Another piece of evidence that shows the presence of prejudice towards the Jews is document C which is an illustration of an Aryan male being crucified on a Young plan cross whilst a Jewish man is stood laughing and politicians are fighting in the background. This suggests that the Jews were happy about the reparation payments set up by Owen D Young after the effects of the Wall Street Crash in 1929. It suggests Jews were content to watch the German people suffering. This cartoon is a cover from Der Sturmer a well known Nazi newspaper that was created by Julius Strecher, who was one of Hitler’s earliest followers. The cartoon was published in August 1930. This early form of propaganda is significant when looking at the reasons why the final solution was implemented as it was how the NSDAP indoctrinated the German people before they came to power. This document is also one of the many examples of how Hitler and the Nazi party used the Jews as scapegoats for failures such as World War One, Germany’s faltering economy and high unemployment and also in the outbreak of World War Two. This piece of evidence is clearly a publication from a biased newspaper that is in strong support of the Nazi Party. Strecher, as one of Hitler’s earliest followers had a strong idea of what the Nazi leaders wanted to achieve with regards to the persecution of the Jews, and published indoctrinating articles and cartoons such as this one to have an important influential role in anti-Semitism in Germany.
After being made Chancellor on 30th January 1933, Hitler’s intentions to isolate the Jews in Germany were put into practice on 1st of April 1933. This was when the boycott of Jewish shops and businesses took place document B shows a selection of the instructions issued by the Nazis on the 29th March in preparation. Point 3 of these instructions shows this by stating “no German will any longer but from a Jew… it must be carried out by the whole and must hit “Jews in their most sensitive spot”. However point 11 from the same piece of legislation states “Do not harm a hair on a Jews head.” This is significant as it prohibits physical force on the Jews during the boycott. This implies that the NSDAP did not want to physically harm the Jews and were trying to limit their economic influence as they felt the Jewish people possessed too much wealth and power. This document is important as it had the purpose of instructing the people how to discriminate and isolate the Jews. This suggests that anti-Semitism was thrust upon the German people. This document is a contemporary source directly issued by the Nazi party, therefore a clear reflection of their views.
Another important point that shows the Wannsee Conference was not entirely responsible for the Holocaust is the passing of the Nuremburg Race Laws on September 15th 1935. Document 6, which is an extract from E.J. Feuchtwanger’s book “Germany 1916-1941 says “with the Nuremburg Laws Hitler had in fact indicated to his old fighters that he was still the true Nazi revolutionary to whom they had given their loyalty” this implies that Hitler’s Anti-Semitic ideologies were still being embraced by his party members. But it could also be determined as Hitler’s “old fighters” pressuring him to enforce the Anti-Semitic regime he had promised them. Feuchtwanger was an academic historian who studied History at the University of Southampton. As a secondary piece of literature it is very valid as Feuchtwanger’s opinion as a structuralist is held in high esteem. The book specialises in Germany in the period 1916-1941, this shows that Feuchtwanger was primarily focused on the transition period where Hitler came to power and a healthy part of his leadership and gives a detailed account of this. Either way he had prohibited German people from having sexual or marital relations with Jewish people. This is shown in document 7 along with many other rules of the “Law for the protection of German Blood and German Honour”. This document is also a valid attribution when looking at the reasons behind the Holocaust, as it is a piece of legislation from 1935, its purpose is to make clear that German blood is essential for Germany to survive.
The validity of the assessment that “The Wannsee Conference was entirely responsible for the Holocaust” could also be disputed by the actions that took place on the 9th and 10th of November 1938. The days known as “Kristallnacht” or “The night of Broken Glass” were extremely significant as evidence that the Holocaust would be the final solution that stemmed from the physical violence that was displayed on those nights in the pogrom against the Jews in Germany, which included the vandalising of Jewish businesses and homes and the beating of some people to death. Kristallnacht also brought the world’s attention to the animosity towards the Jews in Germany this is shown in document D. This is an extract from The Times on 11th November 1938. Document D is a piece of primary evidence, it is unclear if it is an eyewitness account, but it is clear that the aim of the article is to shock readers with the disturbing stories form Kristallnacht. The article is from The Times, which is a British broadsheet Newspaper with a reputation as an honest trustworthy paper. The aim of “The night of Broken Glass” was to drive the Jewish people out of Germany through physical intimidation and to isolate the Jews that were left in Germany by destroying their business and livelihoods.
The events listed in previous paragraphs show how the nature of the persecution of the Jews in Germany was rapidly changing from legislation that restricted Jewish influence economically, socially and politically to physical violence and intimidation. Kristallnacht appears to be the turning point at which this happened.
The war began 3rd September 1939 and this again led to the Jews being used as scapegoats. Document I is significant proof of this. The document was published in Der Sturmer on 18th May 1944 and shows a Jew smiling over the dead bodies of the German Army. As stated previously Der Sturmer was created by Julius Strecher and he basically published crude anti-Semitic caricatures and literature. This was published towards the end of the war and therefore its aim was to blame the Jewish people for the War and suggest they were enjoying the blood shed, in order to turn more people against them.
The interpretation that the Wannsee Conference was solely responsible for the Holocaust could be considered valid if you consider the attempts that the Nazi’s tried to make to get rid of the Jewish people in the early war years. One idea that suggests the National Socialists were not intending to kill the Jews in a mass genocide is the Madagascar plan. The aim of the Madagascar plan was to remove all the Jews from Europe and put them on Madagascar, another attempt at isolating European Jewry. Document E shows an extract from a memorandum on 9th Jun 1940 by Franz Rademacher who was Head of Jewish affairs in the German Ministry’s Department for Internal German Affairs that suggests “the desirable solution is all Jews out of Europe…In the peace treaty France must make the island of Madagascar available for the solution of the Jewish question.” by this he is suggesting the Jews should be deported to this remote island. However to carry out this plan it was essential to have beaten the British Navy in order to commandeer their ships to carry out the deportation of an estimated four million Jews. When they did not beat the British Navy the plan was aborted. This shows that the Holocaust may only have happened because they were losing the war at the time of the Wannsee Conference. As the Head of Jewish affairs, Rademacher must have been very well informed on the intentions in relation to persecution of the Jews but does not refer to the Holocaust once in this memorandum. This backs up the idea that the Holocaust was a solution to a series of events that had not had the desired effect rather than the plan from the beginning of the formulation of the Nazi party.
The creation of ghettos also created the impression that the Nazi’s were not intending on murdering the Jews themselves but letting them die out through deprivation and living in squalor. In document 10 Alfred Rosenburg’s report on the success of the ghettos, created by Nazi’s throughout Eastern Europe, were. In this document he reports that the Jews are “decaying, decomposing and rotten to the core”. However it was not considered to be killing the Jews fast enough to kill off the entire race, Rosenburg goes on to say “Dr Frank said that he did not want to wait for such a long time.” this implies that another more efficient solution was needed for the Jewish problem, as the ghettos were not working as they had hoped they would. Dr. Hans Frank was a prominent Nazi, who was appointed governor of the General government in Krakow. This is a principle piece of evidence as it was written by a Nazi and an approved by Dr Frank who appeared to have quite an influence on the decision making in the Polish ghettos
The creation of the death camps must also be considered when looking at the interpretation that the decision for the Holocaust was made before the Wannsee Conference. Death camps were being set up in October 1941 in places such as Birkenau before the conference. This agrees with the intentionalist theory once again. This is backed up by document 11 which is an extract from Goebbels diary on 13th December 1941 he demands “The world war has come about and the annihilation of Jewry must be the inevitable consequence” this source is a very important attribution as it comes from Goebbels own diary and is there for his own thoughts and feelings and from this it is clear that the Holocaust was going to happen.
Document H shows the memorandum sent to Heydrich from Goering on the 31st July 1941. The document states “I request you further to send me, in the near future, an overall plan covering the organisational, technical and material measures necessary for the accomplishment of the final solution of the Jewish question which we desire.” this source is very useful in showing what a vast importance the Wannsee Conference had on the fulfilment of the execution of the Jews. This is significant because it suggests that Nazi leadership was planning for a meeting to decide the solution to the Jewish problem.
The most important date to be considered when looking at the impact of the Wannsee Conference on the creation of the final solution is of course 20th January 1942. On this date 15 SS officers and civil servants congregated to discuss the implementation of the Holocaust. At Wannsee the Nazi leadership decided upon the ‘Final Solution’ of the ‘Jewish problem’. Jews were to be exploited as far as possible, they would be forced to work to the point of death on starvation diets and, if incapable of or unsuitable for work they were to be terminated. The ‘Final Solution’ was therefore a policy designed to rid the Third Reich of the Jews. This would be achieved through initially the deployment of Einsatzgruppen and later the introduction of Death Camps such as Auschwitz.
After the Wannsee Conference, Operation Reinhardt was implemented. Operation Reinhardt was the code name for the clearing of the ghettos and extermination in Poland. It was extremely significant in the question at hand as it was the first organised mass killing of the Jews by the Nazis. The Operation was named after Reinhardt Heydrich who was Head of the Reich main security office and considered the leading organiser of the “Final Solution”. The brutality of the clearing is shown in document I, which describes the murdering of 200 children in the Janusz Korczak orphanage in the Warsaw ghetto. The extract is taken from an eyewitness account by a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto named Jehozua Perle. Perle was also a writer and his first hand account of the malice shown by Nazi officers actually happened just a few months after the Wannsee conference.
The Einsatzgruppen were seen as mobile death squads and were a collection of forces of the , , , and that were responsible for the killing of over 1million people during the war. Document F is an example of the reports given by the Einsatzgruppen commanders who were in charge of Killing Jews, gypsies and bolshevists. The extract is from the Jager report, which was written by Karl Jager in 1943 it states “In Lithuania there are no more Jews, apart from Jewish workers and their families” this shows that the Einsatzgruppen were killing off as many Jews as they could after the Wannsee Conference had taken place, this backs up the theory that Wannsee was entirely responsible for the Holocaust. Document F is a very influential document as it is from within the Army itself and it shows that they were happy to kill Jews without the official authorisation to do so. It is clear from document G that the Wehrmacht that they were authorised to kill the Jews even in September 1941 the extract states “The struggle against Bolshevism demands ruthless and energetic action, and first of all against the Jews as well” this shows that even before the Wannsee Conference instructions were coming from Himmler the commander of the SS to eliminate the Jews before the Wannsee Conference this shows that the extermination had begun before the Wannsee Conference.
When considering whether the Wannsee Conference was entirely responsible for the Holocaust, historian’s interpretations on the origins of the Holocaust must be considered. The two primary interpretations are referred to as intentionalist and structuralist. There is no argument that the events as described in the timeline actually happened at those times and in that way, there is conflict only on why they happened. The Structuralist argument that Hitler just wanted to be rid of Jews and the Holocaust came about after other attempts failed. This view suggests that the Holocaust was improvised and was a response to events and circumstances, that Anti-Semitic measures became increasingly more violent and extreme and ended with a mass genocide as other solutions proved unsuccessful. Famous structuralist historians include Ian Kershaw, Uwe Adam and Martin Broszat. The intentionalist interpretation is that Hitler intended to murder the Jews from the early stage of his political career and took advantage of every opportunity to advance his goal. Renowned internationalists include Lucy Dawidowicz, Andreas Hillgruber and Alan Bullock.
In my opinion, after looking through all the information I have gathered and studying many different historians’ viewpoints, I would consider myself to be a moderate structuralist. I believe this because there are so many events prior to the Wannsee Conference that showed signs of wanting to get rid of the Jewish people in Europe.
