It is safe to assume that anti-Semitism was not a purely German phenomenon, but was deep rooted in European society long before the Nazi consolidation of power in Germany. The founder of the protestant church Martin Luther is renowned for his strong anti-Semitic ethos. His attitudes reflected a theological and cultural tradition which saw Jews as a rejected people guilty of the murder of Christ. He wrote about exiling Jews from Germany and preached “be on your guard against the , knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils”. Much of Luther’s writing and other 15th century works are eerily resonant of the racial policies in Nazi Germany.
A concrete example of the Internationalist’s' interpretation of history is their reading of Speech delivered by Hitler in Salzburg, August 1920 at a NSDAP meeting.
OWN SOURCE 3
For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst. (Applause) – Hitler 1920
Intentionalists present this primary source as "proof" of Hitler's "intentions", in advance of the start of the World War, to annihilate the Jews. The source is significant as Hitler delivered this speech in 1920, long before the implementation of his elimination policies were employed. This source demonstrates the retrospective view of Hitler’s ideas and supports the most central idea of the Intentionalists view, that Hitler and his long held anti-Semitic views were central to the annihilation of Jews. Although Hitler delivered this speech before the war (1939) it can be argued that the way in which this speech has been interpreted has been exaggerated; it is vital to view the source in context. The utilization of the word “banished” by Hitler is somewhat ambiguous does insinuate harshness, but does not necessarily imply violence. Characteristically, Intentionalist historians have adopted a very literal approach to interpreting this. The interpretation of Hitler’s works by Intentionalist historians are often saturated with exaggeration ; Intentionalists hold a very literal take on works such as Mein Kampf, all too often, too literal.
This speech was delivered as a means of propaganda therefore should not be interpreted as a trustworthy blueprint for genocide; the bulk of Nazi propaganda existed only to intensify the public’s belief, support and commitment to the government’s policies. Hitler himself wrote “the art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through appeal to their feelings” in the infamous Mein Kampf. Also, it must be noted that that evening Hitler spoke for hours but devoted only a brief few minutes to the Jews. One certainly would neither deny nor downplay Hitler's amply demonstrated will for taking ruthless actions, for striking sudden blows intended to totally crush his enemies, and for his lust for blood. However the source does not clarify that the Holocaust was clearly present in Hitler's mind prior to 1941, before the surprising German military victories and the stunning Allied defeats that suddenly put his armies in positions of power and of control that no one could have predicted beforehand.
Much of the evidence available during latter 1940’s and early 1950’s, for example Hitler’s own books and speeches containing frequent and obvious demonstrations of his intense hatred of Jewish people make it understandable how the Historians of this time were able to draw such conclusions. Writing in the shadow of the shadow of the Nuremburg trails and filled with desire to seek revenge, Intentionalist historians are highly biased- a major flaw in their interpretation.
OWN SOURCE 4
“The Jews inhabited Hitler’s mind. He believed that they were the source of all evil, misfortune and tragedy, the single factor that, like some inexorable law of nature, explained the workings of the universe. The irregularities of war and famine, financial distress and sudden death, defeat and sinfulness- all could be explained by the presence of that single factor in the universe, a miscreation that disturbed the world’s steady accent towards well-being, affluence, success, victory…In Hitler’s obsessed mind, as in the delusive imaginings of the medieval millenarian sectaries, the Jews were the demonic hosts whom he had been given the divine mission to destroy.”
Lucy Dawidowicz , 1975
The author Lucy Dawidowicz was a scholar of Jewish life and history whose book "The War against the Jews" is widely regarded as a pioneering study of the Nazi genocide. She was selected to work at the Yiddish Scientific Institute which in turn means that she would have had access to extensive resources dedicated to Jewish History and development, enhancing the reliability of her work. Her views are reliable to the extent that they shed light on the inner workings of Hitler’s mind and are well researched, yet it must be noted that as a Jew whose family and friends were directly affected by the holocaust, there is the possible question of significant bias and exaggeration. In this source Dawidowicz focuses, like many other Internationalist’s, on the numerous anti-Semitic statements made by Hitler, such as those demonstrated in the previous primary source, and combines these to establish her conclusion that Hitler felt it his mission to destroy Jews and therefore planned the holocaust.
For many modern historians, Intentionalism is now perceived as a reactionary (post-war) and highly flawed theory. Historians like , and Martin Broszat later developed the Structuralist school of thought. Structuralist historians stress the significance of the different avenues pursued by the Germans to make their land Judenrein, and how the failure of those attempts led the Nazis to their horrific “Endlösung” (‘Final Solution’). They emphasize the less direct role of Hitler, labelling him as somewhat of an opportunist. They stress that the cumulative radicalism of the racial policy, due to the rivalry within the unstable Nazi power structure, and Hitler’s unwillingness to create an ordered systematic government provided the major driving force behind the Holocaust. They draw on the structure and institution of the third Reich, asserting that Hitler derived much of his strength from the rivalry of a vast array of competing power blocks within the structure of the state who competed for his approval and the overlapping responsibilities of state and party institutions. The Structuralist school of historians is composed of East, and West Germans; the value of their viewpoint is far greater as they reflect changes in views from the end of the war, far less reactionary than the view of the Intentionalist historians. To fully comprehend the viewpoint of this school of history, it is vital we look at how the fragmented and opportunistic policies employed by the Nazis helped shape the racial policy, which, when failed, led to the far more extreme Judeocide. The principles of Volksgemeinschaft and Lebensraum are central to the Nazi ideology, and in Hitler’s eyes could not be accomplished with the presence of a Jewish community. Hitler needed a solution to this “Jewish Question”.
Structuralists point to the fact that in the 1930s, Nazi policy aimed at trying to make life so unpleasant for German Jews that they would leave Germany. In 1939 a Central Offics for emigration was set up. Structuralists have noted that in German documents from 1939 to 1941, the term "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" was to be understood as a "territorial solution", and that the entire Jewish population was to be expelled from Germany. Structuralist historians assert that Nazis aimed to expel all of the Jews from Europe, but only after the failure of these schemes did they resort to genocide, sometimes referred to as the "crooked path" to Judeocide.
OWN SOURCE 5
THE MADAGASCAR PLAN
“I hope that the concept of Jews will be completely extinguished through the possibility of a large emigration of all Jews to Africa or some other colony.….However cruel and tragic each individual case may be, this method is still the mildest and best, if one rejects the Bolshevik method of a people out of inner conviction as un German and impossible”
- May 1940,
This entirely undermines the Intentionalists argument, proving that other plans and solutions were explored before the mass genocide and that the idea of the “final solution” was at first, a territorial one; emphasis at first was placed upon exportation rather than extermination; between 1933 and 19838 453,271 German Jews emigrated to over 27 countries. This evidence of exportation policies supports the Structuralist belief that the war was the main factor in proliferating extreme removal policies; the disruption of war seemed to initiate Nazi plans for the emigration of the Jewish community. Himmler was the leader of the SS, and a very close associate of Hitler’s, therefore this source is reliable in the respect that it demonstrates that close influential associates of Hitler advocated emigration as a genuine policy, with no mention of mass genocide. Hitler signed off on the Madagascar plan in 1938; however the subsequent loses in the War led to the failure of the Madagascar plan and the policy of deportation becoming unfeasible, promoting ever more drastic methods.
OWN SOURCE 6
Goering: Gentlemen…I have received a letter written on the Fuhrers orders, requesting that the Jewish question be now once and for all…solved. And Yesterday once again did the Fuhrer request by phone for me to take co-ordinated action in the matter…Since this problem is mainly an economic one, it is from the economic angle that it should be tackled.
[Goering and Goebbels proceed to debate how Jews are to be excluded from German life]
Heydrich: In spite of the elimination of the Jew from the economic life, the main problem, namely to kick the Jews out of Germany, remains…Following a suggestion by the commissioner of the Reich, we have set up a centre for the emigration of Jews in Vienna.
Stenographic report of a meeting on the Jewish question, chaired by Goering, 12 November 1938
This source again undermines the main contention of the Intentionalist historiography, that Hitler was key and fundamental in the orchestration of the Final Solution. The stenograph complements the Structuralists view; while it has been argued that the Nazi regime was totalitarianistic, it is far more suiting to place it as a polycratic state. Adolf Hitler delegated many responsibilities. The meeting above is of great importance yet Hitler is not present, his only contribution being a telephone call. It is questionable that if Adolf Hitler was indeed so deeply intent on carrying out his long held anti-Semitic plans, then he would have certainly not left such a matter in the hands of anyone but himself, or at the very least attended! Marxist Tim mason argues that an over emphasis on Hitler means a failure to give due weight to the social, economic and political reasons for figures, he argues, encourages a false logic which rationalises events after they have happened in light of what we see as the intentions of those involved. In other words, just because Hitler wanted the Jews dead and it happened, does not mean Hitler alone made it happen.
To support this, Structuralists point to the fact that although, in Mein Kampf, Hitler repeatedly states his inexorable hatred of the Jewish people, no-where does he proclaim his intention to exterminate the Jewish people The source undermines Hitler as the driving force, and enhances the significance of the role of the polycratic state simply by Hitler’s absence! The competitive nature of Hitler’s subordinates within this polycratic state is evident within this source, each power vying for the support and approval of their policies by Hitler. The meeting took place in 1938, before the failures of the war, at a time where emigration was a genuine policy; it clearly undermines the fact that mass genocide was planned from the outset of Hitler’s rule, the ridding of Jews from Germany is mention by Heydrich, but via “emigration” and not extermination.
OWN SOURCE 7
“It cannot be proved, for instance, that Hitler himself gave the order for the final solution, though this does not mean that he did not approve the policy. That the solution was put into effect is by no means to be ascribed to Hitler alone, but to the complexity of the decision-making in the Third Reich, which brought about a progressive and cumulative radicalisation.
Hans Mommsen cited from The Third Reich 1933-455 Geoff Layton
Renowned holocaust historian Hans Mommsen agrees that the Final Solution cannot be explained by Hitler alone, or solely by Nazi ideology. Rather the way in which Hitler allowed rival agencies to improvise policies and to compete for his approval led to a ‘cumulative radicalisation’. Mommsen is a key figure belonging to the Structuralist school of History and is a well-respected eminent German Historian. He was the first to put forward the theory of “cumulative radicalisation” and has clearly carried out a great deal of research; therefore his opinion on the issue is very valuable. Like many other Structuralist Historians, Mommsen is German himself; it can therefore be argued that his nationality and personal connection to his home nation may influence his evaluations of evidence and overall conclusions. Stating that the holocaust was the result of “cumulative radicalisation”, Mommsen is undermining Goldhagen’s view that all Germans were “willing executioners”, perhaps trying to shift the blame from the German nation and placing it upon the effect of circumstance. However it can be argued that the hard evidence presented by the German Structuralists is far more valuable as it is not as ambiguous as that presented by the Intentionalists.
. The outbreak of war ultimately lead to the failure of Nazi deportation policies as the conquering of land meant there was a whole new influx of foreign Jews into Nazi control; deportation became unfeasible. The state of war in Germany lead to an ever more radical approach; The war itself was the perfect place to take advantage of the disbanding of law and order where crimes could be committed due to lack of constraints and sense of protection of Germany from the common Jewish foe. Lebensraum was no longer a problem as Germany seized many lands; implementing racial ideology now became priority.
OWN SOURCE 8
After June 1941….Use of gas vans began after Einsatzgruppe members complained of battle fatigue and mental anguish caused by shooting large numbers…. Gassing also proved to be less costly. Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units) gassed hundreds of thousands of people, mostly Jews …In 1941, the SS concluded that the deportation of Jews to (to be gassed) was the most efficient way of achieving the . …In 1942, systematic mass killing in stationary gas chambers began…in Poland.
-Gassing Operations, US Holocaust Memorial Museum,
This source is highly useful as it confirms the far more harsh tactics employed by the Nazi’s as a solution to the “Jewish question”, beginning in 1941. In 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union, Operation Barbarossa began which ultimately resulted in 95% of all German Army casualties from 1941 to 1944. This source supports the Structuralist concept of circumstance inducing the mass genocide of the Jewish population by the Nazis. Martin Broszat argues that, until the autumn of 1941, the aim was still to deport the Jews. It was only the failure of the Russian campaign and Nazi’s inability to cope with the millions of deported Jews building up in Poland that led to initiatives which gained Hitler’s approval. By this way of thinking, the Holocaust was the result of the regime’s hasty search for a way out of a problem it had created for itself. The source is reliable as it is from the US holocaust Memorial Museum and is aimed to try and provide a factual, systematic and balanced account of the holocaust, based on evidence, and a non-German perspective, if any perspective at all. It is factual information and it not attempting to convey intentionalist or Structuralists interpretations. It is helpful in understanding the timing that the systematic killing began, and Structuralists draw on this to support their idea that the role of the war and impending military loses in Russia induced the physical extermination of the Jewish Race.
The debate between the proponents of intentionalism and structuralism sparked a great deal of fruitful research in the 1970s and 1980s. One of the outcomes of these efforts was the realisation that neither of the two positions could adequately account for all the evidence. The consensus school of history represents an attempt to synthesise the strengths and redress the shortcomings of the two competing views. The consensus interpretation was developed and championed by Sir Ian Kershaw. The interpretation emerged from the backdrop of the Cold War, long after the Second World War and after the re-unification of Germany, meaning that this interpretation was not clouded by emotion or prejudice and benefited from the revelation of new evidence and the findings of the Structuralist view. Like Broszat, Kershaw sees the structures of the Nazi state as of great importance as an explanation for the way developed, however Kershaw does not undermine the significance of role of Hitler himself. In particular, Kershaw subscribes to the view argued by Structuralist historians, that Nazi Germany was a chaotic collection of rival bureaucracies in perpetual power struggles with each other; He believes the Nazi dictatorship was not a totalitarian monolith, but rather comprised an unstable coalition of several blocks in a "power cartel". Unlike Structuralists, Consensus historians contend that Hitler was the driving force behind the Holocaust; however, they argue that the holocaust was not the result of Hitler’s possession of a long held grand design for the Jewish race as argued by the intentionalist school of history. Kershaw denies that Hitler had a master plan, yet promotes the idea of “No Hitler, no Holocaust”.
Consensus Historians argue that Hitler had little to do with the day to day admin of Nazi Germany, and wad became increasingly indifferent toward many of his political roles; State and party bureaucracy usually took initiative in beginning policies to meet Hitler’s ‘perceived’ wishes. Kershaw's way of explaining this paradox is his theory of "Working towards the Führer". This phrase was taken from a 1934 speech by , a Prussian civil servant.. Consensus historians contend that the radicalization of policies made by Nazi leaders was actively encouraged by Hitler, again reiterating Kershaw’s idea of “No Hitler, no Holocaust”.
OWN SOURCE 9
“Hitler’s ‘intention’ was certainly a fundamental factor in the process of radical anti-Jewish policy, which culminated in extermination. But even more important as an explanation of the Holocaust is the nature of the ‘charismatic’ rule in the Third Reich and the way it functioned in sustaining the momentum of escalating radicalisation around ‘heroic’, chimeric goals while corroding and fragmenting the structure of government. This was the essential frame work within which Hitler’s racial lunacy could be turned into practical politics.
-Ian Kershaw, “The Nazi dictatorship”, 1985.
Thus, for Kershaw Nazi Germany was both a monocratic state (rule of one) and polycratic state (rule of many). Hitler did hold absolute power but did not choose to exercise it very much; the rival fiefdoms of the Nazi state competed amongst each other and attempted to carry out Hitler's vaguely worded ‘intentions’ and dimly defined orders by "Working towards the Führer". This source is extremely valuable in assessing the main contentions of the consensus argument; Ian Kershaw’s view is the result of the culmination of more than three decades of meticulous historiographical research on Nazi Germany, making the source extremely reliable. He is a British historian therefore, has no real political perspective, and lacks personal ties and allegiance to the nation. He, and other consensus historians were not directly affected by the memories of the War, a valuable asset, enhancing the reliability of the source and his work on the whole; Ian Kershaw does not have any real reason for bias. Kershaw is a fluent German speaker, allowing him to sully evaluate sources such as Mein Kampf from a first hand, primary perspective. He is a modern historian, therefore has benefitted from the revelation of new evidence, and the findings, and consequently weaknesses, of the Structuralist and Intentionalist interpretations.
Having carefully analysed and evaluated each interpretation and the supporting sources, the Consensus synthesis, for me, offers the most plausible and logical reasoning behind the holocaust; I do not see the holocaust as a result of Hitler’s long held grand design as contended in the statement. There is no doubt that Hitler was fiercely Anti-Semitic however, I believe that the holocaust was the result of a combination of timing and events which Hitler used opportunistically to carry out his own ideology. In Mein Kampf Hitler repeatedly states his inexorable hatred of the Jewish people, but no-where does he proclaim his intention to exterminate the Jewish people; the events that occurred between 1933 and 1941 coincide with a gradual growth in harshness and hostilities, undermining the intentionalist argument and promoting the idea of circumstantial reaction. The statement is a limited assessment of the causation and origins of the holocaust as it focuses solely on the role of Hitler and his personal ideology and deep rooted ‘plans’. The existence of background anti-Semitism in Europe, the role of propaganda, Hitler’s ideology and the competitive polycratic nature of state as well as failure of policies like emigration and the impending losses in the War are all part of a synthesised cause of the Holocaust. The consensus view uses evidence from a broad spectrum of sources, of a longer period of time rather than focusing solely upon Hitler’s early writings or the events that unfolded. The championing historians are far less open to bias and give a wider perspective on the events. The Israeli historian Otto Dov Kulka has praised Kershaw’s concept of "working towards the Führer" as the best way of understanding how the Holocaust occurred. The consensus view demonstrates both Hitler’s central role in the "Final Solution" and why there was no need for any order from Hitler for the Holocaust to occur, as the progress that led to the event was "worked out" toward the Führer by almost the entire German population. Therefore the holocaust did not just stem from Hitler’s fierce anti-Semitic ideas but from a range of other interconnected factors, all cohering in the mass genocide that was the Final Solution.
Bibliography
Websites
http://www.martinfrost.ws
http://www.zionism-israel.com/
http://www.southerninstitute.info/
Books
Hitler: a study in Tyranny- Alan Bullock
The Nazi dictatorship- Ian Kershaw
Hitler’s willing executioners – Daniel J Goldhagen
The Third Reich 1933-455 - Geoff Layton
Prescribed document pack – provided by Elaine Thomas
The Hitler state: the foundation and development of the internal structure of the Third Reich- Martin Broszat
Mein Kampf – Adolf Hitler
The war against the Jews - Lucy Dawidowicz
Word count – 4069 (excluding sources and bibliography)