Adolf Hitler's Role In The Holocaust

Throughout human history, scarcely any event can compare in atrocity to that of the Holocaust. We will never know the comprehensive truth of the Holocaust and its’ notorious leader Adolf Hitler, and as such we are left to speculate on the origins and impact created by those involved. To some, Adolf Hitler is the inimitable leader, the charismatic politician with a heinous purpose and the sole person to blame for the events which became known to history as the Holocaust. This ideology is known as the intentionalist argument, and British historian Ian Kershaw is a fervent believer in Hitler’s central role. On the other hand, left-wing German historian Hans Mommsen advocates the functionalist argument which attempts to lessen the extent at which
Hitler can be held accountable. Personally, I do not believe Hitler had genocide on his mind from the start, but once the concept became a real possibility, that is when the gears started spinning inside his head.
If Hitler was good at anything, it was manipulation. Furthermore, the genocide experienced in the Holocaust could very well have been avoided if a leader as manipulative and irrational as Hitler was removed from the picture. As such, Hitler played a pivotal role in the progression of the Holocaust and he is worthy of blame above all others.
Although an overall unexceptional German citizen, Hitler did have the ability to appeal to the German people and influence their thoughts and perception of his rampant anti-Semitism. When brought to power in 1932, the German people were well aware of the Nazi party’s anti-Semitic inclinations. They had hoped for moderation, but instead experienced excessive anti-Semitic policy. The persecution of the Jews at the hand of Hitler occurred inconsistently over the pre-WWII era. Hitler stated early on that one goal of his being in power was to address the “Jewish problem”. According to Mommsen, “Hitler considered the ‘Jewish question’ from a visionary political perspective that did not reflect the real situation” (Mommsen, 28). With this understanding, Mommsen attempts to argue that Hitler was more a philosophical anti-Semite as opposed to an anti-Semite in practice. Even disregarding the mass genocide of the Holocaust, we know this to be false.
The very idea of mass genocide or murder, which was later established as the Final Solution, was not even muttered until the early 1940s. The question to consider however is: was the Jewish genocide Hitler’s plan from the beginning? Arguments can be made either way, but even if Hitler had not been planning mass genocide the moment he assumed power, evidence exists to suggest that we was at least indirectly leading the German people to the literal annihilation of the Jews. Mommsen and the functionalist argument would point out that Hitler never gave a written order saying to being murdering Jews. Nevertheless, countless Jews were killed by Himmler’s forces before the Final Solution was even realized. Mommsen would argue this point by saying that the orders given by Hitler left a great deal of room for interpretation by Himmler and the other Nazi officials. In contrast, the intentionalist argument would explain this lack of directive as purposeful. Hitler was aware of what was occurring. He also utilized German propaganda well enough to convey similar anti-Semitic views to the rest of the German and Nazi population. By simply “nudging” the Nazi officials in the right direction, Hitler was indirectly able to cause disastrous events such as Kristallnacht and the killings carried out by Einsatzgruppen. Once the more extreme actions against the Jews began taking place, Hitler did start to distance himself from the events. This was likely done in an attempt to excuse himself from direct blame. Kerhsaw further mentions this in his writing: “Hitler’s responsibility for the genocide against the Jews cannot be questioned. Yet fear for all his public tirades against the Jews, offering the strongest incitement to ever more radical onslaughts of extreme violence, and for all his dark hints that his ‘prophecy’ was being fulfilled, he was consistently keen to conceal the traces of his involvement in the murder of the Jews. Perhaps even at the height of his own power he feared theirs, and the possibility one day of their ‘revenge’” (Niewyk, 28). Whether afraid of the Jews, or more likely the German people’s moral compasses, Hitler wanted to remain detached. He did so but leaving his orders open to interpretation, but only after the point that he knew Himmler and the other officials would do his bidding without formal orders.
Now that the Holocaust is in the past, debating this topic may seem somewhat irrelevant.
Reverence and respect of the atrocities committed is vital, but why should we continually bring to the surface topics that have no definite answer? Like many topics in history, understanding the past is key to unlocking the present, as well as our futures. Knowing whether Hitler alone can be blamed for causing the Holocaust, or if it was rather a societal disease running rampant through eastern Europe is likewise vital to prevent similar occurrences in the modern era. Mommsen attempts to deny Hitler as causation of the Final Solution because he believes the Holocaust cannot be the result of any one man, particularly one as politically ineffective as Hitler. To Mommsen, Hitler's indirect orders were not ingenious schemes of manipulation as Kershaw claims, but rather a simple example of weak-dictatorship. Kershaw on the other hand wants to maintain Hitler as causing the Holocaust because he believes one man can be blamed for the Holocaust, if that one man knows how to manipulate an entire culture and gather enough devoted followers to do his bidding, no matter how heinous it may seem to those on the outside. In addition to this, people like having a face and a name, one single embodiment of all the bad that had happened, to blame. To some degree, Hitler is the scapegoat here. Arguably a deserving one, but perhaps not as deserving as we believe him to be. Sure he gave orders and
manipulated millions, but in the end, we must realize that one person could never commit the atrocities of the Holocaust alone. Hitler’s true power came from the willingness of others to follow him and the easily manipulated minds of the German citizens. This realization is especially vital because who is to say we are now any less easily manipulated. Media is a powerful force, and Hitler was aware of that fact. To avoid a similar incident, we as a nation, as a race, must strive to recognize manipulation and deny power to those puppet masters.
Both Mommsen with the functionalist argument and Kershaw with the intentionalist argument make valid points concerning Hitler’s involvement in the Holocaust. Hitler was very particular with how he involved himself in the formal orders of Jewish persecution. Some such as Mommsen would believe this was because he was a weak dictator. Others would rather believe that this evil mastermind was carrying out an ingenuous scheme that merely gave him the façade of disconnection. Hitler was a leader, and his role in the Holocaust was one of progression. His abilities launched him into the spotlight and with it, he sowed his anti-Semitic seeds within the minds of the German people. Soon enough, he was able to manipulate them into performing his will with little persuasion. It is because of this that although we should not blame Hitler alone for the Holocaust, were it not for him, the Holocaust may have never happened.