What If More 'Righteous Among The Nations' Emerged?

The Actual History

During the Holocaust (1933-1945), the Nazi regime and its collaborators systematically murdered approximately six million Jews across German-occupied Europe. While many non-Jewish Europeans were indifferent or actively complicit in this genocide, a small minority risked their lives to rescue Jews from persecution and extermination.

After World War II, the State of Israel established Yad Vashem in 1953 as its official memorial to victims of the Holocaust. In 1963, the Remembrance Authority created the title "Righteous Among the Nations" to recognize non-Jews who took extraordinary risks to save Jewish lives during the Holocaust, without seeking financial gain or other rewards. As of 2025, just over 28,000 individuals have been formally recognized with this honor.

These righteous rescuers came from all walks of life and employed various methods of assistance. In Poland, where helping Jews carried an automatic death sentence, Irena Sendler smuggled approximately 2,500 Jewish children out of the Warsaw Ghetto. In Denmark, an extraordinary national effort in October 1943 helped ferry nearly 7,200 Danish Jews to safety in neutral Sweden. In the Netherlands, the ten Boom family created a "hiding place" in their home before being betrayed and sent to concentration camps themselves.

Other notable examples include German industrialist Oskar Schindler, who protected over 1,200 Jews by employing them in his factories; Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, who issued protective passports and established safe houses in Budapest, saving tens of thousands; and Japanese diplomat Chiune Sugihara, who defied his government's orders and issued transit visas that allowed 6,000 Lithuanian Jews to escape.

Despite these heroic efforts, the scale of rescue remained tragically limited. In most occupied countries, rescuers constituted less than 1% of the population. Various factors inhibited more widespread resistance to the Holocaust: deeply entrenched antisemitism across Europe, fear of severe reprisals against rescuers and their families, the secrecy and incremental nature of the Nazi extermination program, the difficulty of escape routes, and the widespread disbelief that industrialized mass murder could be occurring in modern Europe.

Ultimately, the Righteous Among the Nations represent a crucial moral counternarrative to the Holocaust—proof that even in history's darkest hour, individual human beings retained the capacity to choose compassion over complicity, and moral courage over self-preservation. Their example raises profound questions about moral responsibility during mass atrocities and demonstrates that even in the most extreme circumstances, ethical choices remained possible.

The Point of Divergence

What if significantly more "Righteous Among the Nations" had emerged during the Holocaust? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the percentage of Europeans who actively rescued Jews increased tenfold or more, creating a much more substantial network of resistance to Nazi genocide.

This divergence could have occurred through several plausible mechanisms:

First, the early resistance examples might have spread more effectively through social networks. In our timeline, rescue activities typically remained isolated due to security concerns and lack of communication. In this alternate scenario, successful rescue methods could have been shared more systematically among resistance groups, creating what sociologists call "behavioral contagion"—where witnessing others perform high-risk moral actions inspires similar behavior.

Second, religious institutions might have taken stronger stands against persecution. While some religious leaders, like Protestant pastor André Trocmé in Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, France, guided their entire communities toward rescue activities, many church authorities remained silent or complicit. In this alternate timeline, perhaps Pope Pius XII issues an unambiguous encyclical explicitly condemning the persecution of Jews and directing Catholics to protect the vulnerable—a directive that would have significantly influenced behavior across Catholic Europe.

Third, earlier and more widespread knowledge of the Final Solution might have shocked more Europeans into action. In reality, Allied governments received definitive intelligence about the extermination camps by late 1942 but did little to publicize this information or make it a central war aim. In this alternate timeline, perhaps the Polish underground or Allied intelligence services prioritize disseminating this evidence more broadly and effectively, catalyzing greater resistance.

Fourth, key neutral countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal, and Turkey might have adopted more proactive rescue policies earlier in the war. In our timeline, Sweden's shift toward accepting Jewish refugees occurred relatively late. In this alternate history, these nations establish more robust diplomatic and humanitarian interventions from 1941 onward.

This divergence represents not so much a single decision point but a cascade of smaller changes in individual and institutional responses that, collectively, create a significantly different moral landscape across occupied Europe.

Immediate Aftermath

Expanded Underground Networks

The immediate consequence of more widespread resistance to the Holocaust would be substantially expanded underground rescue networks across Europe. Rather than isolated pockets of resistance, these networks would form interconnected systems capable of sheltering, feeding, and transporting significantly larger numbers of Jewish refugees.

In Poland, where helping Jews carried an automatic death sentence, perhaps 0.1% of the population actively participated in rescue efforts in our timeline. If this figure increased to even 1-2%, it would represent hundreds of thousands of Poles working to subvert Nazi genocide. Organizations like Żegota (the Polish Council to Aid Jews) would have expanded beyond the 4,000 children they helped save in our timeline, potentially creating more elaborate systems of false documentation, hideouts, and support structures.

In France, the village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, where the entire community worked to save approximately 5,000 Jews, would no longer stand as an extraordinary exception but as a model replicated across multiple communities. The French resistance movements would incorporate Jewish rescue more centrally into their operations, creating dedicated escape routes to Switzerland and Spain.

Nazi Response and Adaptation

The Nazi regime would not have passively accepted this expanded resistance. The immediate Nazi response would likely include intensified reprisals, increased surveillance, and allocation of additional resources to counterintelligence operations targeting rescue networks.

In the Netherlands, the experience of Anne Frank's family—betrayed after two years in hiding—illustrates the vulnerability of even well-organized hiding operations. With more widespread rescue attempts, Nazi authorities would likely have established specialized units focused exclusively on detecting hidden Jews and their protectors.

However, the very scale of expanded resistance would create new challenges for Nazi enforcement. The Gestapo and collaborationist police forces, already stretched thin by military demands, would have struggled to investigate and suppress thousands of additional rescue operations simultaneously. This might have forced strategic compromises, with enforcement focused on urban centers while rural rescue operations faced less scrutiny.

Jewish Response and Survival Rates

For Jewish communities facing annihilation, the existence of substantially more rescue options would fundamentally alter the calculus of survival. In our timeline, many Jews had nowhere to turn as ghettos were liquidated and deportations began. With expanded rescue networks, more families would attempt escape rather than compliance with Nazi orders.

Quantifying the impact on survival rates requires careful consideration. Even with tenfold more rescuers, the systematic nature of the Nazi genocide would still result in millions of victims. However, if rescue efforts saved even 20-30% of those who perished in our timeline, it would represent over a million additional survivors—dramatically altering postwar Jewish demographics, particularly in Eastern Europe.

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943 might have unfolded differently with more external support. Rather than being a desperate last stand, the resistance might have coordinated more effectively with Polish underground forces, potentially enabling more fighters and civilians to escape through sewers and hidden passages to safe houses.

Diplomatic and Allied Responses

The existence of more substantial rescue operations would have created increased diplomatic pressure on neutral countries and Allied governments. Sweden's shift toward accepting Jewish refugees, which began in earnest after 1943, might have started earlier and with greater capacity.

Allied governments, particularly the United States and Britain, would face stronger pressure from their citizens to accommodate refugees and to make rescue a more central war aim. This might have accelerated the creation of the War Refugee Board, which in our timeline was only established in January 1944, relatively late in the Holocaust.

The greater visibility of rescue efforts might also have compelled the Allies to take more direct military action against the infrastructure of genocide. The debate about whether to bomb Auschwitz or the rail lines leading to it—which in our timeline resulted in no action—might have resulted in actual air raids intended to disrupt the extermination process.

Long-term Impact

Post-War Justice and Memory

In the decades following World War II, the dramatically larger network of Righteous rescuers would have profoundly influenced how the Holocaust was processed legally, historically, and culturally.

Enhanced Justice Processes

The immediate postwar trials of Nazi perpetrators would have proceeded with significantly more witness testimony and evidence. The Nuremberg Trials (1945-1946) would include more detailed documentation of both the genocide and resistance to it, potentially broadening the charges against Nazi leadership.

More importantly, the national trials conducted in various European countries would likely have been more numerous and rigorous. In countries like France, the Netherlands, and Belgium, where postwar reckoning with collaboration was often limited or abbreviated, the stronger moral counterexample of widespread rescue activities would have made it more difficult to deflect responsibility or minimize complicity.

The Eichmann trial in Jerusalem (1961), which in our timeline brought Holocaust testimony dramatically into public consciousness, would have featured not only survivor accounts but also the testimonies of thousands more rescuers, creating a more complex narrative of the period that emphasized both human capacity for evil and for extraordinary moral courage.

Memorialization and Historical Narratives

The establishment of Holocaust memorials and museums would follow a somewhat different trajectory in this alternate timeline. While Yad Vashem would still create the Righteous Among the Nations program, its scope would be vastly expanded. Rather than recognizing approximately 28,000 individuals, the memorial might honor hundreds of thousands, necessitating entirely new approaches to commemoration.

Holocaust education worldwide would place greater emphasis on resistance and rescue alongside the horrors of genocide. This balanced approach might help address a challenge educators face in our timeline: how to teach about atrocity without inducing despair or moral paralysis in students.

National historical narratives would also evolve differently. In Poland, for example, the debate over Polish actions during the Holocaust—which in our timeline often oscillates between emphasizing Polish victimhood under Nazi occupation and acknowledging instances of Polish complicity—would be substantially reshaped by the legacy of more widespread rescue efforts.

Postwar Jewish Communities in Europe

The demographic impact of higher survival rates would be profound, particularly in Eastern Europe. In our timeline, prewar Jewish populations in countries like Poland (3.3 million before the war, reduced to approximately 380,000 survivors) were decimated beyond recovery.

In this alternate timeline, while still devastated, surviving communities might reach a critical mass allowing for more substantial Jewish cultural continuity in their homelands. Cities like Warsaw, Vilnius, and Prague might maintain more visible Jewish quarters and institutions into the present day, rather than becoming primarily sites of memorial tourism.

The relationship between European Jews and their non-Jewish neighbors would also develop along different lines. The postwar antisemitism that tragically persisted in countries like Poland—exemplified by the Kielce pogrom of 1946—might be significantly diminished by the stronger bonds formed through rescue activities and a greater sense of shared resistance to Nazi occupation.

Impact on Israel and Global Jewish Identity

The establishment of Israel in 1948 would still occur in this alternate timeline, driven by Zionist aspirations that predated the Holocaust. However, several aspects might unfold differently:

Demographic Shifts: With more European Jews surviving, immigration patterns to Israel might be somewhat reduced or delayed, potentially altering Israeli population growth in its early decades.
European-Israeli Relations: Israel's diplomatic relationships with European nations would be influenced by the more positive history of rescue. The moral debt that Germany and other nations acknowledge toward Israel in our timeline might be partially balanced by greater recognition of European rescuers.
Cultural Exchange: Stronger surviving Jewish communities in Europe would facilitate greater ongoing cultural exchange between European and Israeli Jewish traditions, potentially enriching both.

The global Jewish theological and philosophical response to the Holocaust would also develop differently. While the fundamental questions about God's role during the genocide would remain, the more numerous examples of righteous behavior might temper some of the most profound existential challenges to traditional religious frameworks.

Evolution of International Humanitarian Law and Intervention

The legacy of more widespread resistance to genocide would significantly influence the development of international humanitarian norms and laws after 1945.

The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide would likely emerge with stronger provisions regarding the responsibility of individuals and nations to intervene when genocide occurs. The defense of "following orders" might be more thoroughly discredited by the counterexample of widespread civilian disobedience to immoral laws.

The concept of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P), which in our timeline only gained significant traction in international relations after the Rwandan genocide in 1994, might have developed earlier and with stronger institutional support. The example of ordinary Europeans successfully protecting vulnerable populations would provide a powerful model for civilian-based protective approaches alongside military intervention options.

Contemporary Application to Modern Genocides

Perhaps most significantly, the stronger historical example of mass resistance to genocide might influence responses to subsequent atrocities in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

During the Rwandan genocide of 1994, the international community largely failed to intervene as approximately 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were murdered. In our timeline, this failure often drew parallels to the limited response to the Holocaust. In the alternate timeline, with its stronger tradition of humanitarian resistance, both governmental and non-governmental responses might have been more robust.

Similarly, during ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia (1992-1995), international protective measures might have deployed earlier and more effectively. The tradition of civilian rescue networks during the Holocaust could have provided operational models for protecting vulnerable communities in Bosnia and Kosovo.

By 2025 in this alternate timeline, international frameworks for genocide prevention would not only be more developed legally but would be supported by stronger cultural traditions of individual moral responsibility and collective humanitarian action. This would not prevent all atrocities, but might significantly improve early warning systems, civilian protection mechanisms, and international response capabilities.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Deborah Lipstadt, Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, offers this perspective: "The question of how many more Jews might have survived had rescue been more widespread is ultimately unanswerable with precision, but certainly significant. What's more profound, however, is how our entire moral understanding of the Holocaust period would be transformed. Rather than viewing rescue as exceptional heroism, we might have come to see it as a more achievable moral standard—difficult but demonstrably possible on a mass scale. This would fundamentally alter how we teach about moral choice during historical atrocities."

Professor Peter Hayes, Theodore Z. Weiss Professor of Holocaust Studies Emeritus at Northwestern University, suggests: "In considering this counterfactual, we must be careful not to minimize the extraordinary obstacles to rescue that existed in Nazi-occupied Europe. Even with tenfold more rescuers, the systematic nature of the genocide would have claimed millions of victims. However, the psychological impact on survivors would be profound—knowing that resistance was more widespread would significantly alter the post-traumatic processing of these events, both individually and collectively. The narrative of complete abandonment that many survivors carried would be replaced by a more nuanced understanding of mixed European responses."

Dr. Victoria J. Barnett, former Director of Programs on Ethics, Religion, and the Holocaust at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, proposes: "What's most interesting about this scenario is not just the immediate lives saved, but how it would reshape our understanding of bystander psychology. The sociology of rescue during the Holocaust reveals that resistance often spread through existing networks—religious communities, professional associations, neighbor relationships. With more 'positive deviants' in these networks, the threshold for others to join rescue activities would lower substantially. This has profound implications for how we understand moral contagion during crisis periods, suggesting that ethical behavior, like unethical behavior, can spread through social diffusion when it reaches critical mass."