Talk:Madagascar Plan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Germany (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject Countries (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Africa / Madagascar (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Madagascar (marked as Mid-importance).

Commission to Madagascar[edit]

Hm... I've read once that Jewish Poles sent commission to Madagascar, to estimate chances for settlement - this was supposedly before the war and supposedly was sponsored by Polish government. Commission returned with negative result. Anyone knows more about that? Szopen 17:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Heinrich Haertle mentions it on page 165 of Freispruch fuer Deutschland (Verlag K.W. Schuetz, Goettingen, 1965)

"Dieser Traum ist allerdings nicht nur von Theodor Herzl, sondern auch der polnischen Regierung getraeumt worden, die im Jahre 1937 eine Kommission damit beauftragte, zu pruefen, ob man nicht die 3 millionen polnischer Juden nach Madagaskar verfrachten koenne."

My translation:

This dream was certainly dreamed not only by Herzl, but also by the Polish Government, which in the year 1937 established a commission to examine whether it might not be possible to freight the 3 million Polish Jews off to Madagascar.

This sounds like a tall story. Would the Polish government or Jewish Poles have dared to investigate such a plan without the prior approval of the French government, (which would have otherwise gone ballistic had it found out)? It would have been a non starter without French approval in which case there will records somewhere in France. Who the Hell was Haertle anyway?

This reference would be best edited out of the article as unsafe. At the very least it must have references added. It brings the whole article into disrepute at present. Kombo the mzungu (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The episode is confirmed in this article with primary sources. Involvement of the French government is mentioned there too. Also see this. I'll come back later with more information. Zerotalk 23:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Lehi Zionism[edit]

Should a mention be made to the Lehi (group) proposal for a Nazi-friendly Israel? Since there is no proof of German answer, it may be too unrelated. --Error 00:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The only reference to Palestine in regards to the Madagascar Plan seems to have come out of Eichmann's meeting with Jewish leaders before he wrote his report. The leaders suggested Palestine, as opposed to Madagascar or any other place, for a Jewish settlement, but Eichmann flatly denied it. So I think Lehi may be unrelated, though a mention of Eichmann's denial is probably in order. Primaryspace 18:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Madagascar Plan only including Jews?[edit]

As we know the Nazis' Final Solution did not only incorporate Jews, but also other social 'undesirables' like homosexuals, paedophiles and career criminals

Just wondering (been ages since I studied any of this) if the Madagascar Plan also included these 'undesirables' or if it was only centred on Jews

no only Jews

Edits to "Collapse" section[edit]

While most of us, myself included, can certainly agree that mass murder is indeed heinous, it would seem that not all of us can. Therefore, use of this term is not-so-subtle POV. In addition, linking that term to the Holocaust is a violation of the easter egg guideline found at Wikipedia:Piped link.

The new language aims to preserve all the meaning of the sentence but via neutral wording and historically-accurate phrases.

ArmadniGeneral (talkcontribs) 02:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Reality of the plan[edit]

Given that Nazi concentration camps were already making widespread use of forced labor in 1938, it is very difficult for me to imagine Nazis giving any serious thought to the idea of wasting ships and fuel to transport Jews all the way to Madagascar to live free lives - nor can I picture Jews doing much useful slave labor for the Reich so far removed from the action. The article makes it sound like the Germans would really have gone through with this cockamamie idea if only the British had not been such trouble... I'm thinking that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof, because it's just so much easier to dismiss everything about the Plan as propaganda. 03:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncertain what you're getting at. Which "extraordinary claims" are you referring to? Note that the plan was to use the British navy for transportation only after the war was won, so there would have been no waste from the standpoint of the Reich. The transported Jews were not meant to be used as slave labour, they were meant to be forcibly expatriated out of Europe. The Madagascar Plan was outlined before the decision to exterminate Jews was finalized. Primaryspace 01:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I also find this article puzzling. Final Solution notes that the Plan was abandoned in 1942 after the Wannsee Conference, but the Holocaust has been in full swing in mid-1941 with the Operation Barbarossa (see Holocaust in Lithuania), and concentration camps and such were already operational to certain extent years before that. How come the Nazis could have discussed this seriously while at the same time carrying out their genocide? We certainly need to write in more detail on the relationship between this fictional plan and the terrible reality. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Note that the plan was to use the British navy for transportation only after the war was won...." Even without British cooperation or even an armistice with Britain, the transfer of Europe's Jewish population to Madagascar could have been accomplished over time using passenger ships of neutral states. After June 1940, France was such a neutral state. Britain did not dare to invade Madagascar until May 1942, months after the US had entered the war. Hadding (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hadding, what you say isn't quite true. The Germans could not have transported millions of Jews to Madagascar (think of the logistics even if they were transported in the same condition as the cattle cars to Auschwitz). The Royal Navy had imposed a blockade on Germany and the rest of Occupied Europe - which really included France since it was only the southern portion, and that away from the Atlantic coast, which was "unoccupied". I don't think the Nazis needed the RN to transport the Jews, but they did need the blockade lifted, I mean it wasn't as if they were able to get Vichy France to import oil and natural rubber for them in defiance of the British blockade! As for Britain "not daring to occupy Madagascar". You misunderstand. Britain occupied Iceland, which was theoretically neutral even if Denmark had been occupied. The point was that they feared the Germans would occupy the island, and it's position in the mid-North Atlantic made it extremely strategically important for the vital Battle of the Atlantic. Madagascar, in contrast, was not seen as a threat. It was on the other side of the World from Nazi Germany. There was no hope of the Germans sending significant military resources there, and with South Africa, India, and Australia ringing the Indian Ocean, it seemed sown up for the Allied cause. It only became an issue when the Japanese took Singapore and the Dutch East Indies, and occupied Burma. Then the worry was that the JAPANESE might take it over and use it as a base to control the Indian Ocean. Once that happened, a force was sent out. So it was the entry of the Japanese into the war, by attacking the Americans, that brought it about. Why would Britain want to isolate 10's of thousands of troops in occupying Madagascar in the midst of a war where they were fighting for survival when it was no threat, and they would gain little from doing so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jews to Madagascar[edit]

I think Jews to Madagascar should be merged into this article. It has some information not in this one currently, but is more or less the same article. Thoughts?--TM 13:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. The other article is a source-less snippet. By the way, the slogan was inspired by this plan. --Poeticbent talk 01:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The merged article is not referenced and has nothing to do with Nazi Germany or the Nazi "Madagascar Plan", the topic of this article. I've removed the sentence in question. Primaryspace (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

One important thing to note here is that there were two, possibly related, phenomenon that generally fall under this heading in Poland. One was the ONR slogan - which is what the article currently describes - and which would (presumably) involve forcible deportations in a manner similar to the Nazi plan. The other was a "Madagascar Plan" proposed by the French government (Blum's government if I'm not mistaken) to create a Jewish Homeland on Madagascar. This one would have been voluntary and would probably be more similar to the British Uganda Program or the proposal for Jewish Homeland in Alaska. I think it's pretty important to distinguish between the two.radek (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Some related sources: [1], [2]. The idea seemed to originate with the French who were seeking a way of dealing with the refugee "problem" of Jews from Germany after Nazis came to power. The ONR slogan came later.radek (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Evian Conference[edit]

The timing of the Hitler's approval of the plan was designed to concide with the Evian conference and show that the Nazis were doing more to help the Jews then the British and their allies were. The territorialists generally encouraged Jews to migrate to Argentina.

This contradicts[edit]

The widespread idea that Nazi Germany wanted to exterminate the Jews. (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]


for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Madagascar Plan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC) I'll be reviewing this shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    Some spots where the prose could use some clarifying.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
  • Lead:
    • "The proposal called for the handing over of Madagascar, then a French colony, to Germany as part of the French peace treaty." But it never was actually part of the peace treaty (was there even a peace treaty signed between Germany and France in WWII?) so this statement seems a bit misleading - it implies that there was a peace treaty and that this proposal was in the treaty. Can we rephrase? Green tickY
      • There was an an armistice signed on 21 June (Hitler used the same railway car where the Germans had signed their own instrument of surrender after WWI). The plan was not included in this surrender. I will rephrase.
    • Dislike the parenthesis for (1940) in "The Plan was postponed after the Germans failed to defeat the British in the Battle of Britain (1940) and was permanently shelved in 1942." ... suggest trying "The Plan was postponed after the Germans failed to defeat the British in the Battle of Britain later in 1940 and was permanently shelved in 1942." which has the advantage of making it clear that the Battle of Britain took place later in 1940 and didn't coincide or precede the proposal of the Plan. Green tickY
  • Origins:
    • Why do we discuss events in 1905 then jump back to 1885? Seems very disjointed to me. Suggest integrating the two paragraphs of this section into one paragraph that is strictly chronological. Also, can we have some sort of introductory sentence such as "In the late 1800s and early 1900s there were a number of resettlement plans for European Jews that were precursors to the Madagascar Plan." or something like that which will help set the stage for the origins information. Green tickY
  • In Nazi Germany:
    • Any reason we use "regime" rather than "government"? Regime has the connotations of something imposed by force or illegitimate. I rarely see the term "regime" used in referring to the Nazis in power - it's usually government or other such terms that imply that the government was approved of by most Germans. Green tickY
  • Planning:
    • "The Madagascar Jews, noted Rademacher, could be used as hostages to ensure "future good behaviour of their racial comrades in America"." Can we make it a bit clearer that these Jews aren't Jews already resident in Madagascar, but the proposed resettled Jews? Green tickY
    • What's the point of saying "On 20 June, Hitler discussed the Madagascar Plan with Grand Admiral Erich Raeder.? Did they discuss what help/aid the Navy would need to provide the Plan? Otherwise, this factoid is just sort of drifting out there... without much clue why it's mentioned. Green tickY I think it ties in with the idea of transporting the deportees by sea, but it can come out.
    • "While Rademacher's plan called for the appearance to be given to the outside world that the colony was self-governing and had been given autonomy, Eichmann made it plain in his draft that the SS would control and oversee every aspect of life on the island, which they would govern as a police state." Very convoluted sentence - can we simplify or reword? I got lost in the first half somewhere... Green tickY Try this new wording, which is clearer and closer to what the source says.
    • You've got a link for General Government, but a quickie explanation wouldn't go amiss for most folks who aren't grounded in the history of the time period. Green tickY
    • Why "calling for the resettlement of a million Jews per year for four years" but "viewed the forced resettlement of 4,000,000 Jews to Madagascar"? Green tickY Not sure I understand the problem, but I changed the wording anyway. See what you think.
    • Why "recently appointed head of the Judenreferat III der Abteilung Deutschland (Jewish Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs)," but all the rest of the German governmental departments are just given their English equivilent names? And the one later that is given both in German and English is not italicized ("chief of Amt II (Office 2) in the") Green tickY
  • Plan abandoned:
    • "The United Kingdom strongly resisted during the Battle of Britain, and Germany was unable to achieve a victory. The British fleet would not be at Germany's disposal to be used in evacuations, and planning for the Madagascar proposal stalled." Stilted - can we reword this a bit to make it less choppy? Green tickY
    • "...for use as slave labour or to be murdered." awkward - perhaps "eitehr for use as slave labour or to be murdered."Green tickY
    • "The total number of Jews murdered during the resulting Holocaust is estimated at 5.5 to six million people." We need a sentence before this making it clear that the Jews weren't actually deported to Siberia, but that the Holocaust took place in Eastern Europe. Green tickY
  • See also:
    • How were these chosen and what relevance do they have to THIS topic. I can't really see how useful any of them are - are we seriously equated the Jewish settlement in the Japanese Empire as useful to understanding the Madagascar Plan? Also the Haavara Agreement? Green tickY This stuff was here when I arrived; removing.
  • Sources:
    • What makes the Rosenberg source (on a reliable source? Is she a subject matter expert? Likewise the two Jewish Virtual Library sources? Green tickY
      • I checked in the WP:RSN archives, and it looks like the Jewish Virtual Library has been deemed a reliable source. Nevertheless as GAs should demonstrate our higher quality work, alternative sources have been found for these facts. Everything in the Rosenberg article looks okay to me, but I have switched to alternative sources anyway since I am not really sure who she is.
Nice little article, just some issues with the sourcing and with some prose spots that could use some clarity.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. Thanks so much for taking on this review. I think I have addressed all your concerns. Please let me know if there's anything I have missed. -- Dianna (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Changes look good. Passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and for your insightful suggestions. -- User:Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)