Project
The topic I have chosen to study is the origins of the Holocaust, and the
debate between intentionalist and functionalist historians. Intentionalist
historians argue largely that Hitler has always had a systematic plan of
genocide to deal with the 'Jewish Problem', and it was his personal desires
that drove the Nazi policies towards the mass killings of Jews in death camps
such as Auschwitz. Their supporting evidence relies primarily on references
to dealing with Jews in Mein Kampf, the references Hitler made to the Jews in
his speeches, particularly the January 1939 speech in which Hitler spoke
about "the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe" as well as his
personality as a leader.
The functionalist view focuses on the more structural features of Hitler's
regime. The chaotic administrative structure of the Third Reich and the
increasingly desperate circumstances that arose during World War II created
the circumstances in which the Holocaust became a solution to dealing with
the increasing number of Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. Historians
in this particular school of thought have argued against the views of some
intentionalist historians, believing the motivation of one man is not a plausible
explanation for the systematic execution of Jews. Instead they hold that many
factors ultimately caused the Final Solution to be put in to action. Both
schools of thought have plausible arguments and supporting evidence, and
so the stance I intend to take is yet to be determined through further
research.
So far I have looked at overall summaries to get a well-rounded view of the
two poles of argument on a broader scale, rather than start with individual
historians. The summary of the Holocaust Origins in the Modern History
Handbook was a nice start to introduce the topic and it provided historians
with key views on both sides of the argument. The Genesis of The Holocaust:
An Assessment of the Functionalist school of Historiography by Jacqueline
Bird was an excellent source of information for both sides of the argument
and contained a wealth of historiography along with accompanying views of
the historians mentioned. Much of the knowledge I have gathered so far is
from Bird's essay.
From my current reading and to focus my future research I have composed
four focus questions I intend to answer in my final work.
1. What was the extent of Hitler's personal involvement in the origins of the
Holocaust?
2. Was the mass killing of Jews the only 'solution to the Jewish problem'?
3. What role did the German people play in the origins of the Holocaust?
4. To what extent does the context of the relevant historians shape their
views and works?
1. What was the extent of Hitler's personal involvement in the origins of the
Holocaust?
This question aims to focus on researching Hitler's true involvement in the
origins of the Holocaust. The intentionalist view appears to be that Hitler had
always wanted to 'annihilate the Jewish Race' and this is shown in his
speeches, policies and his early book, Mein Kampf, in which he openly
espoused physical destruction of the Jews. In his January speech in 1939 he
spoke bluntly about the 'annihilation of Jews in Europe'. It is also believed that
in 1941 Hitler issued the secret order for the mass killings of Jews to begin,
known as the 'Final Solution', with the chaos of the war as a cover and an
expected imminent victory over Russia. Historians Henry Friedlander (The
Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution) and
Eberhard Jackel are very much of the opinion that Hitler had the most
important and influential role in the origins of the Holocaust.
The functionalist argument seems to be based more on the fact that Hitler
saw the Holocaust as a plausible solution when given the opportunity rather
than a planned system. According to functionalist historian Martin Broszat,
local Nazi authorities adopted the practice of extermination as a way of
solving their own local problems and was eventually adopted by the Fuhrer
and developed, from January 1942, into a planned and systematic program of
genocide. Both Broszat and Mommsen, another functionalist historian, are
confident in their research that no "comprehensive general extermination
order" was ever issued from Berlin.
The two lines of argument both put forward persuasive points. In order to
further concur which line of argument is more convincing I plan to look at
many more works, such as Martin Broszat's work 'Hitler and the genesis of
the 'final solution': An assessment of David Irving's thesis (as well as David
Irving's work of course), along with Mommsen's text, 'The realisation of the
unthinkable'. Friedlander's and Jackel's works would also enrich my
knowledge of the intentionalist argument even further. More historians that
have a definite stance on Hitler's involvement in the origins the Holocaust
would provide a more detailed idea of the two poles of argument, or present a
new line of view, which would be most useful.
2. Was the mass killing of Jews the only solution to the 'Jewish Problem'?
This question aims to investigate further into Hitler's and the Nazis' true ideas
in relation to removing Jews from Germany and creating a pure Germanic
race. Functionalist historians such as Michael Marrus has put forward
evidence that suggests that "the emigration of all Jews" was the "ultimate aim
for Germany's Jewish policy", stated in a German Foreign Office document
from 1939. I have no yet found any substantial evidence for the intentionalist
argument but historians such as John Moses and Richard Evatt both argue
against the functionalist claim, as do other historians, believing the
functionalists have "ignored the ideological rooted thrust" of the Nazi regime.
I plan to read more of Murrus' findings in 'The Holocaust in History', as well as
Israeli Holocaust expert Yahuda Bauer and her work 'Genocide : was it the
Nazis' original plan?'.
3. What role did the German people play in the origins of the Holocaust?
I have no yet come across a wealth of Information for this focus question but I
believe research into this area will provide a broader and more detailed view
of the nature of Nazi Germany as a whole state and not just a regime. I aim to
research the common views of the average German in regards to Hitler's
ideal 'German state', as well as pressures from the German people to do
something about the 'Jewish Problem', pushing Hitler to create or order a plan
of action. The competitive nature of the Third Reich and the chaos under
Hitler's 'poor leadership', as argued by historian Martin Broszat, may provide
a greater understanding of how the people of Germany competitively shaped
and radicalised the regime. In order to complete my research for this question
I intend to look more into the competitive nature of the Third Reich with
Broszat as well as Karl Bracher's view of the chaotic nature of the Third
Reich, who proposes a slightly different view to Brozat in that the chaos was
intended by Hitler. I would also like to review Karl A. Schleunes' work 'The
Twisted Road to Auschwitz'.
4. To what extent does the context of each historian shape their views and
works?
The contexts of each of the historians is very important in shaping their views
about the origins of the Holocaust and that is what I intend to explore. It
seems the intentionalist view was attributed originally to a number of more
conservative West German historians such as Andreas Hillgruber and Klaus
Hilderbrand. Though the intentionalist position is expounded in numerous
works, it seems to have grown out of an atmosphere of denial in regards to
the Nazi regime within West Germany in the post war decades. At this time,
Nazism was regarded as an aberration, and the enormity of the crimes of that
period were directly attributed to the determined fanaticism of Aldolf Hitler. It
appears, as a consequence of this context for many historians writing in this
period, the 'Hitlerist' approach was adopted in many works and the Holocaust
described as the end result of the determination and ability of one man to see
his own racist desires come to fruition.
The functionalist school, it seems, grew out of the determination of a new
generation to evaluate the traditional view of the Holocaust and the 'denial
about the Nazi past', in West Germany in the 1970's. Historians that were
"broadly associated with the Social Democrats and the liberals", such as
Broszat and Mommsen, began to revise the Holocaust origins and shifted the
blame more towards the German people rather than just Hitler. To give an
appropriate response to this question, I intend to look more fully into the
views common in the immediate post-war period and specifically why that
view was held, as well as why historians felt the need to review these
positions in later years.
In terms of the historians I will be studying, I intend to focus on a few key
historians and their works, as well as include brief references to a number of
other historians who have a relative stance. Karl A. Schleunes (The Twisted
Road to Auschwitz), Hans Mommsen (The Realisation of the Unthinkable)
and Martin Broszat (Hitler and the Genesis of the Final Solution) will be the
focus historians for the functionalist school of writing, as these historians,
from my current research, have made an overwhelming contribution to the
study of the Holocaust from the functionalist perspective. Gerald Fleming
(Hitler and the Final Solution) and Klaus Hildebrand (The Third Reich), at this
point, will be key historians for the intentionalist argument. Within both
schools of thought there seems to be variations of argument which I would
like to highlight in my final work as each historian has a unique case they put
forward in their individual works.
In conclusion, I hope to conduct an in depth study on the origins of the
Holocaust and the arguments presented by the functionalist and intentionalist
schools of thought.
By Kate Sloane.
This is a very strong Proposal as it is only some egregious surface blemishes
that would have a marker resisting the temptation to put it in the A range ...
but resist it they would as Extension History writing, indeed any polished
piece of work submitted for marking, should have been edited in such a way
as to eliminate such errors. Remember this when you are writing then editing
your Project. Check all the adjustments I have made ... and squirm when you
need to!
You have lighted on a topic that gives you scope to do a really strong Project.
You are fortunate to have found a rich source of potential historians but now
the real research begins as you explore the detail of their arguments, decide
which will be your prime historians which only subsidiary references. Given
the lateness of your selection it is understandable you only have the broad
outlines at the moments, but broad outlines in a Project will not be enough to
get an A-range mark, and we both know you are capable of an A-range mark.
In spite of the errors in your writing, you have made clear what the focus
points will be in your Enquiry Questions, and all four are well chosen. You
might consider rephrasing a couple of them to aid your own focus in research
and writing. You have clearly explained where you intend to go with these
questions and I feel confident you are heading in the right direction. Good
luck as you make the journey. It should be fun.
8/10