The Holocaust was a horrific and traumatic event that will serve for the rest of time as a reminder of the terrible atrocities that mankind can commit when put under vulnerable and desperate circumstances. While undeniably a disgusting event in human history, the causes of the Holocaust are often highly debated by historians all around the globe. The two prevailing schools of thought include the functionalist and intentionalist perspectives, the former emphasizing the complexity and confusion that existed within the Nazi bureaucracy and political system, and the latter emphasizing Hitler’s anti-semitic and genocidal intentions (Pascoe 41-43). This essay seeks to answer the question, “Which theory best explains the causes of the Holocaust?” by suggesting that there is not merely one theory that completely encompasses all the reasons for the initiation of the Holocaust. Instead, the true causes of the Holocaust are best outlined in a combination of the functionalist and intentionalist perspectives, being that Hitler’s genocidal intentions as well as the favorable political environment in Germany at the time both played a substantial and highly interconnected role in the events that would transpire. By using the viewpoints of intentionalists such as Saul Friedlander and Andreas Hillgruber and contrasting viewpoints from functionalists such as Ian Kershaw and Raul Hilberg, while also highlighting examples of how the same pieces of evidence are interpreted differently by each school of thought, this essay will highlight the underlying principles behind both the functionalist and intentionalist theories and the strengths and limitations that each theory possesses. This research question is worthy of investigation in that the Holocaust was an atrocity committed by the Nazis that resulted in the extermination of millions of innocent Jews. Gaining insight into the reasons why such a horrendous event was able to occur at a relatively recent period in history can aid in our understanding of the flaws within the German government and bureaucracy at the time as well as the flaws within our current system of government so that a catastrophe at this large of a scale can be prevented from ever repeating itself in the future.
In order to critically evaluate the validity of the theories in question, it is important to gather a clear understanding of the premises behind each theory and the principles which they encompass. To start, the main premise behind the intentionalist theory of the Holocaust is that the sole basis for the annihilation of the Jewish people was Hitler’s ideology (Pascoe). According to this theory, “Hitler is the most significant figure in the instigation of the Holocaust” (Pascoe). Most intentionalist historians, thus, propose that Hitler possessed genocidal intentions for the Jews long before the beginning of World War II and the resulting Holocaust was primarily the workings of Hitler’s Nazi ideology (Pascoe). Moreover, intentionalists characterize the German government at the time of the Holocaust as being a “hierarchical and homogenous system based on long-term, covert plans” (Gerlach). Two key figures in the intentionalist argument include Saul Friedlander and Andreas Hillgruber.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Saul Friedlander holds moderately intentionalist beliefs. Friedlander believes in the basic premise of intentionalist theory that “Without Hitler -- no Holocaust,” but also acknowledges that “Hitler, of course, could never have committed the crime alone” (Spiegel Part 2). In his opinion, “It was the population, it was the elite, some 200,000 perpetrators in Germany alone -- there was a willingness to go along with it, also for very practical reasons, because individuals hoped to gain a material advantage” (Spiegel Part 2). He believes that it was not Hitler’s initial intent to murder the Jewish people; rather, he wanted to “isolate them from society, remove their means of economic livelihood, and force them to leave Germany” (Spiegel Part 1). Friedlander advocates for the most accurate interpretation of the Holocaust being that he acknowledges that only one man, Hitler, could have the ability to strategically manipulate the minds of the German people and orchestrate the extermination of the Jewish people. His charisma, intelligence, and extraordinary speaking skills enabled him to manipulate the media and the rest of German society to an extent that would not have been possible with any other man as the Nazi dictator (Hurd 40-41). However, he is realistic in his determination that Hitler could not have been able to commit these terrible atrocities without any aid from the German bureaucratic and political system at the time. A single man is only capable of doing so much, and Friedlander does an outstanding job of balancing his intentionalist argument with the acknowledgment of this functionalist principle.
Andreas Hillgruber adds a unique perspective on the intentionalist argument. He argues that Hitler’s invasion of Russia --- the acquisition of Lebensraum in particular--- was intrinsically connected to the execution of the Jewish people (Interpretations of the Holocaust 2). In other words, “the extermination of the Russian ruling class and Eastern European Jews was the prerequisite for German rule over Europe because there was a mythical link (in Hitler’s mind) between Bolsheviks and Jews in National Socialist ideology” (Interpretations of the Holocaust 2). This false link between the Bolsheviks did exist and pervaded Nazi society throughout the period of time surrounding World War II. It is termed “Judeo-Bolshevism” and suggests “a complete identity between Communism and the alleged Jewish world conspiracy” (The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism). It was largely founded on the observation of “the overrepresentation of Jews in the ranks of the Soviet Communist Party” (The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism). Furthermore, Hitler did state in 1920 that “an alliance between Russia and Germany can come about only when Jewry is removed” (Noakes). Thus, the link proposed by Hillgruber between the invasion of Russia and the annihilation of the Jewish people is a logical link backed up by concrete historical evidence that suggests Hitler had possessed the intentions to occupy the Lebensraum territory and make it a purely German territory through the mass murder of the Jewish people that pervaded Eastern Europe, especially Bolshevik Russia. However, Hillgruber fails to acknowledge any of the discriminatory policies and legislation passed by the Nazi government enabling the mass murder of the Jewish people and making it easier to carry out concepts such as Lebensraum, which will be discussed later on in the paper. Thus, he should be perceived as an extreme intentionalist who, although providing reasonable claims with sufficient historical evidence, fails to provide a completely accurate and balanced interpretation of the events that unfolded during the Holocaust.
In contrast, the functionalist way of interpreting the Holocaust does not support the idea that Hitler’s genocidal intentions were the fuel that ignited the Holocaust. Rather, functionalist historians hold the general belief that the Holocaust resulted from a political system with multiple power centers that had vague powers and authorities (Gerlach). It is their opinion that at the beginning of World War II, Hitler was unsure of what he would do with the Jews. He had no clear intentions or policies that he wished to implement for them (Pascoe). They do not deny the fact that Hitler held anti-semitic views and ideologies. However, they do not believe that he had always desired to exterminate the Jewish people (Pascoe). The extermination of the Jews, under this perspective, was the result of many Nazi leaders attempting to please Hitler and gain his respect and favor (Gerlach). Two prominent figures in the functionalist perspective include Ian Kershaw and Raul Hilberg.
Ian Kershaw’s functionalist beliefs are centered around the idea he calls “working towards the Fuhrer.” This concept stresses the idea that Hitler’s subordinates implemented policies and pieces of legislation in an attempt to please Hitler, creating competition between the lower ranks of the Nazi government (Longerich 9). In Kershaw’s words, “Hitler’s personalized form of rule invited radical initiatives from below and offered such initiatives backing, so long as they were in line with his broadly defined goals. This promoted ferocious competition at all levels of the regime” (Longerich 9). Thus, under Kershaw’s view, the Holocaust was a result of the inner workings of the Nazi government and bureaucracy rather than solely the genocidal intentions of Hitler himself. The Nazi government was working with the goal of advancing the ideals of the National Socialist Party, which provided the framework for Hitler’s ideological goals, and the “cumulative radicalization” of these Socialist policies, as described by Kershaw, eventually led to the initiation of the Holocaust (Longerich 9). Although Kershaw’s beliefs are primarily grounded on functionalist principles such as the competition in the bureaucracy, intentionalist concepts also play a factor in his interpretation of the Holocaust, being that Nazi officials and bureaucrats were operating in a manner that they perceived would please Hitler and be in accordance with his intentions and ambitions. Thus, Kershaw’s argument stands to show that Hitler was still necessary, to an extent, for the Holocaust to eventually unfold in Nazi Germany, even if his genocidal intentions were not clear during his pre-war reign. This further justifies the argument being made in this paper that the most adequate interpretation of the Holocaust involves a combination of both functionalist and intentionalist theories.
Raul Hilberg holds a similarly functionalist stance to Ian Kershaw. Like Kershaw, he supports the idea of the radicalization of policy that eventually escalated into genocidal intent. He explains that “the Nazi campaign proceeded from legislative discrimination against Jews in Germany after 1933, through organization and liquidation of Jewish businesses and assets from the mid-nineteen-thirties and then the physical and temporal ghettoization of the Jewish populations in Nazi-occupied Europe from 1939 to their murder and annihilation after 1941” (Lawson). The anti-semitic policies that were implemented first made it inevitable that future policies would become more radical and eventually lead to the annihilation of the Jewish people as a whole. His primary claim is that “the ‘Final Solution was a bureaucratic process – and that it was the bureaucracy of the Nazi state that drove forward, with ever more lethal radicalism, the policies inflicted on Europe’s Jews” (Lawson). In Hilberg’s opinion, it was “the essential unity of purpose, as well as the competition between the agencies of the expanded German state, that drove Nazi antisemitism to fulfill its ultimately genocidal potential” (Lawson). The “essential unity of purpose” that Hilberg describes suggests that the members of the Nazi government held similar intentions regarding how to handle the Jewish problem in Europe, and, thus, were not merely acting in a manner to please Hitler, but to also please themselves, which differs with Kershaw’s main concept of “working towards the Fuhrer”. From Hilberg’s perspective, it wasn’t the intent of the Fuhrer alone which fueled the Holocaust, but, rather, it was the shared intentions of the Nazi government and bureaucracy as a whole. Hilberg’s argument defeats the common misconception that the members of the Nazi government acted as if they were “robots” in the sense that they blindly followed the intentions of their leader by emphasizing that they were active supporters of the policies and legislation that they implemented (Lawson).
To make the intense debate about the intentionalist and functionalist theories of the Holocaust even more controversial and confusing, much of the evidence used by intentionalist historians in support of the intentionalist theory is also used by functionalist historians in support of the functionalist theory. Disputes in the interpretation of evidence can be seen through the 1939 Reichstag speech, the Nuremberg Laws, and the Nisko and Madagascar Plans (jewishagency.org). Disputes and conflicting viewpoints based on the same pieces of evidence highlight the extremely difficult and nearly impossible task of deciding on which theory, if any, most accurately portrays the causes of the Holocaust.
A key piece of evidence used to justify the intentionalist perspective can be seen in Hitler’s 1939 Reichstag speech where Hitler exclaims that “If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!” (Dlin). In this statement, Hitler explicitly and undeniably states his desire to murder all the Jews, showing, in the eyes of intentionalist historians, that Hitler possessed genocidal intentions for the Jews prior to the beginning of World War II, adding substantial credibility to their argument (Dlin). However, in the eyes of functionalist historians, Hitler’s statements in the 1939 Reichstag speech suggest that the Holocaust was not really on Hitler’s mind prior to the war (Dlin). They reach this conclusion based on the fact that “Hitler spoke for hours but devoted only a brief few minutes to the Jews” (jewishagency.org). The fact that Hitler spoke about the Jews minimally throughout this speech may suggest that Hitler was not present too worried about the Jewish situation in Europe, and, thus, his genocidal intentions were not too significant to Nazi ideology prior to the beginning of the war. However, Hitler’s devotion to killing the Jewish people should not be judged by the length in which he discusses it, but rather by the weight that his words held in the brief time that he did talk about it. In this case, Hitler’s use of strong, hateful diction such as “annihilation” makes it highly probable that he possessed genocidal intentions prior to the war, even if it wasn’t a priority in his mind at the time.
Another instance in which differing viewpoints can be seen from the same pieces of evidence is through the analysis of the Nuremberg Laws (Dlin). This set of laws “provided a legal definition to the question 'Who is a Jew?', a step that is essential in the process of marking Jews out from the rest of the society, isolating them and preparing the ground for their ultimate elimination” (Dlin). The intentionalists view these laws as being one of the first steps taken in order to prepare for and more easily carry out Hitler’s ultimate plan to exterminate the Jews (Dlin). In the minds of intentionalists, the passage of the Nuremberg Laws demonstrate how Jewish genocide was a straight-line process from the very beginning, with every policy and piece of legislation enacted to further the goal, which, all along, was to eliminate the Jewish people (Dlin). Functionalist historians, on the other hand, question the validity of this interpretation of the Nuremberg Laws. They do not feel as if these laws were that vital to the overall process outlined by intentionalists being that they were “drafted almost as an after-thought on the back of a napkin in an all-night cafe” (Dlin). Plus, many German Jews described these laws as being “a basis on which a tolerable relationship becomes possible between the German and the Jewish people” (Dlin). This would have been a highly unlikely way for German Jews to have responded to laws that were intended to further Nazi genocidal intentions. If these laws were indeed intended to aid in the eventual annihilation of their kind, it seems quite ridiculous that the German Jews would feel as if it was a relationship-building piece of legislation. Thus, the functionalist interpretation seems to be the more logical and accurate interpretation of this scenario being that the intentionalist analysis of these laws is mostly speculative and not supported by much historical evidence.
The implementation of the “territorial solutions to the Jewish question” --- the Nisko Plan and the Madagascar Plan --- are also causes for disagreement between the intentionalist and functionalist historians (Dlin). Functionalists perceive the enactment of these plans as being “serious attempts to deal with the Jews by exiling them into territories not intended for ultimate Germanization” (Dlin). If this were the case, then this would show that Jewish extermination had not always been the ultimate goal of the Nazis, especially Hitler. However, the legitimacy of these Nazi plans is called into question by members of the intentionalist community, who view this legislation as “bluff and camouflage” (Dlin). The intentionalists believe that due to the brief period of time in which these plans were actually worked on by the Nazis, they were not really intent on following through with these plans (Dlin). Thus, it is possible that these plans were merely used to deceive the public of the Nazi regime’s true intentions for the Jewish people in Europe. However, the argument could be made that these plans had to be halted for justifiable reasons since the Battle for Britain “dragged on” and the Nazis needed to dedicate most of their resources to the actual war efforts (Dlin). The arguments concerning the Nisko and Madagascar plans are highly speculative in that it is very hard to determine the true intent behind their implementation due to the lack of statements of intent from prominent leaders such as Hitler. Hitler never explicitly stated how bought into these plans he truly was, and thus, we can only hypothesize as to how determined he was to actually follow through with this mass Jewish exodus.
An interesting observation that is worth noting is that many Holocaust historians, despite being labeled either a functionalist or an intentionalist, really hold interpretations of the Holocaust that are combinations of both functionalist and intentionalist theories. This can be best observed through the two functionalists described in this paper: Ian Kershaw and Raul Hilberg. Kershaw explains that “Intention and structure are both essential elements of an explanation of the Third Reich, and need synthesis rather than to be set in opposition to each other” (Bessel). From this statement, it is evident that Kershaw, despite being primarily a functionalist, believes that the most accurate theory of the origins of the Holocaust is one that utilizes components of both the intentionalist and functionalist theories being that they both possess some accurate perspectives on history. Furthermore, Hilberg’s true outlook on the functionalist vs. intentionalist debate can be seen through the way in which he “reminds us that the officials which made up the Nazi institutions were not simply the banal practitioners of a faceless murder process, but the enthusiastic implementers of a social and political vision: if you like, their intention was not removed from their function” (Lawson). Thus, through these statements made by reputable Holocaust historians, it becomes evident that function and intention at the time of the Holocaust were highly interconnected, and that the debate between functionalists and intentionalists is not as divisive or polarizing as it may seem.
The issue regarding the origins of the Holocaust is encapsulated by the debate between the intentionalist and functionalist schools of thought. Intentionalists, like Saul Friedlander and Andreas Hillgruber, focus on Hitler’s genocidal intentions for the Jews as being the primary force that swung the Holocaust into motion. On the other hand, functionalist historians, such as Ian Kershaw and Raul Hilberg, suggest that the Nazi bureaucracy and the policies and legislation implemented by them were the driving force of the Holocaust. From the evidence outlined in this essay as well as the strengths and limitations discussed for each perspective, the most viable solution to the debate is seen through a combination of the intentionalist and functionalist perspectives that have been dividing historians for so long, answering the question of “Which theory best explains the causes of the Holocaust?”. We see that Hitler’s genocidal intentions clearly exist and are expressed through his statements made in his 1939 Reichstag speech as well as his strong desire to acquire all of the Lebensraum territories. We also see that Hitler was second to none in terms of his charisma, intelligence, and his ability to sway the minds of the people he ruled over, suggesting that the Holocaust could not have happened without Hitler as the Nazi leader. However, it becomes apparent that the lower ranks of the Nazi government and bureaucracy aided Hitler in his quest to decimate the Jewish population through concepts such as “working towards the Fuhrer” and the “cumulative radicalization” of anti-semitic policies. Thus, it can be concluded that Hitler needed the Nazi bureaucracy just as much as the Nazi bureaucracy needed Hitler in order to orchestrate the Holocaust and that both of these factors were equally important to the initiation of the Holocaust. In a world that constantly seeks clear and concise explanations for extraordinary phenomena, we find once again that these explanations are not all that simple. From the analysis of these Holocaust perspectives, new questions for further exploration may arise. For example, the reasons why Hitler possessed such a strong hatred toward the Jewish people in the first place and why lower Nazi officials were so desperate for Hitler’s approval are left relatively unanswered throughout this paper and would be interesting questions to examine in an additional paper. Evidently, this essay is limited in that it provides somewhat of a narrow approach to deciding on which theory best explains the Holocaust, being that only two intentionalists and two functionalists are discussed in detail, when, in reality, there are many historians that support each theory and have their own unique concepts and beliefs to justify why they characterize themselves in one of the two schools of thought. A more elaborate exploration into the functionalist and intentionalist schools of thought with an in-depth analysis of more than two historians for each perspective could have made for a more comprehensive discussion of the issue at hand.
Stuck on your essay?
