Rinko |1
The Nazi plan to eliminate the Jews constitutes one of the most notorious genocides in
history. Yet the Final Solution was just that: the last resort. Previous attempts to address the
so-called “Jewish Question” came in the form of institutionalized discrimination, ghettos, and
forced or coerced emigration. The most famous attempt to institutionalize emigration of the
Jews came in the form of the Madagascar Plan. According to this proposal, Jews would be
exiled to a colonial settlement in Madagascar.
Nazi Germany is notorious for formalizing the Madagascar Plan. As Germany expanded
its area of power, more Jews would fall under its control. Large scale emigration could then be
enforced, creating a Nazi work colony on the island.1 The opportunity for this proposal to be
realized came with the surrender of France, which controlled Madagascar. With this land mass
under Nazi control, formal emigration efforts could proceed. The only barrier was the British
Navy, whose sea power posed a formidable obstacle.2 While the Madagascar Plan would
eventually be discarded in favor of the Final Solution, the amount of time and effort spent
researching and planning the potential relocation of European Jews to Madagascar leads
credence to its seriousness as a potential government policy of Nazi Germany. But the Nazi
state was not the first to seriously examine policy actions formalizing the Madagascar Plan or
similar methods leading to a removal of the Jews. Following the death of Jósef Pilsudski, the
leader of the Polish state during the early 20th century, “voluntary emigration” was seriously
considered.3 This indicates that the Madagascar Plan did not originate in Germany. Thus, if
1
Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands, New York: Basic Books, 2010, 112.
Timothy Snyder, 145.
3
Timothy Snyder, 112.
2
Rinko |2
Nazi ideas for Jewish emigration were preceded by Polish considerations of a very similar policy,
what were the true origins of the plan?
The history of the Madagascar Plan and its selection is a murky one, rift with intrigue. It
is important to note that Madagascar was not the only potential area for colonial resettlement.
Various areas were considered. According to the University of Toronto’s Eric Jenning:
Madagascar was not the only destination within the French colonial realm considered
for Jewish outmigration in the 1930s and 1940s. Between 1936 and 1941, French
authorities contemplated schemes aimed at sending Jews to French Guiana, Guinea, and
New Caledonia…But it was Madagascar, and not these other schemes, that remained
the ideé fixe of international observers, Jewish organizations, and Nazi persecutors alike
between 1934 and 1941.4
This source indicates that other nations, including France, were considering diverse
geographical locations for resettlement. The mere fact that other overseas areas were
considered indicates that the idea of colonial resettlement had a larger range of support,
providing room for debate as to where the location should ultimately be situated. Yet
throughout these discussions, Madagascar appears to be the most popular destination, and the
question remains, why? The origin of this plan remains amorphous, but research into its past
yields fascinating insights into this question. Rather than a random, bizarre settlement
selection, Madagascar may have been picked due to purported connections between the
natives of Madagascar and the Jews, which some individuals claimed to mean the Jews were
the historic ancestors Madagascar natives.
4
Eric T. Jennings, “Writing Madagascar Back into the Madagascar Plan.” Holocaust and Genocide Studies: 2007,
189-190.
Rinko |3
Period documents indicate that some influential individuals had historically linked
Madagascar to the Jews. Further exploration of this plan indicates that various iterations of
attempts to ship European Jews to Madagascar had been proposed in the 19th century, and the
plan’s ultimate origins may have its roots in 18th century exploration and colonization. Rovner
writes that:
As early as 1658 the island’s French governor, Etienne de Flacourt, affirmed the
Malagasy’s Jewish origins in part because he witnessed tribes practicing circumcision, a
custom that remains nearly universal… Some 19th and 20th century British and French
scholars continued to maintain that the Malagasy descended from biblical era seafaring
Jews. A Lazarite missionary, Joseph Briant, published a 1946 monograph purporting to
find traces of Hebrew in local languages. Starting from the notion that the Malagasy are
crypto-Jews, it’s easy to conclude that Madagascar is itself the promised land.5
This indicates that Madagascar was not some random island selected to become a Jewish
dumping ground. Its selection may have been due to perceived connections tying the Jews to
Madagascar, with similarities being observed as far back as the 17th century. This testifies to
the Madagascar Plan’s longevity and resilience as a potential policy action, with the roots of the
plan spanning over 200 years.
Further evidence of similarities is provided by Jennings, who outlines the findings of
other 19th century scholars who purported to see connections between the customs of
Madagascar natives and the Jews. For example:
In 1880, Reverend James Sibree, Jr. added to Cameron’s body of evidence. He submitted
that “the Malagasy have a practice similar to the Levirite Law of the Jews, viz: that if an
elder brother dies childless, his next brother must marry the widow to keep up his
brother’s remembrance; the children of such marriages being considered as the elder
5
Adam Rovner, “Madagascar: An Almost Jewish Homeland”. Moment Magazine, May/June 2009, 44-45.
Rinko |4
brother’s heirs and descendents (see Deuteronomy xxv, 5, 6). [In Malagasy] this is called
mitondra loloha.”6
Jennings also described the purported connections published by Alfred Grandidier in 1901,
who:
…pointed to evidence of shared ancestry in other common features of the two cultures:
the absence of elaborate liturgical ceremonies; the belief in a single god, creator of
heaven and earth; the use of water for purification rites; the practice of deathbed
confession; the use of a single term for “salty” and “holy”; the custom of family burial;
the tradition of not pronouncing the names of the deceased; the ritual of purification
and cleansing following funerals; the practice of stoning “sorcerers”—rather than
executing them by sword—so that their blood would not foul the earth; the custom of
not throwing cut hair or nails to the winds; the persecution of debtors; the belief that
dogs were a scourge; and the strict prohibition against parents’ viewing their children of
the opposite sex in the nude.7
These documents show supposed similarities between Madagascar natives and the Jews in a
variety of facets, including language, religion, marital practices, and tradition. The fact that
many scholars saw connections between the people of Madagascar and the Jews is especially
intriguing. While the validity of these claims is by no means established, the belief in these
claims could have provided “evidence” in support of Madagascar for a colonial destination site.
Some individuals may have utilized this connection to claim that resettling the Jews to
Madagascar was merely a return to an alternate homeland. As such, these observations may
have laid the groundwork for the future Madagascar Plan by linking Madagascar to the Jews in
the minds of many.
Even some who did not believe that the people of Madagascar were descended from
the Jews continued to see connections between the two cultures. Robert Drury, a supposed
6
7
Eric T. Jennings, 197.
Eric T. Jennings, 198.
Rinko |5
captive held on Madagascar, outlined many differences between the people of Madagascar and
the Jews before noting similarities in the practice of circumcision8 and “their abstaining from
their women at certain times.”9 While distancing himself from the idea that the people of
Madagascar had Jewish ancestry, in observing these similarities, he instead proposed that “the
Jews derived a great deal from [the people of Madagascar], instead of they from the Jews.”10
Thus, while Drury does not support the theory of Jewish ancestry on the island, he still confirms
the presence of similarities. As such, even those that did not see an ancestral connection
between the two cultures suspected that the two may have had some sort of past interaction.
These connections may have led to increased support for the resettlement of Jews to
Madagascar by hinting that they shared cultural elements with the native people there,
potentially easing the transition following emigration.
These supposed similarities in culture and custom were not the only pieces of evidence
supporting the usage of Madagascar as a Jewish colony. Other human geography elements
played roles in the selection of Madagascar as a potential settlement area. Many considered
the island to be underpopulated, making it an ideal candidate for the large-scale movement of
people. According to Jennings:
Certainly, Madagascar’s reputation as a grossly underpopulated island made it a likely
candidate for immigration projects of all sorts. Voluminous files in archives, as well as
lengthy columns in the press, trace a variety of plans proposed between roughly 1918
and 1939 to bring Indian, Chinese, and other foreign workers to Madagascar for
everything from public works to agricultural projects.11
8
Robert Drury, Madagascar. London: 1790, 31.
Robert Drury, 313.
10
Robert Drury, 32.
11
Eric T. Jennings, 190.
9
Rinko |6
This piece of evidence is particularly fascinating because it suggests that Madagascar’s
supposed under-population was an extremely prevalent idea, so much so that bringing other
groups to Madagascar was considered. Other period authors espoused similar sentiments
regarding Madagascar’s potential as a population hub, including a pamphlet proclaiming that
Madagascar had a population capacity of 100 million.12 However, the validity of these claims
that view Madagascar as a vast underpopulated paradise can be called into question, and were
disputed during the 20th century. Samuel Lubell cites geographers who suggest the island’s
maximum population capacity is “a few thousand” persons, a far cry from the millions of Jews
that many wished to resettle.13 But despite these period refutations, it appears that these
gross overestimations continued to persist, at least in the public consciousness. As such, the
reality of the situation was essentially negated by Madagascar’s continued perception as an
underdeveloped and underpopulated wilderness. This belief in Madagascar’s under-population
helped make it an ideal candidate for the potential immigration of millions of people to the
island.
But still more factors may have contributed to the development of the Madagascar Plan
biblical legends could have impacted the selection of the island as a Jewish colony. Jennings
mentions the possibility of influence from the biblical Ham myth.14 The myth is based on a
biblical story where Ham, one of the sons of Noah, sees his father naked, and makes no attempt
to provide him with decency. Noah then curses Ham’s descendants. This story, “has been
subjected to many bewildering interpretations—most notable that Ham was the original black
12
Ray K. Rudman, Pietermaritzburg: pre-1939.
Samuel Lubell, “War by Refugee”. Saturday Evening Post. March 29th, 1941.
14
Eric T. Jennings, 191.
13
Rinko |7
man.”15 If this story did hold influence, it may have led some scholars to believe that the
people of Madagascar were the cursed descendants of Ham, a Jew, adding a form of credence
to the idea that the natives of Madagascar had Jewish ancestors. Such an influence would also
reinforce the racist and discriminatory side of the Madagascar Plan by equating a supposed
group of Jews with Africans, who were looked down upon as racially inferior by European
society. It also suggests that the people of Madagascar are part of a group of earlier cursed
Jews. This could have been potentially linked to the supposed curse of the Jews following the
death of Jesus. Matthew 27:25 states, “And the whole people said in reply, “His blood be upon
us and upon our children.’” This biblical passage was famously used to persecute Jews by
perpetuating the belief that the entirety of the Jewish people bore responsibility for the death
of Jesus. In conjunction with this historic Christian belief that the Jews were cursed with the
blood of Jesus, in a twisted sense it may have seemed logical that the Jews be banished to a
land filled with other cursed Jews.
Despite this large body of supposed evidence supporting the selection of Madagascar as
a site for a Jewish colony, other obstacles to Jewish resettlement were present. Besides the
legal and diplomatic entanglements of a large-scale resettlement operation, the harsh climactic
conditions were another factor that would have to be combatted. Intriguingly, Jennings states
that a key trait identified with the Jews was adaptability. Many had successfully integrated
themselves into diverse cultures. As such, “…some suggested, they could adapt even to lands
where other Europeans had struggled.”16 In other words, a trait long used by anti-Semitic
15
16
Philip Gourevitch, We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families. New York: 1998, 51.
Eric T. Jennings, 200.
Rinko |8
individuals to equate Jews with parasites was being described as an advantage to encourage
support for Jewish immigration to Madagascar. In this case, Jewish adaptability in regards to
integrating into diverse cultures was being equated with a physical adaptability to survive
difficult climactic and environmental conditions. This particular point illustrates the fascinating
nature of anti-Semitism. Almost any observation of the Jews, their history, or their customs
could be twisted into anti-Semitic propaganda.
However, some saw this plan as a solution to the rampant antisemitism of the early 20 th
century. Jacques Maritain’s 1938 essay “Antisemitism” turns to resettlement as a solution to
the dangerous excesses of discrimination he observed in Europe in the 1930s. He writes:
Finally, if necessary, settlement in certain colonial territories must be resorted to. That
method presents special difficulties, due on one hand to the climatic conditions, often
extremely bad, of some of the colonial lands intended for immigrants, and on the other
hand, to the indispensable financial and economic equipment. I do not think, however,
that these difficulties must be considered insurmountable. So far as France is
concerned, the opening of Madagascar or of some other colonial territories, as, for
instance, Guiana, to a fixed quota of Jewish emigrants has at times been suggested. I
believe that if solid and well elaborated offers were made in this direction to the French
Government (and no doubt these offers might be so conceived as incidentally to serve
national interests), this Government would be disposed to examine them favourably.
The same hope may be held in regard to the other colonial Powers…17
It is fascinating to observe that the Madagascar Plan was not simply espoused by Nazi officials
and their sympathizers. Indeed, it is clear in Maritain’s essay that he is sympathetic to the
Jewish cause and finds antisemitism deplorable. Instead, he sees colonial settlement as a
potential solution that removes Jews from the discrimination they face in their current
environments. Other authors espouse similar sentiments. Adam Rovner, author of
17
Jacques Maritain, Antisemitism. London: 1939, 51.
Rinko |9
Madagascar: An Almost Jewish Homeland writes that “Early Zionists debated a host of
proposals to settle Jews in remote regions of the world, and one of them was Madagascar.”18
Those most in favor of creating a Jewish nation had limited options. Carving out a European
state was simply not feasible, nor was a separate Israel possible at the time. Thus it becomes
clear that some viewed colonial resettlement as an opportunity to create havens for Jewish
people abroad, where settlers could be safe from discrimination. However, it is crucial to note
that many, and arguably the majority of those who espoused the Madagascar Plan were antiSemitic. A period pamphlet advocating for colonial resettlement of Jews equated Judaism with
Communism, and proclaimed, “The whole world is crying: “’To Madagascar with the Jews in
order that we finally may get peace on earth.’”19 This is a clear example of Jews being used as
scapegoats, with the implication being that if the Jews are banished, prosperity will return. In
this case, the author clearly sees Judaism as a blight, and wishes to remove an entire people in
an effort to cleanse the state.
Curiously, these period documents present conflicting perspectives, both of which
advocated colonial resettlement. One sees Madagascar as a safe haven for the Jewish people,
while the other sees it as a place of exile that will lead to an ethnic cleansing of their state. This
indicates that the Madagascar Plan had supporters from many different perspectives, both proJewish and anti-Jewish. This consensus from two polar opposite viewpoints may provide an
explanation as to why the Madagascar Plan was seen as feasible, and persisted as a possible
policy plan for such a long period of time. Its practicality and support was greatly increased by
18
19
Adam Rovner, 44.
Ray K. Rudman.
R i n k o | 10
having advocates from both sides of the issue as supporters. With this diverse backing, the
Madagascar Plan may have held a larger place in the public consciousness.
Ultimately tracing the history of the Madagascar plan yields intriguing discoveries.
Connections, whether factual or not, were drawn between the natives of Madagascar and the
Jews in various cultural areas, including marriage, tradition, language, and religion. These
associations may have been a major contributing factor as to why Madagascar was repeatedly
chosen as a top colonial site for potential resettlement. In a strange way, some may have
viewed the plan as a way to provide the Jews with an alternative homeland, especially if the
biblical story of Ham was historically connected to Madagascar. These alleged cultural
connections, coupled with the popular notion of the under-populated nature of Madagascar,
and the purported adaptability of the Jews, all contributed to Madagascar’s selection as a
destination for colonial resettlement. This plan would eventually be formalized by Poland, and
adapted by Nazi Germany. Espoused by both pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish elements of society,
the plan represented a fascinating moral gray area. Some saw colonial resettlement as a boon
that could serve as a haven for an independent Jewish state, while others saw it as a way to rid
the western world of a Jewish blight. This gray area may have also contributed to the plan’s
resilience by providing a potential area of agreement between two very different perspectives.
While ultimately discarded in favor of the notorious Final Solution, the Madagascar Plan
represents an eclectic mixture of diverse elements during a tumultuous period of history.
Blatant racism and bigotry coalesced with humanitarian efforts, making this plan one of the
most unique to originate in modern history.