How Can The Holocaust Be Explained - Literature review Example

How the Holocaust can be explained One of the most gruesome events in history was the Holocaust that took place in the mid 1900s under Hitler’s Nazi regime. The late 1930s till the mid 1940s was a period of darkness for European Jews because during this period millions of Jews were put to death. Many of them were made to travel tediously, fed little, before being placed in concentration camps and eventually killed in gas chambers. In addition to this brief description of how the Jews were treated, there were many more cruelties that were carried out towards them. Over the years, scholars have sought reasons why the Jews were treated this way. By doing so, endless research into this period in history has resulted in different viewpoints that even share important common ground regarding research into the Holocaust. In order to understand the entirety of historic events such as the Holocaust, it is important to take different intellectual perspectives. This helps one to attain a view that has minimum bias, and thus provides an explanation that may be generally considered. In studying historic events such as the Holocaust that took place during the Second World War, it is important to use different perspectives, as these help one to uncover how the event unfolded. This is of particular importance because the Holocaust is not a historic event that took place overnight; it was one that lasted years, and commenced under the strong hand of a military regime. Two perspectives that help in gaining insight into the Holocaust include the functionalist and intentionalist perspectives. These two perspectives are significant because they both share common ground, but argue their individual viewpoints. The intentionalist perspective holds that Hitler had intentions of annihilating the Jews from Germany much before 1939. The functionalist perspective holds that the cruelties the Jews faced were a result of competing forces in the lower German ranks, many of which were done to please Hitler1. Having said this, both perspectives accept that Hitler despised the Jews. Also, the common ground shared includes both perspectives acknowledging that the Holocaust took place, which is unlike other conflicting viewpoints. The intentionalist perspective and the functionalist perspective have two levels each. In the following part of the paper, both levels of each perspective will be included in the discussion, as they are significant in determining how the Holocaust can be explained. Extreme Intentionalist Perspective: Proponents of the extreme side of the intentionalist perspective hold that Hitler had evil plans to destroy the Jews as early as 1924, if not earlier. Davidowicz argues that Hitler had planned the Holocaust around 1919, and she based her arguments on anti-semitic statements made by Hitler. In one particular account of Hitler’s words, there was an indication of him planning to kill around 12,000 to 15,000 Jews. In Mein Kampf, Hitler says that it would have been better if 12,000 to 15,000 Jews were gassed to death in place of German workers in the First World War2. Though, one can observe here that the number referred to here is quite significant, critics of Davidowicz’s views assert that there isn’t enough evidence from Hitler’s words that he was intending to carryout a Holocaust as early as 1919. However, aside from the Mein Kampf words of Hitler, Davidowicz draws a number of quotations that announce Hitler’s hatred towards the Jews. This evidence presented in Mein Kampf consists of nearly 700 pages, but critics assert that it is stretched with little evidence. Perhaps Davidowicz’s work is not sufficient to place Hitler’s intentions of a Holocaust as early as 1919. However, Daniel Goldhagen does assert that there was general hatred for Jews in Germany before the Nazi regime took over. Perhaps with this knowledge Hitler could have found it convenient to infuse ideas of a Holocaust realizing that there would be no objection from the people. In his book, ‘Hitler’s willing executioners’, Goldhagen suggests that Germany was enthusiastic about the persecution of Jews under the Nazi regime between 1933 and 1939. Aside from the above intentionalist perspective that is considered to be extreme, there is a milder form of intentionalism, which is the moderate intentionalist view. As the name suggests, this perspective is milder than the one above3. Moderate Intentionalist Perspective: Moderate intentionalists hold that Hitler had intentions of a Holocaust from the late 1930s. This perspective also holds that Hitler could not have decided on a holocaust anytime later than 1939. The moderate intentionalist perspective focuses considerably on the ‘Prophecy Speech’ of Hitler that was made on January 30th, 1939. Due to proponents of the moderate intentionalist perspective considering this speech to be pivotal in explaining their viewpoint, they hold that Hitler had intentions of a holocaust around this time or at some point in the late 1930s. Also, since Hitler at one point asserted that if ‘Jewish Financers’ were to start another world war, the entire Jewish race in Europe would be annihilated. Clearly, these words indicated that at this point Hitler had intentions of a holocaust, and would carry one out if he saw reason for it. Though this view seems valid, critics such as Yehuda Bauer argue that Hitler on his own did not make any effort for carrying out genocide4. However, it is thought that Hitler’s words or his ‘prophecy’/speech was enough to set his subordinates in action for conducting genocide. Also, Hitler must have been aware of the hatred that the Germans had for Jews, and a speech such as the ‘prophecy speech’ would be most encouraging. According to Ian Kershaw, Paul Joseph Goebbels’ writings in a diary reveal some truth regarding how Hitler’s subordinates followed Hitler’s prophecy. One of Goebbels’ entries asserts, “the Fuehrers prophecy is coming true in a most terrible way”. For many people in general, it would sound surprising that a prophecy could be carried out in the way that the Holocaust was5. Whether or not, the prophecy was really followed and carried out, as moderate intentionalists believe it was, is a matter of perspective. This is because conflicting perspectives (functionalist) hold that Hitler may not have really had anything to do with the holocaust being carried out, as his subordinates might have been the ones solely responsible for the genocide. Though Hitler undeniably hated the Jews, critics argue against the effect of his ‘prophecy speech’ and other encouraging hate-breeding words having much to do with the Holocaust. Extreme Functionalist Perspective: According to proponents of the extreme functionalist perspective, the Nazi leadership was not responsible for the horrendous acts carried out against the Jewish population in Germany. They argue that it was the lower ranking officials who were responsible. Proponents the extreme functionalist perspective, such as Götz Aly, have put together evidence on which they base their arguments. Götz Aly has compiled documents from the administration of the German Government-General of Poland. These documents reveal that the government asserted that the population of Poland would need to decline by 25% in order for the Polish economy to blossom. It is thought that this might have been the reason behind wiping out so many Jews. However, there are several questions that go unanswered. Though the evidence for such statements is significant, it is not clear why the Nazis would expel Jews from the Netherlands and France and send them to death camps in Poland. Aside from this question, there are a number of others that have not been answered6. Moderate Functionalist Perspective: The moderate functionalist perspective appears to provide a simpler view than the extreme functionalist one. Proponents of this perspective such as, Christopher Browning, argue that it was power struggle and rivalry within the lower ranks of the unstable Nazi power structure that was to blame for the Holocaust actually being carried out. It is further argued in the moderate functionalist perspective that the Nazis at first wanted to expel all the Jews from Europe. However, after their plans to do so were not successful, the next option was genocide. This path to the Holocaust, with genocide as a second option, is referred to as the crooked path to genocide7. Synthesis of Perpstectives: Considering the above brief descriptions of intentionalist and functionalist perspectives, there are different historians who share common ground in their explanations of the Holocaust. Scholars like Yehuda Bauer and Ian Kershaw have taken different perspectives into consideration and synthesized them. By synthesizing the intentionalist and functionalist perspectives, they concluded that the Holocaust was the result of dynamics that came from Hitler and his lower ranking Nazi officers. This means that Hitler played a considerable part in the Holocaust by mentioning his hatred of Jews publicly. At the same time, it was the officers in the lower ranks of the Nazi regime that made the Holocaust possible. It is also thought that Hitler may have lacked a master plan to carry out a Holocaust, but he was a decisive force behind it. Had Hitler not been outspoken with his hatred, perhaps the Holocaust would not have been carried out. However, due to the agencies at work in the holocaust, cumulative radicalisation took place. It is thought that the Holocaust became a reality because of the manner in which extreme rhetoric and rivalry among different Nazi agencies acted together to produce harsh policies8. Therefore, Hitler did not need a master plan, as the lower ranking officers perhaps created one through their competing actions. The Decisive Force: Regarding Hitler being termed as a decisive force behind the Holocaust, it must be asserted that there were reasons for this. Scholars have exposed the manner in which Hitler’s presence and actions let people near him get to know what he had in mind. Eugenics was a subject Hitler was deeply interested in. One of his staff members had also written to Leon Whitney, who was a key figure at the American Eugenics Society. Through this correspondence Hitler managed to get the book ‘The Case for Sterilization’. Hitler replied with a personal letter to Whitney, in which he said that the book was his ‘Bible’. It is evident what Hitler meant by this9. Aside from his correspondence with Leon Whitney, there is considerable evidence of Hitler’s interest in Eugenics and cleansing. Hitler wanted Jews to undergo abortion and sterilization, and he was well versed in the German research on heredity. Aside from Hitler clearly having an interest in purifying race in society or cleansing for that matter, other officials took interest in similar subjects. William Shirer was in Germany since 1934, and he got to know that Joseph Goebbels, the Reich minister for propaganda, favored Stoddard due to his work on racial subjects being featured in Nazi schoolbooks. Evidently, Hitler was not the only one interested in these subjects, and this meant that the officers of the Nazi regime at large were aware of them10. Hatred for Jews and Anti-semetism: Aside from the manner in which lower ranking officials in the Nazi regime favored anti-semetism, Ian Kershaw also studied and exposed the manner in which the people in general conformed to the Nazi regime that took control. However, there is one important point that Ian Kershaw makes, which includes the major difference between the way that the people in general disliked Jews and the way that the Nazi regime was radically anti-semetic. Further, Kershaw also asserts with evidence the campaigns that the Nazi regime carried out in order to increase anti-semetism against Jews. In spite of these campaigns, Kershaw asserts that the general mood of the people regarding the fate of the Jews did not coincide with Nazi regime11. Conclusion: Ian Kershaw’s work on researching the actions of the Nazi regime reveals the campaigns that it carried out. With much emphasis on how the lower ranks acted, Kershaw does not consider Hitler to be a great man. He asserts that Hitler’s importance was not in himself, but lay in how people perceived him12. At the same time, Kershaw does not consider Hitler to be a weak dictator as he was an important player in the Third Reich. However, Kershaw agrees that Hitler did not take care of the everyday affairs, as he left all that in the hands of his subordinates. Therefore, Hitler is observed as a lazy. Hitler’s main interests were foreign policy and military-based decisions, and he left internal policy-making to his subordinates. Therefore, in Ian Kershaw’s view Nazi Germany was a combination of a monocracy and polycracy, with Hitler doing his part and his subordinates acting as they deemed to please the Führer. This view is evidently one that comprises both, an intentionalist and functionalist perspective. The functionalist and intentionalist perspectives, particularly the moderate functionalist and the moderate intentionalist perspectives, tend to explain the Holocaust better. This is because the moderate intentionalist perspective reveals more about Hitler’s hate that motivated his subordinates to carry out the Holocaust, and the moderate functionalist approach explains the actions of competing Nazi agencies. Therefore, it can be said that both these perspectives help to explain the Holocaust. References: Bauer, Y. 1980. Genocide: Was It the Nazis Original Plan? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 450, Reflections on the Holocaust: Historical, Philosophical, and Educational Dimensions (Jul., 1980), pp. 35-45. Fernekes, W. R. (2000) The Holocaust: Origins, Implementation, Aftermath by Omer Bartov. History Teacher, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Nov., 2000), pp. 122-123. Goldhagen, D. J. 1998. Structure and Agency in the Holocaust: Daniel J. Goldhagen and His Critics, History and Theory, Volume 37, Issue 2. pp 19. Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. 2, chap. 15: "The Right of Emergency Defence Holocaust and Genocide Studies. 2005. Vol. 19, Number 1, pp. 107-109. Kershaw , I. 2002. Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich : Bavaria 1933-1945. 135-143. Kershaw, Ian. 1998. Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris.W.W.Norton and Company, New York. Pp 429 & 528 Leon F. Whitney autobiography, 1971, Whitney Papers, APS, 204-5. Shire, W. L. Berlin Diary: The Journal of a Foreign Correspondent, New York: Alfred Knopf, 1941. pp 257 Read More