Structuralists, such as Broszat, without denying Hitler’s influential role and responsibilty, however base their argument more on the focus of the contextual causes. Causes such as the structure of Nazi government and decision making.
On the basis of structure of government and decision making, Hitler was Fuhrer and so his will was law. He was a kind of absolute monarch, surrounded by officials all competing with each other and this Fuhrer system meant that there was no need for a decision making structure and therefore decision making was informal. Hitler provided the overall vision, which was then interpreted and turned into detailed policies by those around and beneath him. From this it is noticeable that Hitler again inspired, but also promoted many new policies which created a base for the development of anti-semitism which eventually arrived at the stage of the Final Solution. This structure of decision making and role of Hitler shaped the development of policy, as many new policies were created and many approved of radical policies overtime. This cumulative radicalisation saw, in 1933, the boycott of Jewish shops, humiliating the Jews, and further more in 1935 the Nurembourg Laws which, fed on the background of anti-semitism, meant the German population went along with Hitlers approval of radical policies. Without his Fuhrers approval this would not have been possible and neither complete. This is supported by intentionalists, such as Bullock, who clamied Hitler as having full control and say in approvals and final decisions and therefore placing more responsibility on Hitler’s shoulders leading up to and in the Final Solution. However, it is evidencial that his ideology was interpreted and turned into detail by those around him, those such as the Naze elite.
The Nazi elite made up of individuals such as Hermann Goering, Reinhard Heydrich and Heinrich Himmler, although following orders and part of a system or process, in practicallity played huge roles in the Holocaust.
The elite often originated the detail of anti-semetic policy, for example, Himmler’s and Goering’s role in setting up the early concentraition camps and Heydrich and the Final Solution (1941), all approved by Hitler ofcourse. Each individual gives clear evidence of minipulation of Hitler’s ideology, in order to increase anti-semitism and careerism (the boost of their own positions with the State).
Goering was in command of the SA Brownshirts from and early stage and in 1937 became President of the Reichstag. There is evidence of his role within responsibility for the Holocaust, as with apparent approval from Hitler, Goering inplemented the decrees to destroy Civil Rights in Germany, ordered the ‘Aryanisation’ of Jewish businesses and ordered Heydrich to prepare for a general Solution of the Jewish Question. Göring however made some efforts to save the skilled Jewish workforce, but his motives were exclusively pragmatic and he did not press his objections. Himmler was head of the SS and also to an extent could be held responsible for playing part in the Holocaus as he was a key role and obsessed in promoting the idea of elimination of the ‘inpure’. Finally, Heydrich held responsibilty too as he helped provide Himmler with vision of the SS and was granted with the planning of the territorial solution to the Jewish Question in 1940. This is evidence of the Elites, to a high extent, having more direct involvement in the Holocausts occurrence, linking back to the belief of structuralists that the Holocaust was an improvisation rather than a programme, shiftiong Hitler’s role from the centre of responsibility, as the elite themselves were left with major decisions and actions. However, although Goering ordered Heydrich to bring to bring about ‘a complete solution of the Jewish Question within the German sphere of influence in Europe’, it makes no logical sense to deny Hitler’s ultimate authorship.
So therefore the elites responsibility can be seen only at an extent as they, although directly involved in most instances, were simply minipulating the state that Hitler was prividing them and were part of a system and process of their time. It could also be argued whether they were doing it at their own free will or because they felt fear within their own position.
The Nazi elites full responsibility can be seen again to an extent limited, because they were supported by the SS and Einzatzgruppen.
A wide range of German soldiers and officials, were in some way involved in the Holocaust, from units of the SS and the Einzatzgruppen. The SS were and elite group full of enthusiasm and creativeness, and held responsibility within running the camps and extermination centres and though there was no single military unit in charge of the Holocaust, the SS under Himmler was the closest. From the SS came the Einzatzgruppen killing squads who, along with many other achievements, occupied East Europe and often went beyond their given orders. Both groups provided concentration camp guards, ran prison camps, helped form the ghettos and substantially used slave labour, all of which led up to the Holocaust and therefore adds to their part played within the responsibility for the Holocaust. They both also participated directly far more then any other group, including the Wehrmacht, or regular German army. From this is it clear that these two groups, although under instructions, were involved within the ‘frontline’, implementing the killings of the millions of Holocaust victims.
The Nazi regime operated through vertical hierarchies. Officials carried out orders from above and did not ask questions about what was happening elsewhere. Only those at the very top had a broad view of what was going on across the German empire. But most senior SS officers and many officials of the various Reich ministries must have known in whole or in part what was happening. Millions of people were rounded up, bureaucratically processed and transported across Europe, an operation involving thousands of officials and a great deal of paperwork. This was co-ordinated by the Reich ministries, the police, and the national railways, as well as the SS and the Gestapo, all under the supervision of the Nazi Party.
None of these people could plead ignorance after the event, including the SS and the Einzatzgruppen and therefore handing them partial blame and responsibility for the Holocaust would not be incorrect, giving a more broader responsibility for the Holocaust plus initiative in a structuralists view. Yet the intentionalists belief goes against this once again with Fuhrer’s will and structure of government, as it was Hitler who communicated the ideology of which the SS and the Einzatzgruppen were following. Also alike with the nazie elite, there are many questions over how much free will they actually had fearing the consequences of disloyalty?
The fourth and final group involved within the argument over responsibility for the Holocaust is the German population. The responsibility of the German people as a whole for the Holocaust has once again become a matter of heated debate.
Knowledge about at least some aspects of the Holocaust must have been very widespread among Germans. The SS itself had over 900,000 members, most of whom participated in one way or another in actions against the Jews, many involved within Civil Service or transport workers, therefore they must have had some awareness of what they were involved in, meaning that to an extent they rank highly with the responsibility for the Holocaust.
Nazism was based on concepts of race that were already popular in Germany and therefore Hitler was popular as he embodied the beliefs and values of the German people gaining their support and their support alone could hold them slightly responsible. Race was a motivation therefore for many joining the movement and it was the German population who in theory put the Nazi government into power. There was also very little opposition towards the Nazi government, a large number of citizens who denounced their friends and relatives to the Gestapo and generally they collaborated with the Nazies, directly and indirectly.
However, there were some occasions of individual acts of heroism so responsibility cannot be given in full to the German population. Along with this, it could be argued that the German people on the whole were terrified into compliance to apply themselves to the Nazi regime and that in many cases they did not know fully what was going on until it was too late to stop it from happening. If the people had gained more information then there might have been more action.
This arguments can be extended with the Golhagen Debate from 1996 onwards. Goldhagen argues that the great majority of Germans knew and approved of the extermination of the Jews, and that most would have actively participated in it had they been asked to do so. He provides extensive documention of the depth, ubiquity and antiquity of anti-Semitic sentiment in Germany, and of the equanimity with which large numbers of ordinary Germans obeyed orders to kill defenceless civilians, or even volunteered to do so, and how few Germans protested against what was going on. Many historians are sceptical of Goldhagen’s thesis however, pointing out that the regime went to considerable lengths to conceal the truth about what was being done not only from world opinion but from the German public.
Whether one view seems more suitable than the other though, the German people can still to an extent be held slightly responsible for the Holocaust as large numbers of ordinary Germans obeyed orders to kill defenceless civilians, or even volunteered to do so, and as few Germans protested against what was going on. Yet to give responsibilty to a full extent can certainly be argued as even if ordinary Germans were aware of the extermination of the Jews, there is possibly nothing they could have done to protest or prevent the actions of one of the most ruthless dictatorships of modern times.
To some extent also, it could be observed that the Jews did not help their own cause and that as the persecuted there was little resistance. Assessing the Jewish responsibility certainly allows a full ranged conclusion, however it is believed that their little resistance was their tactic, hoping somehow that ‘the German drive would spend itself’, meaning that they attempted to avoide provoking the Nazis.
Marrus’s quote is not comprehensive but in someways to a certain extent it is accurate. Accurate in a sense that although Hitler was at a distance and indirectly involved in some circumstances, people on the front and directly involved, such as the Nazie elite, the SS and the Einzatzgruppen and ofcourse the German population, although working at their own free will on most occasions were working up to Hitler’s ideology and therefore he is responsible. The assessments that have been drawn in this essay from the other groups involved, that could be all held responsible to their own extent, certainly mitigate against Hitler’s own responsibility for the Holocaust, however each assessment reflected and linked back to Hitler, providing more evidence of Hitler’s slightly higher level of responsibility.
On the whole it can be seen that Hiler did not actually originate the details of policy and neither did he play a direct role within the Nazi state, therefore Marrus’s quote is not comprehensive in attributing responsibility for the Final Solution. His quote implies total responsibility for Hitler on the debate over the Final Solution when that is clearly not fully accurate as in contradiction to his quote is the evidence of other groups involved within the Holocaust and the views of different historians.
In overall judgement, this statement by Marrus is to an extent accurate in attributing responsibility for the Final Solution, yet less comprehensive in doing so.