9489/31/m/j/21
This historian is investigating why the holocaust happened and whether Hitler gave a
direct order to carry out the Final solution, the extermination of the Jews. One of the
central arguments is that the Holocaust was improvised because of a number of
reasons; the lack of real capacity to absorb the mass deportations, the failing
campaign in the East and the spreading of destitution and disease in the ghettos.
The other central argument is that the structure of the regime could not have been
responsible for the Holocaust as it was necessary for Hitler to have given an order.
There has been much debate surrounding how the Holocaust came to happen. The
intentionalist approach believes that Hitler planned the Final solution from the start
and refers back to Mein Kampf and other speeches of his, which include historians
such as Karl Bracher and Alan Bullock. Some historians like Uwe Adam have a
structuralist approach who believe that the holocaust happened because of the
structure of the regime and competing fiefdoms resulting in cumulative radicalism.
Functionalist historians like Hans Mommsen believe the Holocaust was improvised
because it became a more feasible solution as the war developed and transportation
became trickier. A synthesis interpretation combines two of these interpretations.
This historian has a functionalist interpretation but also stresses on the fact that
Hitler needed to give an order for the Holocaust to happen by challenging the
structuralist interpretation.
Firstly, this historian argues that the Holocaust was improvised because ‘there
existed no real capacity to absorb the mass deportations’ and even if there had, it
presented more difficulty and expenses than simply exterminating them. Another
reason this historian gives as to why the Nazis improvised was because their
campaign in the East against the Soviet Union was not going as well as they had
previously imagined, and the Germans losing on the Eastern front meant the option
of sending them beyond the Urals was no longer possible. They could not keep the
Jews where they were because ‘the ghettos which had been created in order to
isolate and select the Jews for deportation were now spreading destitution and
disease’.
Furthermore, this historian admits that considering the Final solution was improvised
there must have been some part played by the structure of the regime, but does not
‘free Hitler from blame’, as many structuralists believe. He believes it is false to
assume that direct links can be made between Hitler and his orders to exterminate
the Jews as Hitler ‘rarely processed files himself’. One of the Nazi regime’s biggest
features was that of secrecy, so ‘these strictly unlawful measures could be ordered
only by verbal instructions’. Moreover, ‘indications pointing to his responsibility are
nonetheless overwhelming’. This historian disproves the structuralist belief as there
is evidence that Hitler was heavily involved with the Final Solution taking place and
This historian is investigating why the holocaust happened and whether Hitler gave a
direct order to carry out the Final solution, the extermination of the Jews. One of the
central arguments is that the Holocaust was improvised because of a number of
reasons; the lack of real capacity to absorb the mass deportations, the failing
campaign in the East and the spreading of destitution and disease in the ghettos.
The other central argument is that the structure of the regime could not have been
responsible for the Holocaust as it was necessary for Hitler to have given an order.
There has been much debate surrounding how the Holocaust came to happen. The
intentionalist approach believes that Hitler planned the Final solution from the start
and refers back to Mein Kampf and other speeches of his, which include historians
such as Karl Bracher and Alan Bullock. Some historians like Uwe Adam have a
structuralist approach who believe that the holocaust happened because of the
structure of the regime and competing fiefdoms resulting in cumulative radicalism.
Functionalist historians like Hans Mommsen believe the Holocaust was improvised
because it became a more feasible solution as the war developed and transportation
became trickier. A synthesis interpretation combines two of these interpretations.
This historian has a functionalist interpretation but also stresses on the fact that
Hitler needed to give an order for the Holocaust to happen by challenging the
structuralist interpretation.
Firstly, this historian argues that the Holocaust was improvised because ‘there
existed no real capacity to absorb the mass deportations’ and even if there had, it
presented more difficulty and expenses than simply exterminating them. Another
reason this historian gives as to why the Nazis improvised was because their
campaign in the East against the Soviet Union was not going as well as they had
previously imagined, and the Germans losing on the Eastern front meant the option
of sending them beyond the Urals was no longer possible. They could not keep the
Jews where they were because ‘the ghettos which had been created in order to
isolate and select the Jews for deportation were now spreading destitution and
disease’.
Furthermore, this historian admits that considering the Final solution was improvised
there must have been some part played by the structure of the regime, but does not
‘free Hitler from blame’, as many structuralists believe. He believes it is false to
assume that direct links can be made between Hitler and his orders to exterminate
the Jews as Hitler ‘rarely processed files himself’. One of the Nazi regime’s biggest
features was that of secrecy, so ‘these strictly unlawful measures could be ordered
only by verbal instructions’. Moreover, ‘indications pointing to his responsibility are
nonetheless overwhelming’. This historian disproves the structuralist belief as there
is evidence that Hitler was heavily involved with the Final Solution taking place and
