Intentionalism and Functionalism: Explaining the Holocaust

1 4141 Mimi-Cecilia Pascoe| Intentionalism and FunctionalismIntentionalism and functionalism : Explaining the HolocaustMimi-Cecilia PascoeHistorians the world over have long sought to provide an adequate explanation for the atrocitiescommitted by Adolf Hitler during what is now commonly known as the Holocaust . The debate over itscause has become split in two: some prefer the intentionalist explanation, which focuses largely onthe idea of Hitler specifically intending to commit genocide, naming him as the most significant prefer the functionalist position, which maintains that the Holocaust was the result of a chaoticpolitical atmosphere, which was preyed upon by opportunists.

2 The intentionalist position suffers greatlyfrom a lack of adequate evidence, and consequently cannot prove Hitler s intentions beyond reasonabledoubt. On the other hand, the functionalist position is better able to compensate for the lack of evidence,and thus provides a more solid historical explanation for the one of the most horrific occurrences in modernhistory, the Holocaust has perplexed many whoattempt to ascertain why any human being wouldbring such cruelty upon others. In determining theunfolding of the Holocaust , historians have naturallyattempted to turn to evidence of Hitler s intentions,coupled with the actions of other prominent , this has proved a complextask because of the destruction of considerable physical and documentary evidence indicatingHitler s precise intentions [Draper, 1999, p.]

3 14].Nevertheless, historians have attempted to overcomethis problem with the help of what evidence remains,with focuses on the evolution of Nazi ideologyand the changing political atmosphere in , a debate between two schools ofthought has been schools attemptto explain the methods by which the Holocaustdeveloped and they have come to be known as intentionalist and functionalist The DebateTimothy Mason developed the terms in an essaywritten with the aim of drawing focus away fromHitler as the sole explanation of the functionalist himself, Mason held that it wasimportant to consider the dynamics of Nazibarbarism as institutionally and economicallymotivated, without insisting that Hitler s will must carry the main burden of explanation [Mason,1995, p.

4 216]. Mason, in accordance with otherfunctionalists, maintains that it is necessary toexamine the factors in the development of theHolocaust on a broader scale, beginning with theeconomic situation of Germany in the 1930s [Mason,1995, p. 216].He argues that multiple socialand economic factors led to a chaotic politicalatmosphere, amidst which opportunists seized thechance to instigate genocidal programs [Mason, 1995,p. 213]. In this sense, functionalists place greatsignificance on the machinery of government andits effect upon decision-making in the Third Reich [Mason, 1995, p. 213].Conversely, intentionalists argue that Hitler andother high-ranking officials launched a murderouswar of genocide and destruction of human life simply because they desired it [Mason, 1995, p.

5 213].They insist that the Holocaust was a result of the distinctive murderous will of the Nazi leadership [Mason, 1995, p. 215].I argue that while the intentionalist position issuccessful in demonstrating that Hitler possessed ahomicidal attitude towards the Jewish people, itsuffers significantly from a lack of evidence andthus does not succeed in proving beyond reasonabledoubt that Hitler s hatred of the Jews led directly togenocide. I will show that unless an adequate link isfound to exist between Hitler s hatred and the actualactions of the Nazi party, the functionalist argumentprovides a more solid historical explanation for theway the Holocaust The Intentionalist ArgumentIt has been suggested that it is significantly easierto define the intentionalist argument than thefunctionalist [Mason, 1995, p.

6 212]. In general, theargument promotes the idea that the destruction ofJewish people was inspired by Nazi racial ideology which resulted from Hitler s intentional actions[Draper, 1999, p. 14].As such, intentionalistsfocus on Hitler as the most significant figure in theinstigation of the Holocaust . This is supported byevidence deduced from British decodes of [German]radio transmissions that Jews were the principaltargets of large-scale Nazi violence against civiliansfrom the start [Draper, 1999, p. 14]. Even as early as1922, inMein KampfHitler labelled Jews as a targetin suggesting that had thousands of them been killedduring World War I, lives of German soldiers mayhave been saved [Hitler, 1943, p.

7 679]. Further, in1936, Hitler prepared the German military for waragainst Russia in order to eliminate the 250 millionJews , a figure derived from equating 250 millionBolsheviks with Jews [Hitler, 1939]. Also amongstthe limited evidence is Hitler s announcement in 1939that if Jewish financers within and outside Europe4242 Burgmann Journal II (2013)should succeed.. in plunging the nations.. into awar, the result will be.. the annihilation of theJewish race in Europe [Hitler, 1939]. This suggeststhat from the beginning, Hitler intended to carryout , it is argued that Hitler, alongwith prominent Nazi leaders, wanted to commitgenocide [Mason, 1995, p.

8 216].This isdemonstrated by examining the early manifestationsof Weltanschauung , or world view [Mason, 1995,p. 216]. This assists in defining the ultimate goal ofthe Third Reich as genocidal, as the ideas expressedin the Nazi party s Weltanschauung appear similarto the actual actions taken by Hitler during the war[Mason, 1995, p. 216].In order to prove Hitler s intentions, historiansportray Hitler as an evil, calculating man, which,in the absence of significant concrete evidence as tohis intentions, assists in making the argument moreconvincing. In fact, they dedicate significant effortto combatting the shortage in evidence. They alsoassert that the roles of Himmler and Goering duringthe war are significant in proving Hitler s early as 1936, Goering announced that Germanywould deal with the Jews one way or another.

9 A Characterization of HitlerMany historians portray Hitler as a man whosought only to exact vengeance upon the Jewishpeople he held responsible for all Germany shardships during and following WWI. Many arguethat a man with Hitler s history of anti-Semitismmust undoubtedly have developed the requisiteintention for genocide. As a young man, thereevolved in Hitler an anti-Semitism that was traditionally inspired and racialistic in form, whichhe then converted to goal-oriented as his politicalcareer grew more significant [Fleming, 1984, p. 29].As early as 1921, it is held that Hitler desired thatthe Jewish dominion that had afflicted the nationsince 1918 be ended [Fleming, 1984, p.]

10 14]. In1922, Josef Hell claimed that Hitler, in response to aquestion regarding the fate of the Jewish peopleresponded with a highly graphic account of hisbrutal intentions [Hell, 1922, p. 5]. However, thisargument, despite its seemingly conclusive proofof the likelihood that Hitler intended genocide, isweakened by the fact that all its evidence relieson others interpretations of Hitler s thoughts of any proof of Hitler s intentions, hewas not alone in his discriminatory views. Early20th century Europe was full of similarly mindedanti-Semites, thus Hitler s attitude alone is aninsufficient explanation for genocide.