What if Britain had let all the Jews of Europe into Israel in the 30s?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Nazis deserve all the blame for doing it, but the Palestinians exacerbated it
So your partially blaming Palestinians for the holocaust for not wanting to be kicked out of there land?
Jews have said “next year in Jerusalem” for millennia. Why would they want a state in some random location?
So jews have more claim to palestine than the people who live there and the majority of people. So we clearly know your view of this situation know that the natives don't actually matter.
 
The Nazis deserve all the blame for doing it, but the Palestinians exacerbated it.
But cant you basically add such a long list to that of nations that had more influence, ie GB, USA, CAN, AUS.....Poland, France and Soviets for not winning battles..... every South and Central American nation.....every European nation that didn't stand up to Germany in time.....etc...That its effectively dilutes any responsibility until its worthless blame?

I mean if somebody kills somebody they share a house with is it the motel owner on the other side of the town fault because the victim was thinking about moving out to the motel the day before? Even if the motel owner was bored and didn't want to bother opening up that day for only one person, would they really get any blame if they had no idea it was going to happen and had no other connection?
 
So your partially blaming Palestinians for the holocaust for not wanting to be kicked out of there land?

So jews have more claim to palestine than the people who live there and the majority of people. So we clearly know your view of this situation know that the natives don't actually matter.

No, I’m not blaming them, I’m just saying it’s disingenuous to say they are the totally innocent victims of European antisemitism.

The Arab world has a long history of antisemitism as well, look up the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was friends with Hitler.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
If the Palestinian Arabs had been more willing to share their land, the British would have let more Jewish refugees in, and more Jews would have survived the Holocaust.

The Nazis deserve all the blame for doing it, but the Palestinians exacerbated it.
WTH?

Did you actually blame the residents of a de facto colony for the decisions of the COLONIAL POWER?

Then expanded it by stating the Palestinians made the Holocaust WORSE?

Jesus wept.

Kicked for a week.
 
Is this not more that post WWI colony was out of style and the LON only awarded mandates, not just to GB but also Japan in pacific islands etc....?

What it did was create a legal and later *moral* framework for why the British were there. This allowed in 1947, the UN to take it back in what was a major British diplomatic disaster.

IOW, same as OTL overall, only worse for the Palestinians.

Great for averting the casualties of the Holocaust, but again, the Palestinians will be seething on how they're the ones paying the bill.

Are Germans today seething that they lost Kaliningrad Oblast? The Germans recognise that Russia was so much bigger then them, that there was nothing they could do. The problem in the M.E. as far as Israel is concerned is because she is so small, the Arabs feel that they can do something about it.

Jews have said “next year in Jerusalem” for millennia. Why would they want a state in some random location?

Several locations were offered but never did the locals or authorities ever give them an area except in Russia under Stalin but few would want to go there?
 
What it did was create a legal and later *moral* framework for why the British were there. This allowed in 1947, the UN to take it back in what was a major British diplomatic disaster.
But would it be any different from a colony?

UN can only take it back due to British not wanting it as the British have a Veto in SC, but they didn't want the problem so handing it to UN was the easiest way out.... at least for GB.

I simply don't think the UN did anything, GB wanted to get out of the middle between Jewish/American and Arab public opinion and ditch one more unnecessary expense on HMT?
 
Who was put into his position by the British.

What exactly are you trying to say or imply here? The British appointed him because he was a prominent local leader, not vice versa. And they definitely didn't appoint him because he was a Nazi sympathizer (not least of which because there weren't Nazis yet when he was appointed).
 
What exactly are you trying to say or imply here? The British appointed him because he was a prominent local leader, not vice versa. And they definitely didn't appoint him because he was a Nazi sympathizer (not least of which because there weren't Nazis yet when he was appointed).
He wasn't the natural leader of the community but rather a hand picked one by the British. Arabs didn't go lets put this anti semite in charge did they not the brits thats on brits. Saying arabs are blatant anti semite using the grand mufti is bullshit as he got the least votes. They appointed because they could use him three other people had more influence so what does your point mean?
 
He wasn't the natural leader of the community but rather a hand picked one by the British. Arabs didn't go lets put this anti semite in charge did they not the brits thats on brits. Saying arabs are blatant anti semite using the grand mufti is bullshit as he got the least votes. They appointed because they could use him three other people had more influence so what does your point mean?

The first British-appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was the currently serving Hanafi chief mufti in the city when the British conquered it. Amin al-Husseini was a kinsman of his. Both were from one of the wealthiest and most prominent families in the area. Amin al-Husseini was an Arab Nationalist who had served in the Arab Revolt army and gone to Faisal's court in Damascus before the French shut it down, and was actually notably anti-British by the time he was appointed - but he was too prominent a local politician, from too-prominent a family, and the British felt that they needed to appoint him. And him specifically, due to his prominence in local policy (and so not some other Husseini).

Considering that he didn't start espousing pro-Nazi or blatantly anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic ideas until after he'd been appointed, it seems unlikely that the British hand-picked them so that future generations would be able to accuse Palestinians of anti-Semitism.
 
But would it be any different from a colony?

UN can only take it back due to British not wanting it as the British have a Veto in SC, but they didn't want the problem so handing it to UN was the easiest way out.... at least for GB.

I simply don't think the UN did anything, GB wanted to get out of the middle between Jewish/American and Arab public opinion and ditch one more unnecessary expense on HMT?

It would not have gone to the UN, most likely like other British areas, it would have been abandoned with some face-saving short term political manoeuvres.
 

Lusitania

Donor
It would not have gone to the UN, most likely like other British areas, it would have been abandoned with some face-saving short term political manoeuvres.
Why are we discussing UN. The thread was about more Jews escaping the holocaust in the 1930s. The UN only came into existence in 1945. So it would not of been in play.
 
unfortunelty the league of nations did nothing regarding the Italian invasion of Ethiopia and was neutered by the major powers who controlled it. So it unfortunately was useless.
So they’d just send a strongly worded letter about how upset they are about the events like iotl?
 
Why are we discussing UN. The thread was about more Jews escaping the holocaust in the 1930s. The UN only came into existence in 1945. So it would not of been in play.

The British problem was amplified because as a result of their activities in Palestine they destroyed the legal foundations of their mandate.

League of Nations maybe?

After ww2, the League of Nations mandate were placed under the trusteeship of the United Nations.
 
unfortunelty the league of nations did nothing regarding the Italian invasion of Ethiopia and was neutered by the major powers who controlled it. So it unfortunately was useless.

In 1947, when Britain desperately needed money from the US and the military situation in the world. The UN was in this case not irrelevant. Useful is another question.
 
Are Germans today seething that they lost Kaliningrad Oblast? The Germans recognise that Russia was so much bigger then them, that there was nothing they could do. The problem in the M.E. as far as Israel is concerned is because she is so small, the Arabs feel that they can do something about it.
While I appreciate the point you're trying to make, these two things are NOTHING alike.

1) Germany kind of started the whole mess, and it's been drilled into their children and grandchildren that "German Nationalism = Bad". Perhaps a bit overly so. But there was an eventual acceptance that while much of old Germany was lost, there is still plenty of it left.

By contrast, the Palestinians effectively lost their entire country to foreigners. They eventually got Gaza and the West Bank back, but even then, these are dotted with Israeli settlements and security checkpoints (not to mention the infamous 10' concrete wall in Gaza) that people feel they haven't really gained any of it back.

2) While the Germans in former Prussian territory were forcibly evicted by Soviet, Polish, and Czech authorities post-war, they still had the territory of modern day Germany (or East and West Germany back then) to resettle, recover, and eventually their great-grandchildren accepted the loss and moved on with their lives - because they have something worth living for.

The Palestinians never had that. The Palestinian diaspora carried the weight of the lost homeland around with it as part of its cultural identity, and while many eventually settled down in decent social and economic positions in many countries, most Palestinians never did. The majority of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars were forced to live in temporary refugee camps that had to become long-term population center. Many of these 'refugee camps' are now urban centers similar to Detroit at its worst times, particularly those in Lebanon (where the Palestinians were never truly accepted) and some in Jordan (which took the bulk of these refugees). The countries housing these people never truly accepted them, or still has considerable ethnic tensions regarding them. Jordan, which reportedly has anywhere between 40 to 60% of its population as of Palestinian origin, still has problems with the Palestinian-Jordanian divide, with the latter feeling they've been forced to accept foreigners onto their land, and the Palestinians sometimes feeling unwanted despite knowing there's really no other place for them now. Palestinians may become captains of industry and business in Jordan, but the problems are still there. The Syrians treated their refugees slightly better, but everyone knows it's mostly for propaganda purposes and to create people willing to fight Israel for them in the long run.

The 1990s peace talks were supposed to give the Palestinians a homeland at long last, something to call their own. And yet even after two decades, every step forwards seems to be matched by another step back. Much of the Palestinian lands are still under Israeli control. They don't have control of their borders, they're under constant pressure to kowtow by Israel on security issues, and they don't have much in terms of resources. The PLO proved a corrupt administrator. Many feel noting has been gained, which is why HAMAS won elections in Gaza and the Palestinians becoming more and more disgruntled about a peace "that has given us nothing". And things keep on going.

The Germans, for however screwed they got after WW2, were at least given a chance to recover, rest, and move on. The majority of Palestinians keep getting shafted, and so they could do nothing but seethe in anger for decades.
 
Eh? Saudi Oil didn't really start supplying a lot of oil til 1945. In 1941, Ras Tanura was only refining 3000 barrels a day. After 50 million Dollars of upgrades during the War, it was doing 50,000 a day.

Most of the Wartime Oil was Persian, and they aren't Arabs and they really didn't care what was going on in Palestine.

I looked up where I had the information from and this is more exactly what it says about the reevaluation of Britain´s immigration policies in Palestine in the late 1930s, taken from A History of the Modern Middle East, by William L. Cleveland and Martin Bunton (6th. edition, 2016), page 246: "This reassessment was prompted not only by the violence within Palestine but also by the impending war in Europe. In any coming conflict, Middle East oil resources and airfields would be vital to Britain. With the Arab states becoming increasingly involved in the issue of Palestine, Britain recognized the need to placate them in order to secure their future cooperation".
 

Lusitania

Donor
It is important to try and keep this thread from becoming politicized and into anti-particular ethnic group. We are not here to criticize either the Palestinians nor Israelis.

The purpose was to determine what could of been done regarding helping Jewish people fleeing persecution in the 1930s. Let’s keep all discussion to before the war. If we wish to discuss the post WW2 situation we should create a separate thread.

That being said when discussing this we have a lot of strong opinions on both sides and some very firm beliefs. I myself included but I remind us all to be considerate of others feeling and keep all discussions civil and respectful for all.

Thanks
Lusitania
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top