Essay on Why Did Hitler Hate Jewish People

Historians have disagreed about the exact nature and course of the Holocaust in the decades that followed the mass murder of 6 million Jews living in Nazi-occupied Europe in the years 1941-1945. I would argue that the Holocaust was a response to the growing anti-Semitism that had emerged out of Germany after the war. In doing so, I would agree with the intentionalist argument of historians like Ian Kershaw and challenge both the intentionalist and functionalist ideas of Davidowicz and Kershaw. I have chosen 3 selected works by Alan Farmer, Ian Kershaw, and Lucy Davidowicz to assess and evaluate the extent to which the Holocaust was a long-term plan and will be supporting and challenging these arguments concerning the works of Snyder 'History Today' volume 65 issue 12, 2015, and Monteath 'History Today' volume 48 issue 9, 1998.

Since the genocide, many historians have tried to understand whether the Holocaust was a gradual process or an intended one. The three differing stances are structuralist, intentionalist, and functionalist. Structuralists believe that the Holocaust naturally emerged from the state of Germany and that the structures of the Nazi state are far more important than the personality of Hitler (or any other individual for that matter) as an explanation for the way Nazi Germany developed; for example, Germany losing World War One, the failure of the Reichstag, and the Wall Street crash are argued by structuralists to be the triggers for the Holocaust. This is something that is addressed in Kershaw's 'Hitler' 1991. Kershaw agrees it was an accumulation of events and radicalizations that led to the 'final solution', and argues that it was due to other governmental directions, such as Heydrich or Himmler, and also the rife and rampant anti-Semitism in 1930s Germany; thus the mistreatment of the Jewish population could go under the radar as they were already treated as social pariahs.

On the other hand, intentionalists believe that the plan for the Holocaust largely stemmed from Hitler, as seen in Davidowicz's 'The War Against The Jews' 1975. Intentionalists would be more likely to assert that the Holocaust was an inevitable event and was a long-term, certain plan. Intentionalists believe that Hitler intended for the Holocaust to happen from early on in his life. Hitler had always possessed the specific desire to exterminate the Jewish population, even before his political career. Hitler had an innate hatred for Jews that emerged after the death of his mother in 1907, however, the physical proof of Hitler's radical anti-Semitism can be seen in Mein Kampf, a book written during his time in prison which discusses his 'plan for Germany to 'fight against' and 'eliminate' the Jewish population. The policy changes eventually implemented by the Nazis that led to the Holocaust were a result of Hitler's long-term plan. This is something that can also be seen in Snyder's 'History Today' 1998 where he writes that Hitler had 'imagined a 'world without Jews' from the beginning'; however, Snyder also acknowledges that the Nazis didn't know how to eradicate the Jews, so although Hitler had planned to 'remove' the Jews out of Germany, the way he was going to do so hadn't manifested itself until the late 30s when it was occurring and therefore was less of a long-term plan and perhaps even more of a short-term one. This perspective is something that is contrasted in Monteath's 'History Today' 1998, where he acknowledges that to some historians the Holocaust 'wasn't the result of a preformulated plan' but rather the result of lower party members and was 'conditioned by unforeseen circumstances' and even labels Hitler as a 'weak dictator'.

However, functionalist historians believe that the Holocaust was inevitable for post-World War 1 Germany. The Treaty of Versailles destroyed Germany's economy and was a heavy burden on the German people who faced extreme poverty. Functionalist historians argue that the Holocaust was a consequence of the sheer desperation felt by the German people. Germans easily turned against the Jewish population, a minority that had been both immigrating to Germany in large numbers and also had been facing discrimination for most of history and thus were easy scapegoats for why Germany lost the war. This is something illustrated within Farmer's 'History Review' issue 58, 2007. Farmer writes that the idea of the Holocaust was more of a medium-term plan that had emerged from within the Nazi party once they gained power and was a result of a collapse of Germany's structures. The Nazi party recognized the high levels of discrimination faced by Jews combined with their prejudices and pinned the loss of World War 1, something a lot of Germany felt strongly about, on them, and so the Holocaust was then easier for Germans to digest as they had been indoctrinated to believe by the government that they were subhuman monsters. In 'History Review' 2007 Farmer does not deny the fact that Hitler played a big part in the Genocide, however, his belief suggests that the subsequent actions of the lower party members in the Nazi system are what triggered and really materialized the Holocaust and that it was therefore a medium-term plan as it only really came to fruition once the NDSP gained power.

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

Place Order

The intentionalist argument claims that Hitler was an all-powerful Fuhrer who was largely at fault for the Holocaust. This is the view that is shared by Davidowicz. She claims in 'The War Against The Jews' 1975 that the 'Final solution' for the 'Jewish problem' was being planned as early as 1923. It must first be established when the final solution was planned or if was an evolutionary extension of the Nazis' highly discriminatory racial policy. Dawidowicz argues that the Final solution was being planned while Hitler was writing Mein Kampf from jail in 1923. She argues that 'Mein Kampf was the basic treatise of Hitler's ideas, where he brought together the three essential components that formed the embryonic concept of the final solution.' It is undeniable that the three essential components of the Holocaust did exist in Mein Kampf; Hitler's Anti-Semitism, his desire to punish the Jews, and his explicit violent nature '[The Jew] satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspecting girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her people. The Jew uses every possible means to undermine the racial foundations of a subjugated people. However, despite Hitler's completely obvious hatred for Jews, the fact that Hitler did not link these three components together within it cannot be ignored. It is easy for Dawidowicz with the privilege of hindsight to draw these links together; however, we should not assume that Hitler himself made them too, it seems as if he had all the hatred but no consolidated plan, at least not that early on. Mein Kampf does not show sufficient evidence to say that Hitler was planning the Holocaust in 1924 while writing it; instead, Dawidowicz turns Hitler's conceit into policy. The idea that the Holocaust was something 'planned' from so early on is criticized in Monteaths 'History Today' 1998, where he writes that '[Hitler's] worldview was so radical that the concept of 'decision' is inappropriate'. Here Monteath is supporting the previous point that there is no way to narrow down the specific time in which Hitler 'decided' on the 'final solution' but rather it is more likely that it manifested itself gradually and was contributed to by Hitler's hatred but not a direct result of it.

Many historians support Berghahn's viewpoint, however, they base their conclusions on different grounds. Kershaw contends that it was not a long-term plan by Hitler himself and instead stresses that Hitler's 'blanket authoritarianism' was manipulated by his bureaucracy in their attempts to please him. Evidence of this is highlighted in Eichmann's actions regarding Hungarian Jews in 1944- transferring Jews to Austria for 'labor' despite 50,000 being forced into a 'death march' in Budapest. This extreme measure was not formulated by Hitler, but an attempt to gain approval. Moreover, Eichmann was later ordered by Himmler to 'look after' the Jews, further implying that it was not the Nazis' initial perspective to kill the Jews but individual initiatives acting in the 'will of the Fuhrer.' This is reinforced by Peukert's reference to the possible 350,000 who were sterilized by the Nazis. Sterilization would not kill Jews but prevent re-population. Therefore, arguably elimination by murder was not their main requisite. It is arguable that combined with the deep-rooted anti-Semitism within the party, the Nazis were certain that Hitler wanted to rid the Jews by any means as he 'signaled in unmistakable terms in December 1941.' Consequently, the Holocaust evolved in its 'own momentum' as the war commenced, as Hitler's subordinates attempted to achieve praise and acceptance. Kershaw emphasizes the importance of Hitler's style of leadership, Hitler had an expectation and voiced his will, but the details and the 'plan' are a result of his subordinate.

On the other hand, Kershaw contends that the Holocaust was not a long-term plan by Hitler himself and instead stresses that Hitler's 'blanket authoritarianism' was manipulated by 'lower party members' in an attempt to please him. Evidence of this is highlighted 'Anti-Jewish policy had suffered from complete lack of coordination, Hitler himself had been little involved. Goebbels [was] a driving force: in pressing for tougher measures against the Jews. Things then changed for the Nazis in January 1929, this is when Reinhard Heydrich transformed the forced immigration of Jews into 'expelling them from Germany: [which] marked a decisive step that was on the way to end in the gas chambers of extermination camps'. Therefore, elimination by murder was not their main requisite early on, however, really was a plan which manifested itself once lower party members like Heydrich and Goebbels became heavily involved. It is arguable that the deep-rooted anti-Semitism within the party, the Nazis were certain that Hitler wanted to rid the Jews by any means and so to please him and rise the ranks they steered the ship of the development of the Holocaust. During a speech at the Reichstag on 30 January 1939, Hitler threatened 'the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe' in the event of war 'If international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, the result will be not the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe'. Consequently, the Holocaust evolved as the war commenced, as Hitler's subordinates attempted to achieve praise and acceptance. Kershaw emphasizes the importance of Hitler's style of leadership, Hitler had an expectation and voiced his will, but the details and the 'plan' are a result of his subordinate; this view is also shared in Farmers, where he also emphasizes the importance of lower party members ''History Review' 2007 where he writes that 'Himmler, the head of the SS, was the real architect of genocide'. Kershaw emphasizes how Hitler was the 'architect' of the Holocaust but in fact, it was up to Himmler to unravel Hitler's ambiguous wishes. Whereas Davidowicz argues it was always a long-term plan' that Hitler had always had planned to happen since the loss of WW1. it is clear that Kershaw disagrees with this, and instead argues that it was the outbreak of the Second World War which was the more significant factor in the evolution of the Holocaust which suggests that it was never a long-term plan at all. The value of Kershaw's structuralist argument is that he argues that evolution happened not to fulfill Hitler's specific orders, but to please him. However, Kershaw does offer an alternate perspective which suggests that the Nazi policies reflected Hitler's overall vision. Kershaw is saying that the Nazi party knew that Hitler wished to create a Volk full of strong Aryans and so conjured up a method to rid Germany of the Jews. However, this would have shown extremely weak leadership from Hitler as he would have been unaware of major policies occurring in his own country. Kershaw also suggests Hitler's will was taken by Hitler's followers and then turned into coherent policy. This is accurate as anti-Semitism was rife in Germany especially as the German people just wanted scapegoats for the fact that their country was in disarray. Therefore, For the Holocaust to have occurred someone must have initially listened to Hitler's speech, concocted a plan of action, and then implemented it in the name of Hitler, and was not a result of his direct ruling.

Similar to Kershaw's point of view, Farmer suggests that the Holocaust was a natural result of 1930s German society and, therefore not a long-term plan. Functionalists argue that other parties besides Hitler himself had strong anti-Semitic views and acted on their own, this is because Germany and Europe were extremely anti-Semitic at the time; therefore, it was easier for Hitler's extremist views to be taken seriously because it was largely shared, something he references Mommsen's idea of 'cumulative radicalization' and how the notion that genocide and other mass crimes are not planned long in advance but emerge from wartime crises and a process of radicalization. An example of this is with sterilization acts such as what he used on the disabled, to purify and prevent 'genetic deviants' and was the 'Nazi's first attempt at systematic mass murder' and led to the final solution. For functionalists such as Farmer it has also been said that after failing to deport the Jews, the Nazi party was forced into the decision to 'have' to kill them after forcing them into Ghettos and not knowing what to do with them. This relates to the idea of the 'Territorial solution' that some functionalists believe in. Some say that what they wanted was simply for the Jews to be in their own, faraway land, expelled from Germany. In 1940 they came up with the 'Madagascar Plan' which was 'the final solution until early 1941'; the idea to deport the entire Jewish Population to Madagascar. When that didn't work, functionalists argued that the 'territorial solution' turned to the 'Jewish Question' which eventually, in 1941, was forced to turn into the 'Final Solution'. The final solution was meant extermination. Farmer states 'The road to Auschwitz was not necessarily very twisted. Its completion had to wait until the conditions were right. The idea that Hitler had intended for this to happen since the beginning that Davidowicz poses is somewhat supported here. Perhaps it is the case that Hitler did intend for the extermination of Jews from the beginning however the real foundations of the plan only really came about in the late 1930s once the Nazi party had gained enough popularity and enough of the German population was indoctrinated so would turn a blind eye to the atrocity.