1948: Altalena not sunk

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 1995
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:17
Location: Israel

1948: Altalena not sunk

Post by Von Schadewald » 17 Nov 2005 20:51

In June 1948 the ship Altalena carrying 900 men, 5,000 rifles, 250 Bren guns, 5 million bullets, 50 bazookas and 10 Bren gun carriers attempted to land at Tel Aviv.

The left wing Israeli PM Ben Gurion ordered the then Lt Yitzhak Rabin to open fire on the right wing Jews on board, killing 16 (almost including future PM Menachem Begin).

WI the Altalena had landed?

With that kind of force, the siege of the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem could have been lifted, maybe even all of Jerusalem, plus a chunk of the West Bank.

With Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall under full Jewish control already in 1948, Stalin would have offered full support to Israel, vs an angry Vatican and USA, and I think an enraged Arab world would have attempted to invade in 1957 instead of 1967.

Ben Gurion's fear of a separate right wing army within an army would not have materialised.
Image
http://online.achva.ac.il/shilishi/IMAGES/altalena.jpg

Kosmo
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 04 Nov 2005 09:16
Location: Bucharest

Post by Kosmo » 30 Nov 2005 16:29

I really don't think that this little would have played an important role in the 1948 war. The most would have been to take the Latrun Monastery that was cutting the Tel Aviv- Jerusalim Highway.
( If you know a good site about the 1948 war please let my know)

Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 1995
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:17
Location: Israel

Re: 1948: Altalena not sunk

Post by Von Schadewald » 26 Nov 2014 02:51

Now they want to raise the Altalena from the seabed, which would resurrect many of Israel's political ghosts
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-20498212

Image

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3701
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: 1948: Altalena not sunk

Post by BDV » 26 Nov 2014 12:52

I think it was more important as a "I Am the Boss" statement of authority by the government more than anything material.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7404
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: 1948: Altalena not sunk

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 25 Dec 2014 16:54

I agree. Not interdicting this, & in such violent manner suggests weakness. Perhaps their coalition is not so complete?

AJFFM
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 22 Mar 2013 20:37

Re: 1948: Altalena not sunk

Post by AJFFM » 26 Dec 2014 20:05

This affair was largely a power play as BDV said. You can't have militias that have already committed war crimes condemned by the nascent state of Israel forcing itself upon you especially when you were in a delicate truce which you were secretly breaking by bringing a flood of weapons and troops from outside officially. The brazen publicity of this event threatened the truce and this action helped keep it for a month in which Israel increased its total forces to nearly double of what the Arabs had with the advantage of better weapons and generous donations (150 million Francs) from bankrupt France of all countries.

Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 1995
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:17
Location: Israel

Re: 1948: Altalena not sunk

Post by Von Schadewald » 05 May 2020 15:14


"The role of MI6 British Intelligence in Egypt's decision to go to war against Israel in May 1948

https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/UbyB ... 19.1616389

David Ben-Gurion, the founder of the State of Israel, repeatedly accused Britain of provoking the Arab states to invade Israel the day after its establishment in May 1948. To date, historians have not found proof of his accusations in British archives. However, evidence may be found in French archives, especially in Syrian and secret British documents obtained by the French secret services, originating from agents who had infiltrated the Syrian government in Damascus and the British Legation in Beirut. This article, based on French, Syrian, Israeli and British sources, argues that under the Labour government, Arabist MI6 officers in the Middle East, in collaboration with the British High Command in Cairo, pursued an alternative policy to that of the Foreign Office. They provoked Egypt's King Faruq to go to war against Israel without the knowledge or approval of either Prime Minister Clement Attlee or Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, frequently misinforming and misleading them. "

History Learner
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 19 Jan 2019 09:39
Location: United States

Re: 1948: Altalena not sunk

Post by History Learner » 05 May 2020 19:24

Von Schadewald wrote:
17 Nov 2005 20:51
With that kind of force, the siege of the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem could have been lifted, maybe even all of Jerusalem, plus a chunk of the West Bank.

With Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall under full Jewish control already in 1948, Stalin would have offered full support to Israel, vs an angry Vatican and USA, and I think an enraged Arab world would have attempted to invade in 1957 instead of 1967.
AJFFM wrote:
26 Dec 2014 20:05
This affair was largely a power play as BDV said. You can't have militias that have already committed war crimes condemned by the nascent state of Israel forcing itself upon you especially when you were in a delicate truce which you were secretly breaking by bringing a flood of weapons and troops from outside officially. The brazen publicity of this event threatened the truce and this action helped keep it for a month in which Israel increased its total forces to nearly double of what the Arabs had with the advantage of better weapons and generous donations (150 million Francs) from bankrupt France of all countries.
Either scenario is definitely interesting, especially the former for the fact it puts the U.S. as the Pro-Arab force and the USSR as the Pro-Jewish one.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: 1948: Altalena not sunk

Post by Futurist » 08 May 2020 20:14

History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 19:24
Von Schadewald wrote:
17 Nov 2005 20:51
With that kind of force, the siege of the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem could have been lifted, maybe even all of Jerusalem, plus a chunk of the West Bank.

With Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall under full Jewish control already in 1948, Stalin would have offered full support to Israel, vs an angry Vatican and USA, and I think an enraged Arab world would have attempted to invade in 1957 instead of 1967.
AJFFM wrote:
26 Dec 2014 20:05
This affair was largely a power play as BDV said. You can't have militias that have already committed war crimes condemned by the nascent state of Israel forcing itself upon you especially when you were in a delicate truce which you were secretly breaking by bringing a flood of weapons and troops from outside officially. The brazen publicity of this event threatened the truce and this action helped keep it for a month in which Israel increased its total forces to nearly double of what the Arabs had with the advantage of better weapons and generous donations (150 million Francs) from bankrupt France of all countries.
Either scenario is definitely interesting, especially the former for the fact it puts the U.S. as the Pro-Arab force and the USSR as the Pro-Jewish one.
This would probably ironically mean much less anti-Semitism in the USSR in its latter years, which could ironically hurt Israel since it could mean that less Soviet Jews might actually be willing to immigrate to Israel if/when the Soviet Union collapses and breaks up.

History Learner
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 19 Jan 2019 09:39
Location: United States

Re: 1948: Altalena not sunk

Post by History Learner » 08 May 2020 21:23

Futurist wrote:
08 May 2020 20:14
History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 19:24
Von Schadewald wrote:
17 Nov 2005 20:51
With that kind of force, the siege of the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem could have been lifted, maybe even all of Jerusalem, plus a chunk of the West Bank.

With Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall under full Jewish control already in 1948, Stalin would have offered full support to Israel, vs an angry Vatican and USA, and I think an enraged Arab world would have attempted to invade in 1957 instead of 1967.
AJFFM wrote:
26 Dec 2014 20:05
This affair was largely a power play as BDV said. You can't have militias that have already committed war crimes condemned by the nascent state of Israel forcing itself upon you especially when you were in a delicate truce which you were secretly breaking by bringing a flood of weapons and troops from outside officially. The brazen publicity of this event threatened the truce and this action helped keep it for a month in which Israel increased its total forces to nearly double of what the Arabs had with the advantage of better weapons and generous donations (150 million Francs) from bankrupt France of all countries.
Either scenario is definitely interesting, especially the former for the fact it puts the U.S. as the Pro-Arab force and the USSR as the Pro-Jewish one.
This would probably ironically mean much less anti-Semitism in the USSR in its latter years, which could ironically hurt Israel since it could mean that less Soviet Jews might actually be willing to immigrate to Israel if/when the Soviet Union collapses and breaks up.
Even worse is the fact the U.S. is supplying arms and training the Arabs; I'd expect the Arabs to kick the Israeli teeth in during the 1950s or 1960s.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: 1948: Altalena not sunk

Post by Futurist » 08 May 2020 22:42

History Learner wrote:
08 May 2020 21:23
Futurist wrote:
08 May 2020 20:14
History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 19:24
Von Schadewald wrote:
17 Nov 2005 20:51
With that kind of force, the siege of the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem could have been lifted, maybe even all of Jerusalem, plus a chunk of the West Bank.

With Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall under full Jewish control already in 1948, Stalin would have offered full support to Israel, vs an angry Vatican and USA, and I think an enraged Arab world would have attempted to invade in 1957 instead of 1967.
AJFFM wrote:
26 Dec 2014 20:05
This affair was largely a power play as BDV said. You can't have militias that have already committed war crimes condemned by the nascent state of Israel forcing itself upon you especially when you were in a delicate truce which you were secretly breaking by bringing a flood of weapons and troops from outside officially. The brazen publicity of this event threatened the truce and this action helped keep it for a month in which Israel increased its total forces to nearly double of what the Arabs had with the advantage of better weapons and generous donations (150 million Francs) from bankrupt France of all countries.
Either scenario is definitely interesting, especially the former for the fact it puts the U.S. as the Pro-Arab force and the USSR as the Pro-Jewish one.
This would probably ironically mean much less anti-Semitism in the USSR in its latter years, which could ironically hurt Israel since it could mean that less Soviet Jews might actually be willing to immigrate to Israel if/when the Soviet Union collapses and breaks up.
Even worse is the fact the U.S. is supplying arms and training the Arabs; I'd expect the Arabs to kick the Israeli teeth in during the 1950s or 1960s.
Having powerful arms isn't enough, though; one also needs good generals and the ability to use these arms as well as military technology pretty well. If superior arms alone were decisive, then, well, Mosul wouldn't have fallen to ISIS in 2014, now would it?

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: 1948: Altalena not sunk

Post by Futurist » 08 May 2020 22:45

An article that might be of interest to you:

https://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

Also this:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/31/th ... ab-armies/

I've heard that even the war against ISIS might only have been won thanks to US and Russian military planning, military management, intelligence, airstrikes, and military technology.

History Learner
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 19 Jan 2019 09:39
Location: United States

Re: 1948: Altalena not sunk

Post by History Learner » 08 May 2020 23:26

Futurist wrote:
08 May 2020 22:42
History Learner wrote:
08 May 2020 21:23
Futurist wrote:
08 May 2020 20:14
History Learner wrote:
05 May 2020 19:24
Von Schadewald wrote:
17 Nov 2005 20:51
With that kind of force, the siege of the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem could have been lifted, maybe even all of Jerusalem, plus a chunk of the West Bank.

With Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall under full Jewish control already in 1948, Stalin would have offered full support to Israel, vs an angry Vatican and USA, and I think an enraged Arab world would have attempted to invade in 1957 instead of 1967.
AJFFM wrote:
26 Dec 2014 20:05
This affair was largely a power play as BDV said. You can't have militias that have already committed war crimes condemned by the nascent state of Israel forcing itself upon you especially when you were in a delicate truce which you were secretly breaking by bringing a flood of weapons and troops from outside officially. The brazen publicity of this event threatened the truce and this action helped keep it for a month in which Israel increased its total forces to nearly double of what the Arabs had with the advantage of better weapons and generous donations (150 million Francs) from bankrupt France of all countries.
Either scenario is definitely interesting, especially the former for the fact it puts the U.S. as the Pro-Arab force and the USSR as the Pro-Jewish one.
This would probably ironically mean much less anti-Semitism in the USSR in its latter years, which could ironically hurt Israel since it could mean that less Soviet Jews might actually be willing to immigrate to Israel if/when the Soviet Union collapses and breaks up.
Even worse is the fact the U.S. is supplying arms and training the Arabs; I'd expect the Arabs to kick the Israeli teeth in during the 1950s or 1960s.
Having powerful arms isn't enough, though; one also needs good generals and the ability to use these arms as well as military technology pretty well. If superior arms alone were decisive, then, well, Mosul wouldn't have fallen to ISIS in 2014, now would it?
Sure, that's why I also think training would be important. Look at the quality of the Egyptian Army since relations became warm with the United States, for an example. As it were, in 1973 the Arabs very nearly succeeded in breaking Israel even with just Soviet support.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2269
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: 1948: Altalena not sunk

Post by Futurist » 09 May 2020 00:40

Interesting point--though it's worth noting that Israel has nukes and won't be afraid to use those in a worst-case scenario. Plus, can't the USSR do an emergency airlift to Israel similar to what the US did in 1973 in real life?

History Learner
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 19 Jan 2019 09:39
Location: United States

Re: 1948: Altalena not sunk

Post by History Learner » 10 May 2020 03:13

Futurist wrote:
09 May 2020 00:40
Interesting point--though it's worth noting that Israel has nukes and won't be afraid to use those in a worst-case scenario. Plus, can't the USSR do an emergency airlift to Israel similar to what the US did in 1973 in real life?
Not in the 1940s or 1950s they do, and Israeli nuclear technology was largely the result of Franco-American aid; given the Soviets never allowed their proxies nuclear weapons, I fail to see why the Soviets would make an exception for Israel. As for any hypothetical air lift, no; NATO or NATO allows control all of the air routes to Israel.

Return to “What if”