Was Hitler A Functionalist Or An Intentionalist?

An intentionalist often holds the belief that historical events, like revolutions, are individual acts, while functionalists believe in the fact that revolutions are inevitable and that modernization in blooming societies would eventually lead to revolution. In terms of the Holocaust, an intentionalist might argue that without Hitler, the Holocaust would never happen since he was the leader of that genocide. However, a functionalist would argue that since Hitler had so many followers with the same belief system, somebody else would eventually come into power and something similar to the Holocaust would have happened. Intentionalists, on the other hand would argue that Hitler had a plan for the Holocaust from the start of his ruling over Germany.
Within functionalist mindsets, the different parts of society are made up of social institutions, each of which is designed to fill different needs in society, so this would help argue the fact that citizens are part of causing revolutions. A functionalist historian, named Ian Kershaw, quotes “ The road to Auschwitz was built by hate, but paved with indifference” and although Kershaw does not directly say it, it's easy to infer that he is referencing the fact more than one person needed to be filled with hate in order for the Holocaust to become a part of history. An example of a current dictator that is viewed as a functionalist would be Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Mugabe is one of the leaders of the rebel groups against white minority rule, he was elected as Prime Minister in 1980, and he served in that office until 1987, when he became the country's first executive head of state. So thinking as a functionalist, an argument would be that its clear Mugabe did not gain this power as a dictator on his own - the people of Zimbabwe agreed with his