Talk:Madagascar Plan

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Commission to Madagascar

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lehi Zionism

message: 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)
thread_title: Madagascar Plan only including Jews?

message: 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)
thread_title: Edits to "Collapse" section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Reality of the plan

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Jews to Madagascar]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 8 April 2015

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Jewish Autonomous Oblast]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  @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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  info box 

message: The article states:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Omission of essential facts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Control source 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Natives of Madagascar 

message: 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)
replies: text: The source for this content is  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hitler resolved that the Jews of Europe were to be exterminated immediately? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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." This does not match well with my recollection of Hilberg's book. Uglemat (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Plan shelved in February 1942? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Franco-Polish Map Addition 

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