Functionalism In The Holocaust

The Holocaust has been subject of many varied historiographical debates, made problematic by the destruction of considerable physical and documentary evidence by the Nazi’s. Historians have attempted to overcome this by focusing on the progression of Nazi ideology and the evolution of political and social spheres of Germany from 1932-1945. Through this lens, Intentionalism and Functionalism as opposite schools of historiographical thought were produced and shaped, both attempting to explain the conceptual origins of the Holocaust. The two terms were coined by Timothy Mason in 1981 in an essay to differentiate between historians who believed that the Holocaust was a pre-meditated plan that Hitler had intentionally orchestrated from his consolidation of power in 1932 against historians who believed that the holocaust was brought about by the chaotic nature of the Third Reich.
Mason himself was a functionalist and insisted that Hitler’s will should not carry the maid burden of explanation. Mason, amongst other functionalist historians argues in his book that multiple social and economic agencies resulted in a chaotic and reactionary atmosphere, amidst which, pragmatists within the Nazi regime saw potential to instigate genocidal
initiatives. Through this historical lens, Functionalism operates by placing significance on the “machinery of government and its effect upon decision making” within the Third Reich. Other Functionalists such as Martin Broszat claimed that Nazi troops and Einsatzgruppen officers started the extermination of Jews on their own initiative. Broszat’s interpretation of events centres around a gradual spiral downwards into genocidal initiative. He argues that lower officials began improvised killing schemes in 1941 to find the simplest solution to the Jewish question. He believes that Hitler only subsequently agreed with the methods of genocide once they had already been proven.
Intentionalism conversely insist that the Holocaust was a result of the “distinctive murderous will of the Nazi Leadership.” The intentionalist school of thought demonstrates that Hitler possessed a homicidal attitude towards the Jewish people, but suffers from a lack of evidence and consequently fails to definitively prove that Hitler’s hatred of the Jews led consequently to genocide.
Frei states that there is general historical agreement that a formal written order by Hitler himself was never made demanding the systematic genocide of the Jews. The intentionalist argument however still follows the idea that the genocide of European Jews was ‘inspired by Nazi racial ideology’ which was a direct product of Hitler’s actions and
ideologies.