Well argued. I had a book recommended to me at some point (can’t remember the title, alas) stating that the Eastern empire probably would have collapsed within a half a decade or so even if Stalin had been decisively defeated – so hopelessly incompetent were the Nazis were it came to running their conquered territories. For one thing, they somehow managed to turn the Eastern anti-Communist guerillas (a natural ally, you’d think) into mortal enemies through all manner of barbaric brutality.
Ah, but which was the “faction” that advocated the Holocaust? Was it Hitler and the Nazi leadership, from an early date, as claim the intentionalists, or was it their underlings, late in the process, as claim the functionalists? Two different scenarios.
I figure the difference is only significant if one wishes to (even partly) absolve Hitler of responsibility and I see no reason to do so. I don’t see a reason to care if the idea of mass extermination was something Hitler came up with in 1920 or something he hadn’t considered until underlings proposed it in 1942. At best, it’s worthy of idle academic debate.
Overall, I tend to follow the functionalist line more. I think the early policy was something vague like “let’s get rid of the Jews” and it evolved into a specific program of camps and mass murder.
I don’t see how functionalism absolves the Nazis of any guilt. What difference does it make if they decided to commit genocide as early as 1924 or as late as 1942? They clearly made the decision at some point and acted on it.
IMO it was a combination of both. I think the original Hitler/Nazi Leadership’s “master plan” early on was to get rid of the Jews, somehow.
Various options were considered and/or tried, from Madagascar to sterilization to mass shootings…but the specifics of the ultimate plan of mass industrialized extermination evolved over time, after they experimented with the idea and found it was both possible and efficient.
I think the Nazi leadership was the driving force behind the Holocaust, but it would never have happened without the complicity of the “lower ranks” and the general public.
Functional. He wanted Germany and Europe free of jews at some point but I don’t think he already had mass murder in mind in 1932. The early laws that began stripping then of their rights and banning them from professions were intended to make life so miserable for them that they left on their own.
Once the war in the east started they were adding millions more jews to Germany’s “problem”.
I don’t believe the holocaust could have been carried out in peacetime. The scale of the german-soviet war gave them cover in a sense. Alot of the first mass killings were in the conquered territories and by firing squads.
I’ve heard that too. It depends on whether he would have been pragmatic enough to turn the conquered territories over to competent managers instead of party ideologues.
Or they may have decided not to bother trying to run them at all. Kill everyone and just open it up to German settlers.
To begin with, I’ll point out that part of the intentionalist argument is that Hitler was, in every conceivable way, the “master of the Third Reich” – not simply the most powerful man in the realm, but the only powerful man in the realm. So Bracher, for example, argued that “at no point was Hitler ever driven by pressure from below or had his power limited in any way,” and in Ritter’s words, “the will of a single madman” caused World War II.
In this view, no major project could have gotten underway in Nazi Germany without Hitler as the driving force behind it – and of course the Holocaust was a major project, to say the least.
But you ask for evidence, so… Let’s see here…
Himmler met Hitler on 18 December 1941, afterwards writing down two lines: First “what to do with the Jews of Russia?”, and then “exterminate them as partisans.” Presumably, the first line was Himmler’s question, and the second Hitler’s answer – either his exact words or a close paraphrase, but in any case a very clear answer.
Among intentionalists, the fact that, apart from this, no further written order is known to exist isn’t considered as big deal as some people try to make it: Hitler often delivered his orders verbally, they argue, and sometimes in secret. (Indeed, in October of 1943, Himmler specifically mentioned the subject of the “extermination of the Jews” as one of those about which no one ever speaks out loud, adding that in fact “we will never discuss this publicly.”)
So for example, Christian Gerlach has argued that Hitler announced his decision on December 12, 1941, in a secret speech to some fifty-odd gauleiters:
According to Eberhard Jäckel (a leading intentionalist), many local dignitaries were shocked when they found out about this new directive, thus making it likely that the initiative came not from their own kind, but indeed directly from above, i.e. from Hitler.
OK, so if December 12, 1941, is when Hitler announced his decision, when did he first make it, if only in his heart of hearts?
Lucy Dawidowicz believes one need look no further than Mein Kampf, and look at Hitler’s early speeches and writings to find clear declarations of intent. She guesstimates that Hitler probably made up his mind as early as 1918-1919 – admittedly an extreme position, for which she has taken some flak over the years. I don’t know what precise evidence she presents, though, if any – I haven’t read her book.
Jäckel, too, believes Mein Kampf was essentially a “blueprint for genocide,” though he allows (if I have understood his position correctly) that Hitler brooded on the matter all through the 1920’s, but in any case had made up his mind by the time he took power in 1933. Haven’t read his book either, though… So many books, so little time, you know.
There was also Hitler’s speech, which he made in January 1939.
Hitler was talking about the possibility of war. As he often did, he claimed that Germany wanted peace. He said that if war came about it would be because the Jews started it.
Then he said if the Jews thought they could start another war in order to keep Germany down, they were going to be surprised. He said that if the Jews started another war, the result would be the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.
So there is Hitler, on record, acknowledging the possibility of genocide.
I find the intentionalist position fairly compelling, though I’m no expert.I think it’s pretty clear that Hitler always had it in for the Jews, and surrounded himself with people who thought likewise. The details of the plan may have changed but an anti-Jewish genocide was inevitable once hitler was in power.