Alternate History Could Operation Barbarossa had been succesful megathread

[sillygoose]

You mean southern Slovakia, right? And what about Northern Transylvania and the Northern Banat?

Yes. Transylvania they'd be allowed to keep if they defected before Romania, Banat probably given that the defection would mean Romania then topples and Yugoslavia could even been reached before Tito had achieved official leadership of the resistance.

 

[stevep]

You're talking to sillygoose here, right? Anyway, my own view on this is to look at the evidence wherever it leads, though honestly it's worth noting that the Nazis were already comparing Jews to rats back in this 1940 film:

The Eternal Jew (film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, the dehumanization of Jews was already well-progressed by 1940.

Yes Sillygoose

 

[WolfBear]

Yes. Transylvania they'd be allowed to keep if they defected before Romania, Banat probably given that the defection would mean Romania then topples and Yugoslavia could even been reached before Tito had achieved official leadership of the resistance.

Gotcha.

Anyway, was there any realistic way for Horthy to stop the deportations of Jews earlier than he did in real life?

 

[stevep]

Where did I say the Holocaust didn't happen? I said it was tied to the food situation, but was not exclusively the result of it. The Nazis of course deserve culpability for what they did, because they killed those people. I was answering as question of what role the food situation played in the decision to commit the Holocaust.
As I said Jews were killed prior to the Wansee conference, so food wasn't the sole issue at play, just that food shortages were a major driving factor for genocide from 1941 onwards; if you bother to look up the number of Jewish deaths pre-war, in 1939, in 1940, and from 1941 and onwards it goes up exponentially as the food situation got worse, which by the way was immediately a problem in 1939. Noticing that correlation and the fact that the Nazis themselves and the Jewish World Congress at the time said that was the motivating factor isn't Holocaust denial. If you bothered to read the sources the Einsatzgruppen murders of 1941 were explicitly linked to anticipated food shortages by one of the planners.

When things were falling apart in 1944 Germany itself was starving and the average person was getting less than 2000 calories a day, even heavy laborers (who per Goebbels were already getting shorted food in 1942 and on average had lost 6kg from the pre-war period), so the rush to kill Jews toward the end of the war was still also related to the collapsing food supply, outbreaks of disease due to malnutrition and infrastructure collapse due to the bombing, need to steal resources from Hungarian Jews to finance the war, etc.

As to the claim that the Germans weren't fighting as hard as possible in 1944-45 I think the Allied soldiers who died by the millions in that period would disagree.


As I said the targeting of Jews pre-dates the food shortages, though Aly Goetz (author of one of the books I quoted from) as well as Adam Tooze notes that the theft of Jewish resources pre-war was very important to financing rearmament and preventing the economy from collapsing as coffers were depleted. So even then it is hard to differentiate anti-semitism from material need, especially when the constant looting of resources from Jews in occupied countries then provided loot to be distributed to the German public and not just keep up public morale, but regime loyalty as the bombings and food shortages escalated.

Clearly the Nazis were extremely racist and targeted ethnic groups based on that racism to bear the cost of Hitler's plans, I'm just saying that the genocides are also linked to the food situation as well otherwise the Nazis would have started their genocidal plans considerably sooner than they did if it were just about racism and anti-semitism.

I didn't say you were denying it happened but your were seeking to fudge its causes.

The primary reason the murders increased rapidly from the start of the war was that was when Germany really got its hands on large numbers of Jews. That's when the large scale killings started, especially almost immediately when the large numbers in former E Poland and the USSR came under their control. It was when those methods became too inefficient that they started working towards the death camps.

I never said the German soldiers weren'tr fighting as hard as they could. I was making reference to the economic resources involved in rounding up Jews - and others - and sending them to the death camps, especially when so at least could have been used as forced labourers - which would have been equally brutal but more rational. Similarly why put so much effort into gaining control of the Hungarian Jews in 1944 other than the purpose of making sure as many as possible were dead before the empire fell apart?

 

[sillygoose]

Gotcha.

Anyway, was there any realistic way for Horthy to stop the deportations of Jews earlier than he did in real life?

He stopped deportations?
The only move he could have made was to defect successfully, but botched it.

 

[WolfBear]

He stopped deportations?
The only move he could have made was to defect successfully, but botched it.

Yes, he did, on July 6. The Nazis were able to smuggle an additional couple of trains out of Hungary, but the deportations stopped for good on July 9. They planned to resume on August 27, but got postponed again due to Romania's exit from the war on August 23. By the time that the Arrow Cross came to power in Hungary, the gas chambers at Auschwitz were already closed--but they were tragically and unfortunately able to send tens of thousands of Budapest Jews on death marches.

But Yeah, Budapest actually had a majority of its Jews survive the Holocaust, unlike the Hungarian countryside.

 

[sillygoose]

Crap, the forum ate my reply. Alright I'll have to redo a shorter version.

I didn't say you were denying it happened but your were seeking to fudge its causes.

I'm explaining the causes that have been left out of the standard narrative in response to a specific question about the role of food motivating the Holocaust. That doesn't mean Nazi racism didn't play a role, but if it were the sole motivating cause they would have immediately genocided the 3 million Polish Jews in 1939 rather than waiting until 1942. So clearly Nazi racism or general evilness wasn't the main motivating cause, otherwise why wait until after invading the USSR?

The primary reason the murders increased rapidly from the start of the war was that was when Germany really got its hands on large numbers of Jews. That's when the large scale killings started, especially almost immediately when the large numbers in former E Poland and the USSR came under their control. It was when those methods became too inefficient that they started working towards the death camps.

Which is false, because 3 million Polish Jews were in German hands as of 1939, but they weren't targeted for extermination until 1942. Prior to that point the main cause of death of Polish Jews was starvation or illness related to starvation.
As I've already provided the sources for even the Einsatzgruppen massacres of 1941 were linked to the food shortages that existed before the invasion (the invasion itself was predicated on seizing food, among other resources, per Hitler's own words). The standard narrative about racism being the main driver of the murders doesn't hold up given the timeline of events; all it explains is who was targeted for murder. The main driver of the planned massacres was the shortage of food:

Auschwitz

www.fpp.co.uk

The American Hebrew, New York, December 4, 1942
Report on Extermination
....
The plan was originally submitted to Hitler's general headquarters by Herman Backe, Secretary of State for Economics[3]. Under the plan, "all Jews living in Germany and German-occupied and controlled countries, numbering some five million, should, after deportation and concentration in certain regions of Eastern Europe, be exterminated at one stroke, in order to solve once and for all the Jewish question in Europe."

The plan of Herman Backe, submitted directly to Adolf Hitler, was based on economic reasons, in order to ease in part the difficult food situation buy the annihilation of at least four million persons who would otherwise have had to be fed.

Story from Switzerland telegraphed by Dr Gerhart Riegner, the World Jewish Congress representative in Switzerland, to London and New York in August 1942. (See British Foreign Office papers in the Public Record Office, file FO.371/30917)

I never said the German soldiers weren'tr fighting as hard as they could. I was making reference to the economic resources involved in rounding up Jews - and others - and sending them to the death camps, especially when so at least could have been used as forced labourers - which would have been equally brutal but more rational. Similarly why put so much effort into gaining control of the Hungarian Jews in 1944 other than the purpose of making sure as many as possible were dead before the empire fell apart?

That's the thing, the Jews rounded up were divided into those who were economically useful and those who weren't. By 1944 the only remaining Jews outside of Nazi control were those of Hungary and Romania who still had economic resources which were stolen and used to pay for the war, while Jews who could be worked were sent to camps to act as labor. Everyone else deemed useless was killed in some fashion because food didn't exist to feed them. That meant ultimately that the Holocaust turned a profit for the Nazis, as it got them labor, killed people who weren't deemed useful and didn't then need to be fed, and of course meant all their accumulated resources were available for plunder.

Hungarian Jews were robbed, which was profitable, sent to work if they could, which was profitable as the Germans badly needed labor as they were out of their own men, and removed those who couldn't work who now didn't need to be fed so there was more food for others. It is an horrific logic, but is utilitarianism taken to the extreme.

 

[sillygoose]

Yes, he did, on July 6. The Nazis were able to smuggle an additional couple of trains out of Hungary, but the deportations stopped for good on July 9. They planned to resume on August 27, but got postponed again due to Romania's exit from the war on August 23. By the time that the Arrow Cross came to power in Hungary, the gas chambers at Auschwitz were already closed--but they were tragically and unfortunately able to send tens of thousands of Budapest Jews on death marches.

But Yeah, Budapest actually had a majority of its Jews survive the Holocaust, unlike the Hungarian countryside.

You sure about that? It seems the limitation was more the inability of Auschwitz to handle the traffic:

The Holocaust in Hungary - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The camp resistance reported on 15 July that there had been a pause of several days in the transports after 13 June, and that between 16 May and 13 June, over 300,000 Jews from Hungary had arrived at the camp in 113 trains.[18] According to Höss during his trial, the facilities at Auschwitz could not cope with the numbers, and he had to travel to Budapest to reorganize the transports so that two or three trains would run on alternate days. Altogether, 111 trains were to be used. According to Höss, Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, wanted the deportations to speed up.[15]

 

[WolfBear]

Crap, the forum ate my reply. Alright I'll have to redo a shorter version.

I'm explaining the causes that have been left out of the standard narrative in response to a specific question about the role of food motivating the Holocaust. That doesn't mean Nazi racism didn't play a role, but if it were the sole motivating cause they would have immediately genocided the 3 million Polish Jews in 1939 rather than waiting until 1942. So clearly Nazi racism or general evilness wasn't the main motivating cause, otherwise why wait until after invading the USSR?


Which is false, because 3 million Polish Jews were in German hands as of 1939, but they weren't targeted for extermination until 1942. Prior to that point the main cause of death of Polish Jews was starvation or illness related to starvation.
As I've already provided the sources for even the Einsatzgruppen massacres of 1941 were linked to the food shortages that existed before the invasion (the invasion itself was predicated on seizing food, among other resources, per Hitler's own words). The standard narrative about racism being the main driver of the murders doesn't hold up given the timeline of events; all it explains is who was targeted for murder. The main driver of the planned massacres was the shortage of food:

Auschwitz

www.fpp.co.uk

That's the thing, the Jews rounded up were divided into those who were economically useful and those who weren't. By 1944 the only remaining Jews outside of Nazi control were those of Hungary and Romania who still had economic resources which were stolen and used to pay for the war, while Jews who could be worked were sent to camps to act as labor. Everyone else deemed useless was killed in some fashion because food didn't exist to feed them. That meant ultimately that the Holocaust turned a profit for the Nazis, as it got them labor, killed people who weren't deemed useful and didn't then need to be fed, and of course meant all their accumulated resources were available for plunder.

Hungarian Jews were robbed, which was profitable, sent to work if they could, which was profitable as the Germans badly needed labor as they were out of their own men, and removed those who couldn't work who now didn't need to be fed so there was more food for others. It is an horrific logic, but is utilitarianism taken to the extreme.

Question: Had Poland been an Axis member (Anglo-French fight over Czechoslovakia in 1938 and France subsequently falls in 1939), would the Nazis have still pressed for the extermination of Polish Jewry en masse if they could not quickly defeat the Soviet Union? They'd still have to deal with the British blockade in this scenario if Britain decides to fight on after the Fall of France, after all.

 

[WolfBear]

You sure about that? It seems the limitation was more the inability of Auschwitz to handle the traffic:

The Holocaust in Hungary - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hungary

www.ushmm.org

Despite some hesitation, Regent Miklós Horthy accepted the German occupation of his country. Military resistance was not a realistic option, and the presence of German military forces was welcomed by many as the Red Army drew closer to Hungary’s eastern borders. While Horthy could have resigned, he did not, and he ordered Hungary’s military not to resist the occupation. He thus remained in his position and appointed the members of the new government, while convincing himself that Germany would remove their troops, restoring Hungary’s full sovereignty and freedom of action, as soon as the Jewish community had been eradicated. This price was one he was willing to accept. Horthy withdrew from directly handling Jewish affairs, but he was well aware of what was happening and condoned it.

By early July 1944, Jews had been eliminated from the provinces. The final action would have been the deportation of the Jews of Budapest. However, deterioration of the military situation, increasing international protests, pressure from some individuals around Horthy, and the widely circulated documents describing the mass murder taking place at Auschwitz all combined to influence the Regent to call a halt to the deportations. But he acted half-heartedly and ineffectively. In an early June memorandum to Prime Minister Döme Sztójay, Horthy indicated his desire that certain groups of Jews be spared. Three weeks later, at a meeting of the government on June 26, he repeated this wish, but nothing happened. He finally ordered a halt to the deportations on July 6, and by July 9 they had stopped. His delay in taking firm action cost the lives of several tens of thousands of Hungarian Jewish citizens. He only acted firmly, in fact, when he felt that his authority was being threatened. Convinced that thousands of gendarmes had been concentrated in and around Budapest not to organize the deportation of Jews but to overthrow him, Horthy ordered military troops in from neighboring areas to force the gendarmes out of Budapest. Horthy’s actions reveal two things clearly. First, the Nazis could not proceed with the deportations without Hungarian assistance. Second, Horthy retained significant power and authority even after the German occupation took place. Had he truly opposed the deportation and murder of Hungary’s Jewish citizens and acted a few weeks earlier, he could have saved tens of thousands of lives.

The Germans pressured Horthy to restart the deportations. He yielded and promised to give permission for the continuation to begin in late August. On August 19, the Ministry of the Interior informed the Germans that deportations could start again on August 25. With Horthy’s approval, the government even drafted a written agreement with the Germans regarding the resumption of deportations. Changes in the military situation redrew the picture, however. Romania withdrew from the Axis and switched over to the Allied side on August 23. With Germany’s position in the region radically weakened, Horthy responded in an unusually swift and resolute manner: he informed the Germans that he would not resume the deportations.

After a failed attempt to break away from his alliance with Germany in October 1944, the Nazis forced Horthy to resign and turn power over to the far right Arrow Cross (Nyilas) Party and its leader, Ferenc Szálasi.

 

[sillygoose]

Question: Had Poland been an Axis member (Anglo-French fight over Czechoslovakia in 1938 and France subsequently falls in 1939), would the Nazis have still pressed for the extermination of Polish Jewry en masse if they could not quickly defeat the Soviet Union? They'd still have to deal with the British blockade in this scenario if Britain decides to fight on after the Fall of France, after all.

Given that the Nazis didn't touch Hungarian Jews until Horthy tried to defect and they took over the country likely they'd like Warsaw to decide how to handle their own citizens. Similarly Romanian Jews were largely untouched until late in the war unless by Romanians. If the Germans didn't have to feed them I doubt they'd care since they had more important things to worry about.

 

[WolfBear]

Given that the Nazis didn't touch Hungarian Jews until Horthy tried to defect and they took over the country likely they'd like Warsaw to decide how to handle their own citizens. Similarly Romanian Jews were largely untouched until late in the war unless by Romanians. If the Germans didn't have to feed them I doubt they'd care since they had more important things to worry about.

But how would the Poles be able to feed them?

 

[sillygoose]

But how would the Poles be able to feed them?

Good question, I think Poland was a net food exporter.

 

[WolfBear]

Good question, I think Poland was a net food exporter.

But why didn't this benefit the Nazis when they occupied Poland?

 

[sillygoose]

But why didn't this benefit the Nazis when they occupied Poland?

Disruptions from war, only getting part of the country, Poles not wanting to work as hard for Germany, resistance, etc.
But as mentioned in this article pre-war there was effectively permanent starvation in certain areas and a major peasant uprising in 1937 over problems with Polish agricultural policy:

Second Polish Republic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[WolfBear]

Disruptions from war, only getting part of the country, Poles not wanting to work as hard for Germany, resistance, etc.
But as mentioned in this article pre-war there was effectively permanent starvation in certain areas and a major peasant uprising in 1937 over problems with Polish agricultural policy:

Second Polish Republic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, Poland exported food while some of its people starved?

 

[sillygoose]

So, Poland exported food while some of its people starved?

Seems like. Traditional monarchy style of action.

 

[WolfBear]

Seems like. Traditional monarchy style of action.

And any Polish regime willing to ally with Hitler might prefer that its Jews starve before the rest of the Polish population, right?

 

[bintananth]

(this probably belongs in the gaming adventures thread ...)

One of my brothers-in-law wants a Third Reich rematch against his wife and he wants some practice before he has to face her again. She taught him how to play that game starting with this:

Teaching 3R to a beginner | Rise and Decline of the Third Reich

I'm working up the next lessons for teaching my husband [i]Third Reich[/i] and here's what I'm thinking* ... Lesson #2: Italy invades Yugoslavia in 1939 Lesson #3: Italy invades Greece in 1940 Lesson #4: Invade Norway Lesson #5: A Spring/Summer scenario derived from the A3R

boardgamegeek.com

The entire game is shared - move-by-move in the Sessions forum. He lost Berlin in Winter '41 despite taking London in Winter '40.

 

[sillygoose]

And any Polish regime willing to ally with Hitler might prefer that its Jews starve before the rest of the Polish population, right?

In the scenario you mentioned it would be more an alliance of necessity than choice.

Given the government's actions the regime could be willing to tolerate the peasants and other minorities like the Ukrainians starving as well. Or, given the surplus labor issue and tradition of Polish workers seeking work in Germany, the regime could be like Italy was and cut a deal to send Germany workers to work their farms since a war would see Germany need extra labor to replace mobilized soldiers. Or the regime could take advantage of the situation to centralize the economy and move the peasant class around where their work would make them most effective to produce enough food. So yeah hard to say exactly what they'd do in this situation since we don't really have an analogue situation with the regime to base a scenario off of.

Edit:

POLAND WOULD PACIFY AGRARIAN ELEMENTS; Senate Passes Grain Premiums--Pardon for Witos Likely (Published 1938)

Sen votes export premium and processing tax to aid growers on surplus

www.nytimes.com

Assuming this article is accurate then in 1938 Poland had a surplus of 1 million tons of grain to export, which was about 60% of what Germany got through trade with the Soviets in 1940-41. Assuming the Polish army mobilizing then allows for the absorption of surplus labor (meaning no drop in production of food due to mobilization), then that should be ok to feed everyone at pre-war levels. Though not adequate it is no worse than what existed without the war. Of course that assumes there is no physical disruptions from Soviet invasion and the Ukrainian independence movement potentially working with the Soviets.

If we go by your scenario Germany doesn't have to feed Poland from its own resources, so that is a help as is much less disruption to key agricultural regions without a German invasion. Not only that, but the Baltic states would still be able to export instead of being absorbed by the Soviets as they were in 1940.

The wrinkle for Germany and a co-belligerent Poland is that Romania would be in the Allied camp so no grain or oil exports from them to help, especially if the Soviets move forces into the country and try to invade Hungary. Depending on how long the war goes that could prove fatal.