to have an equivalent of Haganah and Irgun found Israel will be damned as much by most Jews in the world as it was by anyone else, and without a Holocaust there'd be very little room to fuzzy up what was actually going into make Israel. Assuming that the Ottomans allowed enough Jews to form Haganah-Irgun in the first place, of course, which I hardly see as likely. Ironically Palestinian nationalism of a sort may still come into existence but its targets will be the Ottomans and it will be as militarily successful as it was IOTL (not very).

 

[BlondieBC]

Transjordan means the far side of the Jordan river from the European perspective; i.e., the modern Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. You're referring to Cisjordanian Palestine. A little archaic in modern parlance, but the term would have been understood in the era.

Ok, I have just seen British maps labeling Jordan and Palestine as Trans-Jordan.

Two of Germany's top men are Jews - A Ballin, the shipping magnate who presumably won't kill himself if the CP win, and Walter Rathenau who served as a financial advisor of the highest order.

While I can agree that newly-independent Poland and Ukraine, with their independent identities tied up in pushing nationalism, are going to see problems with their sizable Jewish populations, I don't think that the rest of Europe will to any great degree.

I also don't see any hope for an independent Israeli state with the Ottomans retaining control over Palestine - why would they want to stir up a hornet's nest? On the other hand, Zionist-funded immigration is less of a problem because money buys land and the landholder gets compensated. In time, maybe this would lead to a degree of self-rule.

But I don't think that paragraph 3 above solves paragraph 2 above, since Zionist funding would not likely go to what Westernised Jews would see as their somewhat backward East European counterparts

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Largely Agreed. The only other place with anti-Jewish Violence will be Russia, if Russia retains a large Jewish population. After defeats, the Russians were know to do Pogroms.

An example of the Jewish funded program was the Rothschilds plan to help build/improve the Ottoman railroads in 1915. In exchange for helping finish either the line to Baghdad or improve the line in Syria/Jordan, a certain number of Jewish settlers would be allowed into the area. I have not found the details of the discussion, but I is easy to imagine a railroad to Aqaba and a couple of spurs to some mining areas (oil shale, fertilizer). Likely the workers of the mines will be Jewish, and there will be a small symbolic settlement in a more important area. So, net/net, a few hundred Jews in Jerusalem, a few thousand Jews working two mines (Syria, Jordan), Rothschild make some money, Ottomans get a better rail network, and hopefully, the local residents are not too upset.

These are the types of deals that would be done by the Ottomans in a CP win scenario.

I think in a CP win, there will be a major crisis in the Zionist movement. Once it is clear the Holy Land will not be the homeland, the Zionist either have to find another home (where?) or disband from the defeat. Most likely, the ancient pattern will continue, and the Jews will simply migrate to an area of Europe or an European colony that is less hostile than Poland.

 

[I Blame Communism]

'Russia' (the USSR) was at one point the only European country that sent people to prison for saying the word 'zhid' ('yid'), but isn't selective history wonderful?

 

[BlondieBC]

I am a little uncomfortable with the term though, given that historically it had very racist and even genocidal connotations. I know that in the 1910's timeframe it wasn't perceieved that way - one might also have spoken of the Polish Problem, the Irish Problem, etc., and often with the most beneficial of intentions. Even so, it might be better to be clearer in the OP if not in the thread title.

There are three plausible options for World Jewry at this point, politically speaking: a Yiddish speaking state in Eastern Europe, a Zionist state in Palestine, or political (if not linguistic) integration over time into the local majorities. The first two - and perhaps the third as well - require a Great Power sponsor, or an exceptional amount of luck. Mass emigration and genocide are the other, more depressing, possibilities, of course.

I don't see a Sephardic statelet in Salonica as realistic by this timeframe, btw. The city did have a Ladino-speaking Jewish majority in the early 20th century, but what power is going to end up simultaneously opposed to Greek, Bulgarian, and Turkish claims? The right POD might give you a British protectorate that evolves in that direction, but it would have to be long before WWI.

I am comfortable with the term "Jewish Problem" or "Jewish Question" since these were the terms used in books and in the press to discuss these issues. IMO, Hitler program should be referred to as the "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem". IOTL, other solutions were tried, and Hitlers was the last solution to the European Jewish problem. The lack of a deep understanding of ethnic issues pre-Nazism should not lead us to change the terms used in the historical debates.

I also don't know how one discusses Jewish history in Europe without discussing violence, racism, and religious discrimination. There are long periods of peace for some Jews in some locations, but there is also a lot of hatred and violence.

On the independent Yiddish state, do you have any sources from the time period that actually seriously discuss creating one? The closest I have found so far is the idea to treat Yiddish as a German dialect to justify annexing portions of Poland/Russia by the Kaiser. The idea was unpopular, and died a quick death.

With so many Greek exiles by the Ottomans, displacing of the Jews in Saloniki is almost a given. IMO, only the Ottomans retaining control of the port would allow it to remain Jewish majority. So the Autonomous city of the Ottomans, with usage rights of the port by A-H, Bulgaria, and Serbia is possible, but the POD required is in the Balkan Wars.

 

[Lord Grattan]

I fully expect that this will continue but the phrasing "Jewish problem" is not a good choice of words even if it's meant to reference how bad that repression would be.

Perhaps "Jewish situation" (thinking of the term sitz im Leben - roughly meaning life situation)? Using "Issue" rather than "problem" also came to mind, but that's only slightly better.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Perhaps "Jewish situation" (thinking of the term sitz im Leben - roughly meaning life situation)? Using "Issue" rather than "problem" also came to mind, but that's only slightly better.

Perhaps more "the Anti-Semites Problem" as the problem is not with the Jews but with the people who will hate them no matter which kind of CP victory scenario we discuss?

 

[mikegold]

I think in a CP win, there will be a major crisis in the Zionist movement. Once it is clear the Holy Land will not be the homeland, the Zionist either have to find another home (where?) or disband from the defeat. Most likely, the ancient pattern will continue, and the Jews will simply migrate to an area of Europe or an European colony that is less hostile than Poland.

It's a little late for Uganda, Patagonia, or the Sinai. The fundamental problem is as always - globally there are about 16 million Jews in the early 20th Century. A majority of them (those in Eastern Europe and the Middle East) would potentially be willing to relocate to a sovereign homeland. This is especially true if its in the Promised Land, but given persecution, they would probably go anywhere. Many of these potential citizens are educated and possess useful skills, there's a common identity, and Hebrew is a potential language of communication. Even though it's a dead langauge except for a few intellectuals around Eliezer ben Yehuda, its like Latin in the early modern era in Christendom - a language of scholarly communication that is widely known, at least among the elite.

But, this population is scattered and is a majority only in a handful of unconnected cities. Most of the habitable world is populated, if sparsely in places, so to create this homeland you have to either displace or integrate somebody. The fundamental problem of Zionism is that it ignored or underestimated this problem until pretty late. Zionists used to say "A Land Without a People, For a People Without a Land." They genuinely believed that the relatively small Palestinian Arab population would become a small and contented minority in the new Jewish nation, and that the development Zionism would bring would improve their lives.

Not shocking when you think of the timeframe in which the ideolofy developed. In the 1880's-1910's, the settlement of the US, Canadian and Australian fronties was ongoing and then a recent memory. But by the time the Zionist vision could be realized, certain attitudes had changed. Given that the Zionists don't have a military or other coercive power to start with, at some point you need a local sponsor. This sponsor will have to be aware that the Zionists will, at a minimum, want something like white dominion status in the long term.

Namibia? Could that work?

On the other hand, Zionism responded to a real problem - and not just the national aspiration. Life for Jews in Eatern Europe (roughly, in pre-1914 terms, the Pale, Galicia, and Romania) was pretty rotten. Small-scale genocide happened at a moment's notice. So the Zionism-as-national-refuge argument had real currency well before the Holocaust.

 

[lounge60]

What Jewish Problem?
In CP Empires Jewish are citzen like others.

 

[mikegold]

What Jewish Problem?
In CP Empires Jewish are citzen like others.

With the partial exception of Galicia, I tend to agree. Jews were full citizens of Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire.

But Poland, Byelorussia, the Ukraine, Lithuania, and Romania? I'm not saying that it's impossible for the Jews to become full, respected citizens of these countries. But it would take some lucky rolls of the dice.

 

[Goldwater64]

I believe that "Jewish Question" is the term you were looking for.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

I Blame Communism, what selective history?

Russia's record towards the Jews is quite clear and the reason so many Jews chose to leave Russia in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

 

[mikegold]

I Blame Communism, what selective history?

Russia's record towards the Jews is quite clear and the reason so many Jews chose to leave Russia in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

There was a brief period in the 1920's when the USSR was pretty good for the Jews. The LitBel SSR had Yiddish as an official language; there was even a national Moscow-based newspaper called der Sovyetisher Heymland. This attitude didn't last once Stalin came to power.

 

[BlondieBC]

It's a little late for Uganda, Patagonia, or the Sinai. The fundamental problem is as always - globally there are about 16 million Jews in the early 20th Century. A majority of them (those in Eastern Europe and the Middle East) would potentially be willing to relocate to a sovereign homeland. This is especially true if its in the Promised Land, but given persecution, they would probably go anywhere. Many of these potential citizens are educated and possess useful skills, there's a common identity, and Hebrew is a potential language of communication. Even though it's a dead langauge except for a few intellectuals around Eliezer ben Yehuda, its like Latin in the early modern era in Christendom - a language of scholarly communication that is widely known, at least among the elite.

But, this population is scattered and is a majority only in a handful of unconnected cities. Most of the habitable world is populated, if sparsely in places, so to create this homeland you have to either displace or integrate somebody. The fundamental problem of Zionism is that it ignored or underestimated this problem until pretty late. Zionists used to say "A Land Without a People, For a People Without a Land." They genuinely believed that the relatively small Palestinian Arab population would become a small and contented minority in the new Jewish nation, and that the development Zionism would bring would improve their lives.

Not shocking when you think of the timeframe in which the ideolofy developed. In the 1880's-1910's, the settlement of the US, Canadian and Australian fronties was ongoing and then a recent memory. But by the time the Zionist vision could be realized, certain attitudes had changed. Given that the Zionists don't have a military or other coercive power to start with, at some point you need a local sponsor. This sponsor will have to be aware that the Zionists will, at a minimum, want something like white dominion status in the long term.

Namibia? Could that work?

On the other hand, Zionism responded to a real problem - and not just the national aspiration. Life for Jews in Eatern Europe (roughly, in pre-1914 terms, the Pale, Galicia, and Romania) was pretty rotten. Small-scale genocide happened at a moment's notice. So the Zionism-as-national-refuge argument had real currency well before the Holocaust.

Your analysis is good.

I would think Namibia is too dry to support that many people, but in an CP win, there might be other colonies. So the majority of Jews living in sub-Sahara Africa is doable, I am not sure it would be done.

People will scream, but the only undeveloped area I can see is the Chad basin. Divert enough of the Congo (Ubangi) river for irrigation, and that area could be Zion. Despite the Chinese talking about doing it in the present, I have not found technical details to see if it is really possible. But the Americans diverted the Colorado in the 1930's, so my guess it is doable. I am doing a CP timeline, and I am tempted to give the Jews the Lake Chad Basin.

More realistically, I think the Jews would have to chose the least hostile power. The A-H had a good track record with Jews compared to the rest, so it they survive, I could see like a Krakow/Pale, Pole-to-Jewish population swap. Germany seemed to have issue mostly with the Beards and not being "German enough", so a Jewish autonomous region attached to German is not out of the question. A lot depends on the POD.

People ask questions like this a lot, and most of the time the correct answer is almost anything can happen, depending on the POD. WW1 could be won by anything from a long, hard CP win in 1918, to a quick win due to a major failure in Russian mobilization.

I was not criticism the reason behind Zionism, just stating that if it is the 1920's or 1930's, and the Ottoman empire is strong, Zionism has a real crisis. It will either find a new solution (homeland) or the movement will die.

 

[mikegold]

I was not criticism the reason behind Zionism, just stating that if it is the 1920's or 1930's, and the Ottoman empire is strong, Zionism has a real crisis. It will either find a new solution (homeland) or the movement will die.

I basically agree. Which means that the long-term prognosis for the Eastern Askenazim is kind of depressing - persecution, transience, and eventually - if they are lucky - safe harbor in the West. The remainder will, at best, be about as accepted as the Roma in Hungary or Romania in the present day. And given that there will be lot more of them, it may well be worse.

 

[BlondieBC]

I basically agree. Which means that the long-term prognosis for the Eastern Askenazim is kind of depressing - persecution, transience, and eventually - if they are lucky - safe harbor in the West. The remainder will, at best, be about as accepted as the Roma in Hungary or Romania in the present day. And given that there will be lot more of them, it may well be worse.

Roma are a good point. For my TL, I will need to look at a stateless person option like the Roma.

Now, an interesting question. Given the choice between keeping all their customs or becoming "Germanized", which would the Eastern Jews chose?

It seems like a small thing in hindsight, but a lot of the non-Jewish German issue with smaller things like the beard, they style of clothing, and learning to speak proper German, not Yiddish. If the Eastern Jews started to look on the outside more "German", I think a lot of attitudes would change in Germany. Germany seemed fine with Germanized Jews, but had some real acceptance issues with more traditional Jews.