As the National Socialist party gained momentum and support in 1929 Hitler repressed his anti-Semitic views and the disappearance of the overt anti-Semitism from his speeches apparent. When The Hitler eventually came to power as Chancellor in 1933 his concern was to resolve the internal government problems, rather than the Jewish question. It was important for Hitler in his early years to keep his power in government and the support of the ‘old fighters’ demanded extremist policies, causing Hitler great difficulty when he needed wide spread support. Hitler may well have been keen to moderate his own beliefs for political benefit, but his followers among the SA, were determined to make change and combat their enemies the Communists and Jews.
Therefore during 1933 and 1934 the National socialist party had introduced a series of measures that removed the civil rights of Jews. These measures consisted of a published boycott of all Jewish shops, medical and legal practices. Along with the ‘Law for Restoration of a Professional Civil Service’ that aimed to purge the bureaucracy of ‘unreliable’ elements while ‘Aryan’ significance allowed the dismissal of Jewish officials. It is argued that this early action relates to the ideological beliefs of Hitler, but was more significantly a form of appeasing Hindenburg and the elites (the Army, aristocracy and business), as the removal of the Jews meant that there was greater opportunity for them. This was seen by many within the establishment as a way of redressing the balance of the Weimar Republic, therefore conforming to the structuralist argument of reaction to circumstance rather than determined plan to remove the Jews.
On the other hand, the controversial historian Daniel Goldhagen believes that the anti- Semitism and Jewish prosperity in Germany made the German intolerance of the Jewish population grow. Goldhagen says this caused unrest between the races and suggests that the German people formed a unique intolerance and hatred towards the Jews, therefore quickly warming to the Nazi regimes extremist propaganda message as Hitler’s position improved.
This argument seems to be validated as Hitler’s radical ideas resurfaced, once he had freedom within the government to make his own ‘reform’. However a noteworthy event in 1934 saw some Jews who were in exile in France Return to Germany. This brings contentious evidence to suggest that Hitler’s Germany was in a Jewish perspective a safer and more prosperous society in which to live. This therefore once again reinforces the structuralist argument, but the early appeasement suggests underlying attitudes of intention still remain.
The intentionalist argument is strongly supported by the later events in 1935 and 1938 when it is no longer necessary for Hitler to suppress his ideological beliefs. This is thought to be partly due to the increased support for the Nazi party and economic reform, the susceptive German people after 1918 and dominance of Jewish society.
In September 1935 the persecution intensifies as the party introduces the ‘Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honour’ and the ‘Reich Citizenship Law’. Both these Laws encapsulated racial divide and discrimination. These two actions are better know as the ‘Nuremburg Laws’ and to restrict further growth of the Jewish population and integration in Germany legislation to outlaw marriage between Aryan Germans and Jews was forbidden.
In 1938 that some Historians consider the Key year in the regimes ‘war’ against the Jews, clearly showed the response of Nazi power. The event of 91 Jewish people being killed and 30,000 rounded up and imprisoned in camps had been sparked by the assassination of one German diplomat. This event conforms to the intentionalist view that Hitler had an eliminist vision for the Jewish question, but also reflects the structuralist argument concerning the influence of the polycratic state and the powerful individuals within it. This event is considered by some as a reaction to circumstance by Goebbels to regain the fuhrers’ favour and satisfy the fanatics of the Nazi party. As Ian Kershaw stated in an article ‘everyone was working towards the Fuhrer’ and ambitious Nazis came to realise that racial initiatives were certain to please him.
The Historians Uwe Adam, a structuralist and Avrahim Barkai, an intentionalist discuss the events of ‘Kristallnacht’ and the debatable issues of planed or ad-hoc. Adam argues that the economic legislation that followed in1938 was as unforeseen as ‘Kristallnacht’ itself. He puts the case for the lack of organisation within the Nazi party and competition between influential Nazi’s. He explains the event as a reaction by Goebbels, which was driven by personal gain and opportunism. This therefore suggests that the events were unplanned and the consequences unforeseen. However, Barkai argues that the events were indeed planed and need to be located in a wider context. He identifies that anti-Semitic economic laws were discussed prior to 1938 and that the necessary preparations were put into place allowing ‘Kristallnacht’ to take place.
Regardless of both the historigraphical positions on the taxation of the Jews and violence of ‘Kristallnacht’, In 1938 Hitler and the Nazi parties main focus was on the emigration of Jews to the east. As earlier in 1936 Eichman had been made Jewish affairs minister and in 1938 was put in charge of orchestrating the mass emigration of the Jews. However the policy of emigration conflicted with the taxation that Goebbels inflicted on the Jewish people, which in effect prevented them from emigrating. This is the point at which many Historians believe that the term ‘Eliminate’ began to change from the removal under 1% of the German Jewish population to the murder of almost 10 million Jews.
The unrestrained political battles between the Nazi’s can be attributed some of the responsibility for the increasingly likely ‘final solution’, But another significant factor in the eventual extermination of the Jewish people was the beginning of World War II. In 1939 Hitler Invaded Poland in pursuit of ‘Lebensraum’ (living space) for his 1000 year Reich sparking the Second World War. However this meant that he encountered a population of Polish Jews highlighting the need for a more effective method of removal. In 1940 the first concentration camp was set up in Lodz Poland implying that the calm before the storm was over.
This was made very apparent in 1941 when Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union began a ‘General Plan East’. Hitler sought after a ‘Lebensraum’ in Russia as it would secure the future of the German people, but the irony for the Jewish population was that is was going to confirm the decision for mass extermination, due to the almost 5 million Soviet Jews that Hitler encountered. Historian Ian Kershaw’s article ‘The decision to kill the Jews’ provided considerable evidence suggesting that the decision to exterminate the Jews took place in 1941.
Einsatzgruppen (killing squads) were set up in May 1941 and throughout July and August extensive shootings were carried out. In September Himmler reported Hitler’s wish to clear Jews out of the Reich leading to continued emigration from Germany to Poland and the East. However in November 1941 emigration of Reich Jews was banned, this is considered to be the turning point for what was to come.
Nevertheless it was not only the Nazis and German people that held anti-Semitic beliefs and should be held solely responsible for the Holocaust. Anti-Semitism was a European and not just German phenomenon. For over a thousand years no century passed without Jews being persecuted and killed is different parts of Europe. In the 1930s several countries in Eastern Europe passed legislation discriminating against Jews. Violence against Jews was particularly widespread in Poland, Jewish shops and houses were frequently attacked and scores of Polish Jews were killed. Romanian Troops and other occupied countries people such as, Lithuanians, Estonians and Ukrainians frequently co-operated with the Germans in slaughtering the Jews. This not only shows the significance of the ideological views that were held concerning the Jewish race, but the captive audience that Hitler had to turn into his ‘willing executioners’ by manipulating the underlying attitudes concerning race and intensifying them.
There is also delicate argument that suggests that there was a form of Jewish responsibility involved in the Holocaust. The key issue that Historians raise in this debate is the lack of resistance and the historian Hilberg for example see the compliance of the Jews as having helped seal their fate. It is suggested that possible collaboration of Jewish leaders with Nazi authorities seen by Hannah Arendt as ‘undoubtedly the darkest chapter in the whole story’. However there was certainly an element of reliance on Jewish participation to maintain order, conveying demands and constructing lists. Also as events progressed and concentration camps were devised in 1940 it was the propaganda message sent out by Goring and the compliance of the Jews that made it possible for such large numbers of Jews to be transported with relatively no resistance. However when attributing responsibility for the Holocaust this is a factor, but not a key one that could be argued as a cause for the Holocaust. This merely provides us as historians with background evidence into the power and efficiency of the German propaganda machine and the clever implementation of their plans when the action had been decided.
Apart from allied responsibility and role of other countries that contributed to the Jewish question, Papal responsibility was that of a surprising position. The silence of the Vatican regarding the events is one of considerable question, as the Pope did not speak out in defence of the Jews. This may have had an important role in the effectiveness of the propaganda that the Nazis regime were able to so successfully produce, therefore pacifying the surrounding nations who had got word of the events and the Jewish population. It is quite conceivable that if the Papal neutrality was in line with traditional policy then silence meant compliance. If news of the unspeakable persecution and violence had been passed through the Vatican’s network of informants all over Europe that action could have been taken at an earlier stage to prevent such an atrocity.
However, an explanation for the silence of the Vatican, compliance of countries such as France and Holland who lost 75% of its Jewish population and the lack of Jewish resistance can all be put down to Nazi suppression and fear. This in an intentionalist historian’s view means that the evidence and insight that these factors provide lack reliability and substance as there is not significant evidence suggesting that if a Germany was not under the control of Hitler that the Holocaust would have still been committed. On the other Hand structuralist would argue that the evidence of anti-Semitism in Europe and the similarity of the discriminative legislation that was put into place all over Europe gives Germany no greater caused to complete the Holocaust than the France, Italy and even Great Britain.
Yet most importantly both positions on the debate structuralist or intentionalist agree on one key point. This being that Hitler was very much at the centre and in control, if not directly, but ultimately of the events that took place. The more structuralist theory that the Holocaust was a chain of reactions to events in History with unforeseen consequences that led to such an event of this magnitude seems inconsiderable to a large extent. It is would be regarded as accurate to say that the competition between Nazis led to opportunistic uses of power in a polycratic government and conforming to the structuralist argument meant actions were a reactions to the response of the German people and officials.
However it is clear that the intention even with delegated power in the Nazi governing system, all stemmed from anti-Semitic prejudice from all round Europe, but more importantly the emphasis that Hitler put on them and the incentives that were provided to achieve his ideological aims. Hitler had the perfect target society, struggling to recover form the debt and duties of the First World War, who needed hope and the promise of a sustained, prosperous nation. His fanatical and passionate oratory skills and charisma encapsulated the German imagination and hope and due to the economic crisis that the people were facing the ‘thousand year Reich’ that Hitler suggested concealed his underlying hatred of the Jews and the plans for ‘lebensraum’ (invasion).
The role of Hitler is widely debated and it is very difficult to put forwards a case that can precisely state when the order was given to ban emigration and begin the extermination of almost an entire race. This is due to the fact that there is no single ‘Hitler decree’ to begin the final solution that has been found. The only real documented evidence of the instruction of the Final solution comes from the Wannsee conference in 1942, chaired by Heydrich, who formalised the administrative arrangements of the Holocaust. The eugenic intent of the government, gradual stripping of civil rights from Jews in the 1930s and the race war that begun in 1941 all led to the murderous logic of death camps that sanctioned mass genocide.
Hitler’s role in the Holocaust can not be denied, the most important factor in the debate concerning responsibility is hat of Hitler‘s central role in the decision making process. Hitler’s constant authorisation and legitimisation of this policy articulated the central importance of persecuting the Jews as shown in Nazi policy. The account of Hitler’s role in the genesis of the ‘final solution’ is complicated by the fact that the dictator avoided the use of explicit written directives relating to the murder of the Jews. He only issued oral instructions on the subject to a single individual or front of a small group of people. When he did speak on the subject, he used formulations that certainly left room for interpretation or deliberately concealed the true state of affairs. Hitler’s behaviour in this respect was initially determined by secrecy. The secrecy also obscured the reality of the events and by speaking abstractly about the ‘annihilation’ of millions of people made the ideas that were suggested if not directly by Hitler as possible and tolerable if it were for the good of the German people.
From the arguments presented by both historigraphical sides of debate and the analysis of the Nazi policy between 1933-1939, it is clear that to begin with Hitler pursued a system of policy that systematically segregated and discriminated against the Jews that would finally take action with the use of direct violence. Hitler’s direct influence can be demonstrated for all the phases of the persecution, although the dictator always remained flexible within his general attempts to radicalise anti-Jewish policies. Nevertheless Hitler’s actions are not to be seen as merely actions of an ideological fanatic, but they also had a fundamental role in his power politics.
The systematic murder of 10,000 people in Poland and the beginning of the ‘euthanasia’ programme are the background against which the ‘Jewish Policy’ of the Third Reich in the months after the beginning of the Second World War should be considered. Plans were now being made for the establishment of a reservation in Poland for all the Jews, complying with Hitler’s initial objective of removing the Jewish race from the German ‘lebensraum’.
After the victory in June 1940 over France, the plans to push Jews into a reservation in Poland were replaced with another project for a territorial solution. This was then so called the Madagascar plan. From this point in History the Role of Himmler in the Holocaust can be examined, as early as the 25th of May Himmler presented Hitler with a memorandum that included the following statement: ‘By means of possibility of a large emigration of all Jews to Africa or some other colony I hope to see the concept of the Jew completely extinguished’. In the typical governing style that Hitler ran the Nazi party by, he gave no judgement or direct instruction but left it to Himmler to follow up on the matter, giving him explicit authority.
Another example of the power that the upper Nazi circle had was in the organisation of the Wannsee Conference in January 1942, as it served Heydrich’s intention to present the mass murders in the various occupied areas as a part of a general plan ordered by Hitler. Heydrich was making it clear that a new ‘possible solution’ had been explicitly authorised by Hitler. His objective was to distinguish between the two chronological stages, the Impending ‘final solution’ and the provisional measures intended for the near future. This future ‘final solution’ was to be that of the Holocaust and the annihilation of almost 11 million Jews.
This action could be interpreted as a form of bring new ideas and initiatives to the forefront of the political party, but also suggest that Hitler did not have a direct influence over the policy, but an indirect role in its ideology and aims. However even if Hitler himself delegated a lot of responsibility for the construction of Nazi policy, it was always in accordance with the Fuhrer.
.
