# Talk:Madagascar Plan

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadding  (talk • contribs) 13:45, 16 August 2008
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)

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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannigaholic  (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 October 2006

no only Jews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.3.76.108  (talk • contribs) 16:28, 5 August 2012
There was no "final solution to the homosexuals and career criminals" problem. Just Jews. The other groups were persecuted but in incomparable numbers.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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. 70.15.116.59 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 212.39.162.130 (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.68.144.99  (talk • contribs) 14:04, 22 February 2011

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)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Some spots where the prose could use some clarifying.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

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? Y
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. Y
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. Y
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. Y
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? Y
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. Y 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... Y 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. Y
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"? Y 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") Y
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? Y
"...for use as slave labour or to be murdered." awkward - perhaps "eitehr for use as slave labour or to be murdered."Y
"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. Y
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? Y This stuff was here when I arrived; removing.
Sources:
What makes the Rosenberg source (on About.com) a reliable source? Is she a subject matter expert? Likewise the two Jewish Virtual Library sources? Y
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)

When I think about compelling presentation, I think about taking the reader on a journey through time. Madagascar Plan was not a country (!) but a failed concept inspired by extreme prejudice. I placed the portrait of the 19th century creator of this concept at the top of our 2013 good article in order to differentiate the layout from the standard country layout where the maps do matter more than individuals. Every reference I added spoke of a different aspect of Paul de Lagarde role in the plan. The new citations were not repetitious. They came from relevant books. Strehle (reverted by Diannaa) claimed that de Lagarde had good relations with Jews in spite of his views. Rees (again, reverted by Diannaa) said that de Lagarde wanted the Jews eliminated. Also, please be assured that I put a lot of thought into what I do. I have a hard time understanding the need for a complete overhaul of my direct and straightforward improvements. My words were rewritten with bits and pieces removed for no particular reason. WP:STACKING was introduced in the process, so now, his picture shows side by side with Nazi Germany (not with the Origins of the concept) ... Here's a quote from one of our Wikipedia relevant policies: It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it.  Poeticbent talk 23:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The main reason I don't think the photo belongs in the info box is because Paul de Lagarde is not the person most identified with the plan; I would suggest that might be Eichmann (but we don't have any Nazi-era free images of him, unfortunately). It's not necessary to include three citations for the simple fact that a man wrote a book, a fact that is unlikely to be challenged. Your caption covered material already present in the body of the article and thus seemed redundant to me. I have changed from a Holocaust sidebar to a full-width footer nav template to address the layout issue. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Would it not be worth mentioning the "Jewish Autonomous Oblast" (f. 1934) in the east of the Soviet Union in the "Origins" section, since the Uganda Plan already gets a mention? I certainly am not suggesting that the one was a precursor of the other, but it is certainly of at least tangential relevance. It might also work as a "see also". Excellent article by the way! 129.67.64.157 (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A "see also" is a good idea, if it hasn't already been done, I'll add it now. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That box on the right that says "Madagascar Plan" only shows information about Madagascar. Either the title needs to be changed, information about the plan needs to be add or the box needs to be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuteranopia (talk • contribs) 02:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 

It's significant but would be better if we superimposed Israel over Madagascar to compare size. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the infobox could be removed altogether, as it tells us nothing about the subject of the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa It does tell us something about the subject of the article, the article says "only 5,000 to 7,000 families could be accommodated [on Madagascar], or even as few as 500 families by some estimates," which is absurd considering the size of the island and the fact that Madagascar's population has increased "from 2.2 million in 1900 to an estimated 22 million in 2012." Let's add it back and change the captions, per what Deuteranopia wrote, above. I suggest we add this to the caption: "Madagascar's population has increased from 2.2 million in 1900 to an estimated 22 million in 2012" to the info-box. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it makes more sense to explain the discrepancy in the prose (I have gone ahead and done that). I don't know why these early estimates were so inaccurate; I don't think the source book (Browning) explained it, either. — Diannaa (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 I made a map of Israel compared to Madagascar and it was removed HERE with the comment that it was Original Research, I'm not sure why, it's an illustration for the article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The scale 0__150 km (pictured) comes from one map only. Similar scale 0__40 km from the original CIA insert was removed, so the accuracy of scale is unconfirmed. Secondly, this is "user-generated content" of inferior design, visually difficult to decipher. I don't know why this map was needed in the first place. Poeticbent talk 01:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, how about this one 
It's for perspective, a substitute for the InfoBox that was removed. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The map on the right is much better, but please remember, Israel did not exist before 1948, therefore comparing Madagascar to Israel is historically pointless and wrong. It would have been much more appropriate to compare Madagascar to Mandate Palestine formed in 1920, parallel to the idea of Jewish resettlement taken up by the British in the 1920s. The map on the left, however, showing the whole of Africa (!) is far superior, but it needs to show Mandatory Palestine, not Israel, in order to be relevant to the subject of this article. Poeticbent talk 04:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, my map-making skills are getting better. I could make a map like this showing locations for all Proposals for a Jewish state and for comparison wouldn't be too hard to modify the modern state of Israel map because Mandate Palestine is basically the same except includes West Bank and Gaza. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


### Omission of essential facts
The article states: The idea of Jewish resettlement was taken up in the 1920s by British antisemites however, throughout the entire article there's not a single word about the creation of Mandatory Palestine by the British in 1920, which made it all possible. The omission of such an essential fact creates the illusion that Mandate Palestine had nothing to do with the idea of resettlement talked about for years prior to the Holocaust. A Wikipedia:Good article you say? This is mind boggling. Poeticbent talk 16:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is only about the Madagascar Plan of the Nazis, not about the wider search for a Jewish state. That sentence on British anti-semites relates specifically to the Madagascar Plan, although this is unclear in the prose. I'll edit it to ameliorate that. CMD (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Many Jews were expected to perish in the implementation of this plan. =is this Longerich's interpretation or the documented intent/expectation of the Nazis?  In other words, 'who expected'? Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I am wondering this too. The idea of this being there intention makes little sense anyway as it would have no effect on those in charge of deporting and would make their situation worse diplomatically. 2406:2D40:4654:DC08:B4FE:9801:BC34:A42A (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Was anything ever mentioned in relation to any of this, as to how the native population of Madagascar would fit into this? It was not an uninhabited island...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.38.47 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 

I didn't see anything regarding that aspect in the sources I used when I brought the article to GA back in June 2013. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The claim that "Hitler resolved that the Jews of Europe were to be exterminated immediately rather than after the war, which now had no end in sight" is controversial. There is no evidence to support such a claim. In any event the allegation is irrelevant to the topic.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The source for this content is Longerich, Peter (2000). "The Wannsee Conference in the Development of the 'Final Solution'" (PDF). Holocaust Educational Trust Research Papers. 1 (2). London: The Holocaust Educational Trust. ISBN 0-9516166-5-X. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 April 2015. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Longerich also covers this point in his book  Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (2010). The material is included as general information at the bottom of the article, as a way to indicate to the reader how the Nazis proceeded after the failure of the Madagascar Plan. For this reason, I disagree that it's off-topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree.  The Madagascar Plan didn't occur in isolation, it was one of the Nazi's initial ideas (not even theirs originally) for dealing with what they perceived as "the Jewish problem".  Once it became clear that it was impractical, they moved on, a fact which is important to point out to the reader, as it eventually lead to the "Final Solution". Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

These are the words of Hilberg (2003): "Even as it faded, the [Madagascar Plan] was to be mentioned one more time, during early February 1941, in Hitler's headquarters" (p. 415). This article, however, says that "Hitler continued to mention the plan until February 1942". There is a world of difference between these two dates. Uglemat (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The source cited (Longerich 2010) cites in turn: Peter Longerich, The Unwritten Order: Hitler’s Role in the Final Solution (Brunscombe Port, 2003), 185. I do not have access to the latter book, so I cannot check it to see if 1942 was a typographical error. Uglemat (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
After reading some of Longerich, I'm a bit sceptical that he is a reliable source. He has written some strange things: "There are indications, however, that a final decision to murder all European Jews could only have been made during the spring or summer of 1942" (emphasis added). "[T]he deportations that commenced in October 1941 were chiefly pre-emptive reprisal measures against the USA. The more-or-less open threat to kill the deported Jews—in accordance with Hitler’s prophecy of 30 January 1939—was intended to prevent the United States from entering the war."[3] This does not match well with my recollection of Hilberg's book. Uglemat (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
For clarity, this the paragraph in Longerich 2010 which is cited:

Inspired by the intention to annihilate the Jews under German rule, Hitler was to keep coming back to the Madagascar Project time and again until 1942, by which time the idea of ‘anywhere’ had been replaced by that of ‘nowhere’.102 [Peter Longerich, The Unwritten Order: Hitler’s Role in the Final Solution (Brunscombe Port, 2003), 185.] In the Foreign Ministry the plan was officially shelved in February 1942.103 [See Brechtken, ‘Madagaskar’, 270 ff., which has full details and references; Henry Picker Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier (Stuttgart, 1976), 29 May 1942, p. 340 and 24 July 1942, p. 456; PAA, Inland IIg 177, Rademacher to Bielfeld, 10 Feb. 1942 (on the end of the Project).]
This should be straightforward to verify. Either Longerich can show specific instances later than February 1941, or he should not be used. The prolongation of the Madagascar Plan would seem to reinforce Longerich's far-fetched thesis that the decision came only in early 1942, so he must absolutely prove his statement. Uglemat (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Here is a quote from Cristopher Browning 2004:

As late as December 1940 [Eichmann] told Bernhard Lösener of the Interior Ministry that the Madagascar Plan was still sitting on Heydrich’s desk, awaiting his signature.... Like a spectacular meteor, the Madagascar Plan blazed across the sky of Nazi Jewish policy, only to burn out abruptly. [p. 88]
A subtitle in a chapter is called "The last spasms of expulsion policy, fall 1940 – spring 1941" (p. 89). Another quote:

Active consideration of Madagascar had ceased the previous fall [i.e., fall 1940], although occasional references to that island as a future destination continued to surface for months. [p. 102]
When Browning discusses a press announcement by Heydrich in October 1941 where Heydrich contemplated the resettlement of the Jews outside of europe, Browning writes: "As Madagascar was by that time but a distant memory, Heydrich must have been referring to the east." (p. 302, emphasis added). Browning confirms that the plan was "officially" shelved in the Foreign Office on 10 February 1942 (p. 415). But that does not mean the plan was actually still alive. Clearly this supports Hilberg. The plan emerged in 1940, and by early 1941 it was dead. Uglemat (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I've removed Longerich's assertion that Hitler continued to talk about the plan and changed the citation to Browning (1995 [2004 – Uglemat]) page 415, which supports a date of 1942 for the plan being officially shelved. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I have added a map based on two essays on the topic (sources in the image). If anyone has any feedback, or have noticed I've made a mistake, please feel more than welcome to add it. Lazdona (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A new paper of Eric Kurlander has some interesting details and dissents from many previous views. Zerotalk 10:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

"and it was permanently shelved in 1942 with the commencement of the Final Solution, the policy of systematic genocide of Jews, towards which it had functioned as an important psychological step." While there is some disagreement over when the final solution "order" was made, it is manifestly incorrect to state it began in 1942. "Speeding up" or "acceleration of" would be more acceptable for this GA if, and only if, the text also addresses this point. Moreover, I am thinking of marking this article for GA re-evaluation due to its being inadequately covered Billsmith60 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I have removed that content from the lead. It was not present when the article passed GA, and is not covered elsewhere in the article, so it shouldn't be in the lead regardless of its accuracy or lack thereof.Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)