WI the Nazis sold Jews as slaves

In Max Sinister's Hitler's Mediterranean strategy, the Nazis end up conquering the Middle East instead of having Barbarossa take place right away. This happens-

Still, the Arab rulers demanded something in exchange for their oil. This was a difficult situation for Germany: They hadn't exactly a lot of money left, and Hitler didn't want to risk Arab revolts. The solution was found in January 1942, after Himmler had met the Great mufti of Jerusalem, who shared the nazis' antisemitism. During their meeting, they talked about the evil British empire, western decadence (the west excluding Germany, of course), the "Jewish danger", the great history of the Arabs and also about the time after the war. And thus, the solution was found. Two birds with one stone.

It sounded crazy, but it certainly had an appeal for the nazis. During early 1942, nazi officials had some talks with Arab leaders who were nazi sympathizers, and when Barbarossa started, they had found an agreement.

They had agreed that slavery was to be reintroduced in the lands in Africa and Asia conquered by the nazis (in fact, in many places it never had died out first); and they had further decided that the nazis would provide the Arabs with slaves - Jewish slaves, to be exact. In fact, many Arabs were interested in well-educated slaves. In return, the Arabs would give the Germans the needed oil and also other goods - Egyptian cotton, oranges, and some other luxuries for the women of the nazis.

And thus, in 1942 the nazis started shipping Jews from Odessa through the Bosporus to the harbors of Aleppo and Beirut, where they were sold to Arab leaders collaborating with the nazis, who later would sell those slaved Jews to other Arabs, making a good profit. There even were talks about expanding the slave business after the war, when Germany expected to own colonies in sub-saharan Africa, selling the Arabs black slaves then. During 1942, 800,000 Jews went that way. Mostly they came from the Ukraine and Poland - the nazis expected the least resistance against the "Endlösung" here, and the way was shortest. The Jews came on freighters full of several hundred people, under conditions similar to the train passages IOTL.

Consequently, the U.S. ends up declaring war on Germany instead of the other way around.

Is this notion plausible in any way?
 
Why even bother calling them slaves? I mean it seems like it adds a lot of problems that simply sending "Volunteer Laborers" does not.
 
Why even bother calling them slaves? I mean it seems like it adds a lot of problems that simply sending "Volunteer Laborers" does not.

In the Arab nations, calling them "slaves" carries no stigma. In Germany, well, they are untermenschen. Hell, maybe they'll be called "chattel" or something because slave implied that they're human.
 

maverick

Banned
A few more charges are brought up at Nuremberg; Albert Speer and many others end up hanged, people have yet another reason to hate Nazi Germany...
 
You have to feed slaves.

Edit: Having fully read the op....I can see why the Nazis would go for the middle eastern slave route. Simply not within the Reich. Too many issues. Also, if you are trying to seperate Germans from Jews is there any worse way than having jews working for Germans?
 
Last edited:

Valdemar II

Banned
Honestly I don't see the great difference for Germany, the Nazis already enslaved people, in fact without the full Holocaust and the fact that this has only happen for East European Jews, they may be seen in a better light in that the Nazi leaders and SS are blamed and not Germans collective. Of course that may lead to a Japanese attitude to the War. The problem are for the Arabs whom are going to take some of the blame.
 
Honestly I don't see the great difference for Germany, the Nazis already enslaved people, in fact without the full Holocaust and the fact that this has only happen for East European Jews, they may be seen in a better light in that the Nazi leaders and SS are blamed and not Germans collective. Of course that may lead to a Japanese attitude to the War. The problem are for the Arabs whom are going to take some of the blame.

Concur. Things are going to be lot tougher for the Arabs postwar. Maybe the Allies mount military expeditions to free the slaves? At that point, Arab military forces are negligible, certainly compared to the Allied juggernaut.
 
Concur. Things are going to be lot tougher for the Arabs postwar. Maybe the Allies mount military expeditions to free the slaves? At that point, Arab military forces are negligible, certainly compared to the Allied juggernaut.

Must admit though, I'm getting cool images in my head....

*JD Fantasy Moment*

So that's what Moses in a tank would look like....
 
It's interesting. I certainly don't see Germany getting ANY mercy after the war.
If they did this instead of the Holocaust, wouldn't they get more mercy?
Consequently, the U.S. ends up declaring war on Germany instead of the other way around.
This part is questionable. Many countries were still engaging in slavery in this time perio, such as Saudi Arabia, and the Japanese empire for that matter. So it strikes me a questionable whether the US would declare war for this reason alone.
 

Markus

Banned
In Max Sinister's Hitler's Mediterranean strategy, the Nazis end up conquering the Middle East instead of having Barbarossa take place right away. This happens-

That looks like a metaphor of the trans-atlantic slave trade to North America to me. The Americans needed slaves back than but I´m not aware of any labour shortage in the Mideast at that time. I don´t know what the mood in general was, but Arabs in Palestine wanted to get rid of the Jews, so "travel" in the opposite direction might be more likely.


Consequently, the U.S. ends up declaring war on Germany instead of the other way around.

Is this notion plausible in any way?
The USA had already started a shooting war with Germany by mid-41.
IMO with the clear intention to create a pretext for an official DOW.
 
Thanks for digging up my old idea, Strategos. :) Now my 2 cents:

- I had the idea because I didn't want a TL where even more Jews are killed.
- It's hard to imagine that people could hate the nazis more than IOTL. Then again, without a holocaust, there is nothing else in TTL that is equally bad or worse. OTOH, this is true about the holocaust either.
- I admit that I didn't give a thought whether the Arabs would need slaves. But the nazis want their oil, and what else could they sell them? Nazi Germany would need pretty much anything for its war machine.
- @Hubris: But Imperial Japan was condemned after the war too... And Saudi-Arabia has a lot of oil...
- @Markus: Actually I had not intended to write a metaphor about the transatlantic slave trade.
 

Red Wolf

Banned
In the Arab nations, calling them "slaves" carries no stigma. In Germany, well, they are untermenschen. Hell, maybe they'll be called "chattel" or something because slave implied that they're human.

What makes you say the term "slave" had no stigma in the Arab World. Yes, Saudi Arabia never abolished slavery until the 1960s, but that was the exception.

That said, as others have commented, they'd probably just use other terms. They already had slavs as slave laborers, they just used them for something different.
 
Whilst the Nazis may have a deal with the Arabs for their oil they still have to ship it north. One option would be to build tankers. Alternatively they could ship it through Turkey on trains or along a pipeline. That is going to require lots of manpower in a less than pleasant environment. It would not take much to think of sending Jews and Slavs to be the roustabouts.

In any event the German are going to get much oil for each slave they sell.
 
What makes you say the term "slave" had no stigma in the Arab World. Yes, Saudi Arabia never abolished slavery until the 1960s, but that was the exception.

That said, as others have commented, they'd probably just use other terms. They already had slavs as slave laborers, they just used them for something different.

Slavery continues today in a number of Arab-dominated nations, including Saudi Arabia (still), the UAE, Egypt, and Mauritania (arguably not an Arab nation). In some states, it's more labor, in others it primarily lives via camel-jockeys and domestic servants (I read a few months ago an article (here describing an Egyptian family keeping a 10 year old girl as a domestic slave in the United States). Slavery lacks the same stigma there because abolition was largely imposed by external forces, whether Ottoman or European, rather than internal reform as was the case in Europe and the United States.

Now, most people don't own slaves in these states, and that's been the status quo for at least a century in most cases, but the same cultural stigma does not apply (especially not in the 40s!), and trying to apply it is the great sin of applying your own culture's values to another (though since you have 1 post and this is it, I guess it's possible that you are an Arab who posted because this does offend you).
 

Red Wolf

Banned
Slavery continues today in a number of Arab-dominated nations, including Saudi Arabia (still), the UAE, Egypt, and Mauritania (arguably not an Arab nation). In some states, it's more labor, in others it primarily lives via camel-jockeys and domestic servants (I read a few months ago an article (here describing an Egyptian family keeping a 10 year old girl as a domestic slave in the United States). Slavery lacks the same stigma there because abolition was largely imposed by external forces, whether Ottoman or European, rather than internal reform as was the case in Europe and the United States.

Now, most people don't own slaves in these states, and that's been the status quo for at least a century in most cases, but the same cultural stigma does not apply (especially not in the 40s!), and trying to apply it is the great sin of applying your own culture's values to another (though since you have 1 post and this is it, I guess it's possible that you are an Arab who posted because this does offend you).

Don't worry, I'm not an Arab and I wasn't offended. Now yes, the guest workers in much of the Arab World are grossly mistreated and this should be condemned, but I think this is more comparable to the way many industrial workers and immigrant workers were treated in the late 19th and early 20th Century than comparing it to slavery.

As for my posts, I've been lurking for awhile and just started posting.
 
This would result in a different plot for this movie:
200px-Exodus_poster.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_(1960_film)
 
Just an offhand question: Was antisemitism that common in Arab nations before the creation of Israel? For some reason I was under the impression that Arabs and Jews got along well before the whole creation of the state of Israel thing blew up into a string of wars.
 

Markus

Banned
- @Markus: Actually I had not intended to write a metaphor about the transatlantic slave trade.

It just reminded me of it, like the whole slave theme in the H...r H...n novels. By the way, I don´t mean to equate your work with these novels.


Cash wrote: Just an offhand question: Was antisemitism that common in Arab nations before the creation of Israel? For some reason I was under the impression that Arabs and Jews got along well before the whole creation of the state of Israel thing blew up into a string of wars.
Certainly in Palestine and IIRC even before the mass immigration in the 1930´s. Generally the arab nations were at least pro-German, to what degree they were violently anti semitic I don´t know.
 
Top