What Was Hitler’s Role in the Holocaust?
What was Hitler’s role in the Holocaust?
Studies of the Holocaust have provoked passionate debates. Increasingly, they have become a central topic of concern for historians particularly since the early 1970s, as the Holocaust studies were generally limited. However, one of the most intense debates surrounding the role played by Hitler in the ’Final Solution’. That is, whether and when Hitler took a decision to initiate the extermination process. Of course, this issue has caused incredible controversy and naturally such a contentious topic of debate has radically produced large amounts of new data and literature. Conflicting, an interpretation has caused further disparities between historians over Hitler’s role in the Holocaust. For this reason, historians have been divided into two particular schools of thought, termed Intentionalists and Functionalists.
Broadly, the Internationalist school of thought sees Hitler as a central figure that had planned the ‘Final Solution’ long before he came to power in 1933. The radicalization of Nazi policy by mid 1930s, onwards was part of the long term plan which came to be implemented on Hitler’s own initiative. In contrast, Functionalists (also known as Structuralists) argue that the path that led to the Holocaust was a far more twisted especially in the absence of any grand plan or blue print indicating details for mass murder. Further, the policies that were implemented after the outbreak of the War were the result of competition and internal rivalries between Hitler’s Henchmen to produce policies and ideas according to what they perceived to be Hitler’s aims.
A central point, of this essay will be that Hitler’s role in the final solution was vital but this does not mean shifting the guilt of the Holocaust onto one individual. Nonetheless, Hitler’s criminal charismatic energy persistently instigated local and widespread anti- Semitism. He provided his Henchmen, as well as local counterparts within the regime with
Studies of the Holocaust have provoked passionate debates. Increasingly, they have become a central topic of concern for historians particularly since the early 1970s, as the Holocaust studies were generally limited. However, one of the most intense debates surrounding the role played by Hitler in the ’Final Solution’. That is, whether and when Hitler took a decision to initiate the extermination process. Of course, this issue has caused incredible controversy and naturally such a contentious topic of debate has radically produced large amounts of new data and literature. Conflicting, an interpretation has caused further disparities between historians over Hitler’s role in the Holocaust. For this reason, historians have been divided into two particular schools of thought, termed Intentionalists and Functionalists.
Broadly, the Internationalist school of thought sees Hitler as a central figure that had planned the ‘Final Solution’ long before he came to power in 1933. The radicalization of Nazi policy by mid 1930s, onwards was part of the long term plan which came to be implemented on Hitler’s own initiative. In contrast, Functionalists (also known as Structuralists) argue that the path that led to the Holocaust was a far more twisted especially in the absence of any grand plan or blue print indicating details for mass murder. Further, the policies that were implemented after the outbreak of the War were the result of competition and internal rivalries between Hitler’s Henchmen to produce policies and ideas according to what they perceived to be Hitler’s aims.
A central point, of this essay will be that Hitler’s role in the final solution was vital but this does not mean shifting the guilt of the Holocaust onto one individual. Nonetheless, Hitler’s criminal charismatic energy persistently instigated local and widespread anti- Semitism. He provided his Henchmen, as well as local counterparts within the regime with