Stalin deports the Soviet Jews en masse to Central Asia in 1940-1941

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,194
SoCal
#1
What if, after the Fall of France in 1940, Stalin would have deported the Soviet Jews en masse to Central Asia within the following year (summer of 1940 to summer of 1941)? The logic behind this would be that this would be a part of the process to relocate the Soviet Jews to Birobdizhan but that Birobdizhan can't sustain an influx of several million Jews at once--hence their mass deportation to Central Asia as a provisional measures towards eventually getting all of them to settle in Birobdizhan.

If Stalin actually does this, are Britain and the US going to be much less inclined to help out the Soviet Union after Operation Barbarossa?

Also, please keep in mind that in this scenario the entire Soviet Jewish population is going to be out of Hitler's grasp during Operation Barbarossa due to all of them already ending up in Central Asia. Of course, some of these Jews would undoubtedly die along the way, but given that a majority of Soviet Jews (within the January 1941 borders) were murdered in the Holocaust, surely this would be a superior alternative in comparison to real life.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this scenario and on the effects that this scenario might have had?
 
Oct 2013
14,443
Europix
#5
Firstly, I don't see any logical reason for Stalin doing it. Stalin was whatever beast names we wanna call him, but he wasn't an ilogical person nor stupid.

On the other hand, the existence or inexistence of large populations of Jews is totally irrelevant to Barbarossa plan. I don't think the Jews were even considered as a factor in Barbarossa.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,194
SoCal
#6
Firstly, I don't see any logical reason for Stalin doing it. Stalin was whatever beast names we wanna call him, but he wasn't an ilogical person nor stupid.
Stalin already created a Jewish autonomous oblast in Birobdizhan. Why do this if a lot of Jews aren't going to show up?

On the other hand, the existence or inexistence of large populations of Jews is totally irrelevant to Barbarossa plan. I don't think the Jews were even considered as a factor in Barbarossa.
Yes, I know that. That wasn't my point here. Rather, my point here is to come up with a realistic way to have much more Soviet Jews survive Operation Barbarossa and its aftermath. In real life, the Soviets managed to successfully evacuate 1.0-1.5 million Jews further east, but something like 2.5-2.7 million Jews were left behind as the Nazis conquered these areas. (Another million Soviet Jews already lived farther east even before the start of Operation Barbarossa.) I want to save as much of these 2.5-2.7 million Jews as possible in a realistic way after the Fall of France.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,194
SoCal
#8
Ok, I see.

(although, it's simpler to kill Hitler and coupler of Nazi guys .... )
Georg Elser tried to kill Hitler; it didn't work. Unfortunately, Hitler had the luck of the devil. :(

Also, to clarify--I want a scenario where the Allies win WWII after the Fall of France and where a lot more Jews are saved. Obviously having France not fall in the first place would be easier, but unfortunately the French let us down in regards to this. :(

If the top Nazi leadership is eliminated in some sort of huge assassination attempt in 1940, then there might not be a Holocaust but the Allies might also have no chance of winning WWII. After all, a more "rational" Germany might be more willing to make an alliance with the Soviet Union in order to dismember the British Empire. I really don't like colonialism--including British colonialism--but replacing British rule in parts of the Third World with German or Soviet rule wouldn't have necessarily been an improvement.
 
Oct 2013
14,443
Europix
#9
Georg Elser tried to kill Hitler; it didn't work. Unfortunately, Hitler had the luck of the devil. :(

Also, to clarify--I want a scenario where the Allies win WWII after the Fall of France and where a lot more Jews are saved. Obviously having France not fall in the first place would be easier, but unfortunately the French let us down in regards to this. :(

If the top Nazi leadership is eliminated in some sort of huge assassination attempt in 1940, then there might not be a Holocaust but the Allies might also have no chance of winning WWII. After all, a more "rational" Germany might be more willing to make an alliance with the Soviet Union in order to dismember the British Empire. I really don't like colonialism--including British colonialism--but replacing British rule in parts of the Third World with German or Soviet rule wouldn't have necessarily been an improvement.
I really dunno, friend.

From the strict perspective of avoiding the Holocaust, URSS should have not respected the clauses of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and liberate the Eastern Poland, making the remnants of the Polish army an (circumstantial) allied army (a bit like Romanian army in 1944-45) and offer Romania the Transylvania instead of taking Bessarabia, making it a (circumstantial) ally. It would have broken the Barbarossa. Avoid the Holocaust too.

But that's even more improbable than Your scenario.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,194
SoCal
#10
I really dunno, friend.

From the strict perspective of avoiding the Holocaust, URSS should have not respected the clauses of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and liberate the Eastern Poland, making the remnants of the Polish army an (circumstantial) allied army (a bit like Romanian army in 1944-45) and offer Romania the Transylvania instead of taking Bessarabia, making it a (circumstantial) ally. It would have broken the Barbarossa. Avoid the Holocaust too.

But that's even more improbable than Your scenario.
Ironically, had France not fallen, the Soviet occupation of eastern Poland might have ironically saved the Jews there since there would have been no Operation Barbarossa had France not fallen. As for Romania, the decision to give northern Transylvania to Hungary was Hitler's, not Stalin's. Stalin actually returned northern Transylvania to Romania in 1944-1945. I do wonder if Romania would have participated in Barbarossa had it not lost Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, though.
 

Similar History Discussions