‘the Final Solution Evolved Because of the Chaotic Nature of the Nazi Regime in the Years 1939-42.’ How Far Do You Agree with This Opinion?

Structuralists/functionalists see the Final Solution as more of a heinous result of the build-up of tensions against the Jews in Germany at the time. They are often inclined to believe that the attempted genocide of the Jewish population was the outcome of a chain of events. As tensions rose, and other attempts at ridding Germany of the Jews via deportation and ghettoization failed, Hitler and his cabinet eventually came to the conclusion that the Holocaust was the only most feasible and cost-effective method of ridding Germany of the Jewish menace. Accomplished historian and structuralist, Martin Broszat has argued that, “there had been no comprehensive general extermination order at all, and the program of extermination had gradually developed

The efforts the Nazi party expended on carrying out their ‘final solution to the Jewish question in Europe’ involved changing the structure of a whole country’s economic, social, and military sectors; a mobilisation completed by many various competing and collating departments and agencies, all of which were expected by their superiors to show initiative in their operations. This mode of command lends plausibility to the theory that the ‘final solution’ of the holocaust was not necessarily a result of a direct command by the Führer (No records of any such order exist) but rather the culmination of the departments of the Nazi state vying for approval from their superiors by following the ideology to its ‘logical conclusion’ with Hitler’s approval. This could be seen to support Berghahn, as it was the confusion and rush to meet growing needs that drove the party to extermination over deportation. It also supports Kershaw, who

The Origins of the final solution by Christopher Browning gives a comprehensive review of what led up to the final solution. He belongs to the school of thought of moderate functionalism, that the final solution was led up to, and that policies enacted led up to it, with no premeditation. He argues that the final solution happened because of previous attempts to create a Judenfrei Europe that did not have enough success. It uses multiple types of evidence to prove this thesis. First it talks about Jewish policy in Poland, involving deportation and in turn the resettlement of Volksdeutsche. The problem with this is that it does not have enough success, with deportation rates at a low 40% on average. In addition, many government officials were

How far do you agree with the view that in the years 1933-39, Hitler was a 'weak dictator'?

To fully answer this question one must look at the underlying philosophies behind Hitler’s leadership. What did he stand for and did his ideologies have any redeeming characteristics? Indisputably he had an ability to lead and motivate. He was revered with almost God – like fanaticisms by his people. This essay will set out to establish the basis of his leadership and within that framework, the nature of the man and his vision for the world.

“Scorched Earth” then brings the focus to the summer of 1943 and the repeated hammer attacks by the enemy and how Germany was only barely standing at this point and its allies off in the distance. Chapter eight mentions how German leadership saw defeat as unavoidable but their last move was to keep the war going long enough for the Allied coalition to break and give Germany some negotiation power once more. This is when, in early 1943, the Final Solution was decided upon and Hitler chose to further radicalize the war and put the blame again on the Jews and seal their fate. Fritz discusses in detail the measures that Hitler put in place to remove as many Jews as possible and then some, one ironically including importing Hungarian Jews to work in the concentration camps to build the underground factories that would kill their fellow Jews once their work was finished. Fritz then discusses the “forgotten year” from fall of 1943 to summer of 1944 when there was a series of “debilitation German retreats and equally inglorious Soviet victories bought at horrendous cost” (365). Fritz turns to the meat of the problem then, the retreating Germans in their retreat left only burning cities and followed the “scorched earth” military procedure to ensure that the Soviets on their heels would have nothing to survive off of either. However, since the German army didn’t have the manpower to strip the land bare they often left more goods than they took with them and their mentality shifted

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

Functionalism versus intentionalism is an ongoing historical debate about the origins of the Holocaust. The two questions that the debate centers around on are; was there a master plan by Adolf Hitler for the holocaust? The intentionalist argument is that there was a ‘master plan’, while functionalist’s ague that there was not. The second question is whether the initiative for the Holocaust and the Final Solution come from Adolf Hitler himself, or from lower ranks in the Third Reich. Both side agree that Hitler was the supreme leader, and was responsible for encouraging the anti-Semitism during the Holocaust, but intentionalists believe that the initiative for the final solution came from above, while functionalists argue that it came from the lower ranks within the bureaucracy.

The debate as to whether Hitler was a ‘weak dictator’ or ‘Master of the Third Reich’ is one that has been contested by historians of Nazi Germany for many years and lies at the centre of the Intentionalist – Structuralist debate. On the one hand, historians such as Bullock, Bracher, Jackel and Hildebrand regard Hitler’s personality, ideology and will as the central locomotive in the Third Reich. Others, such as Broszat, Mason and Mommsen argue that the regime evolved out from pressures and circumstances rather than from Hitler’s intentions. They emphasise the institutional anarchy of the regime as being the result of Hitler’s ‘weak’ leadership. The most convincing standpoint is the

It is to an certain extent that Nazi consolidation of power in 1933 was due to the use of terror and violence. However the terror and violence was very limited because the Nazi's weren’t in a strong enough position to exert terror and violence alone. Nazi propaganda against the communists made most Germans fearful of Communism therefore allowing Nazis to consolidate a bit more power through means of terror. On the other hand the Nazi party’s policy of legality and the threat of communism are to a large extent the underlining most important factor in explaining how the Nazis were able to destroy political opposition and become dominant and consolidate power in 1933. Legality was a policy where Hitler’s objective was to legally consolidate

German Attitudes Toward the Jews and the Final Solution There are those that claim that Hitler’s conscious personal hatred of the Jews, his unique and central role in the rise of Nazi Germany were fundamental in the development of the anti-Jewish policies that emerged leading to the final solution. However, there is strong evidence to suggest that the anti- Jewish feeling in Germany reflected a much stronger, widespread support amongst its people and this essay will examine the role and attitudes of the German people towards the Final Solution. On the 1st of April, 1933, the boycott of Jewish businesses reflected evidence of widespread anti Jewish feelings amongst the lower bureaucracy of the

It is to a certain extent that Nazi consolidation of power in 1933 was due to the use of terror and violence. However the terror and violence was very limited because the Nazi's weren’t in a strong enough position to exert terror and violence alone. Nazi propaganda against the communists made most Germans fearful of Communism therefore allowing Nazis to consolidate a bit more power through means of terror. On the other hand the Nazi party’s policy of legality and the threat of communism are to a large extent the underlining most important factor in explaining how the Nazis were able to destroy political

In this essay I will evaluate the success of implementation of the Final solution in four nations. These four nations are the Netherlands, France, Yugoslavia and Italy. There will be a description of the treatment of Jews as well as the kill-rate in that country. Besides, there will be an analysis, why the countries cooperated and why some nations were more successful in implementing the final solution. Lastly, I will compare and contrast all the data of the nations in the conclusion.

In truth however, Hitler’s Final Solution was something peculiar in the fact that few people believed that in the 20th Century, when society had reached its intellectual and ethical peak, such genocide was conceivable. Public consensus, along with the media, reassured us that we could no longer return to the Middle Ages. However, the philosophers and prophets of Berlin, with their fine manners and high society, turned into the world’s greatest murderers. The world was silent. One may add, not only silent but in whole passive, sometimes comfortable with what

The extreme nature of the Third Reich was the consequence of the Nazi ideology. The structure of the Nazi ideology stems from the spencerian notion of “survival of the fittest”. Another concept that the Nazi’s misappropriated was “will to power” written by Friedrich Nietzsche which links to the fundamental element of social, political and economic relationships. Hitler was the very embodiment of the ideology because he intertwined the Nazi movement and ideology with himself even before he became the chancellor. As Ian Kershaw states: